R1 & R2 Performance

[Guest dapy]

Can someone quantify the practical performance difference between an automatic stock R1 and R2? If both were for sale with the same mileage, in the same good condition (no A/C), and at the same price how would one make a choice.

[MARK]

imagine.............................roar and zoooooooooooooooooooom buy the R2

[Guest dapy]

Thanks but numbers and experience from someone who has had both would be more helpful....acceleration, torque, HP, and reliability would mean more to me. Not interested in ROAR or ZOOM. Interested in the actual POWER difference.

[Gunslinger]

I've owned an R1 and driven an R2...both were automatics. My R1 was in excellent mechanical condition and the R2 appeared to be as well. While I didn't drive the R2 hard, my impressions are for normal and mild sporting driving. For the most part, there wasn't a huge difference in such driving. Since the transmissions were the standard second gear start, neither would give neck-snapping acceleration with normal starting out. Put them in first gear and run them manually...yes...the R2 was quicker. Boost comes on pretty quick as you accelerate.

My overall impression was that the R2 would be noticeably superior in power down low with more spirited acceleration and the difference would be even more noticeable at higher rpm's...but how much time do you spend at high rpm's? Only you can answer that. Some of the noticeable "seat of the pants" impressions could have been from the R1 I owned had a 3.31 rear and R2's came with a higher numerical rear ratio.

Reliability-wise...by its very nature an R2 would be more maintenance intensive. Probably not a huge amount but the more systems you add...like the blower and the sealed carburetor...the more maintenance is necessary. A lot of spirited driving can cause the boost to beat up the lower end of the engine but the Stude V8 is a very stout engine.

I think for a car that's driven in a normal, non-sporting manner, everything else being equal between the two cars, having an R2 is kind of like being equipped like John Holmes...great to show off but really of little use in the real world. It all depends on what's most important to you. It's your money...make yourself happy.

[ken1007]

Having owned both an R1 and R2 I offer up these observations notwithstanding the fact that owners can have different objectives:

1. R2s are, for the most part, faster but, as mentioned, more cost to CORRECTLY maintain. This, my experience shows, is particularly the case for the supercharger and if you want to maintain a proper R2 carburetor. Both are expensive to repair (my R2 carb has been rebuilt twice and is still not 100%). I probably will give up on the carb as a Studebaker vendor is working on a bonnet that can be used on an Edelbrock.

2. I have no interest in being the first car to get to the next stop light. But I try to keep cars original, with one exception, a newer hot rod Avanti road tested (TW magazine) capable of well in excess of 130 MPH. I've had it as high as 60.

3. The absence of Power steering is an issue, at slow to no speed for either R1 or 2.

4. Studebaskers, of which I have several, do not make for a good profit center, but an R2 4 speed will be more sought after thus more valuable.

5. Compared to my newer Avanti, the handling of an R1 and R2 is equally poor

6. With a few exceptions, Avanti parts for an R1 or 2 are about the same in terms of availability and cost; but are generally, more expensive than comparable Studebaker car parts.

Having said all of this, I would go for the R2. Ken, Deltaville, Va

[Guest dapy]

Gunny and Ken,

Well balanced evaluation. Since I am a well-aged conservative (driver) I lean to the R1. I note that R2s tend to maintain their value better than R1, likely because they are more in demand. I also assume that an auto transmission negates some of the R2 better performance. Thanks guys. This what this forum is about.

P.S. There is a frame off restored R2 at eBay just finishing up a brief stay at $60K. Seller says "market will determine price".

Edited August 20, 2014 by dapy

[Gunslinger]

"Market will determine price". That translates to "less than I want".

[Guest dapy]

In the case of a $60K Avanti...a lot less. $35K might be a real price, but there is an 'ignorance distance' between the seller and reality.

[mfg]

To me, the manner in which a Studebaker Avanti has been cared for over the years is much more important than the engine type....but, having said that, a large part of the Avantis 'mystique' has always centered around the Paxton Supercharger...My advice...two cars.. R1 &R2.. in equal shape, and not intended to be 'everyday drivers'.....go with the R2!

[Guest dapy]

Yes, R2 seems to be the critics choice, and I agree that "mystique" rather than performance may be the reason. OTOH the car should qualify as an everyday driver even if not used that way. Why buy it and store it? Keep moving. When it breaks fix it.

One further observation...Studebaker was capitalizing on (marketing) demand for superchrarged cars....going back to the earlier Hawks. It added cache more than performance. But 'bragging rights' may not be the same for an old car today.

Edited August 21, 2014 by dapy

[Gunslinger]

The original question was about performance differences...not resale value. If that's factored in, all else being equal, then it's no question...the R2 is the way to go. After reading impressions by owners on this forum and the SDC forum over time, it seems people's views have changed considerably as they've aged. Many Avanti owners who had preferred R2's in their younger days now value the availably of a/c over a supercharger. Years of driving an Avanti on a hot (or not so hot) day and suffering from the cabin heat has changed their minds.

