Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???

News:

  • Home
  • Help
  • Chat
  • Login
  • Register

    • « previous next »
    Pages: [1]

    Author Topic: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???  (Read 5671 times)

    Offline 1970 RT Challenger 1970

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 774
    Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « on: October 29, 2010 - 02:21:32 PM »
    Logged


    Offline Bullitt-

    • Permanent Resident
    • *******
    • Posts: 12167
    • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #1 on: October 29, 2010 - 04:03:33 PM »
    Your surprised?!?!?!?.............................Supercharged Baby  :burnout:
    Logged
    Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
    Screwed by Photobucket!

    Offline burdar

    • Sr. Resident
    • ******
    • Posts: 5925
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #2 on: October 29, 2010 - 04:13:53 PM »
    According to the comments, that one isn't supercharged.

    There are some pretty funny comments if you read down a little farther.  Some say that stock 440-6 quarter mile times are in the mid to low 14's.  Others state mid to low 12's.  That's a pretty big performance difference.
    Logged

    Offline Bullitt-

    • Permanent Resident
    • *******
    • Posts: 12167
    • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010 - 05:58:19 PM »
    Quote from: burdar on October 29, 2010 - 04:13:53 PM
    According to the comments, that one isn't supercharged.


     Well blow me down
    Logged
    Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
    Screwed by Photobucket!

    Offline burnt orange

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 782
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #4 on: October 29, 2010 - 06:34:49 PM »
    If I remember correctly (and it was a LONG time ago) the R1 designation was for a supercharged 240 HP Dart Daytona.
    Logged
    < ° ) ) >< 

    Offline jimynick

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 4512
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #5 on: March 06, 2011 - 10:32:57 PM »
    Come on! My dead stock (except for headers) 72 Duster with 3:55's and a 4 speed would turn 14.2's all day long. I've GOT to believe a 440-6 would have eaten me for lunch. I noted that although the sound track is kaakaa, the 440 doesn't seem to winding up too much and the shift points seem low. I drive past the last Studie factory at work regularly. Fast cars for their day.
    Logged

    Offline Cooter

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1207
    • There goes the lone Challenger............
      • christinecarclub.com
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #6 on: March 10, 2011 - 07:50:46 AM »
    Well, the Stude is lighter, has a better power to weight ratio, and the 440-6 sounded like it was an auto....Hmmm, this is the typical way Ford caused such a sensation with the 5.0 liter Mustangs. I mean C'mon, this is how the little 340 even got on the same page as the mighty Hemi and 440 6Packs of the day..."Holy sh*t, I juts beat a massively overweight Mopar with the almighty BB 440-6!! Can you believe it???"....Why, yes, yes I can....Let's see, a 440 rebuilt with sh*tty pistons, owner that doesn't know what Compression height even is, a 440 6pack making 375-390 HP and a car that weighs over 4000 Lbs....

    VS.......


    A 2800 LB car with a straight gear, 240 HP, possibly supercharged, and a driver that clearly knows how to drive....Hmmmm, no brainer.
    « Last Edit: March 10, 2011 - 07:52:42 AM by Cooter »
    Logged
    1958 plymouth Belvedere 2dr hd top "Christine" [OO)====V====(OO]
    1969 dodge Charger "General Lee"         [___|______I______|___]                        
    1968 Dodge Dart 2dr sedan 505" Stroker    (O]=0==========0=[O)                
    1970 Challenger R/T Clone "Kowalski Special"   (OO) [___________] (OO)

    Offline Moparal

    • Permanent Resident
    • *******
    • Posts: 13085
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #7 on: March 10, 2011 - 10:05:26 AM »



    The lark only runs in the low 9's 1/8 mile.  79 mph  about average.  The 6pk car is not an A12 car,  and the car has driver / tune up issues
    Logged

    Offline hpe600rt

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1995
    • how sweet it is
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #8 on: March 14, 2011 - 05:58:57 AM »
    how sad i guess he needs to do some moure work on the 440
    Logged

    Offline todd383

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 300
    • I'm a llama!
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #9 on: March 21, 2011 - 08:28:20 PM »
    road runners did not weigh over 4000 lbs!!!!
    Logged

    Offline Super Lark R2

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 22
    Re: Stock '63 Studebaker Lark vs 440-6 Pack, Huh???
    « Reply #10 on: September 01, 2012 - 07:11:07 PM »
    Trust me Studes are fast I had a 64 R2 SUPER CHARGED 289 Daytona.  It would eat my 340 Demon any time.  But dam there just not as cool as my 70 RT/SE.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »