PDA

View Full Version : Why'd they do that? A question on the '65-66s



BobPalma
03-09-2008, 01:34 PM
:) More probable than the fit were the following three reasons, listed in my humbly-suggested order of importance:

1. Ford did not have the production capacity to produce enough of their new "small-block" 221/260/289 V-8s for their own products, much less entertain selling them to anybody else.

This was a primary motivation behind the edgy "Six and The Single Girl" Mustang advertising campaign for 1966 Mustangs. Ford's difficulty producing enough 289s for Mustang production, much less anything else, resulted in that specific advertising campaign to try to boost the sale of six-cylinder Mustangs.

My father was a franchised new Ford/Mercury dealer from Spring 1964 through the 1966 model year. Not only have I seen this explanation ("Six and The Single Girl" campaign) in print, but Dad reported at the time how difficult it was to get V-8 Mustangs, even after the initial "any Mustang; I just gotta' have one" frenzy had subsided.

2. There were undoubtedly nationalist/tarrif issues that made it easier to source GM engines in Canada for Canadian-production Studebakers, than having to ship them across the border and endure whatever ramifications there might have been from that.

3. GM tooling for the 194/230 sixes and, especially, the 283 V-8 had probably long-since been amortized by that time, so they were in a better position to offer Studebaker a good price for what few engines Studebaker would be buying as Studebaker phased themselves out of the new-car market.

(Personal Opinion: I doubt the bean-counters "helping" Studebaker engineers "decide" what engines to use could have cared less about the famous "Letter to Studebaker Owners" that caused such a furor among the Studebaker faithful, although it did make for entertaining conversation....;)) :DBP

BobPalma
03-09-2008, 01:34 PM
:) More probable than the fit were the following three reasons, listed in my humbly-suggested order of importance:

1. Ford did not have the production capacity to produce enough of their new "small-block" 221/260/289 V-8s for their own products, much less entertain selling them to anybody else.

This was a primary motivation behind the edgy "Six and The Single Girl" Mustang advertising campaign for 1966 Mustangs. Ford's difficulty producing enough 289s for Mustang production, much less anything else, resulted in that specific advertising campaign to try to boost the sale of six-cylinder Mustangs.

My father was a franchised new Ford/Mercury dealer from Spring 1964 through the 1966 model year. Not only have I seen this explanation ("Six and The Single Girl" campaign) in print, but Dad reported at the time how difficult it was to get V-8 Mustangs, even after the initial "any Mustang; I just gotta' have one" frenzy had subsided.

2. There were undoubtedly nationalist/tarrif issues that made it easier to source GM engines in Canada for Canadian-production Studebakers, than having to ship them across the border and endure whatever ramifications there might have been from that.

3. GM tooling for the 194/230 sixes and, especially, the 283 V-8 had probably long-since been amortized by that time, so they were in a better position to offer Studebaker a good price for what few engines Studebaker would be buying as Studebaker phased themselves out of the new-car market.

(Personal Opinion: I doubt the bean-counters "helping" Studebaker engineers "decide" what engines to use could have cared less about the famous "Letter to Studebaker Owners" that caused such a furor among the Studebaker faithful, although it did make for entertaining conversation....;)) :DBP

65cruiser
03-09-2008, 01:40 PM
I thought it mostly had to do with the sump position?

Mark Anderson
Member SDC and FMCA
Keeper of the Studebaker Cruiser Registry
http://home.alltel.net/anderm

My next Studebaker is in the future, but now getting my hair messed up in a Sebring ragtop!
Almost as fun as a Studebaker!

http://home.alltel.net/anderm/images/sebring.jpg

65cruiser
03-09-2008, 01:40 PM
I thought it mostly had to do with the sump position?

Mark Anderson
Member SDC and FMCA
Keeper of the Studebaker Cruiser Registry
http://home.alltel.net/anderm

My next Studebaker is in the future, but now getting my hair messed up in a Sebring ragtop!
Almost as fun as a Studebaker!

http://home.alltel.net/anderm/images/sebring.jpg

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 02:06 PM
After shoveling all that snow and aggravating my back (not too badly, but I am sore), I had some time to do some thinking, so please folks, bear with me.

In re-reading Richard Quinn's fine Collectible Automobile article on the Wagonaire, I noted that Studebaker's engineering staff tested both GM and Ford engines for use in the '65-66 models.

What I want to know is, why did they go with the GM engines, particularly when Ford's then-almost-brand-new Windsor small-block V8 and Falcon six were lighter and more compact (lighter for sure, smaller I think)? Was it a matter of price, a matter of availability, or was it a slap at Ford over the "A message of interest to Studebaker Owners" letters that FoMoCo sent out in early '64?

Having had a fair amount of experience with both Chevy and Ford V8s, I have found over the years that I much prefer the Ford small-blocks to the Chevy. I know, I know, it's just my opinion, but they are SO much easier to perform routine maintenance on (i.e., plugs). I'm not as familiar with the Falcon six, but everyone I know who's had one swears by them on a level nearly equal to partisans of the legendary 300 "Big Six" used in Ford's pick-em-ups through 1996.