[Guest dapy]

Right on. It was not about price. But finally the price difference is a purchase consideration. Same car with, say, 70K original engine and car miles, a driver quality R1 will top out at $20K....R2 around $30K.

Half right is better than wrong. Problem is not all R1s have A/C and those that do are old style unless converted.

[Gunslinger]

I've had two Avantis with a/c and both caused trouble...not to blame Studebaker or the design at all...it was years and wear that caused it so it's as much a commentary on old cars in general as anything.

On the '63 R1 I owned many years ago (this occurred in the 1970's), my girlfriend at the time and I were on the Interstate driving home after a car show. I commented to her the a/c wasn't cooling very well. A few minutes later...BOOM! Something under the hood exploded and all this steam (I thought) came out from around the edges of the hood. I didn't know what happened was was afraid there might be a fire. I pulled over and we got away from the car. Nothing more happened...it turned out the high pressure a/c hose exploded completely off the compressor. It was refrigerant I saw coming out from under the hood. Lubricating oil was all over everything under the hood and the under hood insulation was shredded.

It turned out that the a/c expansion valve under the passenger side of the dash had clogged, which caused pressure in the hose to rise to the point where it could do nothing but explode. I got a replacement expansion valve and receiver/dryer from Avanti Motors and new hoses made up locally and the a/c was back on line.

In my '70 that I have now, when the car was rebuilt the only part of the a/c system that wasn't replaced was the evaporator under the dash...none were available so I went with it. This was about 2008. In 2012 I was on my way home from another car show when suddenly my radio went out and something like smoke came out from user the dash...again I was afraid of fire...an electrical fire.

Again...it was refrigerant. The evaporator blew. The radio went out due to its components being frozen temporarily before working again. I checked around and the only evaporators around were used...just as old as the one that blew a hole in it. I saw no reason to pull the dash and install a used evaporator just to have the same problem within a year or so...maybe as soon as the system was pressurized. NOS was a dream. I talked to Jon Myer for advice and he said he had some used and there was a place in Florida they sent evaporators to for repair for customers who demanded absolutely correct restorations. While he didn't say I took that as meaning expensive with a big dollar sign. He did say his son Mike has worked out a way to update an Avanti to an integrated Vintage Air unit.

I spoke with Mike and he confirmed that. Since I'm not concerned about originality and correctness I decided this was the better way to go. I sent Mike the car and he did the work along with other updates and repairs I wanted. The new a/c and heating system works great...it replaces the blower motor, heater control valve, heater core and adds new control switches under the dash. The original a/c and heater and blower switches are now dummies and inoperable. The a/c will freeze you out and unless you know Avantis, you won't know it's a non-standard installation.

Getting back to my original point...not having a/c is not a big deal. I've dealt with the headaches it can cause in an older car and a non-a/c Avanti can be a plus, even knowing how hot it gets inside one. In that case, adding heat resistant padding under the carpeting can go a long way in making the car more comfortable.

As a fellow I used to work with many years said..."I never buy a car with a/c. The way I look at it, there's two things that can go wrong...the a/c or the rest of the car. Buying a non-a/c car cuts 50% of my potential problems."

[plwindish]

If you are on the back side of 50, your thoughts probably are leaning toward an R 1 with AC, as mine would be. Making a choice between two non-ac cars, I would be looking at the R2. Driving either non-ac car would be the same, but you can get there quicker in an R2 as well as having a higher value of the car.

[GlennW]

All great advice above. The OP's original post has 2 questions, one about performance and one about which one to buy if they're both in the same shape and pricing. The two seem almost unrelated since it's hard to argue against buying an R2 at an R1 price or argue for buying an R1 for an R2 price.

[Guest dapy]

Just so.

[mangusta1969]

All great advice above. The OP's original post has 2 questions, one about performance and one about which one to buy if they're both in the same shape and pricing. The two seem almost unrelated since it's hard to argue against buying an R2 at an R1 price or argue for buying an R1 for an R2 price.

It's a little hard to find the R2 performance specs, but Old Cars Weekly printed these numbers in a featured Car of the Week article in 2013:

"Due to the supercharger, the compression ratio of the R2 was at 9.0:1 Output of the R2 was impressive: 289 hp at 5200 rpm and 330 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3600 rpm." - See more at: http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/car-of-the-week/car-of-the-week-1963-studebaker-avanti-r2#sthash.BBaqP78B.dpuf

Those are pretty believeable numbers based on the car's measured performance "back in the day." Some of these old articles seem to quote some higher performance numbers for the R2, but the numbers are more applicable to the rare R3 models.

Here are the more widely available R1 performance specs:

240 hp and 280 ft lbs of torque

(see http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2014/03/01/hmn_buyers_guide1.html)

Note that the R1 has much higher compression (10.25/1) than the R2 cars (9.0/1). In regular driving, this higher compression helps to reduce the performance difference between the two models, but the R2 is a significantly faster car when pressed hard.

Edited August 23, 2014 by mangusta1969

[Guest dapy]

Just so.

Isn't a supercharger for added performance when normal peaks?