PDA

View Full Version : Research help please: Stude / Ford 289 urban mythology



BobPalma
09-25-2017, 06:49 AM
:) It's a safe bet "you all" who subscribe to Hemmings Classic Car will enjoy my up-coming column in the December 2017 issue, which is probably being printed about now and that you'll have by mid-October. It was a lot of fun researching and writing it; Hemmings Editor Richard Lentinello said he enjoyed it and was happy to have misinformation clarified and documented once and for all. (Incidentally, not that anyone is keeping track, it's a bit of a milestone; my 25th column for the magazine....every third month beginning December 2011...time flies when you're having fun! :))

Along those lines in a future column, I'd like to some day defuse the myth that Studebaker and Ford 289 V-8 engines are the same. :yeahright: That's easily done physically, of course, but I'd like to locate and document an original quote I THINK (but do not know for sure) was printed long ago in Hot Rod or another publication, saying the 289 Studebaker engine was "a Ford engine." To be sure, I've never seen that falsehood printed in a major magazine and would not credit anyone with having said so unless and until I personally saw it in print.

Does anyone have a copy of an old magazine, possibly Hot Rod, in which that myth is published as fact? If I had a publication name and cover date [month], I could research the matter and use it in a future "Myth Busters" column.

In advance, thanks for any assistance. :cool: BP

Lou Van Anne
09-25-2017, 09:14 AM
I have an old collection and will take a look.....

Chris Pile
09-25-2017, 09:48 AM
StudeFolk know the truth, but I think we could dispel this undying myth by pointing out that Studebaker produced a 289 BEFORE Ford issued a 289. How could Studebaker steal it before Ford made it? Time travel, perhaps?

59 explorer
09-25-2017, 10:23 AM
Not being a Ford guy, didn't their 289 start out as a 221 and then evolve into a 260 then their 289

PackardV8
09-25-2017, 11:00 AM
In sixty years of subscribing to Hot Rod and most of the others off and on over those years, I've never seen that statement in a major magazine article.


Not being a Ford guy, didn't their 289 start out as a 221 and then evolve into a 260 then their 289

Yes, and then into their 302"/5.0, 351" and 400".

jack vines

j.byrd
09-25-2017, 11:13 AM
One thing I do remember reading about the little "thinwall" 221 when it came out was that Ford had chosen that size as a tribute to the old 221 cubic inch flathead that "started it all" for them. I still can't figure out how anyone that has even a molecule of "car nut" in them could possibly confuse the Studebaker engine with the Ford. Well, come to think of it, there was a "car guy" I worked with at an aircraft repair station that got in a real ugly argument about Ford getting sued by GM for stealing the 302 and just turning it around so the distributor was on the right end to define it as a Ford, ha ! He was actually serious !!!!!!!

8E45E
09-25-2017, 01:22 PM
StudeFolk know the truth, but I think we could dispel this undying myth by pointing out that Studebaker produced a 289 BEFORE Ford issued a 289. How could Studebaker steal it before Ford made it? Time travel, perhaps?

AMC people say the same about the 327, which came out before Chevrolet's 327.

Craig

StudeRich
09-25-2017, 01:36 PM
The thing that not very knowledgeable "Car Guys" seem to get wrong is that when it comes to Engine Design comparisons, it is much more about the Design and Shape than the NUMBERS as in C.I.D. !

Those really mean nothing when comparing Engines.

BobPalma
09-25-2017, 06:44 PM
In sixty years of subscribing to Hot Rod and most of the others off and on over those years, I've never seen that statement in a major magazine article. jack vines

Thanks, Jack; you would have been one to remember it. Perhaps it was in a lesser magazine with sloppier editing / fact-checking, and someone will remember that. :cool: BP

Chris Pile
09-25-2017, 06:57 PM
AMC people say the same about the 327, which came out before Chevrolet's 327.

They probably wouldn't argue about Packard's 327 engine.... since it's an awesome straight eight.

Guido
09-25-2017, 08:16 PM
I had a guy tell me Saturday that they are still making Studebakers in Brazil...

BobPalma
09-25-2017, 08:59 PM
I had a guy tell me Saturday that they are still making Studebakers in Brazil...

