identity of an engine

[colt45sa]

The 259 was introduced in 1955 and appeared in the President. Was the 259 available in a Commander Coupe, or was the 224 the only available engine? Were both available during the same time period, or did the 259 replace the 224 at some point during the production year? Was a 4-bbl option ever offered in a '55 Commander?
I'm looking at a nice '55 now and it has a 4-bbl WCFB on it. It also has dual exhaust which wasn't even available on the President until mid-year. So what am I looking at with this car?

[RadioRoy]

Please give us the serial number of the engine in question.

[Hallabutt]

The 259 superseded the 224 in late production Commanders. I guess that the 224 just didn't return the fuel savings that Studebaker had hoped. In hilly country and our mountainous West, the short stroked, 224 just spent too much time in the lower gears. The 224 with the OD was a much better choice then the AT. I've even found that the 289 would have aided a great deal, when mated to the Studebaker Automatic transmission. I'm sure that the 224 and the 259 were offered simultaneously, if only due to a slow moving inventory.

Later production cars could also be ordered with 331:1 rear-end gearing instead of the standard 354:1 gear ratio offered with the AT. I own a 55 Commander htp with 259 auto and 331 GR. It's OK, but gearing it's a bit tall. The problem that I always found when driving these cars with the smaller displacement, was lack of torque. With a tight SAT, with the lock-up torque converter, the transmission would automatically shift up ,at under 25 MPH, and the TC would lock up, regardless of the incline. Then it would refuse to shift down until the driver kicked it into passing gear. This could happen several times on a long hill. The Commander timing was also a bit slower then that of the President. In fact Studebaker used two different dampeners, with the timing marks that reflected each application.

I'm sure that a Commander could have been ordered with a 4 barrel carb, you just don't see many. The WCFB would have been the proper carb, at any rate. Duel exhaust on Commander maybe, maybe not. Just because I've never seen one, doesn't mean that some weren't ordered that way. Look for the vertical filler piece, behind the rear bumper. That might give you a hint as to whether duel exhaust was factory installed. 55's all had this piece, but with DE they had two cut-outs. They have always been a bit hard to find, so most people just took them off, or made their own cut-out, when they added DE.

I've owned lots of 55's and like them. I still own three today. For a number of reasons they were a high water mark in Studebaker quality. IMO up until that year Studebaker still thought it could be competitive, but then 1955 happened. After 1955 the handwriting was on the wall for the independents, it was just a matter of time. If the car is right get it, anything can be changed back, but nothing that you question would scare me, pictures?

[BobPalma]

The 259 was introduced in 1955 and appeared in the President. Right.

Was the 259 available in a Commander Coupe? Yes, after mid-year.

Was the 224 the only available engine? In Commanders: Yes, until mid-year; then it was no longer available in passenger cars.

Were both available during the same time period? Yes, but not in the same models.

Did the 259 replace the 224 at some point during the production year? Yes; see the above.

Was a 4-bbl option ever offered in a '55 Commander? Yes.

I'm looking at a nice '55 now and it has a 4-bbl WCFB on it. It also has dual exhaust which wasn't even available on the President until mid-year. So what am I looking at with this car? Need to know the car's model (upper line of the body tag under the hood) and engine serial number to answer that question accurately.

Ten characters are necessary for the forum to accept a post, so here they are: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. BP

[colt45sa]

Two numbers on the engine. First is VL3665, and the second is 535601

[colt45sa]

Please give us the serial number of the engine in question.

Two numbers on the engine. First is VL3665, and the second is 535601
Thanks for the quick response.

[PackardV8]

Two numbers on the engine. First is VL3665, and the second is 535601

1955 Commander 1BG8 (Los Angeles plant) 259"

jack vines

[Skip Lackie]

1955 259 from a Los Angeles car.

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/V8EngineID.asp

[colt45sa]

Ten characters are necessary for the forum to accept a post, so here they are: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. BP

the body tag I'm reading from a fuzzy picture. It looks like a 16G8-G5 and the number under that is 3161.

[StudeRich]

The second Number 535601, is a Raised on the casting, Casting Number (NOT hand stamped) that appeared on ALL V8 Blocks of the pre-full-Flow Oil Filter Era, so it is of no use at all.

[StudeRich]

the body tag I'm reading from a fuzzy picture. It looks like a 16G8-G5 and the number under that is 3161.

16G8 is a '55 Commander, C5 is a Regal Coupe.

You may own a 1955 Commander "Wildcat" 259 4 Barrel !

[colt45sa]

1955 Commander 1BG8 (Los Angeles plant) 259"

jack vines

Thank you so much Jack. That's exactly what I wanted to hear and I'm thrilled. Is the 4-bbl WCFB correct? I've asked the seller if the brass tag is still on the carb and if it is, what is it. The date on the tag will tell me when the car was assembled. If I'm able to get the car I'll order a build sheet from the museum.

[StudeRich]

OK, NOW I see where Jack got that erroneous Year Code!

The V8 Engine I.D. Code List is WRONG! Someone must have mis-typed Skip's Year Code, it is not 1BG8, a '55 Commander is a Year Code 16G8.

[rkapteyn]

You are correct it is 16G8

[Skip Lackie]

OK, NOW I see where Jack got that erroneous Year Code!

The V8 Engine I.D. Code List is WRONG! Someone must have mis-typed Skip's Year Code, it is not 1BG8, a '55 Commander is a Year Code 16G8.

The someone who mis-typed that year code was me. I finally found the thumb drive with that file on it (the computer I typed it on is long gone), and the mistake is mine. I used a number of sources for that table, and originally wrote everything down on paper. The mistake occurred when I transferred the data into the MS Word table software. I was probably just copying like a zombie, not paying attention to the contents. I can't find the original paper copy, but I assume my "6" looked like a "B".

I find it interesting that it has taken almost ten years for that error to be discovered.