Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1962 Lark performance

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

  • Topper2011
    replied
    Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp View Post
    Here's a car life road test of a 62 Hawk, 289 4 barrel, 4 speed, 3.73 rear end. 11.4 seconds to 60. I would think the Lark would be close to this with the smaller engine but probably a little less weight.

    https://studebaker-info.org/MAA/CL0562/1962GTHawkrt.pdf
    I was a little surprised about the complaint about the brake fade they experienced. Glad I put on the Turner disc brake kit. Having had brake fade in the past with drum brakes, my 69 Olds Cutlass and my brother's 57 Chevy, is frightening. Of course, I've had it with Chevy's failed Hydroboost brakes on a company vehicle and nothing more scary than seeing the light turn red and stomping on a block of wood for the brakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • black56hawk
    replied
    I also question an 11.4 second 0-60 for a 289 4-barrel, 4-speed Hawk with 3.73 gears. 8.5-9.5 seems more reasonable for that combination to me.

    At any rate, for whatever it's worth, Motor Life (December 1958) tested a 59 Lark Regal 2dr hardtop with 259 2-barrel, Flightomatic trans, and 3.54 gears. They got 10.3 seconds 0-60.

    Leave a comment:


  • black56hawk
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post
    Keep in mind that one of the limiting factors with 0-60 times in the 1960s were the tires.
    That, plus non-prepped, slicker-than-snot drag strip starting lines of the day.

    Bear in mind that most road testers of the time tested on public roads with a passenger and 2-300 lbs of test equipment. Hot Rod Magazine actually took their cars to the strip, and so usually got better times than other magazines. For example, in their testing (January 1962), a 62 fuel-injected Corvette ran 14.12 at 104 with a staff member driving, and 13.89 at 105 with Mickey Thompson driving. No 0-60 times are given, but the quarter mile times would correspond with a 0-60 time well into the fives. And the trap speed shows the potential of running a full second quicker on a modern, prepped drag strip. Even so, there are many modern cars today that would be quicker. But not the cars Dick listed above.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Keep in mind that one of the limiting factors with 0-60 times in the 1960s were the tires.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwitt
    replied
    Originally posted by mdh157 View Post
    darn it.......I was hoping for something a bit quicker. I have the chance to buy a 62 daytona hardtop with those specs but it does not sound quick enough for my liking. I was hoping the 3.73 take off would make up for the high rpms at cruising speed.
    Well if its not to your liking you could pass along the sellers info. I'm sure there's a few members on here that would love a chance at a hardtop 4speed.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdh157
    replied
    agreed Dick. My 2007 Lexus does it in 6.5 secs. Not as cool as a Stude though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    It was a different time with different standards.

    A 62 Corvette with the 360HP fuel injected motor and a 4 speed did 0-60 in 6.9.

    A new Nissan Altima does it in 5.8
    Toyota Camry 5.1-5.8 depending on the motor
    Mazda 3 6.9
    VW Golf 5.6
    Hyundai Veloster 6.2
    etc.

    A 62 Lark with a 259 4 speed is a great combination. It's not going to win a stop light grand prix against a new Honda, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdh157
    replied
    darn it.......I was hoping for something a bit quicker. I have the chance to buy a 62 daytona hardtop with those specs but it does not sound quick enough for my liking. I was hoping the 3.73 take off would make up for the high rpms at cruising speed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    Here's a car life road test of a 62 Hawk, 289 4 barrel, 4 speed, 3.73 rear end. 11.4 seconds to 60. I would think the Lark would be close to this with the smaller engine but probably a little less weight.

    https://studebaker-info.org/MAA/CL0562/1962GTHawkrt.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    I'd like to add that even though a Honda Civic can beat the 62 Lark by 3-4 seconds, and a Prius can match it or better it a litte, the 4 speed V8 Lark would be a lot more fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    About 10 to 12 Seconds sounds more reasonable, depending on just HOW heavy this " '62 Lark is".
    A 2 Door Sedan, 2 Door Hardtop, 4 Door Wagon or Convertible vary quite a bit.

    But the 3.73 Axle Ratio WILL get it going quickly.

    I recall that the Dealer Dad worked at, had the FIRST available "Fast" . Lark, the 1962, Chassis Dynoed, and I WISH I still knew the result. Of course it would not be 0 to 60 MPH but Torque and H.P.
    It was a Daytona Hardtop with a 289, 4 Barrel, Dual Exhaust, 4 Speed with TT, and the Testers were quite impressed with the Rear Wheel H.P.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    There are lots of 0-60 and quarter mile time calculators on the internet.

    Here's one...

    https://www.carspecs.us/calculator/0-60

    I know Studebaker advertised 185 HP (among others) for a 4 barrel 259, but I'd use 75% of that since that was gross HP and not net and most manufacturers were overstating their HP to sell cars.

    I used the weight from this...

    https://www.conceptcarz.com/s4356/studebaker-lark.aspx

    So, 138 HP and 3300 pounds with a stick shift and rear wheel drive calculates to 9 seconds 0-60. Personally, I think that is fairly optimistic.

    You can plug in any numbers you want and/or try another calculator.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdh157
    started a topic 1962 Lark performance

    1962 Lark performance

    Can anyone here tell me what the approx 0-60 time would be for a 62 lark with 259-4, 4 speed, 3.73 axle?
Working...
X