:eek: They aren't? :lol: ;) :cool: BP

harry
09-25-2017, 10:32 PM
Ford had three different 351's.
351W
351C
351M

Dwain G.
09-25-2017, 11:48 PM
Found this old post. Not from Hot Rod even though that incident does sound vaguely familiar to me too.......
12-15-2015, 11:10 AM
#17 (http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?92446-Ford-289-V8-used-by-Studebaker&p=961849&viewfull=1#post961849)
Dan Timberlake (http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/member.php?3042-Dan-Timberlake)
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/images/statusicon/user-offline.png
President MemberJoin DateMar 2008Location, , .Posts1,247


Original info was in "Chevrolet Small-Block V-8 Id Guide" Chapter 17.
Published by MotorBooks , by Pierre Lafontaine

https://books.google.com/books?id=V7...%20all&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=V7yxdNm3n8gC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=you+may+wonder+why+this+chapter+exists+at+all&source=bl&ots=u7BKXSyvFL&sig=srf1uEGwFsSBQLNIYTIlrcswUno&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimlOfUxt7JAhULaz4KHYvXAJkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=you%20may%20wonder%20why%20this%20chapter%20exists%20at%20all&f=false)

On Amazon one review ranked it 1 star claiming misinformation on Chevy engines.

64Avanti
09-26-2017, 12:51 AM
I have been reading car magazines since about 1960 (I started in elementary school) and I don't ever remember an automotive magazine stating that there was any relationship between the ford and Studebaker engine. Many people have stated that the similarity between the Studebaker and Cadillac engine is due to Studebaker copying the Cadillac engine. However the dates on the Studebaker drawings predate the public release of the Cadillac.

John McKusick told me the Studebaker and Cadillac were working on a V8 engine for the Army towards the end of the war. I have never found any information that would support that. But it might explain the similarity.

BobPalma
09-26-2017, 06:56 AM
Found this old post. Not from Hot Rod even though that incident does sound vaguely familiar to me too.......
12-15-2015, 11:10 AM
#17 (http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?92446-Ford-289-V8-used-by-Studebaker&p=961849&viewfull=1#post961849)

Dan Timberlake (http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/member.php?3042-Dan-Timberlake)
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/images/statusicon/user-offline.png
President MemberJoin DateMar 2008Location, , .Posts1,247


Original info was in "Chevrolet Small-Block V-8 Id Guide" Chapter 17.
Published by MotorBooks , by Pierre Lafontaine

https://books.google.com/books?id=V7...%20all&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=V7yxdNm3n8gC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=you+may+wonder+why+this+chapter+exists+at+all&source=bl&ots=u7BKXSyvFL&sig=srf1uEGwFsSBQLNIYTIlrcswUno&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimlOfUxt7JAhULaz4KHYvXAJkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=you%20may%20wonder%20why%20this%20chapter%20exists%20at%20all&f=false)

On Amazon one review ranked it 1 star claiming misinformation on Chevy engines.

:) BINGO! Excellent, Dan and Dwain; thanks so much.

It's no so much that we want to discredit one book, much as it should be, but this: When a person writes about myths, it's good to have at least one citation where it has been in print, to prove it isn't a figment of the myth-buster's imagination.

Thanks again. :cool: BP

r1lark
09-26-2017, 07:55 AM
[/COLOR]:) BINGO! Excellent, Dan and Dwain; thanks so much.

It's no so much that we want to discredit one book, much as it should be, but this: When a person writes about myths, it's good to have at least one citation where it has been in print, to prove it isn't a figment of the myth-buster's imagination.

Thanks again. :cool: BP[/INDENT][/COLOR][/COLOR]

OK, what am I missing here? This book was first published in 1996 according to page 2, but the old 'Ford made Studebaker engines' goes back way before that. Doesn't seem like this would be the 'source' of that misinformation.

BobPalma
09-26-2017, 08:25 AM
OK, what am I missing here? This book was first published in 1996 according to page 2, but the old 'Ford made Studebaker engines' goes back way before that. Doesn't seem like this would be the 'source' of that misinformation.