And the Fords are indeed lightweight; the fully-dressed, fuel-injected, smog-equipped 302 in my '87 F-150 tips the scales right around 500 pounds, according to some of my friends at Ford-Trucks.com. And the Ford "Challenger" 289 was even lighter than that, with some sources stating a weight around 450 pounds or so. Imagine what a four-barrel Ford-289-equipped (or, Lord help us, a K-code 271-horse) '65 or '66 Daytona could do! Given the right equipment, it could've given many a stock Mustang a run for its money in a street race. And slicing 200+ pounds off the front end (vs. the Stude 289) would've made any Lark-type a stellar handler, what with the improvement in weight distribution.

If anyone can help me figure all this out, I'd really, REALLY appreciate it.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

JDP
03-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Maybe because the Chevy was a better fit all the way around and without any clearance issues.

JDP/Maryland
64 R2 GT (Sid)
spent to date $62,839.60
63 Daytona HT/4 speed
63 Lark 2 door
57 Wagon

JDP
03-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Maybe because the Chevy was a better fit all the way around and without any clearance issues.

JDP/Maryland
64 R2 GT (Sid)
spent to date $62,839.60
63 Daytona HT/4 speed
63 Lark 2 door
57 Wagon

556063
03-09-2008, 02:58 PM
The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars. A very proud and now departed former Stude employee and local owner of a '66 used to tell me that every time we talked about how much he hated everyone calling his car a "Chevybaker".

When it's all said and done, the fact the engines could be sourced from Canada, the fact GM could produce 30,000 extra engines in their sleep, the good fit, and the fact the McKinnon engine was a premium product all helped to eliminate a Ford program pretty quickly. If one primary reason can't be determined, I'd guess it's just that there were more good reasons to go with a GM program than there were with any Ford program.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

556063
03-09-2008, 02:58 PM
The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars. A very proud and now departed former Stude employee and local owner of a '66 used to tell me that every time we talked about how much he hated everyone calling his car a "Chevybaker".

When it's all said and done, the fact the engines could be sourced from Canada, the fact GM could produce 30,000 extra engines in their sleep, the good fit, and the fact the McKinnon engine was a premium product all helped to eliminate a Ford program pretty quickly. If one primary reason can't be determined, I'd guess it's just that there were more good reasons to go with a GM program than there were with any Ford program.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 02:59 PM
Bob, you're more than likely right on all counts. I did some checking, and Ford was already supplying AC (for that little roadster Carroll Shelby called the Cobra) and Rootes (for the Sunbeam Tiger) with V8s at that time, so I can imagine, despite their limited production, they'd have been hard-pressed.

Mark, I don't know about the sump position issue. I know that there is still today discussion of that nature on the Ford truck forum I'm a member of, as some of our members have used Mustang engines in their trucks, but it seems to be a fairly easy change to make. Now, whether Studebaker wanted to make such a change can be debated. I'd say they wouldn't have wanted to invest that kind of money.

One more little nugget I thought of: I presume Studebaker was still getting a better deal from Borg-Warner on transmissions, as the (to my mind) obvious choice of transmission behind a Chevy engine would be a Turbo-Hydramatic or Powerglide, or GM's own synchromesh three-speed. I'm glad they stuck with B-W, for tradition's sake, but I've always thought that was a little odd.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 02:59 PM
Bob, you're more than likely right on all counts. I did some checking, and Ford was already supplying AC (for that little roadster Carroll Shelby called the Cobra) and Rootes (for the Sunbeam Tiger) with V8s at that time, so I can imagine, despite their limited production, they'd have been hard-pressed.

Mark, I don't know about the sump position issue. I know that there is still today discussion of that nature on the Ford truck forum I'm a member of, as some of our members have used Mustang engines in their trucks, but it seems to be a fairly easy change to make. Now, whether Studebaker wanted to make such a change can be debated. I'd say they wouldn't have wanted to invest that kind of money.

One more little nugget I thought of: I presume Studebaker was still getting a better deal from Borg-Warner on transmissions, as the (to my mind) obvious choice of transmission behind a Chevy engine would be a Turbo-Hydramatic or Powerglide, or GM's own synchromesh three-speed. I'm glad they stuck with B-W, for tradition's sake, but I've always thought that was a little odd.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

StudeRich
03-09-2008, 03:02 PM
I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

StudeRich
03-09-2008, 03:02 PM
I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 04:00 PM
quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines.


Sorry, Kevin, but that myth has been debunked many times over. McKinnon Industries was part of GM since the 30's. They were just another engine plant like Saginaw, Flint, or Tonawanda. No "special" engines were built there. They were a "K" code (McKinnon plant) as opposed to an F code or T code. That's it. K code 283's found themselves in Camaros to trucks...just like F code engines or engines from any other part of the GM network. GM did some stupid things, but they did not make different "flavors" of a 195 HP 283. If the McKinnon engines were "special" in some way, please provide the parts that were different, the difference, and the part NUMBERS.

In fact, there is evidence that the engines supplied Studebaker were in fact from the Tonawanda plant due to GM's desire to add cost to Studebaker production (duty) after agreeing to suppling the engines from Canada.

We'd all like to think the engines in the 65 and 66 Studes were something special somehow, but unfortunately it just isn't so.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 04:00 PM
quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines.


