Could a Studebaker have won a championship

[nels]

About changing blower belts: I think the Larks and Hawks and Avantis that were equipped with the R3 option all set records at Bonneville in many classes. One of those classes was, I think, 1000 km runs, and I am sure they were pretty much "balls to the wall" at all times. So, maybe Stude could have done well in a 500 mile event.

[studebaker-R2-4-me]

Use green industrial belts, trust me on why I know that trick...
On a typical lawn tractor racing season I would tear up about 4 to 5 common black belts a year. This year I switched to green belts and a single one has lasted me the whole season!!

The Green belt is the belt Ted uses... at least that is the belt that he loaned to me last year. Both Joe Flannery and I purchased them cheap off Amazon after we found out the size and style Ted was using. Joe was all about using a short belt, giving more wrap around the S/C pulley. I'm thinking that belt was in the $20, range while my local FLAPS wanted in excess of $45.

Allen

Allen

[jnormanh]

Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

Even in the early days, 1949, Studebaker would have had to run against the OHV Olds 303 ci short stroke v8 with the relatively heavy 232 ci engine. By the time the Stude 259 was available, Ford had the 292 Y-block, and Chevy the short stroke 265, and by the time Studebaker had the 4-bbl 289, Chevy had the FI 283, and Ford the 285 HP 312.

And, of course there were the Chrysler Hemis starting at 331 ci from 1955.

If superchargers had been allowed? It would have been 304 ci Paxton vz Rootes blown Hemi.

So, given that Studebaker had no weight or suspension advantages, the answer has to be no.

Now if Studebaker *had* decided to spend the money to develop NASCAR specials, with high perf engines, aerodynamic sheet metal and lightweight cars with advanced suspensions.........

[jnormanh]

At the 2012 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race, Steve Doerschlag ran 7 runs with his unsupercharged R1 Commander 2-door. He missed shifts on two of the runs, skewing an average unnecessarily.

If we take his five "normal" runs, they had an average ET of 14.606.

His competitor in the shootouts was a 1970 Malibu SS396, one of the big blocks from which unsupercharged Studebakers are supposed to shrink and flee in terror.

The Malibu's three shootout runs averaged 14.539.

Hmmm.....a 14.606 average versus a 14.539 average....and furthermore, Steve's best ET was 14.465, whereas the Malibu's best ET, at least in the shootouts, was 14.530.





1985 Ferrari Testarossa (courtesy of Packard53)

Weight 3,660 lbs.
Engine Flat 12 cylinder 302 cid, 380 hp @ 5,750 rpm, Torque 354 lbs. @ 4,500 rpm
0-30 2.2 seconds
0-50 4.2 seconds
0-60 5.3 seconds
0-70 6.6 seconds
0-80 8.4 seconds
0-100 12.2 seconds
0-110 14.9 seconds
1/4 mlie 13.6 seconds @ 105 mph
Top Speed 178 mph


You're claiming that a *stock* R1 Studebaker will run 1/4 miles within a second of a Ferrari Testarossa?

'scuse, me, but, as the saying goes: "I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night."

Maybe an R1 will run mid 14s, but if do, it ain't stock.

[BobPalma]

I doubt those 14 sec Studes come anywhere near NASCAR "stock".

Not sure what you mean by that snarky remarky, Jeff, but as raced in The Pure Stock Drags, R-engined Studebakers are a lot more "stock" than were NASCAR cars in the 1950s.

Even back then, NASCAR cars would have had tires and wheels too far from stock to be allowed at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags...and they had open exhaust, of course, whereas Pure Strockers must have oval mufflers (unless straight-throughs were stock, like Avantis) and tail pipes to the rear bumper, per stock.

Pure Stock drag racers don't have roll bars, nor are they allowed, as did NASCAR cars in the 1950s, which was a good idea, of course.

Doubt at your own peril, and check out the rules at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race website if you want to know how the cars run at the event. BP

[nels]

[QUOTE=jnormanh;681730]Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

The one thing that is very true as jnormanh points out, the "big three" did have way more money to spend. That alone is a HUGE obsticle. As for the Ferrari Testarossa at 13.6 and 105 mph, that is probably a little optomistic other than the road test prepared cars.

[BobPalma]

Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

Even in the early days, 1949, Studebaker would have had to run against the OHV Olds 303 ci short stroke v8 with the relatively heavy 232 ci engine. By the time the Stude 259 was available, Ford had the 292 Y-block, and Chevy the short stroke 265, and by the time Studebaker had the 4-bbl 289, Chevy had the FI 283, and Ford the 285 HP 312.

And, of course there were the Chrysler Hemis starting at 331 ci from 1955.

If superchargers had been allowed? It would have been 304 ci Paxton vz Rootes blown Hemi.

So, given that Studebaker had no weight or suspension advantages, the answer has to be no.

Now if Studebaker *had* decided to spend the money to develop NASCAR specials, with high perf engines, aerodynamic sheet metal and lightweight cars with advanced suspensions.........

Boy, it's gonna be a long evening if I have to counter everything in that post. So here's a few:

1. The Chrysler Hemi had 331 CID from the get-go in 1951, not 1955.

2. Studebaker's 4bbl 289 was available in 1956. The highest-horsepower 312 Ford in 1956 was the dual-quad 312 at 260 HP, although some sources say 265, but not 285. (When did Ford have a 285 HP 312, for that matter? The supercharged 1957 engine was rated at an even 300 HP. The 1956 Lincoln had a 368 CID engine rated at 285 HP, but it wasn't available in Fords and it wasn't 312 CID.)

3. Chevrolet's only V8 displacement in 1956 was 265. The 283, with or without fuel injection, wasn't available until 1957, a year after Studebaker's 289. And if you check out Page 8 of the March 2010 Turning Wheels, you'll note Studebaker Engine Engineer Harold Johnson confirming Studebaker had proposed 310 CID V8s running on test stands in May 1956.

4. Early 1950s Big Three products were more aerodynamic than Studebakers? Puh-leeze; did you ever look at a 1951 Oldsmobile or Buick? Or a 1953 Mercury or Chrysler is more aerodynamic than a 1953 Studebaker? I haven't seen too many 1953 Chryslers running at Bonneville Speed Week through the years. BP

[jnormanh]

Boy, it's gonna be a long evening if I have to counter everything in that post. So here's a few:

1. The Chrysler Hemi had 331 CID from the get-go in 1951, not 1955.

2. Studebaker's 4bbl 289 was available in 1956. The highest-horsepower 312 Ford in 1956 was the dual-quad 312 at 260 HP, although some sources say 265, but not 285. (When did Ford have a 285 HP 312, for that matter? The supercharged 1957 engine was rated at an even 300 HP. The 1956 Lincoln had a 368 CID engine rated at 285 HP, but it wasn't available in Fords and it wasn't 312 CID.)

3. Chevrolet's only V8 displacement in 1956 was 265. The 283, with or without fuel injection, wasn't available until 1957, a year after Studebaker's 289. And if you check out Page 8 of the March 2010 Turning Wheels, you'll note Studebaker Engine Engineer Harold Johnson confirming Studebaker had proposed 310 CID V8s running on test stands in May 1956.

4. Early 1950s Big Three products were more aerodynamic than Studebakers? Puh-leeze; did you ever look at a 1951 Oldsmobile or Buick? Or a 1953 Mercury or Chrysler is more aerodynamic than a 1953 Studebaker? I haven't seen too many 1953 Chryslers running at Bonneville Speed Week through the years. BP

1. You are correct, the 331 Hemi was available in 1951.

2. For 1957 a 312 ci, unblown 285 HP Ford was available. These are T-birds, but the 285HP was available across the lineup. http://www.supercars.net/cars/5352.html

3. Did I say the 283/283 Chevy was available before 1957? If so, my error. Studebaker never built a 310 ci car, so that's irrelevant.

4. Nor have you seen any stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville. They all have aero modifications, and that's just for drag coefficient. On high speed circle tracks, downforce is at least as important. If one cold tell by looking what works for aero, wind tunnels and engineers would not be necessary.

The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

[BobPalma]

2. For 1957 a 312 ci, unblown 285 HP Ford was available. These are T-birds, but the 285HP was available across the lineup. http://www.supercars.net/cars/5352.html

3. Did I say the 283/283 Chevy was available before 1957? If so, my error.

4. Nor have you seen any stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville. They all have aero modifications, and that's just for drag coefficient. On high speed circle tracks, downforce is at least as important. If one cold tell by looking what works for aero, wind tunnels and engineers would not be necessary.

The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

2. As I understand it, Jeff, the discussion is about factory-installed, production line engines, which include the dual-quad 312 rated at either 260 or 265 HP, depending on the source, and/or the 300 HP supercharged 312. You could not order and take delivery of a factory-built 285 engine IF it required a "racing kit" to be installed after it left the factory, so it is not a production engine by any stretch.

3. Your statement was that, "By the time Studebaker had a 4bbl 289 available, Chevrolet had the FI 283." That means either Studebaker did not have a 4bbl 289 until 1957 OR Chevrolet had an FI 283 in 1956, both of which are wrong.

4. No stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville? I am not familiar enough with different Bonneville classes to discuss them beyond the hundreds of pictures I've seen of stock-bodied 1953/1954 C/K cars through the years. Some classes permit cones to be installed over the headlights for aerodynamics, but not all. There have been plenty of stock-bodied Studebakers out there with "regular" headlights, depending on the class.

Finally, "no year in which Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive?" How about 1956? Did Ford have enough horsepower to be competitive if their 1956 entries had been limited to normal production engines without a "racing kit?" To the point, it's doubtful a 312 engine rated over 225 HP was available factory-installed in 1956 Fords: Of three different sources I have here, only one mentions the 260 dual-quad engine, and it is listed as having the same production code as the 225 HP engine: P. This would imply that the 1956 260 engine was a 225 engine with yet another after-factory "kit," in that two different horsepower engines can't very well have exactly the same production-line engine code.