:) True, Paul; you're right; people were saying the Studebaker 289 was "a Ford engine" long before 1996, so this citation is merely repeating an earlier mistake. It simply fills my immediate need for any place in which the falsehood has ever been printed.

I would prefer an earlier quotation to the effect of Studebaker 289s being Ford engines, so if you can find / remember any other citations, I'd sure like to have them as well.

Thanks. :cool: BP

studegary
09-26-2017, 12:00 PM
I have been reading car magazines since about 1960 (I started in elementary school) and I don't ever remember an automotive magazine stating that there was any relationship between the ford and Studebaker engine. Many people have stated that the similarity between the Studebaker and Cadillac engine is due to Studebaker copying the Cadillac engine. However the dates on the Studebaker drawings predate the public release of the Cadillac.

John McKusick told me the Studebaker and Cadillac were working on a V8 engine for the Army towards the end of the war. I have never found any information that would support that. But it might explain the similarity.

Studebaker had information on the Cadillac OHV V8 long before "the public release of the Cadillac."
Higher-ups at Studebaker told me that they used the Cadillac OHV V8 as a base for the design of the Studebaker OHV V8. That is how they got the engine designed and to market as quick as they did.

kurtruk
09-26-2017, 11:11 PM
Wasn't that nice of Ford to design and let Studebaker use their OHV V-8 for three years starting in 1951 while Ford went on using their flathead V-8 until the Y-block came out in 1954. :confused:

64Avanti
09-27-2017, 01:21 AM
Studebaker had information on the Cadillac OHV V8 long before "the public release of the Cadillac."
Higher-ups at Studebaker told me that they used the Cadillac OHV V8 as a base for the design of the Studebaker OHV V8. That is how they got the engine designed and to market as quick as they did.

So why would they have access to the Cadillac engine before it was released to the public? Please explain.

Hallabutt
09-27-2017, 05:44 AM
I have a friend, recently deceased, who worked in the area of technical writing, at Studebaker. He always claimed that in the center of their work area, there was Cadillac engine prominently displayed. He said that it was used as a reference for engineering, in developing the Studebaker engine.

jclary
09-27-2017, 06:34 AM
:) ...I would prefer an earlier quotation to the effect of Studebaker 289s being Ford engines, so if you can find / remember any other citations, I'd sure like to have them as well. Thanks. :cool: BP

Until now, I have refrained to comment because I had no useful information to contribute to Bob's original request. But...just to address the current turn regarding the Studebaker Engineering Department's process and methods in the development phase...I recall a discussion (quite long ago) in which an engineering lab photograph was posted clearly showing competitive make engines in the background. I have been in various manufacturing facilities where competitive products were purchased, examined, tested, and evaluated. (Every thing from Furniture, Food Processing Equipment, Pumps, Golf Clubs, and vehicles.) It is an age old tradition. Competition requires such research when there is something to gain by finding weaknesses, and strengths, of product design, and adjustments required in seeking that elusive "Competitive Edge."

However, as we often do, we have swerved off target to the original request of "seeking an early published incorrect claim of Studebaker and Ford 289 engines being the same.":confused:

Perhaps someone could step up and create a separate discussion (Thread) of the Engineering Department's developmental methods. I know the broader conversation is related, but it could become too far afield as to cause the original topic to be obscured, and lost wandering off topic. If anyone else recalls the photo, perhaps it could be posted in a new thread & let the discussion rage on from there.
(sorry...but just my 2 cents on the topic):(

studegary
09-27-2017, 12:01 PM
So why would they have access to the Cadillac engine before it was released to the public? Please explain.

In those days, it was common for manufacturers to have information on development projects at competitors. I said that they had "information", not that they had an engine, even though they did have an engine early on.

wittsend
09-27-2017, 01:00 PM
AMC people say the same about the 327, which came out before Chevrolet's 327. Craig

Yes, and AMC had the 360 before Chrysler. But that worked out OK because Chrysler took over AMC and then mythically the two engines morphed into the same. :rolleyes:

I think some people believe that cubic inch displacement it a registered trademark of the manufacture. It also probably doesn't help Studebaker did use another manufacturers engines in their final two years. So, you have that truth mixed with a misunderstanding that CID is a engine size, and not a trademark, and you get the statements that people make. I'm sure there are people that think the Chevy 400 is a big block because the CID is larger than the 396.

The logic people use completely baffles me some times. My wife was making a meatloaf but removed the egg yoke as I cautiously watch my cholesterol. Her aunt questioned why and my wife explained the reason. Her aunt then asked why the yokes weren't used to make a 'sunshine cake.' It was as if in the aunt's mind if used in a cake the cholesterol somehow disappeared. The problem wasn't that we were too lame to find a use for the yokes. Its that I didn't want to eat them period what with cholesterol concerns.

Lou Van Anne
09-27-2017, 01:09 PM
...haven't found anything, sorry.

I have an old collection and will take a look.....

wittsend
09-27-2017, 01:11 PM
... However, as we often do, we have swerved off target to the original request of "seeking an early published incorrect claim of Studebaker and Ford 289 engines being the same.":confused: ...

It seems the question was answered in post #14. So, at least after that point it is just residual conversation associated with the subject. If that doesn't happen then perhaps the first female conversation on the planet would still be on the same subject today. :D

Noxnabaker
09-27-2017, 01:15 PM
Wittsend, how come the AMC 360 & the Chrysler 360 don't look the same if they are?
Just wondering...

PackardV8
09-27-2017, 03:22 PM
Wittsend, how come the AMC 360 & the Chrysler 360 don't look the same if they are?
Just wondering...

Maybe he's actually saying it's the same as the Stude/Ford 289"s; all the two 360"s have in common is the displacement.

jack vines

jclary
09-27-2017, 03:59 PM
It seems the question was answered in post #14. So, at least after that point it is just residual conversation associated with the subject. If that doesn't happen then perhaps the first female conversation on the planet would still be on the same subject today. :D

Well...I'll admit to not thoroughly reading post #14, due to looking for a direct reference instead of a "Link" to the publication. I also noticed Paul's (r1lark) and Bob Palma's following discussion (Post's numbers 17 & 18), and concluded that, although it was a documented reference, Bob wanted to keep digging. No big deal for me, and I ain't gonna touch your last sentence.:lol:

55s
09-27-2017, 04:14 PM
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/346195-289-not-ford-design-sort-long.html

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/a-yellow-studebaker-with-a-302-1749059932

Above are some "interesting" discussions.

larkregal62
09-27-2017, 04:28 PM
Bob, It wasn't in print, but on an episode of South Beach Classics, Ted Vernon perpetuated the myth by declaring as "fact" That A GT Hawk that he was buying at the Daytona FL's "Turkey Run" indeed had the same 289 engine that the Ford Mustang used. I called him out by email on that fact, and he rather nastily responded that he was just a car seller, and had no responsibility to be accurate. I advised him that with a national show, and with people thinking he knew of what he spoke, I felt he had a responsibility to be more accurate in his issuing of "facts". He did not respond further. Gordon

BobPalma
09-27-2017, 05:37 PM
Bob, It wasn't in print, but on an episode of South Beach Classics, Ted Vernon perpetuated the myth by declaring as "fact" That A GT Hawk that he was buying at the Daytona FL's "Turkey Run" indeed had the same 289 engine that the Ford Mustang used. I called him out by email on that fact, and he rather nastily responded that he was just a car seller, and had no responsibility to be accurate. I advised him that with a national show, and with people thinking he knew of what he spoke, I felt he had a responsibility to be more accurate in his issuing of "facts". He did not respond further. Gordon

:) Excellent, Gordon; thanks. I'll keep that in mind for an additional citation. :cool: BP

wittsend
09-27-2017, 05:54 PM
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/346195-289-not-ford-design-sort-long.html

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/a-yellow-studebaker-with-a-302-1749059932

Above are some "interesting" discussions.

Initially I mused that it seemed some people thought an engine displacement was patented and no one else could use it unless they bought it. Hence the 289 from Ford. But after looking these sites over (especially the first) I'm beginning to wonder if people thing the CID is actually a part number. LOL Next time I'm at a car show I think I'll ask the Ford guys if their 289 is from a Studebaker.:D

And, yes, the Ted Veron comment might be on line. So, if the Hemmings article is going on line you might be able to link it to a You Tube video - even setting the link to play from the desired point.

lumpy
09-27-2017, 09:43 PM
Ted Vernon... Im sorry I cant help myself:lol::lol::lol::eek::rolleyes::confused:

64Avanti
09-28-2017, 10:54 PM
Does anyone know when the first 49 Cadillac's went on sale? Should have been around September 1948.

studerodder
09-28-2017, 11:57 PM
When the Ford boys start jawing around me I open the hood and say "don't you guys have the distributor in front?" Most of them have never seen a Y block Ford so it usually works.

harry
09-28-2017, 11:59 PM
Hot rodders were using Studebaker engines long before the Chev small block.
But, they were also putting Cadillac dual four barrel intakes on Stude engines without too much work.

studerodder
09-29-2017, 12:28 AM
When Kevin and I were planning my modified 289 for the 64 Daytona he determined it would be 302.2 cubes. We looked at each other and both said "it's gonna be 303 inches!" Not listening to 302 Ford crap.

Chris Pile
09-29-2017, 06:06 AM
Hot rodders were using Studebaker engines long before the Chev small block.

Yes, Dean Moon had a Studebaker V8 in his '32 Ford roadster back in the day. There were articles in the 50's hot rodding mags showing how he did it.

8E45E
09-29-2017, 07:07 AM
Wasn't that nice of Ford to design and let Studebaker use their OHV V-8 for three years starting in 1951 while Ford went on using their flathead V-8 until the Y-block came out in 1954. :confused:

Ford did want to use the Automatic Drive when it first came out in mid-1950, but Studebaker management turned them down.

Craig

Chrycoman
09-29-2017, 08:36 AM
If you are looking for comments on Studebaker using, or basing their V8 engine on, a Ford 289, you need not check earlier than 1963. Ford introduced the 289 V8 on the full-size Galaxie and Monterey models as a 1963-1/2 model. The Studebaker 289 appeared on the 1956 models.

So, if you want a really good story that fits the time line for the two engines. it is obvious that the Ford 289 is a Studebaker engine. And you could claim Studebaker probably sold Ford the tooling as Studebaker was was switching to Chevrolet engines for 1965.

Did find one interesting comment in an article on the Avanti in the February 1982 issue of Motor Trend, page 91. The author, Len Frank, states on page 92 -
"Hardig performed miracles in getting the old Lark convertible chassis up to standard : The 232-cu-in. 1951 V8 was stretched to 289, newly acquired Paxton division supplied a supercharger, Bendix supplied Dunlop patent disc brakes, Borg-Warner a modified automatic and an optional 4-speed."

SScopelli
09-29-2017, 09:19 AM
:) BINGO! Excellent, Dan and Dwain; thanks so much.

It's no so much that we want to discredit one book, much as it should be, but this: When a person writes about myths, it's good to have at least one citation where it has been in print, to prove it isn't a figment of the myth-buster's imagination.

Thanks again. :cool: BP

Here is a Ford Forum discussion and their perplexity as to which came first the chicken or the egg, a virtual doppelganger.

Quite entertaining, especially post #5. Post 3 backs up what Jack said..

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/346195-289-not-ford-design-sort-long.html

You know it will be interesting when it starts out:
"Whether or not this is true, I'm not sure. I was under the assumption that the 289 was a ford design, but it so happens someone told me otherwise. "

Sort of like an Xavier Hollander article.

Bob,
In your article, can you kind of clarify why manufactures chose the CUI displacement a bit? More for using stock engines for certain racing sanctions?
The difference between GTO, GTU and GTP. I think it would add some good information as to why OEMs use the same displacement, such as 32x, 35x, 42x, 30x, 28x.

Chrycoman
09-29-2017, 09:40 AM
Does anyone know when the first 49 Cadillac's went on sale? Should have been around September 1948.

Late October,1948. Branham Automotile Reference Book lists it as October 25, 1948.

DEEPNHOCK
09-29-2017, 09:51 AM
Crap.. After reading all of this I thought it was February....:rolleyes:

paul shuffleburg
09-29-2017, 10:43 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Packard & Studebaker
both used a Ford 352 CI engine.

harry
09-29-2017, 10:59 AM
Ford did want to use the Automatic Drive when it first came out in mid-1950, but Studebaker management turned them down.