Sorry, Kevin, but that myth has been debunked many times over. McKinnon Industries was part of GM since the 30's. They were just another engine plant like Saginaw, Flint, or Tonawanda. No "special" engines were built there. They were a "K" code (McKinnon plant) as opposed to an F code or T code. That's it. K code 283's found themselves in Camaros to trucks...just like F code engines or engines from any other part of the GM network. GM did some stupid things, but they did not make different "flavors" of a 195 HP 283. If the McKinnon engines were "special" in some way, please provide the parts that were different, the difference, and the part NUMBERS.

In fact, there is evidence that the engines supplied Studebaker were in fact from the Tonawanda plant due to GM's desire to add cost to Studebaker production (duty) after agreeing to suppling the engines from Canada.

We'd all like to think the engines in the 65 and 66 Studes were something special somehow, but unfortunately it just isn't so.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

blackhawk61
03-09-2008, 04:15 PM
quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars. A very proud and now departed former Stude employee and local owner of a '66 used to tell me that every time we talked about how much he hated everyone calling his car a "Chevybaker".

When it's all said and done, the fact the engines could be sourced from Canada, the fact GM could produce 30,000 extra engines in their sleep, the good fit, and the fact the McKinnon engine was a premium product all helped to eliminate a Ford program pretty quickly. If one primary reason can't be determined, I'd guess it's just that there were more good reasons to go with a GM program than there were with any Ford program.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

Besides all that...can you imagine the confusion between 289 Stude and 289 Ford ?

1961 Hawk 4BC,4-SPEED,TT
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/chevpartsman/61HawkChevypartsmanreduce.jpg
Ken Byrd
Lewisville,NC

blackhawk61
03-09-2008, 04:15 PM
quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars. A very proud and now departed former Stude employee and local owner of a '66 used to tell me that every time we talked about how much he hated everyone calling his car a "Chevybaker".

When it's all said and done, the fact the engines could be sourced from Canada, the fact GM could produce 30,000 extra engines in their sleep, the good fit, and the fact the McKinnon engine was a premium product all helped to eliminate a Ford program pretty quickly. If one primary reason can't be determined, I'd guess it's just that there were more good reasons to go with a GM program than there were with any Ford program.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

Besides all that...can you imagine the confusion between 289 Stude and 289 Ford ?

1961 Hawk 4BC,4-SPEED,TT
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/chevpartsman/61HawkChevypartsmanreduce.jpg
Ken Byrd
Lewisville,NC

DEEPNHOCK
03-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Mostly because the GM owned McKinnon foundry engine plant in St. Catherines, Ontario was only 32 miles from Hamilton, Ontario Studebaker plant.
Cast iron costs money to ship.
Jeff[8D]

DEEPNHOCK
03-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Mostly because the GM owned McKinnon foundry engine plant in St. Catherines, Ontario was only 32 miles from Hamilton, Ontario Studebaker plant.
Cast iron costs money to ship.
Jeff[8D]

wally
03-09-2008, 04:45 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA
And, Checker Cabs evidently used a BW AT with a Chevy engine, too.

"You Can't Have Everything--Where Would You Put It?" ---comedian Steven Wright

wally
03-09-2008, 04:45 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA
And, Checker Cabs evidently used a BW AT with a Chevy engine, too.

"You Can't Have Everything--Where Would You Put It?" ---comedian Steven Wright

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 04:59 PM
One last note on the Ford small-blocks: I had always figured what we know to be the "Windsor" small-block Ford to have been built in Windsor, Ontario throughout its production life. Turns out that isn't so; Windsor didn't start cranking out the motors until '66.

Dick, I've always understood there were SOME heavy-duty parts in the McKinnon engines. I seem to recall Fred Fox mentioning that in the 1986 TW article on the '66s, but I don't have that in front of me to confirm or refute. Seems to me it was small stuff, not anything really major, but I know I'm not imagining that.

It does indeed seem plausible that GM would've pulled a "fast one" on Studebaker as to where the engines were coming from, but I don't know that it would've added a whole lot to the cost if that was the intent. I believe the AutoPact between the U.S. and Canada was ratified in '65, and if it would've been somehow more cost-effective (although I can't imagine how) for GM to build and ship engines out of Tonawanda instead of St. Catharines, I can imagine them doing just that.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 04:59 PM
One last note on the Ford small-blocks: I had always figured what we know to be the "Windsor" small-block Ford to have been built in Windsor, Ontario throughout its production life. Turns out that isn't so; Windsor didn't start cranking out the motors until '66.

Dick, I've always understood there were SOME heavy-duty parts in the McKinnon engines. I seem to recall Fred Fox mentioning that in the 1986 TW article on the '66s, but I don't have that in front of me to confirm or refute. Seems to me it was small stuff, not anything really major, but I know I'm not imagining that.

It does indeed seem plausible that GM would've pulled a "fast one" on Studebaker as to where the engines were coming from, but I don't know that it would've added a whole lot to the cost if that was the intent. I believe the AutoPact between the U.S. and Canada was ratified in '65, and if it would've been somehow more cost-effective (although I can't imagine how) for GM to build and ship engines out of Tonawanda instead of St. Catharines, I can imagine them doing just that.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

DEEPNHOCK
03-09-2008, 05:11 PM
The serial numbers GM assigned to those engines don't bear out the 'industrial engine' part of the equation.
According to the s/n's, they were just run of the mill plain Jane Chevy engines.
Maybe the Studeophile of the era had to add that comment to internally justify the swap to the cheapo small block[}:)]..
Somebody clarify this, so another urban legend doesn't start/continue..
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars.
<snip>

DEEPNHOCK
03-09-2008, 05:11 PM
The serial numbers GM assigned to those engines don't bear out the 'industrial engine' part of the equation.
According to the s/n's, they were just run of the mill plain Jane Chevy engines.
Maybe the Studeophile of the era had to add that comment to internally justify the swap to the cheapo small block[}:)]..
Somebody clarify this, so another urban legend doesn't start/continue..
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars.
<snip>

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 05:18 PM
Gee, did I start something today or what? [:o)]

It is good that we're having this discussion, though. Documenting Studebaker history and nailing down obscure bits of pertinent information like this is interesting, educational and good for future generations who will want to know all this stuff.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 05:18 PM
Gee, did I start something today or what? [:o)]

It is good that we're having this discussion, though. Documenting Studebaker history and nailing down obscure bits of pertinent information like this is interesting, educational and good for future generations who will want to know all this stuff.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 05:26 PM
Here's the thread where we beat this one to death...

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=2624



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 05:26 PM
Here's the thread where we beat this one to death...

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=2624



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

LarkVIII
03-09-2008, 05:31 PM
Having owned one I can state for a fact the only difference was the engine colors,fuel pump, and the fact that they were cast in Canada. McKinnon did produce industrial engines,but they were for stationary equipment. Studebaker also manufactured stationary engines at one time.I had an old customer in Silver Spring MD who had an Onan-Stude 6 cyl air cooled generator in his basement,ran on natural gas as back up during power outages.


quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

The serial numbers GM assigned to those engines don't bear out the 'industrial engine' part of the equation.
According to the s/n's, they were just run of the mill plain Jane Chevy engines.
Maybe the Studeophile of the era had to add that comment to internally justify the swap to the cheapo small block[}:)]..
Somebody clarify this, so another urban legend doesn't start/continue..
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars.
<snip>



63VY4 Leakin' Lena Hagerstown MD

LarkVIII
03-09-2008, 05:31 PM
Having owned one I can state for a fact the only difference was the engine colors,fuel pump, and the fact that they were cast in Canada. McKinnon did produce industrial engines,but they were for stationary equipment. Studebaker also manufactured stationary engines at one time.I had an old customer in Silver Spring MD who had an Onan-Stude 6 cyl air cooled generator in his basement,ran on natural gas as back up during power outages.


quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

The serial numbers GM assigned to those engines don't bear out the 'industrial engine' part of the equation.
According to the s/n's, they were just run of the mill plain Jane Chevy engines.
Maybe the Studeophile of the era had to add that comment to internally justify the swap to the cheapo small block[}:)]..
Somebody clarify this, so another urban legend doesn't start/continue..
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by 556063

The GM engines purchased by Studebaker were actually GM-McKinnon industrial engines. I've heard various opinions and stories over the years, but evidently a factor that sealed the deal was the McKinnon industrial engines were built to closer tolerances even than regular production automotive engines built for and used by the GM divisions in their cars.
<snip>



63VY4 Leakin' Lena Hagerstown MD

556063
03-09-2008, 05:34 PM
Well, this even goes to prove that oral history even from a Studebaker employee can be questionable. The people I've known with the GM powered Studebakers took A LOT of heat from the locals around here in the old days about their cars not being "real" Studebakers. This could have been in part a defense mechanism those 65-66 owners came up with to make the cars sound better. My story teller even went as far to say that Studebaker chose the industrial engines because they were closer to Studebaker's own engine manufacturing specifications. It does sound like some emotion played into the story.

Industrial engines usually run for long durations at steady RPM. Their fuel systems and setup can make them unsuitable for automotive applications. The gentleman I knew who promoted this industrial engine theory claimed that acceptable bearing tolerances were in a narrower range. Were parts different? No, but he claimed these tolerances were monitered more closely during production. Which would mean more PRODUCTION parts being rejected or reworked. Replacement parts often had no real quality control in the 1960's.

I didn't mean to start an argument. If the engines were not industrial specification, so be it. Just passing along 30 year old oral history as it was told to me from a very proud owner of a '66.



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

556063
03-09-2008, 05:34 PM
Well, this even goes to prove that oral history even from a Studebaker employee can be questionable. The people I've known with the GM powered Studebakers took A LOT of heat from the locals around here in the old days about their cars not being "real" Studebakers. This could have been in part a defense mechanism those 65-66 owners came up with to make the cars sound better. My story teller even went as far to say that Studebaker chose the industrial engines because they were closer to Studebaker's own engine manufacturing specifications. It does sound like some emotion played into the story.

Industrial engines usually run for long durations at steady RPM. Their fuel systems and setup can make them unsuitable for automotive applications. The gentleman I knew who promoted this industrial engine theory claimed that acceptable bearing tolerances were in a narrower range. Were parts different? No, but he claimed these tolerances were monitered more closely during production. Which would mean more PRODUCTION parts being rejected or reworked. Replacement parts often had no real quality control in the 1960's.

I didn't mean to start an argument. If the engines were not industrial specification, so be it. Just passing along 30 year old oral history as it was told to me from a very proud owner of a '66.



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

Randy_G
03-09-2008, 05:49 PM
I would love to see this letter to Studebaker owners that Ford sent out. Anyone here have a copy of it?

Randy_G
1959 Lark Sedan
www.AutomotiveHistoryOnline.com
http://www.automotivehistoryonline.com/emtr.jpg

Randy_G
03-09-2008, 05:49 PM
I would love to see this letter to Studebaker owners that Ford sent out. Anyone here have a copy of it?

Randy_G
1959 Lark Sedan
www.AutomotiveHistoryOnline.com
http://www.automotivehistoryonline.com/emtr.jpg

8E45E
03-09-2008, 06:23 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!



According to E.T. Reynolds, it had to do with fit, and like you mentioned, bellhousing. It was the lead time and the almost no tooling required to make the GM engines fit under the hood.


Craig

8E45E
03-09-2008, 06:23 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

I am sure all of the reasons Bob Palma & JDP have mentioned WERE factors, but also consider this:

(1) All of the GM/Chev. small block V-8's AND Sixes bolt to the same bellhousings, Std. and Automatic.

(2) There was no tooling cost for the bellhousings, as the Jeep Wagoneer used the same Borg Warner Automatic to Chev. housing!



According to E.T. Reynolds, it had to do with fit, and like you mentioned, bellhousing. It was the lead time and the almost no tooling required to make the GM engines fit under the hood.


Craig

fstst56
03-09-2008, 07:24 PM
E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.

fstst56
03-09-2008, 07:24 PM
E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.

8E45E
03-09-2008, 07:30 PM
quote:Originally posted by fstst56

E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.


That would be the article in Car Classics magazine.

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12853&SearchTerms=checker

Craig

8E45E
03-09-2008, 07:30 PM
quote:Originally posted by fstst56

E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.


That would be the article in Car Classics magazine.

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12853&SearchTerms=checker

Craig

BobPalma
03-09-2008, 07:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by fstst56

E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.


:) Excellent points. (Now, Jacob, you know why they did use the Chevys and, also, why they didn't use the Fords...which answers your original question!) [^]

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP

BobPalma
03-09-2008, 07:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by fstst56

E. T. Reynolds wrote an article on this very subject, back in the 1970's, I think. The Chevy oil pan fit better in the Stude, plus Checker already had engineered the adapter for the BW Trans.


:) Excellent points. (Now, Jacob, you know why they did use the Chevys and, also, why they didn't use the Fords...which answers your original question!) [^]

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 08:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP


:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]

Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-09-2008, 08:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP


:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]

Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

BobPalma
03-09-2008, 08:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP


:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]

Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



:( Very funny, Dick. ;)

Nonetheless, I'll post a further anecdote to support your statements (with which I agree, incidentally), that the 283s supplied to Studebaker weren't anything out of the ordinary as far as passenger-car applications go.

My Uncle Jerry Palma was a long-time Studebaker user by 1965, even though he was only 30 years old. He even took a stint at selling Studebakers during the summer of 1964 and, as some may recall, was the salesman who "sold" Cousin George D. Krem The Plain Brown Wrapper [1964 Challenger V-8 2-door] new in August, 1964.

As a car and Studebaker nut, Jerry bought four new Studebakers in the first 30 years of his life: 1957 Silver Hawk, 1963 Daytona Wagonaire, 1963 Gran Turismo Hawk, and a 1965 Daytona Sport Sedan. All were purchased new and meticulously cared for, although driven hard because Jerry didn't let any moss grow under the gas pedal.

His last new Studebaker, of course, was the 1965 Daytona Sport Sedan. White, black vinyl top and interior; 283/Flightomatic. He was driving a lot of miles by that time, commuting weekly between Marion, Indianapolis, and Terre Haute IN. He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."

And he should know! :DBP

BobPalma
03-09-2008, 08:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by BobPalma

And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP


:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]

Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



:( Very funny, Dick. ;)

Nonetheless, I'll post a further anecdote to support your statements (with which I agree, incidentally), that the 283s supplied to Studebaker weren't anything out of the ordinary as far as passenger-car applications go.

My Uncle Jerry Palma was a long-time Studebaker user by 1965, even though he was only 30 years old. He even took a stint at selling Studebakers during the summer of 1964 and, as some may recall, was the salesman who "sold" Cousin George D. Krem The Plain Brown Wrapper [1964 Challenger V-8 2-door] new in August, 1964.

As a car and Studebaker nut, Jerry bought four new Studebakers in the first 30 years of his life: 1957 Silver Hawk, 1963 Daytona Wagonaire, 1963 Gran Turismo Hawk, and a 1965 Daytona Sport Sedan. All were purchased new and meticulously cared for, although driven hard because Jerry didn't let any moss grow under the gas pedal.

His last new Studebaker, of course, was the 1965 Daytona Sport Sedan. White, black vinyl top and interior; 283/Flightomatic. He was driving a lot of miles by that time, commuting weekly between Marion, Indianapolis, and Terre Haute IN. He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."

And he should know! :DBP

buddymander
03-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Even the rear sump SBF's have a considerable bump in the front that would have interfered severely with Studebaker's bellcrank. Would have been really crazy if Ford and Studebaker got together before 64 and started putting 292 312's in Studes; something a lot of people think they really did. I'm just glad they didn't do something as silly as AMC putting their hunk of junk 304 and 360 (650 lb) in the front of those lil CJ5's.

buddymander
03-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Even the rear sump SBF's have a considerable bump in the front that would have interfered severely with Studebaker's bellcrank. Would have been really crazy if Ford and Studebaker got together before 64 and started putting 292 312's in Studes; something a lot of people think they really did. I'm just glad they didn't do something as silly as AMC putting their hunk of junk 304 and 360 (650 lb) in the front of those lil CJ5's.

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 10:40 PM
Thanks for all the info, guys. It has been VERY helpful.

I was raised on Mopars and Fords, so I naturally have an affinity for those companies' engines. And once I found out that Studebaker considered Ford engines for '65, I had to know more.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-09-2008, 10:40 PM
Thanks for all the info, guys. It has been VERY helpful.

I was raised on Mopars and Fords, so I naturally have an affinity for those companies' engines. And once I found out that Studebaker considered Ford engines for '65, I had to know more.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

Dick Steinkamp
03-10-2008, 08:38 AM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."


I've got a new theory, and your anecdotal evidence combined with my following anecdotal evidence PROVES it.

I owned a '65 Impala for many years in the late 60's and 70's. It was a white sport coupe, black vinyl interior, 195 HP 283, 3 speed stick, AM radio...similar to my present one, except my present one is a 327 Powerglide, PS, PB. Anyway, I drove that car for over 200,000 miles. I sold it when I could afford to get a nicer car for the family. There was NOTHING wrong with it at that point. The motor had NEVER been apart, used no oil between 3,000 mile changes, no noticeable power loss, didn't even leak.

So here's my theory PROVED by the above:

GM sold Studebaker SPECIAL engines, but they weren't the ones made with super secret high nickel iron, special over sized crankshafts, titanium pistons, sodium cooled valves, etc. like rumored...they were the REJECTS...ones that didn't meet spec to be put in GM cars. Jerry Palma's Chevy powered Studebaker was a POS, my Chevy powered Chevy is probably still running on the original motor. How can you refute that (anecdotal evidence). Facts are facts!

I don't have enough anecdotal evidence yet to determine the reason this happened, but I'll throw out a couple of possibilities.

1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.

2. The CASCO's (Cheap A** Studebaker Corporation Owners) REQUESTED these rejects. They could get a great deal on them from GM and they knew they probably wouldn't be in the car business long enough for the back lash to hit them.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it


[:o)] ;)



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-10-2008, 08:38 AM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."


I've got a new theory, and your anecdotal evidence combined with my following anecdotal evidence PROVES it.

I owned a '65 Impala for many years in the late 60's and 70's. It was a white sport coupe, black vinyl interior, 195 HP 283, 3 speed stick, AM radio...similar to my present one, except my present one is a 327 Powerglide, PS, PB. Anyway, I drove that car for over 200,000 miles. I sold it when I could afford to get a nicer car for the family. There was NOTHING wrong with it at that point. The motor had NEVER been apart, used no oil between 3,000 mile changes, no noticeable power loss, didn't even leak.

So here's my theory PROVED by the above:

GM sold Studebaker SPECIAL engines, but they weren't the ones made with super secret high nickel iron, special over sized crankshafts, titanium pistons, sodium cooled valves, etc. like rumored...they were the REJECTS...ones that didn't meet spec to be put in GM cars. Jerry Palma's Chevy powered Studebaker was a POS, my Chevy powered Chevy is probably still running on the original motor. How can you refute that (anecdotal evidence). Facts are facts!

I don't have enough anecdotal evidence yet to determine the reason this happened, but I'll throw out a couple of possibilities.

1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.

2. The CASCO's (Cheap A** Studebaker Corporation Owners) REQUESTED these rejects. They could get a great deal on them from GM and they knew they probably wouldn't be in the car business long enough for the back lash to hit them.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it


[:o)] ;)



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

BobPalma
03-10-2008, 08:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."


I've got a new theory, and your anecdotal evidence combined with my following anecdotal evidence PROVES it.

I owned a '65 Impala for many years in the late 60's and 70's. It was a white sport coupe, black vinyl interior, 195 HP 283, 3 speed stick, AM radio...similar to my present one, except my present one is a 327 Powerglide, PS, PB. Anyway, I drove that car for over 200,000 miles. I sold it when I could afford to get a nicer car for the family. There was NOTHING wrong with it at that point. The motor had NEVER been apart, used no oil between 3,000 mile changes, no noticeable power loss, didn't even leak.

So here's my theory PROVED by the above:

GM sold Studebaker SPECIAL engines, but they weren't the ones made with super secret high nickel iron, special over sized crankshafts, titanium pistons, sodium cooled valves, etc. like rumored...they were the REJECTS...ones that didn't meet spec to be put in GM cars. Jerry Palma's Chevy powered Studebaker was a POS, my Chevy powered Chevy is probably still running on the original motor. How can you refute that (anecdotal evidence). Facts are facts!

I don't have enough anecdotal evidence yet to determine the reason this happened, but I'll throw out a couple of possibilities.

1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.

