Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weight differential -Wagon vs sedan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Body / Glass: Weight differential -Wagon vs sedan

    I had a '63 sliding roof wagon with a 289 auto. Unfortunately, the rust gremlins finished the old girl off several years ago. I parted her out and kept A LOT of the stuff myself...including the engine. The 289 now resides in my new '64 2-door sedan, also with auto (until spring when the T-10 takes over).

    Anybody know the weight difference between the '63 wagon versus the '64 sedan? (I have all the manuals but haven't been able to find curb weights listed. They gotta be in there, but just can't find them!)

    I have to believe that the wagon is a much heavier beast. Any thoughts?

    D
    Attached Files
    sigpicGood judgment is the result of experience; ...experience is the result of bad judgment.

  • #2
    Sweet lookin' F-body Doug! Where did you find it?
    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

    Comment


    • #3
      No idea on the actual weights, but a question.
      Is there a root of the question, I.E. is the car slower feeling than the wagon was? Are you concerned something could be wrong with the motor now after sitting?

      Or are you just looking at potential of performance if the car is lighter?
      I am just curious. Sorry I could not actually help.

      Comment


      • #4
        Published shipping weight of a 63V P8 (Daytona) sliding roof station wagon is 3490 lbs. (dry) Add 150 lbs, for gas, oil, and water. I didn't have the equivalent information for a '64 2 door sedan (F body) but a 63V-F2 has a dry shipping weight of 2910 lbs. (From Service Letters dated January 1963.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Paul & Kelly...sorry for the delay...just got back on line. I found the car this spring after placing an add in Turning Wheels for a '60, which I never found. When I go room temperature or get fitted for a drool cup, this car is going to my older son who always has LOVED '64s. My younger guy has already been given my '64 GT. So both the kids have a head start on life already!!

          The Commander only has around 55k miles. I haven't seriously started the body investigation yet, but it looks really clean so far in regard to rust gremlins. The original engine (259) had little or no compression so I put in the 289 that I have had sitting in the garage for about 6 years. It fired right up. Runs great. I put a timing gear cover lip seal in it which really seems to have almost completely stopped the usual gushing from the felt seal. Other than that all I did was redo the brakes. Haven't had much time to deal with the car and all of a sudden winter and Christmas is upon us.

          The reason for my question is as you guessed...the wagon ran great with the 289 but I really feel that there is quite a bit more pep to this Commander with the same engine. I'm really not sure if it is my imagination or not...but I'm thinking that there is probably a lot less weight to haul around. I'm really excited to get the 4 speed in this critter. All things in time.
          sigpicGood judgment is the result of experience; ...experience is the result of bad judgment.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks Jerry...that is what I was looking for. 500 some pounds. Interesting.
            sigpicGood judgment is the result of experience; ...experience is the result of bad judgment.

            Comment


            • #7
              No problem Doug,
              As SCOO posted the figures look like 580# difference. I would say that is definately enough to feel a noticable difference. At least your difference is in the direction you want....faster.

              Comment


              • #8
                I found the correct dry shipping weight for a 64V F4 - 2945 lbs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Doug, here's what I got. '63 Lark 6 Wagon 3285; '63 Lark 6 Daytona Wagon 3245, '63 Lark 8 Wagon 3435, '63 Lark 8 Daytona 3490, '63 Lark 6 Std. Sedan 4 door 2775, '63 Lark 8 Daytona 4 door sedan 2910. Obviously the 2 door model are lighter. If you have a particualr model different from those above just let me know, I've got those numbers. Dan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CarCrosswordDan View Post
                    Doug, here's what I got. '63 Lark 6 Wagon 3285; '63 Lark 6 Daytona Wagon 3245, '63 Lark 8 Wagon 3435, '63 Lark 8 Daytona 3490, '63 Lark 6 Std. Sedan 4 door 2775, '63 Lark 8 Daytona 4 door sedan 2910. Obviously the 2 door model are lighter. If you have a particualr model different from those above just let me know, I've got those numbers. Dan
                    There is something wrong with those numbers Dan. No way is a '63 Lark 6 Regal Wagon heavier than a like Daytona 6 Wagon.
                    Maybe someone got Wagonaires mixed up with "Wagons", Trans. Types or something!
                    Because of the Convertible "X" Member Frame, front panel WEIGHTS, Sliding Roof and Radiator Brace, Wagonaires are A LOT heavier than "Wagons".
                    StudeRich
                    Second Generation Stude Driver,
                    Proud '54 Starliner Owner
                    SDC Member Since 1967

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X