Craig

My '51 Ford Victoria had a Fordomatic transmission. First year for Ford. Lincoln may have had an automatic earlier.

8E45E
09-29-2017, 01:24 PM
My '51 Ford Victoria had a Fordomatic transmission. First year for Ford. Lincoln may have had an automatic earlier.

Studebaker management wanted at least one year's exclusive use of the SAD before offering to competing manufacturers, and Ford would not wait that long, therefore, used a Borg Warner unit instead.

I believe 1951 was also the first year Lincoln offered an automatic, but it was a GM Hydromatic to handle the output of the larger V8.

Craig

ddub
09-29-2017, 01:36 PM
Farther down in the forum post linked in post 43 appears this interesting information:

I think STUDEBAKER bought all their motors from Continental.
Continental made motors for International and Graymarine and
american motors and checker. Continental is a Lincoln . Lincoln
is a division of Ford.

8E45E
09-29-2017, 01:43 PM
Farther down in the forum post linked in post 43 appears this interesting information:

I think STUDEBAKER bought all their motors from Continental.
Continental made motors for International and Graymarine and
american motors and checker. Continental is a Lincoln . Lincoln
is a division of Ford.

RQ can enlighten us, but I believe the Erskine used a Continental engine for a time.

Craig

greyben
09-29-2017, 01:55 PM
Lincoln only made V8s after 1948.

The small Ford V8 was introduced as a 221 or 260 in 1962. It was available as a 289 starting in '63 or '64.

The 259 was secretly developed in conjunction with Plymouth and Dodge who came out with a 259 and a 270 respectively in1955.

SScopelli
09-29-2017, 02:00 PM
A sad day mentioning Continental Engines..

Continental Motors, Inc. is an aircraft engine manufacturer located at the Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile, Alabama, United States. It was originally spun off from automobile engine manufacturer Continental Motors Company in 1929 and owned by Teledyne Technologies until December 2010. The company is now part of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, which is owned by the government of the People's Republic of China.

Although Continental is most well known for its engines for light aircraft, it was also contracted to produce the air-cooled V-12 AV-1790-5B gasoline engine for the U.S. Army's M47 Patton tank and the diesel AVDS-1790-2A and its derivatives for the M48, M60 Patton, and Merkava main battle tanks. The company also produced engines for various independent manufacturers of automobiles, tractors, and stationary equipment (pumps, generators, and machinery drives) from the 1920s to the 1960s.

Mind boggling how that that poster correlated back to Ford because of the name Continental being a Lincoln.

harry
09-29-2017, 03:15 PM
Farther down in the forum post linked in post 43 appears this interesting information:

I think STUDEBAKER bought all their motors from Continental.
Continental made motors for International and Graymarine and
american motors and checker. Continental is a Lincoln . Lincoln
is a division of Ford.


Continental Motors had nothing to do with Lincoln.
I had an Atomic 4 cylinder engine in my boat. It had nothing to do with nuclear energy.

59 explorer
10-08-2017, 02:34 PM
I was at Hershey looking over a 64 Hawk with a 289. Joking with the owner, which he quickly caught on, I said "nice Ford engine"

Near by guy says "Studebaker always bought their engines from other manufacturers"

Stude-Preferred
10-08-2017, 07:05 PM
Bob, here is my theory as to why it may be an accepted fact today. It is just public misinformation.

At the end, 65 - 66 Studebaker's really did use another Manufacturer's engine. The general public may remember that fact, not really remembering the details.
So when they hear of an engine being 289 cubic inches in a Studebaker, they assume it is a Ford engine.

I'm not sure a true Ford guy would ever say such a thing, but there are a lot of Chevy experts out there. :ohmy:

I look forward to reading your article.

Keeping Studebaker alive:

Stude-Preferred
Atlanta Ga.

BobPalma
10-08-2017, 08:20 PM
Bob, here is my theory as to why it may be an accepted fact today. It is just public misinformation.

