No announcement yet.

65-66 Studes in muscle car drags?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Yes Jesse as Bob said you are correct but they have not been back for several years, that's why I left them out. The one with the carbs was a 16 second car I think but got much faster as years went on. As Bob said the two were brothers or something like that. It was Bob and Paul Richard. Bob had a '62 FI 327/340, Paul's was a '57 283/270 with dual 4 barrels. It was 2982 lbs with driver. It was putting out a little less HP then my R1.
    The annual all Studebaker Nationals and Orphan Car Drag Race is Saturday May 27th 2017 9:00 am at Brown County Dragway in Bean Blossom, Indiana. "Studebaker Drag Racing you can't beat it" For more information contact Richard Poe


    • #32
      I called this topic to the attention of fellow Studebaker V8 warrior of 50+ years experience in the trenches with me, Cousin George Krem.

      "Cuz" George took exception to the claim that the McKinnon/Chevy V8 has a 150-pound advantange over the Studebaker V8. To that end, he did some research. He said I was free to post his findings, so here they are:

      I noticed that in his post #21, Jack Vines claims the 283-powered Stude will weigh 150 lbs less than a comparable 289-powered Stude. Not true, according to factory data.

      Here are some base shipping weights from official factory information, all with 2-barrel carbs and single exhaust:

      1964 V8 / 1966 V8

      1964 / 1966 Commander V8 2-dr. sedan: 2945 / 2891

      (the '66 V8 Commander 2-dr weighs 54 lbs less, not 150.)

      1964 / 1966 Cruiser V8 4-door: 3120 / 3066

      (the '66 V8 Cruiser weighs 54 lbs less, not 150.)

      The 1964 weights are taken from the 1964 Registration and Licensing Data Service Letter, G-1964-3.

      The 1966 weights are taken from the 1966 Fact and Features booklet, a 24-page Studebaker publication.

      I used comparable models and body styles....Commander vs Commander and Cruiser vs Cruiser, all V8s. The '64 Cruiser had a 289 standard, so that makes a good comparison to the '66.

      The '64 Commander had a 259 standard; the 289 added 32 lbs, but most of that was in the finned drums and model 44 rear axle assembly that came standard with the 289 option. As far as I can tell, a 289 weighed only 3 lbs more than a comparable 259. That's because the longer-stroke 289 crankshaft weighs 3 lbs more than a shorter-stroke 259 crankshaft.

      So the assertion that a 283 engine yields a 150 lb advantage is not true, according to factory data.

      Bob, go ahead and use this information if you wish....I haven't chimed in on that thread yet, so I probably won't start now. I do think this information ought to get out to contradict the false idea the Stude V8 is a real boat anchor compared to a 283.

      George [Krem]
      We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

      G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.


      • #33
        Thanks very much George and Bob for putting down that old wife's tale, that never seems to go away.

        The only "almost" significant weight difference I can think of other than the Engine, between '64 and '65's would be the 1 or 2 lb. Trans. cooler lines that were Standard on Flight-O-Matic V-8 '65's and the Windshield Washer. Lol!
        Last edited by StudeRich; 09-22-2011, 01:56 PM.
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner
        SDC Member Since 1967


        • #34
          Those '64/'66 numbers are great- and I'll give you the Commander,
          but to compare a '64 and '66 Cruiser seems wrong to me.

          Does a '66 Cruiser not have a bit less trim then a '65...

          yuk yuk
          StudeDave '57
          US Navy (retired)

          3rd Generation Stude owner/driver
          SDC Member since 1985

          past President
          Whatcom County Chapter SDC
          San Diego Chapter SDC

          past Vice President
          San Diego Chapter SDC
          North Florida Chapter SDC


          • #35
            Here's that retired '65 Daytona dragster I ran across earlier this of those chance conversations at a cruise-in, "I know where there's another one kinda like yours"...



            • #36
              I do think this information ought to get out to contradict the false idea the Stude V8 is a real boat anchor compared to a 283.
              George, I bow to no man in my love for the Studebaker V8 but it is one of the heaviest OHV8 engines for inch of displacement ever built.

              Whatever the published shipping weights, and they seldom agree with the real world weights of the cars, I've weighed a Chevrolet 283" V8 at 540# and a comparably equipped Studebaker 259" V8 at 690# on a certified scale on the same day. That's 150# more, whatever the Studebaker shipping weights say.

              jack vines


              • #37
                Real World

                I drag raced against many Chevy 2's and Novas with 283 and 327 engines in the stock NHRA classes for over ten years. In the automatic classes it was not even close. Most Chevy's would race one or two races and then disappear. In the 4 speed classes it was closer but the only time I lost to a Chevy was when I had a traction issue. In a heads up race the Chevy would sometimes get a slight lead off the line but I soon drove around them and pulled away. The 327 came closer and the 283 never stood a chance against my 1959 Lark with 259 and 2bbl. Just for discussion the Chevy's came closer when I had the 289 engine in the car. It sometimes took until the last 300 to 400 feet for me to catch them. But I did run a higher mph with the 289. Quickest ET ever was with the 259. My track records at Lions were all with the 259.

                That's my two cents worth.
                Last edited by SilverHawkDan; 09-23-2011, 11:04 PM. Reason: spelling


                • #38
                  Well, Jack, since this is America, you don't have to bow to anyone....unless your current address is at the White House. <GGG>

                  Your original post compared car to car, not engine to engine. Good idea; let's stay on that. We've often weighed Studes on certified scales for our Pure Stock Drags work. We've found that, while published Studebaker shipping weights are hopelessly low, they are relatively accurate when comparing car to car and model to model. So that 54 lbs weight loss for a '66 283 V8 is likely close. We need to find nearly 100 lbs to account for the published weight difference, and relatively speaking, they weren't that innacurate.

                  BTW, the shipping weights make more sense when one adds the suggested 150 lbs for fluids plus more for any options.

                  Last edited by R3 challenger; 09-24-2011, 02:25 PM.
                  george krem


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by R3 challenger View Post
                    So that 54 lbs weight loss for a '66 283 V8 is likely close. We need to find nearly 100 lbs to account for the published weight difference, and relatively speaking, they weren't that innacurate.
                    Don't forget the driver. 54 pounds is well within a possible weight differnential between the drivers of the two cars; therefore that little weight difference is negligible.



                    • #40
                      This reminds me of the race in the Dead Mans Curve song. After years of debate we put it to rest by racing a 413 Max Wedge Dodge Polara against a 1962 Corvette with 283 and fuel injection. The Corvette was on slicks and the Dodge on 9.00-15's. Best three out of five. The Max Wedge won the first three races and the Corvette guy said he didn't think he could ever find a way to catch the Wedge. This was published in a magazine if I remember correctly. More important was the people that were there. I real life it was no even close. But legends die hard.