2. The CASCO's (Cheap A** Studebaker Corporation Owners) REQUESTED these rejects. They could get a great deal on them from GM and they knew they probably wouldn't be in the car business long enough for the back lash to hit them.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it


[:o)] ;)



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



[:0][:0][:0]:(BOOM!:(:(:(
There goes the SDC Forum!
It was fun while it lasted... :D:D:D:D:DBP

BobPalma
03-10-2008, 08:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
He sold the Daytona shortly after it turned 80,000 miles because, he said, "It was really showing its age; starting to use oil, and with a marked loss in power from new. You could tell it wasn't a Studebaker V-8 under the hood."


I've got a new theory, and your anecdotal evidence combined with my following anecdotal evidence PROVES it.

I owned a '65 Impala for many years in the late 60's and 70's. It was a white sport coupe, black vinyl interior, 195 HP 283, 3 speed stick, AM radio...similar to my present one, except my present one is a 327 Powerglide, PS, PB. Anyway, I drove that car for over 200,000 miles. I sold it when I could afford to get a nicer car for the family. There was NOTHING wrong with it at that point. The motor had NEVER been apart, used no oil between 3,000 mile changes, no noticeable power loss, didn't even leak.

So here's my theory PROVED by the above:

GM sold Studebaker SPECIAL engines, but they weren't the ones made with super secret high nickel iron, special over sized crankshafts, titanium pistons, sodium cooled valves, etc. like rumored...they were the REJECTS...ones that didn't meet spec to be put in GM cars. Jerry Palma's Chevy powered Studebaker was a POS, my Chevy powered Chevy is probably still running on the original motor. How can you refute that (anecdotal evidence). Facts are facts!

I don't have enough anecdotal evidence yet to determine the reason this happened, but I'll throw out a couple of possibilities.

1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.

2. The CASCO's (Cheap A** Studebaker Corporation Owners) REQUESTED these rejects. They could get a great deal on them from GM and they knew they probably wouldn't be in the car business long enough for the back lash to hit them.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it


[:o)] ;)



http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



[:0][:0][:0]:(BOOM!:(:(:(
There goes the SDC Forum!
It was fun while it lasted... :D:D:D:D:DBP

8E45E
03-10-2008, 12:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.



Well, none of them certainly ended up under the hood of my '65 Commander!![^]

Craig

8E45E
03-10-2008, 12:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


1. GM had to do SOMETHING with the rejects. Why not sell them to a competitor? Gets rid of the bad motors AND helps drive the competitor out of business.



Well, none of them certainly ended up under the hood of my '65 Commander!![^]

Craig

StudeDave57
03-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Good theory, Dude- but that's about all it is!!! The 283 in my '65 made it to 186K without being rebuilt, and I only did it then because I'd just been transfered across the Country and had to tow a trailer out to Florida. I didn't want to push my luck any further. She was strong, no oil loss, plenty of power. Nearly 100K more miles later, she's still kickin'!!!


StudeDave [8D]
V/P San Diego County SDC
San Diego, Ca
www.studebakersandiego.com

'54 Commander Regal 4dr 'Ruby'
'57 Commander DeLuxe 2dr 'Baby'
'57 Champion Custom 2dr 'Jewel'
'57 Parkview 'Betsy' (she's a 2dr wagon...)
'58 Packard sedan 'Cleo'
'65 Cruiser 'Sweet Pea'

StudeDave57
03-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Good theory, Dude- but that's about all it is!!! The 283 in my '65 made it to 186K without being rebuilt, and I only did it then because I'd just been transfered across the Country and had to tow a trailer out to Florida. I didn't want to push my luck any further. She was strong, no oil loss, plenty of power. Nearly 100K more miles later, she's still kickin'!!!


StudeDave [8D]
V/P San Diego County SDC
San Diego, Ca
www.studebakersandiego.com

'54 Commander Regal 4dr 'Ruby'
'57 Commander DeLuxe 2dr 'Baby'
'57 Champion Custom 2dr 'Jewel'
'57 Parkview 'Betsy' (she's a 2dr wagon...)
'58 Packard sedan 'Cleo'
'65 Cruiser 'Sweet Pea'

StudeRich
03-10-2008, 02:36 PM
Yep, you're RIGHT Bob...there goes the Forum!

All it takes is one GM Sympathetic Stude. nut to ruin the whole bushel !![:0]

We love ya Dick! just not necessarily your preferences and theories!:D

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

StudeRich
03-10-2008, 02:36 PM
Yep, you're RIGHT Bob...there goes the Forum!

All it takes is one GM Sympathetic Stude. nut to ruin the whole bushel !![:0]

We love ya Dick! just not necessarily your preferences and theories!:D

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

Guido
03-10-2008, 03:30 PM
Well at least Dick had the good sense to get the Impala Sport, my parents opted for a '66 4 door Biscayne with a 230 6 hooked to a 3 on the tree. I absolutely hated that car (and sliding around on the cheap seats). Imagine my delight when we upgraded to a '70 Mercury Montego with 351 4V and A/C! :D[:p]

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/62/562/2/21/69/2353221690097493054hwathP_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/60/460/3/91/1/2433391010097493054nAMBKh_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/24/565/2/49/65/2603249650097493054XvpTUI_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/64/564/6/89/77/2752689770097493054skXzAT_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/22/22/0/2/68/2589002680097493054ftBuBw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/8/30/30/2075830300097493054aSSlFv_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/24/565/5/22/8/2609522080097493054ZNRJeA_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/69/169/4/66/56/2729466560097493054oBZsXT_th.jpg
Guido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful"