At the end, 65 - 66 Studebaker's really did use another Manufacturer's engine. The general public may remember that fact, not really remembering the details.
So when they hear of an engine being 289 cubic inches in a Studebaker, they assume it is a Ford engine.

I'm not sure a true Ford guy would ever say such a thing, but there are a lot of Chevy experts out there. :ohmy:

I look forward to reading your article.

Keeping Studebaker alive:

Stude-Preferred
Atlanta Ga.

:) Thanks, Ken. It won't be until next year some time; June at the earliest.

If you subscribe, you'll have the December Hemmings Classic Car in your mailbox sometime this week with my December column, guaranteed to be a favorite among Studebaker folks, and I already have a topic roughed out for March, 2018.

So June 2018 would be the earliest I'd "get around to" the Ford / Studebaker 289 myth. :cool: BP

Hawklover
10-08-2017, 09:27 PM
In 1966 I happened to be at my local auto parts house, (with my Avanti) which had real machinists working in the machine shop out back......the older fellow who was about 60 at the time came out front to look at the Avanti and asked me to open the hood.......he took one look at the Stude engine and said......(as he smiled) seemed Studebaker was real impressed with the Caddy V8, as he saw many similarities in the two engines! And then said just keep the oil clean and she will go well into the 6 figure mileage......he sure was correct, as I had her rebuilt with just under 200k miles!!!
I have been reading car magazines since about 1960 (I started in elementary school) and I don't ever remember an automotive magazine stating that there was any relationship between the ford and Studebaker engine. Many people have stated that the similarity between the Studebaker and Cadillac engine is due to Studebaker copying the Cadillac engine. However the dates on the Studebaker drawings predate the public release of the Cadillac.

John McKusick told me the Studebaker and Cadillac were working on a V8 engine for the Army towards the end of the war. I have never found any information that would support that. But it might explain the similarity.

wittsend
10-08-2017, 10:34 PM
It may be that when the article is released you may find there are more issues with Ford people than the general public thinking the Ford and Studebaker 289 are one an the same. This from one of the links above and at least this guy is rather confued about the Ford Winsor applications.:

"The 221, 260 etc were originally in the design shop for truck engines...when production time came for the full size cars (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007X52IMS), they needed the new powerplants more than the trucks so guess who got em first! If you read the very early interviews with Shelby during the inital development of the Cobra's, he refer's to the 221 & 260 as Ford's truck motors and the reason they make a good application for racing in the AC's. If my memory serves me right, I believe the Ranchero pickups got the 260's before the cars did.....like around 1961 or 62"

1. First, I find it hard to believe that Ford would consider an oversquare, small displacement engine for a truck (initially).

2. They were not initially used in "full size" cars. The Fairlane/Meteor was an intermediate and the Falcon/Comet were considered compacts.

3. The 260 did not show up in the Ranchero until 1963 just like the Falcon/Comet.

4. The 260 was used in the Galaxie in 1963 but was short lived as the 289 better handled the weight (again, another reason against the 221/260 were initially truck engines). The attributing the "truck engine" to Shelby might have simply been that Ford has told him the 260 would (eventually) be used in the Ranchero.

FYI, The Ford Winsor Engine Wiki actually has a significant statement regarding differentiating the Studebaker 289 from the Ford 289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine

"It should be noted the Windsor 289 had nothing in common with the older Studebaker-designed and manufactured 289 OHV V8 (3.5625 bore X 3.625 stroke, 7.8:1 compression ratio, 190 hp (2V) or 210 hp (4V), and a weight of 695 lb). The Studebaker 289 was introduced in 1956, a full seven years before the Windsor 289 was available, and was manufactured in Studebaker's foundry in South Bend Indiana for various Studebaker cars and trucks from 1956 through 1964. The design of the Studebaker 289 was based on Studebaker's thick-walled 232 OHV V8 introduced in late 1950 for the 1951 model-year. Even though Studebaker struggled for survival during the 1950s and 1960s, at no time were Ford engines purchased by Studebaker for installation in new Studebaker cars or trucks. Today, if a Ford engine is found in a Studebaker car or truck, it means that someone removed the Studebaker engine, made the necessary modifications, and installed a Ford engine. The Windsor 289 and Studebaker 289 are completely different engines and should not be confused."

