The 289 cu in engine was rated by Studebaker at 210 hp for the 2 bbl version and 225 hp for the 4 bbl version. How were those ratings arrived at? Did Studebaker build a specific engine for testing or just randomly pull engines off the production line? Were the engine(s) tested on a Dyno stand or was a car put on a rolling Dyno? My engine is being rebuilt and will be tested on a Dyno stand for torque and horsepower ratings so I am curious as to those readings relative to the published ratings.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Horsepower Ratings
Collapse
X
-
It had been widely known that manufactures publish their own numbers, they are typically derived at on an engine dyno with no accessories attached to show base HP. Horse power is not measurable as it were, a dyno measures torque which is the twisting or turning torque and the engine speeds are taken as well. A mathematical formula is then applied to determine what the theoretical horse power is. The difference between the two carbs is mostly based on the larger fuel supply into the engine at higher engine speed. The formulas and methods are easily found by an internet search.
-
The engines were in a dyno cell, well-broken in and the ignition was adjusted for best torque at each RPM. Gross horsepower is no fan, generator, air filter or muffler.
FWIW, I've found Studebaker's published gross horsepower ratings to be reasonably accurate and generally are corroborated by the actual dyno. They also correlate with the DynoSim predictions when all the specs are correctly input.
Please share with us the results and graphs from your dyno runs.
jack vinesPackardV8
Comment
-
To be honest I ran a chassis dyno for 11 years working at a dealership that dealt with a high line European manufacture. The types of services I provided were based on resolving owner complaints, those were usually performance issues from a light or passing etc and not gross HP ratings. In the position I had my task was to make owners fall back in love with a car that they paid way too much for. To a large degree I was successful but not always. I started running off road cars as a hobby and ended up building them for friends and family from chassis to drive train and again my target was hard acceleration at lower engine speeds so they seemed like monsters. After that period I became involved with a race team running open wheel cars, I didn't build those engines as they were above my pay grade. The last engine we ran was 160 inches that made over 400 hp at 9000 rpm with pushrods so it was real exotic and we had back ups in the trailer. I had an early Ford Probe that ran a turbo, it was a small turbo by todays standards but it was amazing to drive, the boost was virtually instantaneous and I would like to put one of those in our 4 WD. The 50's were likely a bit more honest in ratings but they became nutty in the 60's push for muscle cars. So in closing it's all fun and torque is the thing that puts smiles on the drivers face.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill A View Posttorque is the thing that puts smiles on the drivers face.
On the other hand, some owners want a cam way too radical, but never take it above 3500 RPMs either. It's called "fairgrounds hot rod lope syndrome." Their car, their money; as BillA says, "it all fun."
jack vinesPackardV8
Comment
-
I've always considered gross horsepower ratings estimates. Studebaker V8s had the same horsepower ratings from '57 - '64, yet compression ratios and carbs (WCFB to AFB for 4BBLs) changed. Also interesting how Stude V8 HP ratings subscribed to the "rule of 15". A 259 2BBl was 180hp. Add a 4BBL, and pick up 15 horsepower, to 195. Move up to a 2BBL 289, and add 15, to 210, while adding a 4BBL to the 289, again added 15, to 225. Heck, a R1 was rated at 240, again a 15 HP increase!Eric DeRosa
\'63 R2 Lark
\'60 Lark Convertible
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Don't know for sure but would guess what is true for big round aircraft engines is probably true for cars. A few years ago I had the good fortune to get a ride on Sentimental Journey. She is a B-17 G with 4 Curtis Wright Radial engines. (At that time 3 of them were Studebaker engines!) The flight crew told us that the 1200 hp engines now only would develop about 900 horsepower because modern gas is crap. Manifold pressures need to be watched carefully to avoid detonation. They never took off with a full fuel load because they wanted to keep the weight down. And this was the plane that took off from England and Italy with full fuel , 10 crew members, 12 Browning 50 cal machine guns, plus 4000 to 8000 lbs of bombs. So I know my Avanti in recent decades couldn't hold a candle to the rubber burning firebreather it was on Sunoco 260.
Comment
Comment