Was a 4 barrel carb offered on a 259 in 1963?

[Alex Dragone]

Were cars equipped with a 259 V8 in 1963 offered with a 2 barrel carb only or could you also opt for a larger 4 barrel as well?

[2R2]

Yes, a four barrel was available, as was dual exhaust, on a 259. It would raise the advertised horsepower from 180 to 195.

[StudeRich]

Not only did '63 and '64 Larks and Hawks with both 259 and 289's have an extra cost Option for a 4 Barrel Carb. but it was no longer the lower performance Carter WCFB that was an Option on V8's from 1955 to '62, it was the Carter AFB with the Large Secondary's!

[Milaca]

Would it have cost less to order a 289 with 2-barrel than to order a 259 with 4-barrel? Why would anyone have ordered a 259 with 4-barrel?

[studegary]

Would it have cost less to order a 289 with 2-barrel than to order a 259 with 4-barrel? Why would anyone have ordered a 259 with 4-barrel?

No. The 4 bbl was $21.52 extra (retail). The 289 over the 259 was $34.43 - $49.50 (retail) depending on the model.

[Milaca]

Thank you for the pricing Gary, now it makes sense.

[62champ]

Not only did '63 and '64 Larks and Hawks with both 259 and 289's have an extra cost Option for a 4 Barrel Carb. but it was no longer the lower performance Carter WCFB that was an Option on V8's from 1955 to '62, it was the Carter AFB with the Large Secondary's!

Did Studebaker change the HP rating from '62 to '63 with that different fuel feeder?

[StudeRich]

Nope, still 195 on 259, 225 on 289, and 240 on 289 R1.
But remember that is ADVERTISED H.P. which as we saw on GM Cars could be whatever they wanted it to be!
ALL 3 of those Engines had 40 S.A.E. HP!

[64Avanti]

Did Studebaker change the HP rating from '62 to '63 with that different fuel feeder?

r
All 289s with 2 barrel carb were rated (marketed!) as 210 hp and all 4 barrel 289s, except R serries, were rated at 225 hp. Even with no accessories and dyno headers on theses engines were more than 25 hp down on power compared to these rated power levels. As installed they were about 45 horsepower down on the advertised horsepower.

[StudeRich]

That's odd, others have tested them and found the Advertised Ratings to be very close, and some even UNDER rated!

What was the Criteria for this by whom?

[Andy R.]

Dad loved his '62 Hawk 289/4bbl./4sp.
Most of his best stories were of his '60 Lark Regal HT 259/4bbl./3o.d.
He said it was snappier and surprised drivers in "faster" cars.
Plus, it ALWAYS started, no matter how harsh the winter.

Then again, he was single before '63. So there's that.

[STEWDI]

Andy, how about regaling us with a couple of those stories?

[64Avanti]

That's odd, others have tested them and found the Advertised Ratings to be very close, and some even UNDER rated!

What was the Criteria for this by whom?

Actually if they bumped the initial spark advance up to 8 deg instead of 4 deg they were only about 15 hp down. This was corrected horsepower to the old SAE J607 standard which was to correct power to 60 deg F air and 29.92 in.hg. air pressure. They also used 10 weight oil!

Where does this come from? Several Studebaker dyno tests.

The tests were run with a compression ratio of 8.2, if you have an engine with milled block and heads you might bump the compression ratio up to somewhere between 8.5 and 8.8 (with thin head gaskets) which could add between 1 and 2% to the power. Also if you use rings with less tension than they used back in the day you will gain some power. So it is possible to get closs to the advertised power with an engine with no accessories and an ideal tuneup.

It is also possible to get a couple of percent difference it dyno tests even with very carefully controlled test environments and most dyno setups do not have perfectly controlled environments. Even in the dyno facility that we had here in San Jose we would get 1 to 1.5% difference on different runs on different days. This could also be diffences in fuel.