Proved the 289 is not a Ford!

[Warren Webb]

Today, while taking a few gallons of used oil to the local parts house U noticed a guy out front working on his Mustang. Going over to help some I mentioned that his starter solenoid was the same as in my Studebaker. His reply was the usual "well they used Ford 289 engines too." I couldn't resist so I said "take a look at the engine in my truck & tell me it's the same as in your Mustang." He came over & agreed it was nothing like a Ford. I couldn't let this one go without correcting him! One less giving the wrong information.

[Noxnabaker]

Nice one & well done!

[Chris Pile]

I usually ask them when Ford started using their 289... The answer is the early 60's. Then I ask them when Studebaker started making 289 engines.... They never know, and are surprised when I say the mid-50's. Then I tell them Ford is using Studebaker engines.

[nels]

I usually ask them when Ford started using their 289... The answer is the early 60's. Then I ask them when Studebaker started making 289 engines.... They never know, and are surprised when I say the mid-50's. Then I tell them Ford is using Studebaker engines.

Haha...same thing I do.

[8E45E]

I usually ask them when Ford started using their 289... The answer is the early 60's. Then I ask them when Studebaker started making 289 engines.... They never know, and are surprised when I say the mid-50's. Then I tell them Ford is using Studebaker engines.

The same sort of reasoning works with AMC 327 and Mercury's 383 cubic inch engines. Both were earlier than Chevrolet's 327 and Mopar's 383.

Craig

[studegary]

The same sort of reasoning works with AMC 327 and Mercury's 383 cubic inch engines. Both were earlier than Chevrolet's 327 and Mopar's 383.

Craig

Now I see cars advertised with a 383 and I think Mopar, when they are really referring to a modified Chevrolet engine.

[spokejr]

The same sort of reasoning works with AMC 327 and Mercury's 383 cubic inch engines. Both were earlier than Chevrolet's 327 and Mopar's 383.

Craig

I believe Packard beat AMC to having a 327...of course it being a straight 8 flat kinda throws it off. Packard also beat Ford to a 352 as well.

As an aside to all this, Mike Van Vechten was visiting yesterday and this subject came up. I mentioned how I try to get my Avanti near a Mustang when at shows. When the "Sidewalk Expert" comes along to remind me of the Ford "lineage, I walk them over and have them compare the two engines. Usually that pretty much ends it.

Mike then cautioned me with his experience at a show where he saw a GT Hawk and the owner said his car had a 289 and that that engine was a Ford. Mike challenged him and sure enough, somebody had managed to covert the Ford to rear sump and modified the Hawk to accept it.

Never get too cocky I guess.

[Milaca]

Seems to me that Studebaker quit building 289 engines just as Ford began building 289 engines. The 1964-1/2 Mustangs used a 260ci V8, it wasn't until the 1965 models came along that they offered a 289 V8. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[j.byrd]

Milica, the 289 was out in 63 and by 63 1/2 was even available as the 271 horse "Hi-Po" in the Shelby Cobras and the Fairlane body ! It is astonishing that people even consider the Studebaker and the Ford to be the same engines, and I too have told folks that Ford uses a Studebaker engine just to get reactions, ha !

[thunderations]

I just tell people that Ford used the Studebaker 289 design, but turned it around backwards. When they question this, I just show them where the distributor is positioned on the Ford engine compared to the Studebaker. There's a lot of confused people out there in Carland. Don't try to correct them, it just makes them more confused.

[8E45E]

I believe Packard beat AMC to having a 327...of course it being a straight 8 flat kinda throws it off. Packard also beat Ford to a 352 as well.

Yes we could go on and on. Minneapolis-Moline used a 283 cubic inch engine for their tractors, but it was a four cylinder.

Craig

[Stude Shoo-wop!]

I have never encountered this problem with misnaming engines and I hope I never have to! Through my GT Hawk, I have learned to appreciate the beauty of the Studebaker 289 cu. V8. What makes this unique (to my knowledge) is that while the external dimensions match that of a big block the internal casting, of course, matches that of a small block. The result of this - UNGODLY reliability. In fact I would rate this engine right up there with the MoPar 225 cu. slant six in terms of sheer ruggedness!

[wittsend]

It was nice that you had a "visual aide" to emphisis the point.

[Hallabutt]

AMC, 327cu" V8, also predated predated the Chevrolet 327 by about five years.

[billslark]

In 1958 Chrysler introduced the 'B' series V8 engine of 350 cubic inches, nine years before chebby did.


Bill