Studebaker Golden Hawk

Studebaker Golden Hawk: which version to buy

The Studebaker Golden Hawk was sold in one generation (1956–1958) as a Coupe, with three versions: 4.7 MT, 5.8 MT, and 5.8 AT. Every version is rated 279 hp (205 kW) and is Gasoline, 8-cylinder V-shaped, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, RWD, with a 68-litre tank.

The Studebaker Golden Hawk was sold in one generation (1956–1958) as a Coupe, with three versions: 4.7 MT, 5.8 MT, and 5.8 AT. Every version is rated 279 hp (205 kW) and is Gasoline, 8-cylinder V-shaped, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, RWD, with a 68-litre tank. The buying choice is not “more power.” It is how that 279 hp is made, how much torque you get, how the car is geared, and what was actually measured.

Generations: what changed (and what did not)

There is 1 generation, so there is no later Golden Hawk that added power, switched to discs, or grew a bigger tank. All three versions share the same window: 1956-01-01 to 1958-12-31. Body type is Coupe on every row. Chassis pattern is the same: Independent, spring front, Dependent, leaf spring rear, Drum brakes front and rear.

What does change is only the powertrain row:

If you want a later Golden Hawk with a different generation’s numbers, this catalogue has none. The comparison is inside 1956–1958.

Specs: same 279 hp, three different engines-and-gearboxes

Use the names exactly as listed. 5.8 MT and 5.8 AT share the same engine figures; they are not two power levels of one badge.

Power per litre (from these figures):

• 4.7 MT: 279 hp ÷ 4.734 L ≈ 58.9 hp/L
• 5.8 MT and 5.8 AT: 279 hp ÷ 5.768 L ≈ 48.4 hp/L

The smaller engine is the denser one: about 10.5 hp/L more specific output, paid for with Compressor boost and a lower compression ratio (7.8 vs 9.5).

Torque per litre:

• 4.7 MT: 451 Nm ÷ 4.734 L ≈ 95.3 Nm/L
• 5.8 versions: 515 Nm ÷ 5.768 L ≈ 89.3 Nm/L

The 5.8 still wins absolute torque: +64 Nm (515 − 451). Peak torque arrives 400 rpm earlier (2800 vs 3200). Peak power arrives 200 rpm earlier (4600 vs 4800). If the question is “which engine makes 279 hp with less fuss at lower rpm,” the answer is 5.8 MT / 5.8 AT. If the question is “which engine extracts more from each litre,” the answer is 4.7 MT.

Bore × stroke (as given): 4.7 MT is 90.4 × 92.2; both 5.8 versions are 101.6 × 88.9. Valves per cylinder are 2 on all three. Fuel type beyond Gasoline is not measured.

Performance and mpg: only one version was timed

0–100 km/h

• 4.7 MT: not measured
• 5.8 MT: 9.6 s
• 5.8 AT: not measured

Top speed

• 4.7 MT: not measured
• 5.8 MT: 209 km/h
• 5.8 AT: not measured

Fuel consumption (city / highway / combined) is not measured on 4.7 MT, 5.8 MT, and 5.8 AT. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. There is no mpg ranking in this dataset; do not invent one from tank size.

What the extra displacement buys in measured performance is therefore only visible on 5.8 MT: a timed 9.6 s to 100 km/h and 209 km/h. You cannot claim 4.7 MT is slower or faster from these rows. You also cannot claim 5.8 AT matches 5.8 MT in 0–100 or top speed: same 279 hp and 515 Nm, different Automatic vs Manual, and the automatic’s times are not measured.

Dimensions, weight, tank: what the numbers allow you to rank

Ground clearance is not measured on all three. Wheel sizes are not measured on all three. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on all three. You cannot pick a Golden Hawk here by ride height or tyre size.

Tank: 68 L on 4.7 MT, 5.8 MT, and 5.8 AT. Range cannot be ranked: consumption is not measured.

