Pro Mod '53 Stude...maybe

[GoatGuy]

My lowly opinion is to build it as a fun car and not worry about class rules, and then build another one that fits the rules of the class you want.

[ScaleDale]

Just to bring everyone back to good old Planet Earth, my wife still sometimes refers to models as what they are - toys. Keep that in mind. It's meant to be play. Have fun,

Dale

[tubbs]

Just to bring everyone back to good old Planet Earth, my wife still sometimes refers to models as what they are - toys. Keep that in mind. It's meant to be play. Have fun,

Dale

hehe, good woman there, my wife thinks of them as toys and wonders when the heck i'm gonna grow up...... anyways...... everyone is correct on their posts, they are toys, they are fun, but you still would like them to be accurate sometimes.

now, on with the build!!

[tubbs]

It's always a dilemma as to which class an accurate drag racing model would run in now, or in the period it represents. In general, the FX cars were more-or-less current production models with 'optional' factory-available (but not necessarily factory-installed) equipment. An outgrowth of the Super Stock classes, FX cars were purpose-built race cars.

(Quoting George Klass on Yellowbullet.com):

"Factory Experimental class was introduced by NHRA in 1962, just in time for the Winternationals in Pomona.The rules were very simple. Any "legal" parts from a single automotive brand (such as Pontiac) could be "mixed and matched" into one car. In Pontiac's case, it meant that any Pontiac engine, trans, rear end, etc., could be installed into any Pontiac vehicle. Naturally, the Tempest LeMans was chosen because it was the lightest car Pontiac built. The engines still had to be "legal", meaning that they still had to be Super Stock legal. If I remember, the cars (in '62) still had to use the 7-inch wide legal S/S tires, although that was changed to allow a 10-inch wide tire later in the year. "

A good early example is Mickey Thompson's '62 A/FX Pontiac Tempest, equipped with a 421cu.in. V8, gearbox, and a solid rear axle (from the big cars, but narrowed to fit the Tempest shell) in place of the independent transaxle setup. The car required structural changes to hang the big driveline and rear axle, which were allowed. Obviously, something like this would never have been "factory-built" for sale to consumers.

Here's a link to the 2012 Nostalgia Super Stock Drag Racing general rules ("Nostalgia Super Stock is an index-style foot brake only class for the year models, bodystyles, and engine combinations, which accurately represent those cars, which raced in the A/FX and Super Stock classes of the ’60s."), with a list of cars eligible to run the SS classes. At first reading, it looks like full-bodied Chevrolets only back to '59 are allowed...but like they say, it's only a model. Have fun. http://www.nssracing.com/rules/nmca-rules/

thanks for the link and everything else. maybe I will just slap some numbers in the window and leave the alphabet soup off, or make it a street car? or put it back in the box and start yet another project!!

[buffalobill]

Or, how about something different - You could build a Studebaker that might have been done around 1962-1963 using a Studebaker R5 engine that had a pair of Paxton superchargers. Granatelli set a bunch of records @ Bonneville w/ that engine. Not sure if such a car would have been 'legal' in any of the then current NHRA classes, except possibly in an Altered class, due to it's altered wheelbase and that it was also supercharged. Also, the tube frame would probably have to be replaced w/ modified stock frame rails. There were FX classes such as B/FX & C/FX for smaller displacement engines, but I'm not sure where such a Studebaker could have, or would, have been 'classed'. FX classified cars were limited to either current or I yr old bodies, but the original style Hawks were still being sold in '61, and the '53-'54 body panels were basically a bolt-on deal on those Hawks. Back then, most anything could have been possible in drag racing, as the rules were in a constant state of flux in order to accommodate the manufacturers. . .

But, such a drag car would have been different in that it did not have a huge big block in it. . .Would it have been competitive? Who knows?

Edited December 5, 2013 by buffalobill

[Ace-Garageguy]

Or, how about something different - You could build a Studebaker that might have been done around 1962-1963 using a Studebaker R4 engine that had a pair of Paxton superchargers that were available as a very .... Back then, most anything could have been possible in drag racing, as the rules were in a constant state of flux in order to accommodate the manufacturers. . .

But, such a drag car would have been different in that it did not have a huge big block in it. . .Would it have been competitive? Who knows?

Maybe not this build, but you've given me another idea...how about a '63 Lark or Avanti done as an FX car? The twin-supercharged R5 engine was rated as high as 575HP, and might have actually been FX legal, as it WAS entirely available factory-installed...sort of. A very interesting what-if project.

[buffalobill]

Don't we wish that a decent Hawk GT resin body or esp a kit was available? Stude V8 engines were incredibly rugged; I know first hand, as my first ever car was a '54 Commander post coupe (a $50. rust bucket that caused me to learn how to do extensive rust repair and mechanical work, esp after it suffered from the exploits of a 17 yr old). The '53-'54s and the Hawks have been forever favorites of mine. And, the Larks - esp the early production years - are sensible, yet, still very cool cars, and should have fared better in the market place than they did.

According to the Studebaker Drivers Club forum, there was only one R5 engine ever built, but some have questioned that. It was essentially a 304.5 cu in R3 engine w/ dual Carter AFBs & dual Paxton superchargers; and it was also tried out w/ Bendix fuel injection - the same system that the Granatellis used on their Novi V8 Indy-car engines. However, the parts to build a R3, R4, or even a R5 engine were available back then if one knew the right people, and had enough money to have one built. There's lots of mystery, disputed info, and basic bench-racing type lore floating around about just how powerful the R5 engine was.

An Avanti or a Lark FX drag car would be an interesting and eye-catching project. Hope you get around to doing one. . .

Edited December 5, 2013 by buffalobill

[Ace-Garageguy]

According to the Studebaker Drivers Club forum, there was only one R5 engine ever built, but some have questioned that. It was essentially a 304.5 cu in R3 engine w/ dual Carter AFBs & dual Paxton superchargers; and it was also tried out w/ Bendix fuel injection - the same system that the Granatellis used on their Novi V8 Indy-car engines. However, the parts to build a R3, R4, or even a R5 engine were available back then if one knew the right people, and had enough money to have one built. There's lots of mystery, disputed info, and basic bench-racing type lore floating around about just how powerful the R5 engine was.

As a Studebaker owner and enthusiast, you surely know a lot more about the truth of the R5 than I do. Was the R5 ever listed as an optional engine package? I've heard stories (unfounded rumors and gossip possibly) that there were actually several built, and that's what I based my statements on. If there was only one experimental version, it wouldn't work as an FX, obviously, but it could still be a what-if factory exhibition drag car. If the R5 wasn't ever listed as an option, what WAS the highest output package available either factory or dealer-installed?

And am I correct in my understanding that both the Lark and the Avanti were built on what were essentially '53 design frames?

[buffalobill]

I don't claim to be a Studebaker expert by any means, but I'm very partial to the '53-'54 coupes, Hawks, the first few production years of the Larks, and to a lessor degree, the Avanti. (in my opinion, the Avanti suffers from too tall of a cowl, clumsy side & rear window shapes, and the windshield was a bit too upright. But it was unique and generated a lot of good press for Studebaker when introduced, but the hand writing was on the wall - in that, Studebaker was running out of money, and were finding it increasingly difficult to compete w/ "The Big Three" who were introducing new models & new powertrains every couple of years, while Studebaker was relying on many components dating back 10-15 years. No matter how cleverly and inexpensively Studebaker was able to introduce 'new' models (the Scotsman, the Larks, the Hawks, and even the Avanti), underneath they owed much to the '53 Studebaker product line. Their V8 dated back a couple of years even before that, and the block was simply too small internally to ever be produced much beyond the 304.5 cu in found in R3, R4, and the R5 engines. But, it was a very rugged design w/ a super strong bottom end, a forged crank, a nickel alloy engine block, etc. It shared much design-wise w/ the early Cadillac ohv V8 that was introduced in '49, and that's no surprise, as according to rumors, a certain key Cadillac engineer was also involved in the design & engineering of the Studebaker V8.

The more I researched the R5 engine, the clearer it has become that only one (1) R5 engine was actually completed and officially raced. There were some critical spare parts produced, and from what I've read, it would have been possible to build a clone of the R5 - if one had the resources. Granatelli, and not the Studebaker factory, built & raced that R5 in a specially prepared Avanti for the Bonneville Salt Flats. It turned approx. 196+something mph in a basically stock-bodied Avanti, that benefited from a hood scoop, an air-extraction slot in the rear valence panel, and it sometimes ran w/ rather ugly skirts on the rear wheel openings. No wings, no spoilers, no ground effects, no diffuser panel - nothing extra! It had a reasonably - but not radically - modified suspension, Halibrandt magnesium wheels, and very tall (33" or so) rear tires to achieve the needed rear end ratio to hit its intended 200 mph goal. Its R5 engine had dual Paxton superchargers, and was apparently tried out w/ dual Carter AFB carbs, but it achieved it's numerous records w/ a Bendix fuel/injection system that was 'borrowed' (literally) from Granatelli's Novi Indy race car. (that f/I system was sourced initially off of a helicopter's engine!) The R5s heads were extensively modified w/ huge valves, and it ran headers, a radical cam, a magneto ignition, but did not have a dry-sump system. No horsepower figures were found in my search, but it would be reasonable to assume that it was in the 550-600 hp range. (not bad for just over 300 cu in, and esp that it didn't blow apart on those long high speed runs on the Salt Flats.

Horsepower figures for the other 'R' engines that were either production line options like the R1 & R2, or very limited available R3 & R4 engines direct from the factory, select dealers, or from Granatelli (who, allegedly, engineered & built all the original R3 & R4 engines) are:

R1 non -supercharged 289 (single AFB) - 240 hp

R2 Paxton supercharged 289 (single AFB) - 289 hp

R3 Paxton supercharged 304.5 cu in (single AFB, hi-perf. cam, mod'd heads) - 335 hp

R4 non-supercharged 304.5 cu in (dual AFB, hi-perf cam, mod'd heads, & 12.1 compression) - 280 hp

note: Granatelli ran Paxton, and Studebaker owned Paxton. According to some old-time Studebaker fanatics, the factory tended to downplay hp #s, so that the NHRA would not penalize them - esp their supercharged products, by bumping them up a class when they ran @ the drags. On the other hand, Granatelli may have bumped up the hp numbers, but, his results @ Bonneville cannot be ignored, esp considering the many records that were smashed w/ various Studebaker models in '62 & '63. Studebaker smashed 337 USAC records w/ 12 different cars in 6 classes @ Bonneville in '63, and also that year, Granatelli drove an Avanti R3 that broke 6 records, incl a two-way average of over 170 mph.

Both the R1 & R2 engines could be ordered in most any Studebaker (Larks, Hawks, and the Avanti), but only nine (9) of the R3 engines were delivered in Avantis, and no production cars that were sold directly to the public had an R4 engine, although some sources claim that approx. 130 R4 engines had been built. Some dealers did sell the R type parts & complete R engines, however. A well prepared showroom stock base-model Lark 2 door sedan equipped w/ an R2 engine & a 4 speed could turn 12 sec/110+ mph, on street legal tires. Road & Track tested an automatic equipped R3 Avanti, achieving a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds.

re: your question re: the frames - the Hawks, Larks, and Avanti all shared the same basic frame and chassis design as the '53 Studebaker, but the convertible Lark's frame w/ its added X-member, was found under the Avanti; the Avanti also shared the same wheelbase as certain Lark models. The '53 Studebaker coupe's longer frames were essentially the same design as that under the Lark & the Avanti, but lacked the X-member - they are the same wheelbase as that found on all of the Hawk variants.

There's lots of info re: Studebakers on the Internet, but trying to sort it all out, and nail down specifics, can be a challenge.

Edited December 5, 2013 by buffalobill

[Studemax]

I hope you finished it.... it's bitchin!

[rustybill1960]

Bill

I agree with Scale Dale and Machinist Mark

Build it as "You" would for "You"

It is all about the "FUN!"

And as You said,

"had" You wanted to,

You would have researched an "authentic" build

for the Smithsonian.

But as it is, "Yours"

Make it "FUN" right?

Thank You for sharing it looks great

Later

Russ