Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Super hawk vs superlark?

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

  • Super hawk vs superlark?

    I've seen the old magazine ad with A superhawk and a superlark. The lark says 132mph I think and the hawk says 140 mph I think. I've also read that both cars were identically equipped even down to trans and rear ends. Now the lark is considerably lighter than the hawk so why would they advertise to hawk as faster. Was it because it cost more and they wanted consumers to think they were getting more performance with the more expensive car? Was in an aero dynamics thing? Anybody know?
    John

    62' Deluxe R2 4SPD.

    63' R1 Wagonaire

    57' Transtar 259 punched to 312 NP540 4:09 TT Under Construction

    58' 3E6D Stock 4X4

    64' (Studebaker Built) Trailer Toter


  • #2
    If the two speeds were indeed accurate, I'd say it had more to do with aerodynamics than anything.

    Comment


    • #3
      The three cars weighed ROUGHLY the same and were equipped identically. Strictly aerodynamics produced the Hawk 10 miles per hour faster than the convertible and the Avanti 10 miles per hour faster than the Hawk.

      Comment


      • #4
        It was all aero.

        On the drag strip. the Lark 2-door sedan is always the fastest because it's lighter and has a higher center of gravity.

        jack vines
        PackardV8

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
          It was all aero.

          On the drag strip. the Lark 2-door sedan is always the fastest because it's lighter and has a higher center of gravity.

          jack vines

          Definitely aero. I just wonder what the top speed of an identically optioned Zip Van would be? Likely under 100 mph <ggg> (okay, its fantasy, but at least a wider suspension stance and bigger wheels!!)

          Jack--just curious and unknowledgeable--why would a "higher center of gravity" improve the speed on the drag strip? What change does it make to cause the improvement?

          Comment


          • #6
            Come to the PSMCDs, Jim, and we'll try changing the center of gravity. One run with you in the passenger seat and one with you on the roof
            Dave Warren (Perry Mason by day, Perry Como by night)

            Comment


            • #7
              My understanding is a higher centre of gravity may help transfer the weight to the back wheels for better traction at launch and potentially a lower ET and higher speed at the 1/4 mile.

              Jim
              \"Ahh, a bear in his natural habitat...a Studebaker!\"

              51 Land Cruiser (Elsie)
              Jim Mann
              Victoria, B.C.
              Canada

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by StudeMann View Post
                My understanding is a higher centre of gravity may help transfer the weight to the back wheels for better traction at launch and potentially a lower ET and higher speed at the 1/4 mile. Jim
                You got it, Jim.

                The higher the center of gravity, the easier it is for that center to shift around on the car's chassis; front to rear or side to side. Think of what happens (weight shift) when a car with a high center of gravity heads into a corner at the same speed as a car with a lower center of gravity. 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


                • #9
                  Stuff some guys in the trunk and tell them to hold on.....
                  Jamie McLeod
                  Hope Mills, NC

                  1963 Lark "Ugly Betty"
                  1958 Commander "Christine"
                  1964 Wagonaire "Louise"
                  1955 Commander Sedan
                  1964 Champ
                  1960 Lark

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by warrlaw1 View Post
                    Come to the PSMCDs, Jim, and we'll try changing the center of gravity. One run with you in the passenger seat and one with you on the roof
                    Ooohhh! Perhaps if I sat in the trunk?

                    I get it. I was wondering if it was weight transfer, and then thought, no--can't be, first corner....but wait, there AREN'T any turns on a drag strip!

                    Come to think of it--next fun motorsport? Mixing dragstrip with roundy-round racing...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BobPalma View Post
                      You got it, Jim.

                      The higher the center of gravity, the easier it is for that center to shift around on the car's chassis; front to rear or side to side. Think of what happens (weight shift) when a car with a high center of gravity heads into a corner at the same speed as a car with a lower center of gravity. BP