Kerb weight

• 4.7 MT: 1481 kg
• 5.8 MT: 1524 kg (+43 kg vs 4.7 MT)
• 5.8 AT: not measured

Weight per horsepower (where weight exists):

• 4.7 MT: 1481 ÷ 279 ≈ 5.31 kg/hp
• 5.8 MT: 1524 ÷ 279 ≈ 5.46 kg/hp

The compressor 4.7 MT is the lighter car by 43 kg and the better kg/hp figure by about 0.15 kg/hp. That does not prove it is quicker: 0–100 for 4.7 MT is not measured. It does mean that if you care about mass with the same 279 hp, 4.7 MT is the measured winner. 5.8 AT cannot enter that ranking.

Which version to choose

There is no price in this catalogue, so “what the extra money buys” has to mean what the extra displacement, boost hardware, and gearbox type buy in the table.

Choose 4.7 MT if you want the lightest measured Golden Hawk and the highest specific output

4.7 MT is the only Compressor version. It matches the others at 279 hp / 205 kW from 1034 cm³ less displacement (4734 vs 5768). Compression is 7.8, 1.7 points below the 5.8 engines’ 9.5, which is the arithmetic companion of boost. You give up 64 Nm versus 5.8 MT / 5.8 AT and you accept that 0–100 and top speed are not measured. You gain 43 kg less kerb weight than 5.8 MT and Manual control with 3 gears, same as 5.8 MT.

Buy 4.7 MT when the decision is: same peak horsepower, smaller engine, forced induction, lowest listed mass. Do not buy it if you need a published 0–100 or a published top speed — those cells are empty.

Choose 5.8 MT if you want the only version with timed performance and the most torque in a Manual

5.8 MT is the comparison anchor because it is the only row with 9.6 s to 100 km/h and 209 km/h. Boost is No; the extra 1034 cm³ and 9.5 compression do the work. Torque is 515 Nm at 2800 rpm. Versus 4.7 MT you pay 43 kg and about 10.5 hp/L less specific power; you gain 64 Nm and the only performance figures in the set. Versus 5.8 AT you keep the same engine and lose the Automatic; you keep the only measured sprint and top speed.

Buy 5.8 MT when the question is “which Golden Hawk can I quote 0–100 and vmax for?” or “which Manual has the torque peak lowest in the rev range?”

Choose 5.8 AT if the gearbox is the point — not a second performance number

5.8 AT is not a stronger 5.8. Horsepower, kilowatts, rpm, newton-metres, displacement, Gasoline, 8, V-shaped, No boost, Carburetor, Front, longitudinal, compression 9.5, and 101.6 × 88.9 are identical to 5.8 MT. The difference is Automatic with 3 gears instead of Manual with 3. Kerb weight, 0–100, and top speed are not measured, so you cannot treat it as “the same 9.6 s with two pedals.”

Buy 5.8 AT when you want the 515 Nm engine without a clutch. Do not buy it to win a numbers contest against 5.8 MT: on paper it does not beat 5.8 MT on any measured speed or mass figure, because those figures are missing.

Head-to-head that actually follows from the data

1. Same peak power on all three. 279 hp / 205 kW is not a reason to pick one badge over another. 2. Torque is the 4.7 vs 5.8 split. +64 Nm and −400 rpm on the torque peak if you take either 5.8. 3. Boost vs displacement is the other 4.7 vs 5.8 split. Compressor + 4734 cm³ vs No + 5768 cm³, both landing on 279 hp. 4. Mass ranking is incomplete. 4.7 MT (1481 kg) beats 5.8 MT (1524 kg). 5.8 AT is not measured. 5. Performance ranking is a single data point. Only 5.8 MT has 0–100 and vmax. 6. Economy ranking does not exist. City, highway, combined, CO2: not measured on every version. Tank is 68 L on every version, so it does not break the tie. 7. Chassis does not break the tie. Same Coupe, same RWD, same springs/leaf springs, same Drum/Drum, same generation years.

Short rule: 5.8 MT if you need the measured 9.6 s and 209 km/h; 4.7 MT if you want 279 hp from the smaller Compressor engine at 1481 kg; 5.8 AT if you want the 5768 cm³ / 515 Nm engine with Automatic. There is no second generation to wait for, and no version in this list with a measured fuel figure.