Chrycoman
10-08-2017, 11:27 PM
Studebaker management wanted at least one year's exclusive use of the SAD before offering to competing manufacturers, and Ford would not wait that long, therefore, used a Borg Warner unit instead.

I believe 1951 was also the first year Lincoln offered an automatic, but it was a GM Hydromatic to handle the output of the larger V8.

Craig

Both the Studebaker and Ford automatics were built by Borg-Warner - Studebaker by the Detroit Gear Division and Ford by the Warner Gear Division. Studebaker could no longer afford to use their automatic (falling sales and thus falling transmission production) so for 1956 they started using the Warner Gear Division transmission.

Lincoln first offered Hydramatic with the 1949 models. Mid-year, at sometime. Lincoln was first of the non-GM makes to offer Hydramatic - Kaiser, Frazer, Nash, Hudson, and Willys Aero.

Ford developed a heavier unit for the Lincoln in 1955 - Turbo Drive.

By the way, Chrysler, the company noted for its engineering advances, was the last company to offer an automatic transmission - Powerflite in late 1953 on DeSoto and Chrysler, beginning of 1954 for Dodge and mid-1954 for Plymouth.

Chrycoman
10-08-2017, 11:55 PM
To straighten out Continental Engine, they started out in 1904 building engines for car and truck manufacturers in Chicago. They opened a larger plant in Muskegon, MI in 1905. And in 1910 they built a plant across the street from the Hudson Motor Car Co. as Continental had the contract to supply Hudson with engines designed and engineered by Hudson. Dodge Brothers Senior Six was also built by Continental although designed and engineered by Dodge Brothers.

The Erskine model 50 used Continental's model 8F engine while the 51 and 52 used the 9F. The Erskine 53 used a Studebaker engine.

World War II brought Continental work supplying engines for planes, tanks, and trucks. After the war Continental supplied engines to Kaiser-Frazer and moved into aviation. The firm was taken over by Ryan Aeronautical and then Teledyne.

Mark L
10-09-2017, 07:34 PM
[/COLOR]FYI, The Ford Winsor Engine Wiki actually has a significant statement regarding differentiating the Studebaker 289 from the Ford 289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine

"It should be noted the Windsor 289 had nothing in common with the older Studebaker-designed and manufactured 289 OHV V8 (3.5625 bore X 3.625 stroke, 7.8:1 compression ratio, 190 hp (2V) or 210 hp (4V), and a weight of 695 lb). The Studebaker 289 was introduced in 1956, a full seven years before the Windsor 289 was available, and was manufactured in Studebaker's foundry in South Bend Indiana for various Studebaker cars and trucks from 1956 through 1964. The design of the Studebaker 289 was based on Studebaker's thick-walled 232 OHV V8 introduced in late 1950 for the 1951 model-year. Even though Studebaker struggled for survival during the 1950s and 1960s, at no time were Ford engines purchased by Studebaker for installation in new Studebaker cars or trucks. Today, if a Ford engine is found in a Studebaker car or truck, it means that someone removed the Studebaker engine, made the necessary modifications, and installed a Ford engine. The Windsor 289 and Studebaker 289 are completely different engines and should not be confused."



I added that to Wikipedia a few months ago after an earlier discussion in our Forum on this topic. My original addition to the wiki was higher up, and was deleted by someone else (probably a Ford guy who thought it was wrong or out of place). I added it back, but buried it farther down. So far it's survived.

I tried to get all the facts straight, but I'm fuzzy on the weight of the engine. If anyone feels any of the details, not just the weight, are not correct, let me know, or go edit the article directly.

Cricket-monster
10-09-2017, 08:14 PM
When Kevin and I were planning my modified 289 for the 64 Daytona he determined it would be 302.2 cubes. We looked at each other and both said "it's gonna be 303 inches!" Not listening to 302 Ford crap.
Good gracious, don't confuse AMC people with the 304 R4 stuff, either, they would have a cow!!! I have to admit, my 66 Rambler Classic, with a 327 really confuses people. I just love it when they start the "Chevy sued them for using the 327" story. Same funny thing, 5 years before Chevy, but NOO, having none of it.