What if Studebaker had come up with a "racing kit" for the 1956 289 engine? If it's OK that Ford had a racing kit, why not Studebaker? What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, right?...and wasn't Chevrolet's top horsepower in 1956 "only" 225?

And all this discussion precludes Studebaker ever campaigning 1956 Golden Hawks. With 275 HP before what would have certainly been the "racing kit" dual-quad Caribbean-carburetor setup and already having a whopping 380 ft/lb of torque with the base 4bbl, it had every possibility of being competitive in NASCAR in 1956. (Granted, the frame(s) would have had to be reenforced and then replaced after every race, but that wouldn't have been exclusive to Studebaker either.)

So, at least in 1956, the normally-aspirated Studebaker Golden Hawk certainly DID have the aerodynamics and horsepower to be competitive in NASCAR. That Studebaker didn't have either the money or inclination to do so at the Official Corporate Level is beside the point. SDCer / NASCAR historian Bob Coolidge has well-documented the efforts of some underfunded privateers who tried anyway, with limited success. BP

[Jessie J.]

My point was what Studebaker could very cheaply and easily have done to make their products competitive in NASCAR and other forms of competition_ and also a lot more competive in the 50's race for sales and profits.
They chose what displacement and horsepower levels to limit their engines to. It was not any limitation that was inherent in their V-8 engines design.
They chose not to back even one independent NASCAR effort.
They ended up failing in the automotive business because of a long history of short-sightedness and poor business decisions reaching all the way back into the 1930's.

No one made them fail. And it was no one else's business decisions that was responsible for their failures, only their own out of date and 'bunkered' Corporate mentality, one which effectively marginalized and hamstrung any would be Studebaker 'Duntov's' and 'Mckellar's'.
The Studebaker V-8 never needed to be saddled with that problem prone McCulloch/Paxton stop-gap band-aid 'fix' in the first place.
Management chose to continue to manufacture their vehicles with an engine of untapped potential, 'spaghetti' frames, and to blindly ignore the infamous 'South Bend' rust stripe.
Bad Business decisions, every one of them.

[jnormanh]

2.
So, at least in 1956, the normally-aspirated Studebaker Golden Hawk certainly DID have the aerodynamics and horsepower to be competitive in NASCAR.
[/B]

I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR.
,
To compete in NASCAR, "stock" meant, among other things, that it had to be possible for an ordinary person to walk into a dealership and order a car configured like a NASCAR "stock" car. That means the '56 GH would have had to run with the single carb 352/275HP.

Seriously, Bob, do you think it could have run with the 354 Hemi of 340/355 hp? And, if so, why didn't some enterprising bright mechanic set one up and run it?

"What ifs" Don't count. What if Studebaker had built a 400 ci, 4-cam, 32 valve V8?

[BobPalma]

I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR.

To compete in NASCAR, "stock" meant, among other things, that it had to be possible for an ordinary person to walk into a dealership and order a car configured like a NASCAR "stock" car. That means the '56 GH would have had to run with the single carb 352/275HP.

Seriously, Bob, do you think it could have run with the 354 Hemi of 340/355 hp? And, if so, why didn't some enterprising bright mechanic set one up and run it?

Actually, they did. I don't have time to check with Bob Coolidge of Deland FL, but if you do, he can report the name and limited participation of at least one guy who ran a 1956 Golden Hawk in NASCAR. He may know of others by now as well. (Bob could be contacted through his Post #9, above.)

At the time, Studebaker sure didn't have the money to pursue a factory team, of course, even if they wanted to.

My point about "what if" Studebaker had come up with a racing kit was to point out that Ford didn't consider their most powerful regular-production engine to be adequate to tackle NASCAR in 1956 without their "racing kit," so they should not get credit for offering a regular production engine they considered "enough" for stock car competition.

If Ford was allowed to compete with a "racing kit," then Studebaker should have been allowed to put a "racing kit" (dual quads) on a 1956 Golden Hawk without it being a regular, separate, production engine option. Of course, that's a moot point because they apparently never wanted to particpate in NASCAR in 1956.

Overall, my mission has been to successfully challenge your statement in Post #23: The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

In my opinion, that's been accomplished. BP

[(S)]

At the time, NASCAR was the official body at Daytona Beach where several 56J's ran full out and broke many records. So, YES Studebakers did compete and WIN in NASCAR, even though they were not backed by the factory.

I have seen an official timing certificate certifying a 56J at over 152 MPH at Daytona in 1956. One of these days, I'll get a photo of it.


ding ding ding. Now you guys go back to your corners!

[Son O Lark]

What are the weight comparisons between these competitors? Were there minimum weight limits in those days? Handling and chassis setups are just as important if not more so than a few horsepower. This is especially true on short tracks ,which the vast majority of tracks were in those days.

[(S)]

Check this link, picture #6 looks kind of like a....

http://www.canadianracer.com/cne.asp

I found this link while looking for 1956 Nascar rules. Interesting read about the other classes, and what they could do with engines. I am pretty sure The US versions of the rules were similar to Canadas