1956 Golden Hawk vs 1957 Golden Hawk 0-60 times

[6hk71400]

Does anyone have from the time period the cars were new what the published 0-60 times were and the difference between the Packard 352 and the Studebaker supercharged 289? I know the 289 was limited to 4,500 rpm do to valve float. I had a 56 Ultramatic equipped Golden Hawk and my current 1957 Golden Hawk is a 3 speed overdrive. Also if anyone had 0-60 on a 275 hp Clipper vs 1957 Clipper with Supercharger?

Bob Miles
Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought him back

[PackardV8]

Interestingly, the automatic '56J may have been quicker than the overdrive. The TwinUltramatic had a very efficient torque converter and was quick off the line.

Having driven both the '56 and the '57 GHs, there's no question in my mind the '56 was quicker to 60 MPH and faster on the top end.

As mentioned, the '57-58 GH floated the valves considerably before the supercharger ran out of breath, but the good news is the valve float didn't usually cause problems. Using the limp valve springs and the 2-bbl carb may have been Studebaker Engineerings attempt to strangle down the horsepower and have fewer warranty problems when the '57-58s were run hard. Since the same team was in place when the R-series engines were developed, there's no question they already knew what was required to make more horsepower, but chose not to do it the first time around.

The '56J Packard V8 was not so durable when raced. The early engines had soft valve spring retainers. When the overdrive versions were raced and wound up to valve float, this weakness would let the keepers pull through and drop a valve, destroying a piston and often cracking a cylinder. Also, the OEM Bohnalite pistons cracked where the skirt turned into the pin area. Every overdrive equipped '56J I've seen had evidence of failures.

The '56J automatic engines were usually not subject to the same failures because when raced the TwinUltramatic usually failed before the engine.

jack vines

[6hk71400]

Thanks Jack

My 56J was not in a great state of tune and would not go above 60 so I did not get a true feel of the car. My 57 GH ia overdrive equipped and just feels stronger. It is a great open field runner even though the supercharger is not hooked up. It is a great driving work in progress.

Bob Miles
Command performance for safety the 1957 Golden Hawk

[PackardV8]

Joe Hall has more road miles on '56Js than anyone and he's also put a lot of miles on normally aspirated Studes, but can't remember him ever owning a supercharged version and able to share that comparison with us.

From my perspective, the low and mid-range torque of the Packard V8 is noticeably stronger than the supercharged '57-'58 cars. If raced back in the day, toward the top end the supercharged Studes and Packards would begin to pull strong and catch up, but then the valves would float and the Packard V8 holds the lead. (That is unless the driver over-revs the Packard V8 and drops a valve or cracks a piston.) Today, it would be usual to substitute R2 valve springs on the Studes and harder valve retainers and stronger springs on the Packard, so the result would be the same but different.

jack vines

Unfortunately, the proposed Jet Streak Option Package for the '56J (2x4-bbls, solid lifter Isky cam, dual point distributor) never was officially offered. It would be interesting to build one for the Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags and see how it would run.

jv

[Dick Steinkamp]

Here are a couple of references found on the internet...

1956 0-60 9.6 seconds

https://www.autosnout.com/0-60mph-Time/Studebaker-Golden-Hawk-5-8L-V8-352-1956/964

1957 0-60 9.2 seconds

https://www.conceptcarz.com/s14172/studebaker-golden-hawk.aspx

Not exactly mainstream, trusted references and not by the same organization.

Both say with 3 speed automatic.

[64studeavanti]

The latter post, conceptcarz, seem to have blended the two engines. Stude 289s do not have 4" bores, 3.5" strokes or 9.5:1 compression.

[Jeffry Cassel]

If my 57 Packard will do it in the 8s, a 57 G Hawk will too. I had a 56J which was really quick but it handled like a badly overloaded forklift. Back then, manual transmission cars were always faster than automatics--That is not true any longer. "They" say there isn't any difference in weight between a Packard V8 and a Supercharged 289; that is hard to believe. A Packard V8 is just massive!

[PackardV8]

If my 57 Packard will do it in the 8s, a 57 G Hawk will too. I had a 56J which was really quick but it handled like a badly overloaded forklift. Back then, manual transmission cars were always faster than automatics--That is not true any longer. "They" say there isn't any difference in weight between a Packard V8 and a Supercharged 289; that is hard to believe. A Packard V8 is just massive!

