Engine: 289 weight

[vetteson]

How much does an assembled Stude V8 (232-289) weigh?

[bezhawk]

Approximately 685 lbs complete and ready to run. The Packard V8 weighs 710. Add 45 lbs for the supercharger equipment.

[PackardV8]

Approximately 685 lbs complete and ready to run. The Packard V8 weighs 710. Add 45 lbs for the supercharger equipment.

Once more disproving the urban legend the 1956 Golden Hawk was a nose-heavy POS and the 1957 Golden Hawk was a lighter car; the two weighed the same when equipped the same.

My guess is those coming from driving earlier cars without much optional equipment did find the '56J heavier, especially when equipped with PS, PB, etc.

jack vines

[6hk71400]

It would interesting to compare the center of gravity between the two cars. The front of the Packard V8 was higher than the Studebaker V8, in the Golden Hawk's. That is based on memory and owning 56 without Power Steering. Going up a slight curved incline, the tires did let you know at 45mph your were plowing through the turn. When I drove it home from where the car was on the interstate, because of state of tune, I could not drive more than 60mph but it was mostly straight line driving.

Bob Miles
Haven't owned a 57 Golden Hawk.......yet

[64studeavanti]

I believe that the Packard engine was a little more forward in the chassis. Perhaps causing a little more front weight distribution bias.

[t walgamuth]

True, the packard was a longer engine so they moved it forward thus hurting the weight distribution.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

True, the Packard was a longer engine so they moved it forward, thus hurting the weight distribution.

Let's analyze this a step at a time. Comparing the '56 G.H. to the '57 Silver Hawk V8:
The center of mass (CM) of the engine would move forward half as much as the additional length of the Packard engine vs the Studebaker V8. In other words, if the Packard were 4" longer than the Stude the center of mass (or center of gravity) would be 2" farther forward in the chassis. That's not a big change.

Plus, the Packard engine is apparently mounted a little higher than the Stude V8. That will raise the center of mass a bit, raising the roll center of the vehicle.

These factors will:
1) Increase the front-rear weight distribution a bit,
2) Raise the roll center of the vehicle,
3) Increase the polar moment of inertia of the vehicle. (Not good for handling transitions.)

None of the above effects is a good thing, but, without running the numbers, the effects seem to be relatively small (relative to a standard 289-equipped Hawk).

Now, adding the supercharger to the 1957 Golden Hawk's Stude engine pushes its engine weight to 730 # (vs 710 for the '56 G.H.), AND, the '57 G.H. engine adds its weight to the front top of the engine (worst possible place to add weight).

It would appear that the weight distribution, roll center, and polar moment of inertia of the '57 G.H. would be WORSE than the '56 G.H.

It's been a while since my physics classes, so maybe I've missed something. Note: Roll center and polar moment of inertia can be explained -- just ask.

-Dwight

[t walgamuth]

Let's analyze this a step at a time. Comparing the '56 G.H. to the '57 Silver Hawk V8:
The center of mass (CM) of the engine would move forward half as much as the additional length of the Packard engine vs the Studebaker V8. In other words, if the Packard were 4" longer than the Stude the center of mass (or center of gravity) would be 2" farther forward in the chassis. That's not a big change.

Plus, the Packard engine is apparently mounted a little higher than the Stude V8. That will raise the center of mass a bit, raising the roll center of the vehicle.

These factors will:
1) Increase the front-rear weight distribution a bit,
2) Raise the roll center of the vehicle,
3) Increase the polar moment of inertia of the vehicle. (Not good for handling transitions.)

None of the above effects is a good thing, but, without running the numbers, the effects seem to be relatively small (relative to a standard 289-equipped Hawk).

Now, adding the supercharger to the 1957 Golden Hawk's Stude engine pushes its engine weight to 730 # (vs 710 for the '56 G.H.), AND, the '57 G.H. engine adds its weight to the front top of the engine (worst possible place to add weight).

It would appear that the weight distribution, roll center, and polar moment of inertia of the '57 G.H. would be WORSE than the '56 G.H.

It's been a while since my physics classes, so maybe I've missed something. Note: Roll center and polar moment of inertia can be explained -- just ask.

-Dwight

Well, Dwight... it looks like you know a lot more about those cars than I do, but my comment is still accurate. It would be an interesting exercise to put some of these cars on the scales to see exactly how much it is.

I know I weighed my 64 Cruiser front and rear once at the salvage yard scales and was shocked to find that without any passengers there was nearly twice the weight on the front than rear.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Well, Dwight... it looks like you know a lot more about those cars than I do, but my comment is still accurate. It would be an interesting exercise to put some of these cars on the scales to see exactly how much it is.

I know I weighed my 64 Cruiser front and rear once at the salvage yard scales and was shocked to find that without any passengers there was nearly twice the weight on the front than rear.

Your comment is still accurate, as are the others' comments. I don't know any more than you do about these cars; I was just trying to fill in the gaps and find a use for the classical mechanics I took a long time ago. There is an irony there somewhere in that classical mechanics is the physics subject needed to analyze weight distribution in "classic" cars.
-Dwight

[t walgamuth]

Thank goodness there are still old cars around since I am very good with mechanical things but not great at electronics.....and computers? Fugeddaboudit.

[Jessie J.]

I have read in several discussions that the changes in the design and position of the axle on the rear springs between the '56 and the '57 Hawks was perhaps more the cause of these perceived handling differences than the minor differences in engine weight.
One thing I do know from experience is that there were plenty of 50's and '60 lumbering American behemoth's that handled far worse than any Hawk.