PDA

View Full Version : Four Barrel Boycott?



SN-60
06-21-2016, 05:23 PM
WHY IN THE WORLD didn't Studebaker utilize a four barrel carburetor on its '57-'58 supercharged models??????? :mad:

Thoughts anyone?........:)

edpjr
06-21-2016, 07:30 PM
Sheer madness. Did Stromberg have a 4V carb?


WHY IN THE WORLD didn't Studebaker utilize a four barrel carburetor on its '57-'58 supercharged models??????? :mad:

Thoughts anyone?........:)

karterfred88
06-21-2016, 07:35 PM
Just a guess- the larger carb and air box would have wound up too close to the super charger inlet making it difficult to fit a hose?

Dan White
06-21-2016, 07:37 PM
The Stromberg 4bbl was made from '52 - '54 and only used on Buick V8s and in '52 the Buick straight 8. They lost out on a bid to supply them to Chrysler and that was pretty much it. It is a good 4bbl but apparently was too expensive. The Carter WCFB was available however.

studegary
06-21-2016, 08:15 PM
It wouldn't fit into the pressure box. If the pressure box was enlarged enough for it to fit, the top mounted supercharger would not fit in front of it.

PackardV8
06-21-2016, 08:17 PM
Just a guess- the larger carb and air box would have wound up too close to the super charger inlet making it difficult to fit a hose?

Same hood, engine on the '63-64 GT Hawks.

jack vines

8E45E
06-21-2016, 08:45 PM
Same hood, engine on the '63-64 GT Hawks.

They were still using the WCFB in 1957/8.

Craig

studegary
06-21-2016, 09:12 PM
Same hood, engine on the '63-64 GT Hawks.

jack vines

I have owned supercharged Studebakers, but not 1963-1964 Hawks. Without searching for pictures, I am thinking that the supercharger was not top-center for '63-'64. For '63-'64 they only had an alternator to squeeze in, not a generator.

PackardV8
06-21-2016, 10:03 PM
The generator is smaller in diameter than the alternator Stude used.

jack vines

dean pearson
06-21-2016, 10:53 PM
Most likely because the two Barrel provided enough fuel in a smooth fashion.



K.I.S.S.

Yet another thread for the ages.

Dean.

studegary
06-21-2016, 11:02 PM
The generator is smaller in diameter than the alternator Stude used.

jack vines

Yes I know. I was thinking of the difference in length of the two. That is the main thing that limits placement.

tim333
06-21-2016, 11:04 PM
Hard to fit the hose and air cleaner on my 63 R2 Hawk, very hard.

karterfred88
06-22-2016, 09:55 AM
Same hood, engine on the '63-64 GT Hawks.

jack vines
63/64 R2 No air box- hat only maybe that left room for inlet hose?

SN-60
06-22-2016, 07:15 PM
I was thinking that if they used a WCFB four barrel there really would be no room for an air box, which I guess Studebaker saw as a safety necessity....and then there's... 'Where to put the oil filter'?:ohmy:

dean pearson
06-22-2016, 11:23 PM
I'm sure your right!

Now where to put that oil filter,.....
Let me think,......

vetteson
06-23-2016, 01:02 PM
Just a guess- the larger carb and air box would have wound up too close to the super charger inlet making it difficult to fit a hose?

I think so. I tried to install a McCulloch on my Studillac using the Stude bracket (which is almost exactly the same bolt pattern as the Caddy water outlet, needs minor redrill and tapping), I was using a a Caddy WCFB which I had sealed (no box), and there just isn't enough space to get a hose between them. That and other reasons led me to abandon the installation, I am using the WCFB alone but am using a '57 supercharger air cleaner.

SN-60
06-23-2016, 06:52 PM
I think so. I tried to install a McCulloch on my Studillac using the Stude bracket (which is almost exactly the same bolt pattern as the Caddy water outlet, needs minor redrill and tapping), I was using a a Caddy WCFB which I had sealed (no box), and there just isn't enough space to get a hose between them. That and other reasons led me to abandon the installation, I am using the WCFB alone but am using a '57 supercharger air cleaner.

