Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Borg Warner Automatic Transmission

  1. #1
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Poteau, OK
    Posts
    290

    Borg Warner Automatic Transmission

    I have a 259 with BW transmission hooked to it. I think it came from a 1964 Lark. Someone was nice enough to paint over the name plate and the only thing available are the numbers 8855. My question is, "What rearend ratio would that car have had for that year?" Thanks, Chet

  2. #2
    President Member RadioRoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Redwood City, California
    Posts
    4,981
    Typically the rear axle ratio for a V-8 sedan with automatic would be 3.31. Earlier, like 1960, Studebaker was putting 3.08 rears in the 259 automatic cars, but before that and after that, 3.31 was the most common.
    RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

    17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
    10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
    10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
    4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
    5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
    56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
    60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

  3. #3
    Silver Hawk Member JoeHall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kentucky, USA.
    Posts
    6,049
    Most likely a 3.31 or 3.07.

  4. #4
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Poteau, OK
    Posts
    290
    Thanks. My 62 Hawk TT has the 3.31. I replaced the 289 4 spd with the 259 and automatic I had in standby after the 289 was supposedly rebuilt by the car's previous owner (couldn't get over 10lbs oil pressure). Bud I finally solved my gas gauge problem...gas tank had inadequate grounding.

  5. #5
    Silver Hawk Member JoeHall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kentucky, USA.
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by chet445 View Post
    Thanks. My 62 Hawk TT has the 3.31. I replaced the 289 4 spd with the 259 and automatic I had in standby after the 289 was supposedly rebuilt by the car's previous owner (couldn't get over 10lbs oil pressure). Bud I finally solved my gas gauge problem...gas tank had inadequate grounding.
    I bet you will like the 259/FOM setup, and it will have no problem pulling the 3.31, or even 3.07. The 259 generally gets 1-2 MPG more than the 289.
    Enjoy!

  6. #6
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Poteau, OK
    Posts
    290
    Honestly, I prefer the 259. I have it in my '52 2R5 and it is a workhorse of an engine.

  7. #7
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA, USA.
    Posts
    8,193
    Quote Originally Posted by chet445 View Post
    Honestly, I prefer the 259. I have it in my '52 2R5 and it is a workhorse of an engine.
    Getting way OT, as is our wont here, but this deserves a thread of its own. Each versions of the Studebaker V8 has strengths and weaknesses.

    jack vines
    PackardV8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •