New to this site. Looking forward to learning about customs. Here is a pic of my new-to-me 1960 Studebaker Hawk. I've already added wheels and tires. Will start looking for period speed parts. Really want to find a multi carb set up.
Hi, James, Welcome; your's appears to be an exceptionally nice '60 Hawk. Suggest you also come over to the Studebaker Driver's Club website for the best free advice on Studebakers. As to a multiple carb setup, they're not too common and really only add bling; not a bad thing, just not much more go over the OEM single 4-bbl. There are some Edmund and Stu-V 2X2-bbl intakes floating around, a few R4 2X4-bbl and some folks run the Cadillac Eldorado 2x4 setup. Before I talk myself out of a sale, I've got a Cad 2x4 and a repop Smoljan 3X2-bbl intake. PM me if interested. jack vines
I was thinking a 2X2 nothing wild. I think 2X4 may be overkill on a 289. I guess I could go with a factory 4bbl that i could do a Batwing air cleaner. However, there may be a clearance issue with a big air cleaner like that.
Yes, Jim, hood clearance is very tight in there. If you're going shopping for a 4-bbl intake, the '55-'62 use the Carter WCFB bolt pattern. The current Edelbrock carb is drilled for both, but will require some grinding on the intake to provide clearance for the larger throttle blades. The '62-'64 4-bbl intakes have the AFB bolt pattern and the Edelbrock will bolt on easily. There's some fiddling with the fuel line and throttle linkage, but easy-peasy. As to the 2x4-bbl, the '56 Cadillac Eldorado uses the small Rochester 4Jet carbs and with progressive linkage will work OK on the Studebaker V8 289" - good bling for the buck. jack vines
Nice looking car. Do you mind sharing what your wheel and tire combo is? If you add at least your general location to your profile it will help the rest of us find parts for you. I was at a neighbor's house yesterday tripping over an Edmunds 2x2 intake for one. Parts are still out there hiding.
America's Best V-8 Engine: Studebaker - March '15 | Hemmings Motor News A good 4 bbl will give the best of all worlds,for that size engine;about 600CFM is good.
A McCulloch (or a Paxton), set up like the oem units. I don’t know if it was available on that model on 1960, but that’s the cat’s meow for a Stude. Here’s a start, very knowledgeable people. http://www.myersstudebaker.com/ Nice ride. Enjoy.
James, nice car. Welcome to the world of Studebakers. In red above... Have to disagree with Dana. Both mathematically, and in practice, a 259/289 Stude engine with the OEM cam shaft, and stock, or mostly stock cylinder heads, a 500cfm carburetor will be a better running carburetor size than the 600. In the 11 or so years that I owned my basically stock Lark, I tested from 500 to 700cfm carburetor sizes and with and without spacers as mounted to both an OEM cast iron intake manifold...AND an aluminum Offenhauser intake manifold. Again, the 500 cfm carburetor is your best bet for a daily driver type combination, per my real world, years of testing. Note - All of the multiple two barrel intake manifolds will not flow air/fuel as well as the OEM four barrel intake manifold. They were all designed to be used with the very early 50's cylinder heads that had/have very small intake ports. No amount of porting will change that because of the runner shape. But, with high flow cylinder heads, a higher performance camshaft, higher rear end (numerically) a higher flowing intake manifold, then yes, a larger carburetor may be of benefit. I still own three (well four, one is a running parts car !) Studebakers, two are Stude powered, one is Chevrolet powered (not running yet). Have fun with it. Mike P.s. - Jack Vines above is a wealth of Studebaker knowledge.
I think Studebaker International has a small supply of OE 4 bbl that have the centers machine for better flow and accept a more modern carb. I may go that way but I'm not a fan of traditional chrome air cleaners. I know the 2X2 manifolds are not efficient but I would like a more old school look.
James... No...just removing the center divider will NOT make the runners larger ! This trick works well on an intake that already has proper sized runners, but not on undersized runners for performance applications. The runners are very well designed to work in conjunction with the OEM Stude cams and cylinder heads. I know, I've had them flow tested. You can open a small portion of the ports, but there's still sections that you cannot get to, without cutting the whole top off ! Plus, opening the intake manifold, won't gain you much, if anything, without also...increasing the runner size in the cylinder head. Remember, an engine is a "combination" of parts. If you want more power...the whole...combination...needs to be altered. Well ported heads NEED a better intake manifold, and more camshaft specs to produce the power that all of that money that has gone into making a better cylinder head. I've been working the Stude engine parts for a lot of years now. An the Stude engine is just like any other brand engine. Adding "one" part and expecting wonderful things, just isn't gonna happen, not that simple. People come to me asking for "ported heads". I say sure, how can I help you. I ask what will you be doing for an intake manifold and cam shaft ? I normally get a blank stare ! Mild port work and a three angle port work can help some. But the standard (but for the R3 heads) Stude cylinder head just wasn't designed for power. It takes a LOT of work to gain CFM in a Stude head. Then to make the heads work correctly, you NEED the intake manifold to match the output of the heads !! There IS a guy over on the "Racing Studebakers" site that offers port plates that adapt small Chevrolet intake manifold to the Studebaker cylinder heads. That's one of the best ways to go. The manifolds just can't have a small thing changed and they magically work better. The whole runner system needs to be enlarged. There is another (beside the port plates, above) way of increasing the flow to an OEM intake, it's called, "Extrude Hone". It works, but it's not...cheap. Mike
The Jalopy Journal