That's too bad about the lack of clearance!....I was wondering if anyone on this forum had tried running a McCulloch ahead of a pressurized (no air box) Carter WCFB? :)

r1lark
06-23-2016, 07:05 PM
Possibly it was an engineering issue - the WW 2-barrell carb may have performed the best inside a pressure box. Or, chosen because Studebaker was very familiar with that carb and felt comfortable using it. Or, if the primary reason for the blower was to 'boost' (pun intended) the '57 Golden Hawk 289 horsepower to match the '56 Golden Hawk 352 rating, a 2-barrell was all that was needed. Remember, understressing an engine usually results in longer life........so why increase the horsepower and stress on the 289 by using a 4-barrell versus a 2-barrell, when the 2-barrell met the requirements of getting the 289 to 275 horsepower?

BTW, the 275 horsepower numbers are from memory......I'm sure the Studebaker error police will correct me if this is wrong :).

SN-60
06-23-2016, 07:13 PM
I suppose the next question would have to be ...'How did Studebaker dare release a pressurized carb, (R2 setup), as optional equipment for the '63 passenger car line'?? :confused:

I think that most folks understand that the pressurized (no air box) carb (R2 setup) is an accident waiting to happen! :eek:

PackardV8
06-23-2016, 09:56 PM
I think that most folks understand that the pressurized (no air box) carb (R2 setup) is an accident waiting to happen! :eek:

All the racers today run pressurized carbs with no airbox, and they're running 20# - 30# of boost.

jack vines

8E45E
06-23-2016, 10:29 PM
I suppose the next question would have to be ...'How did Studebaker dare release a pressurized carb, (R2 setup), as optional equipment for the '63 passenger car line'??

See post #62 ----------> http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?49770-1st-production-Avanti-is-preparing-for-restoration!/page2

Craig

StudeDave57
06-23-2016, 11:09 PM
WHY IN THE WORLD didn't Studebaker utilize a four barrel carburetor on its '57-'58 supercharged models??????? :mad: Thoughts anyone?........ :)
I proposed the same thought in your thread about VS-57s vs SN-60s just last week. But I now realise you never saw it because you have blocked me. Bummer 'bout that, eh...? :ohmy: :(



Same hood, engine on the '63-64 GT Hawks.

Who cares 'bout the Hawks--- I bet it'd fit in a sedan, a wagon or a truck!!! :!:


Or, if the primary reason for the blower was to 'boost' (pun intended) the '57 Golden Hawk 289 horsepower to match the '56 Golden Hawk 352 rating, a 2-barrel was all that was needed. Remember, understressing an engine usually results in longer life........so why increase the horsepower and stress on the 289 by using a 4-barrel versus a 2-barrel, when the 2-barrel met the requirements of getting the 289 to 275 horsepower?

I think you are onto something with this... :cheers:
So adding to that- imagine how things would'a been had they gone with the four barrel. Assuming the same gain as was got from a 'regular' 289 2 barrel vs four barrel- - a blown four barrel would'a pushed the 289's HP somewhere near 290, no? :whome:
As it was many Packard folks were bummed when the HP number dropped as it did from '57 to '58.

karterfred88
06-23-2016, 11:21 PM
I suppose the next question would have to be ...'How did Studebaker dare release a pressurized carb, (R2 setup), as optional equipment for the '63 passenger car line'?? :confused:

I think that most folks understand that the pressurized (no air box) carb (R2 setup) is an accident waiting to happen! :eek:

The only worry was sealing it, how about Olds sucking the fuel and air from the carb through and out a hot Turbo, now that's an explosion waiting to happen. Hey it was 1963- how about Fords better idea of the front mount distributor so you can run your rubber inline fuel filter hose next to you distributor cap.

SN-60
06-24-2016, 08:08 AM
All the racers today run pressurized carbs with no airbox, and they're running 20# - 30# of boost.

jack vines

The typical R2 wasn't a race car Jack! When these cars were new, they were in use everyday, day in-day out....fuel leaks can (AND DID) occur under low maintenance situations like that. :ohmy:

(especially fuel spraying out past the accelerator pump shaft seal)......An air box (as Studebaker used in '57-'58) is truly the only completely safe way to run a supercharger ahead of a carb on a street car!

The Granatellis realized this when designing the R3's! ;)

StudeRich
06-24-2016, 06:01 PM
I proposed the same thought in your thread about VS-57s vs SN-60s just last week. But I now realise you never saw it because you have blocked me. Bummer 'bout that, eh...? :ohmy: :(

I don't think he will see the comments you have made here either Dave... :whome:

acolds
06-24-2016, 08:58 PM
The supercharged kit for the 55 speedster did it not use the 4 barrel carb? I don't have any pictures but do remember a article or road test on supercharged speedster I know there was a after market kit for installation of the McCulloch supercharger

dean pearson
06-24-2016, 09:10 PM
Rich, I don't think he realises when he blocks someone he is the only one that can't see their post.

