Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torque rating for 185 and 169 sixes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Torque rating for 185 and 169 sixes?

    Hi
    What were the maximum torque rating at what rpm for the 1955-58 185 cid and 1959-60 169 cid Champion sixes?

    Noting the 185 cid was used in the '55-'58 Champion but reduced to 169 cid for the '59 Lark, I wonder why Studebaker bothered to made this change.

    According what has been written in TW, many Lark buyers weren't pleased with the fuel mileage from their Lark Six, and the V-8 equipped cars returned more acceptable fuel mileage.

    Perhaps more torque from the longer stroke six would have produced better fuel mileage in the Lark?

    Steve

  • #2
    Would you believe NOT ENOUGH? LOL!


    How about: '54 170 = 138 @ 2400 RPM

    ................'55 185 = 152 @ 1800 RPM

    ................'59 170 = 145 @ 2000 RPM

    ................'61 170 = 154 @ 2000 RPM

    StudeRich -Studebakers Northwest Ferndale, WA
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi StudeRich

      Thanks for the data, looks pretty shy on torque to power a 2,600 pound car with any authority.

      I would guess the 185 cid might have been a slightly better engine for the Lark Sixes.

      Wonder how it compares with the 170 Slant Six in the '60 Valiant?

      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        An interesting discussion. Studebaker engineers probably figured the new Lark would be light enough, compared with the bloated 1956-1958 full-size cars the 185 was by then pulling [dragging?] around, that they could drop back to the shorter stroke for the new, lighter car. Probably not a good idea, but it was also cheaper to build the 170 with the smaller crankshaft, too.

        The biggest problem with the 1959 Lark six was the carburetor[xx(]...'way too much cost saving going on there. [8] If they had more carefully chosen carburetors for the engine without such keen focus on the bottom line, it might have performed better and yielded better gas mileage.

        As it was, the best $135 you could spend when "optioning" your 1959 Lark, was to select a 59V model instead of a 59S! BP
        We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

        Ayn Rand:
        "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

        G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

        Comment


        • #5
          "The biggest problem with the 1959 Lark six was the carburetor...'way too much cost saving going on there. If they had more carefully chosen carburetors for the engine without such keen focus on the bottom line, it might have performed better and yielded better gas mileage. "

          Boy, ain't that the truth! Seems to me neither the Carter AS or RBS were anywhere close to the WE in economy or driveability. Can you fit a WE on a Lark type? I've never tried it.

          Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
          Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

          Comment


          • #6
            I think someone told me they'd put a WE on a Lark. Certainly, you could do it. Especially with one of the earlier, snouted air cleaners.

            Miscreant Studebaker nut in California's central valley.

            1957 Transtar 1/2ton
            1960 Larkvertible V8
            1958 Provincial wagon
            1953 Commander coupe
            1957 President two door

            No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

            Comment


            • #7
              Best carb I've ever used to replace the junk AS and RBS is a Stromgberg BVX (used on prewar champions and 1950's Chrysler industrial applications).

              Put on of those on a custom OHV six stick with OD and it will fly till the valve seats crack and the valves eventually burn and the pistons come apart. I put a 185 crank in a OHV and bored it oversize so my cubic inches were 201. I had so many issues with that engine it was disappointing considering how much work I put in it. I had issues with the piston lands breaking and constant head issues. Anybody want my Frankenstein engine?

              Comment


              • #8
                Perhaps it's good that I never built my OHV 185, as much as I like those infernal OHV engines Now if I could figure out how to get 54-61-62's frankenstein 185 out my way I could torture myself a bit more trying to get a decent carb for two sixes Those AS and RBS models are real dogs.

                Jeff T.

                "I'm getting nowhere as fast as I can"
                The Replacements.
                \"I\'m getting nowhere as fast as I can\"
                The Replacements.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Your welcome it it if you want it. I am too pissed at it to attempt experimenting further.

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    What do you want for your "frankenstein" 6?

                    "I'm getting nowhere as fast as I can"
                    The Replacements.
                    \"I\'m getting nowhere as fast as I can\"
                    The Replacements.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      54-61-62
                      Are you saying that a Stromberg BVX carburetor is a bolt-on for a Champion engine, or do you need some kind of adaptor plate?

                      1950 Champion 4 Dr.
                      Holdrege NE
                      John
                      1950 Champion
                      W-3 4 Dr. Sedan
                      Holdrege NE

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X