The Packard V8 is physically larger in every exterior dimension than the Studebaker V8. That they can weigh the same is due to the Packard V8 also being larger in every interior dimension. One way to visualize it is 4" holes weigh less than 3.5625" holes. The Packard crankshaft is cast steel with hollow crankpins and actually weighs 2# less than a forged steel 289" crankshaft.

jack vines

[Hawklover]

Joe Hall has more road miles on '56Js than anyone and he's also put a lot of miles on normally aspirated Studes, but can't remember him ever owning a supercharged version and able to share that comparison with us.

From my perspective, the low and mid-range torque of the Packard V8 is noticeably stronger than the supercharged '57-'58 cars. If raced back in the day, toward the top end the supercharged Studes and Packards would begin to pull strong and catch up, but then the valves would float and the Packard V8 holds the lead. (That is unless the driver over-revs the Packard V8 and drops a valve or cracks a piston.) Today, it would be usual to substitute R2 valve springs on the Studes and harder valve retainers and stronger springs on the Packard, so the result would be the same but different.

jack vines

Unfortunately, the proposed Jet Streak Option Package for the '56J (2x4-bbls, solid lifter Isky cam, dual point distributor) never was officially offered. It would be interesting to build one for the Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags and see how it would run.

jv

Jack back in the day of 1960 my dad had the 352 of his '56J removed and his bud who was an old line Packard mechanic replaced that with the 374 engine, it had two WCFB carbs. The car had 3 on the tree with OD. He kept a 100 pound bag of cement in the trunk to prevent wheel hop. Those were fantastic times!

[Dwight FitzSimons]

The weights of the '56 and '57 Golden Hawk engines was discussed here:

https://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/forum/your-studebaker-forum/tech-talk/1903992-289-weight#post1904030

Re handling of the two cars: The '56 GH had a wimpy front anti-roll bar. That was improved in '57, so that alone would improve handling a bit. Plus, someone said something about the mounting of the rear springs changing in '57.
-Dwight

[6hk71400]

As far as I know, the rear spring on all 1957 cars was in the same position as the 1956 and earlier models. That was because of the two piece drive shaft. In 1958, Studebaker went to the one piece drive shaft and also the floor pan change to accommodate the one piece drive shaft. The spring went from a center mount on the rear to a forward mount. As I recall, someone told me the 58 and up models would bottom out with aggressive driving. We have in our chapter a 57 and 58 Golden Hawk. Next time we have a get together and Ed brings his 58 I will crawl under and take a look. I guess the handling of the cars will be an issue to discuss for some time. My 57 has manual steering and not the heavy Saginaw Power Steering.

Bob Miles
All my weight is in the middle but I am still unbalanced

[Randy Bohannon]

RE comparing '56 and '57 GHs

I have a '56 GH with the full Jet Streak kit, 3spd with OD and a 3.73 rear end. (Jack Vines knows it well because he provided most of the JS parts). Supposed to put out 330HP. I also have a '63 GT R2 with all the Super Hawk stuff, 4 spd with 3.31 rear end. Supposed to put out 289HP.
The '63 should be a reasonable comparison to the '57 GH.
The '56 will out perform the '63 in every respect - 0 - 60 and top speed. Not even close. The JS kit transforms the Packard V8 into an entirely different engine! Pulls hard to 5K instead of floating at 3.5K+. Feels like a blower when the second set of 4 barrels kick in.
I've not timed them but I'd guess 7 sec or less for the '56 and around 8 sec for the '63 to 60 mph. The '56 easily tops 140 mph but the '63 struggles above 130 mph.
Handling is another matter. the '63 is far superior.

Randy Bohannon

[PackardV8]

RE comparing '56 and '57 GHs

I have a '56 GH with the full Jet Streak kit, 3spd with OD and a 3.73 rear end. (Jack Vines knows it well because he provided most of the JS parts). Supposed to put out 330HP. I also have a '63 GT R2 with all the Super Hawk stuff, 4 spd with 3.31 rear end. Supposed to put out 289HP.
The '63 should be a reasonable comparison to the '57 GH.
The '56 will out perform the '63 in every respect - 0 - 60 and top speed. Not even close. The JS kit transforms the Packard V8 into an entirely different engine! Pulls hard to 5K instead of floating at 3.5K+. Feels like a blower when the second set of 4 barrels kick in.
I've not timed them but I'd guess 7 sec or less for the '56 and around 8 sec for the '63 to 60 mph. The '56 easily tops 140 mph but the '63 struggles above 130 mph.
Handling is another matter. the '63 is far superior.

Randy Bohannon

As Packard said in their advertisements, "Ask the man who owns one."

jack vines

[2R2]

I've posted this before, but it appears Studebaker was trying to promote items to improve the performance of the '56 GH.