I kinda like it that way.

Dean.

Mike
06-24-2016, 10:24 PM
The Speedster kit does use a four barrel WCFB. There's a molded elbow on the supercharger inlet. The carb uses a simple bonnet with a straight hose to the supercharger. Some of the kits used a spacer under the bonnet. See:
http://www.studebaker-info.org/VS57/optvs/optvs.html .
There's actually more room between the supercharger and WCFB than the supercharger and Golden Hawk air box.
By the way, road tests, at the time, showed the Speedster kit to be 1.8 seconds faster 0 to 60 mph, than the 57 Golden Hawk. The kit was 2.3 seconds faster 50 to 80 mph. That's with 259 cid, vs 289 in the Golden Hawk. In addition to the four barrel, the Speedster had the advantage of a higher compression ratio. Also the Speedster tested had an overdrive stick trans while the Golden Hawk was automatic.

Mike

SN-60
06-25-2016, 12:01 PM
The Speedster kit does use a four barrel WCFB. There's a molded elbow on the supercharger inlet. The carb uses a simple bonnet with a straight hose to the supercharger. Some of the kits used a spacer under the bonnet. See:
http://www.studebaker-info.org/VS57/optvs/optvs.html .
There's actually more room between the supercharger and WCFB than the supercharger and Golden Hawk air box.
By the way, road tests, at the time, showed the Speedster kit to be 1.8 seconds faster 0 to 60 mph, than the 57 Golden Hawk. The kit was 2.3 seconds faster 50 to 80 mph. That's with 259 cid, vs 289 in the Golden Hawk. In addition to the four barrel, the Speedster had the advantage of a higher compression ratio. Also the Speedster tested had an overdrive stick trans while the Golden Hawk was automatic.

Mike

That's real interesting stuff Mike!....I'd think the four barrel carb would HAVE to add a few more ponies under the hood.....I wonder how many performance minded buyers of new '57 Golden Hawks ordered up a 4bbl carb and manifold from Studebaker and then somehow adapted it to their new car?? :woot:

Mike
06-25-2016, 02:21 PM
They would have needed the whole '53 to '56 kit to make everything fit right. The mount is a flat plate that bolts over the edge of the timing cover. The pulley has the groove for the supercharger about where the stock generator/water pump belt was. The twin upper radiator hoses and cut down water pump manifold allow the supercharger to mount low enough for the hood to clear.
I don't see why the kit wouldn't fit later model V8's; certainly through '61, probably '64. I think it does require a VS type supercharger. I doubt the SN pulley would line up, although it probably could be adapted.
I wonder why Stude didn't use McCulloch's existing kit instead of engineering their own.
Mike

SScopelli
06-26-2016, 10:20 PM
1956 Ford had a Supercharged 4bbl..

http://assets.hemmings.com/story_image/42891-500-0.jpg?rev=1

and 57..

http://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/65917/65917_Engine_Web.jpg



The typical R2 wasn't a race car Jack! When these cars were new, they were in use everyday, day in-day out....fuel leaks can (AND DID) occur under low maintenance situations like that. :ohmy:

(especially fuel spraying out past the accelerator pump shaft seal)......An air box (as Studebaker used in '57-'58) is truly the only completely safe way to run a supercharger ahead of a carb on a street car!

The Granatellis realized this when designing the R3's! ;)


Safe way to run a supercharged engine??

The Holley "tea-pot" 4bbl was about 50 more CFM as the WCFB, and had the accell pump and other orifices within the bonnet so there was not an issue with it under boost like the later AFBs. It was designed to not use an inclosure.

http://amoslb-1156621974.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/en/tech/how-to/2012/10/tempest-in-a-teapot/basicslider-0/elead-1012ae.jpg

This also allowed the same carb to be used on NA as well as SC engines.

Notice the WCFB kit..

#16,

Carb Modification kit.. So Ed, they might have know about Carbs and how to seal them back in the 50's.

http://www.studebaker-info.org/VS57/optvs/VS576.JPG

SN-60
06-26-2016, 10:24 PM
Nice pics!..Yes, it seemed to work for them....No air chamber! (Dig the crazy distributor on the '57!!!:eek:)