                      Ask me how I know about this Bob


                      Dan Miller
                      Auburn, GA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When you compare a Hawk and a Lark with front pictures side by side the Hawk is lower ,narrower and the windshield rake is less. All these add up, I never took aerodynamics serious till i raced slot cars. at only 2" high a 1/4 inch makes a LOT of difference in slot cars. Multiply that to real cars and your pushing a bill board down the track.
                        Same with Boost into an engine, More air/fuel into the engine more HP.
                        If it flows smother the faster it goes thru.
                        101st Airborne Div. 326 Engineers Ft Campbell Ky.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I tend to doubt the aero angle and wil go with product placement, at least on the Hawk vs Avanti. Number one reason? Studebaker took a Golden Hawk in the mid 50's to Bonneville with a much lower HP than the R2 GT and ran 141mph. So are we saying all that extra horsepower made the GT slower? Also, at speeds of less then 175mph there simply isn't 28mph difference in the Hawk and the Avanti, but yet the Avanti in the tests went 168 vs the Hawk 140 vs the Lark 132. In addition, claims that the cars were factory stock don't hold up either. I've seen the Hawk and Lark in person and there were several special preparations made including large tanks to hold more supercharger fluid and keep the SC cooler, increased volume fuel tanks, etc. Ever watch that video of the Lark taking off on the Salt and fluid coming out of the right rear wheelwell. Interesting that the car sports a fuel tank vent relocated to that very wheelwell. Folks reading Dick Quinn's Lamberti papers may recall the large bill for Granatelli's prep for test runs a few weeks ago. I doubt that was driver's fees alone. My theory? The Avanti was prepped and run flatout. As the new supercar it simply had to be head and shoulders above the rest of the line if for no other reason than to justify the close to 30% premium in price over the Hawk. 140mph still gave the Hawk a great reputation and no one will remembers the Golden Hawk ran faster 4 years prior. Run the Lark up near but not quite as fast as the Hawk and the whole line is hot and the results reflect the price point, if not the engineering and parts selection. No one had to lie about it as they did run at least as fast as claimed, although in a recent Lamberti files episode, the feds were asking if the claims were for production cars that could be bought or not, hence more pressure to pump out some R3's.

                          OK flame away.
                          Jim
                          Often in error, never in doubt
                          http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                          ____1966 Avanti II RQA 0088_______________1963 Avanti R2 63R3152____________http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Perhaps the Golden Hawk had different gearing than the Super Hawk, maybe even a 3 speed with overdrive? As far as comparing the front of a Hawk verses a Lark, the Lark is very flat/boxy whereas the Hawk has the long slope between the headlights and the grill which I believe would make it cut through the air more efficiently. I'm curious how a 1953-54 coupe/hardtop would compare with the same mechanicals as it's front is even more aerodynamic as is the rear of the car too with it's sloping rear window and lower rear of decklid than a Hawk. Maybe it would have ran similar to an Avanti?
                            sigpic
                            In the middle of MinneSTUDEa.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jlmccuan View Post
                              I tend to doubt the aero angle and wil go with product placement, at least on the Hawk vs Avanti. Number one reason? Studebaker took a Golden Hawk in the mid 50's to Bonneville with a much lower HP than the R2 GT and ran 141mph. So are we saying all that extra horsepower made the GT slower? Also, at speeds of less then 175mph there simply isn't 28mph difference in the Hawk and the Avanti, but yet the Avanti in the tests went 168 vs the Hawk 140 vs the Lark 132. In addition, claims that the cars were factory stock don't hold up either. I've seen the Hawk and Lark in person and there were several special preparations made including large tanks to hold more supercharger fluid and keep the SC cooler, increased volume fuel tanks, etc. Ever watch that video of the Lark taking off on the Salt and fluid coming out of the right rear wheelwell. Interesting that the car sports a fuel tank vent relocated to that very wheelwell. Folks reading Dick Quinn's Lamberti papers may recall the large bill for Granatelli's prep for test runs a few weeks ago. I doubt that was driver's fees alone. My theory? The Avanti was prepped and run flatout. As the new supercar it simply had to be head and shoulders above the rest of the line if for no other reason than to justify the close to 30% premium in price over the Hawk. 140mph still gave the Hawk a great reputation and no one will remembers the Golden Hawk ran faster 4 years prior. Run the Lark up near but not quite as fast as the Hawk and the whole line is hot and the results reflect the price point, if not the engineering and parts selection. No one had to lie about it as they did run at least as fast as claimed, although in a recent Lamberti files episode, the feds were asking if the claims were for production cars that could be bought or not, hence more pressure to pump out some R3's.

                              OK flame away.


                              Could you provide a link showing a stock 56J doing that kind of number. I just don't buy 141 MPH for a 56J, something is amiss since period tests show 125-130 MPH tops.
                              Last edited by JDP; 09-12-2011, 04:53 PM.
                              JDP Maryland

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X