65-66 Studes in muscle car drags?

[Scott]

Have there been any McKinnon - Chevy powered Studebakers in the drag races? I'm not really into racing, but the thought occurred to me today.

And (this may stir up a lot of comments), could or would a 65 Studebaker beat a 64 Studebaker if both are the same model and same kind of transmission? The 283 is a lighter engine, I am told, than the 259 or 289.

How fast could a Studebaker with the stock 283 go if it's modified in the same manner as the Studebakers we see at the stock muscle car drag races? Would a 283 with a blower even be allowed since the factory never offered it?

I see lots of directions this discussion could take.

[8E45E]

Unlike a 259 or a 289 Studebaker engine, a four-barrel carb and dual exhausts were never offered on 1965-6 Studebakers with a V8, and would not be considered "stock" if someone made those changes. Therefore, you would not qualify in the PSMCD races with one modified with those 'go faster' modifications.

Craig

[BobPalma]

What Craig said, Scott.

It's a moot point; Studebaker didn't offer a factory-installed Power Kit (4bbl and duals) for 283 McKinnon V8s in 1965 or 1966, and those are the minimum requirements to participate in The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race.

Superchargers would be out of the question for the same reason.

I'm not aware of any period road tests of manual-transmission 1965 or 1966 Studebaker V8-powered cars to make the comparison you suggest.

Sure, I'm biased, but I believe a 1964 289 Studebaker would easily beat a 1965 283 Studebaker, all other things as equal as possible. This would be due to the Studebaker V8's greater torque; the 289 Stude is much "torquier" due to its longer stroke:

289 Studebaker: 3.62" stroke. 283 McKinnon: 3.00" stroke.

Generally speaking, it is stroke that produces torque (twisting force) and it is twisting force that rotates the transmission input shaft!

Consider:

1964 Studebaker 289 V8 with 2 bbl carb and single exhaust (as furnished in the Cruiser, for example):
210 HP; 300 ft/lb torque @ 2800 RPM

1965 Studebaker/McKinnon 283 V8 with 2 bbl carb and single exhaust:
195 HP; 285 ft/lb torque @ 2400 RPM

BP

[DEEPNHOCK]

Hmmmmm... Interesting comment..
I am sure there are a few McKinnon powered Stude's that would like to take up that challenge...
Say...At Osceola dragstrip next July!
Jeff

<snip>
Sure, I'm biased, but I believe a 1964 289 Studebaker would easily beat a 1965 283 Studebaker, all other things as equal as possible.
<snip>

[BobPalma]

Hmmmmm... Interesting comment..
I am sure there are a few McKinnon powered Stude's that would like to take up that challenge...
Say...At Osceola dragstrip next July!
Jeff

OK, Jeff, but remember: 2bbl carbs and single exhausts on both cars...and if it comes to pass, forewarned is forearmed: Ted Harbit will be driving the Studebaker! <GGG> BP

[DEEPNHOCK]

OK..... Forewarned is forearmed
http://www.worldcastings.com/product...d-edition.html
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/600-c...-/320602081054

OK, Jeff, but remember: 2bbl carbs and single exhausts on both cars...and if it comes to pass, forewarned is forearmed: Ted Harbit will be driving the Studebaker! <GGG> BP

[Scott]

I can see how the torque difference would probably make the Stude engined cars faster. I think it would fun to take a vintage fuel injection unit from a Corvette (or maybe late 50s Chevy) and put it on the 283 (same engine, right?) in a 65-66 Studebaker. Any vintage speed equipment for the 283 would be interesting in a Studebaker. I've never even HEARD of someone trying this. I don't know why. It seems like it would be so easy to add stuff to the 283.

[Orestudeguy]

Oh Scott,
I can build you a engine, remember what I told you..
Remember, speed costs money, how fast you wantin' to go????

[PackardV8]

This would be due to the Studebaker V8's greater torque; the 289 Stude is much "torquier" due to its longer stroke:

Bob is right about things Studebaker 99.9% of the time, but the Studebaker torque superiority is just another urban legend. The Stude 259"/Chevy 265" and the Studebaker 289"/Chevy 283" when equipped with 2-bbl carb and single exhaust, produce identical horsepower and torque outputs.

We discussed this once before in the distant past, so I'm not going to look up the figures and post them again unless there is money on the line.

It seems like it would be so easy to add stuff to the 283.

I could build you a 406" which would make close to 400 horsepower and still look like a McKinnon 283", right down to the 2-bbl carburetor and single exhaust.

jack vines

[BobPalma]

I can see how the torque difference would probably make the Stude engined cars faster. I think it would fun to take a vintage fuel injection unit from a Corvette (or maybe late 50s Chevy) and put it on the 283 (same engine, right?) in a 65-66 Studebaker. Any vintage speed equipment for the 283 would be interesting in a Studebaker. I've never even HEARD of someone trying this. I don't know why. It seems like it would be so easy to add stuff to the 283.

Well, Scott, if you're looking for a wild, McKinnon-powered 1965 Studebaker, you have to know where to look!

http://v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=235662

[Scott]

Well...that's a great picture. Made me laugh, it's so ridiculous. I have this thing about having a hood on my car, though.

I'm not necessarily saying I want to go fast. I'm just thinking about the possibilities.

[Jessie J.]

I can see how the torque difference would probably make the Stude engined cars faster. I think it would fun to take a vintage fuel injection unit from a Corvette (or maybe late 50s Chevy) and put it on the 283 (same engine, right?) in a 65-66 Studebaker. Any vintage speed equipment for the 283 would be interesting in a Studebaker. I've never even HEARD of someone trying this. I don't know why. It seems like it would be so easy to add stuff to the 283.

My first Studebaker was a '65 Cruiser 283 automatic. I soon installed a full dual exhaust system and 4 barrel carb on a Weiand Hi-Rise intake, and eventually converted it over to T-10 four speed.
It ran pretty strong and I did win quite a few street races. I have over the years owned 3 McKinnon powered Stude's, although all of my present Stude's are Studebaker powered.
Truthfully, when it comes to the equal or nearly equal small factory supplied V-8s, I by far prefer the Studebaker powered versions for a lot of reasons.

IF the factory had offered up the 327 as an option perhaps I would be more favorable to the '65-'66s, as it is I'd rather a Stude built 259 over the 283.
I attend the PSMCDs yearly and a McKinnon 283_ Power Pack or not, would be very challenged to match the performance of Richard Poe's R-1 Lark.
But it is a moot question anyway as Studebaker Corp. never did offer anything in the '65-'66 period that would qualify as any form of a Muscle Car.
Not to say that such couldn't be screwed together, but it wouldn't be Pure Stock.

[COMMANDERPINK1]

You have got to love the sound of the Studebaker V8s over the 283 especially if its coming out of the Red Tomato
Tom

[Jessie J.]

It also needs mentioned that in a dedicated drag car, set up, tuning, and driver skill are more the determining factors than make, displacement, or any claimed HP output.
Most 400 inch Muscle Cars fall to Poe's 289

[Steve T]

Wasn't stock, but there was a '65 Daytona dragster around here about a dozen years ago...iirc it had a modified 350 in it. Still exists, but sans engine; I tried to interest the owner in joining SDC earlier this year but he's exceedingly busy these days. I have a couple pix of the car as it now looks and will eventually get them up onto P'bucket...

S.