Studebaker horse drawn doctor’s buggy; Studebaker horse drawn “Izzer” buggy; 1946 M-16 fire truck; 1948 M-16 grain truck; 1949 2R17A fire truck; 1950 2R5 pickup; 1952 2R17A grain truck; 1952 Packard 200 4 door; 1955 E-38 grain truck; 1957 3E-40 flatbed; 1961 6E-28 grain truck; 1962 7E-13D 4x4 rack truck; 1962 7E-7 Champ pickup; 1962 GT Hawk 4 speed; 1963 8E-28 flatbed; 1964 Avanti R2 4 speed; 1964 Cruiser and various other "treasures" (including a 1959 IH B-120 4 wheel drive, a 1970 Dodge W-200 Power Wagon and numerous Oliver and Cockshutt tractors).

See pictures here: http://community.webshots.com/user/GuidoSalvage

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

Guido
03-10-2008, 03:30 PM
Well at least Dick had the good sense to get the Impala Sport, my parents opted for a '66 4 door Biscayne with a 230 6 hooked to a 3 on the tree. I absolutely hated that car (and sliding around on the cheap seats). Imagine my delight when we upgraded to a '70 Mercury Montego with 351 4V and A/C! :D[:p]

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/62/562/2/21/69/2353221690097493054hwathP_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/60/460/3/91/1/2433391010097493054nAMBKh_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/24/565/2/49/65/2603249650097493054XvpTUI_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/64/564/6/89/77/2752689770097493054skXzAT_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/22/22/0/2/68/2589002680097493054ftBuBw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/8/30/30/2075830300097493054aSSlFv_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/24/565/5/22/8/2609522080097493054ZNRJeA_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/69/169/4/66/56/2729466560097493054oBZsXT_th.jpg
Guido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful"

Studebaker horse drawn doctor’s buggy; Studebaker horse drawn “Izzer” buggy; 1946 M-16 fire truck; 1948 M-16 grain truck; 1949 2R17A fire truck; 1950 2R5 pickup; 1952 2R17A grain truck; 1952 Packard 200 4 door; 1955 E-38 grain truck; 1957 3E-40 flatbed; 1961 6E-28 grain truck; 1962 7E-13D 4x4 rack truck; 1962 7E-7 Champ pickup; 1962 GT Hawk 4 speed; 1963 8E-28 flatbed; 1964 Avanti R2 4 speed; 1964 Cruiser and various other "treasures" (including a 1959 IH B-120 4 wheel drive, a 1970 Dodge W-200 Power Wagon and numerous Oliver and Cockshutt tractors).

See pictures here: http://community.webshots.com/user/GuidoSalvage

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

BobPalma
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

Yep, you're RIGHT Bob...there goes the Forum!

All it takes is one GM Sympathetic Stude. nut to ruin the whole bushel !![:0]

We love ya Dick! just not necessarily your preferences and theories!:D

StudeRich


:D Well, Rich, I hope you know Dick and I are just funnin' each other.

On a more serious note, I've just got to figure out how to scan and post things, but until we are thus modernized around here, I'll spend a moment copying ver batim a couple letters that will be of interest to all following this thread.

The first is from Bill Dredge, Director of Studebaker Public Relations, in a personal letter dated February 26, 1964. He says (again, ver batim; no alterations and in its entirety).

[i] Feb. 6,1964
Dear Bob;

You mis-read the Car Life article (as did several hundred other people, judging from my mail).

What was said about American Motors engines was that our foundry and stamping plant continue to operate, supplying parts for Canadian Assembly of Studebakers and supplying American Motors V-8 engine blocks under contract. You see, we have been casting blocks for AM for some time, and are running out that contract in our foundry.

Now -- as for future plans. We obviously must eventually shut down our stamping plant and our engine plant. It isn't economically feasible to run just a small part of this factory--otherwise we never would have made the move to Canada. We will have to seek other sources for stampings--and eventually for engines.

What we expect to do is just what Car Life suggested some months ago--to seek the ultra-modern Ford lightweight 289 engine, or some similarily modern power plant from Ford, Chrysler, or GM to replace both or six and V-8 engines, both of which are hardly the most modern in the industry, although both are mighty tough and dependable.

Don't give up on us yet. We may come up with some goodies that will make Studebaker a more interesting item than it is right now. All best to you. Dredge. (S.) Bill Dredge

[Curiously, Mr. Dredge' letter was obviously hand-typed by himself on an old manual typewriter. Having received many pieces of personal correspondence from Studebaker Public relations during 1962-1965, it was sad to see the professionl nature of modern typewriters and secretary-typed letters give way to personal typings on an old manual typewriter as the company wound down.]

A second letter was sent to "Messrs. Krem and Palma" at my cousin George's then-home with his parents at 308 E. Turner in Roselle IL. We had written to protest the now-confirmed selection of Chevrolet engines and received a two-page letter from Roy B. Bender, President of SASCO. Mr. Bender apparently still had a secretary, because it is typed professionally in a different font, with the initials DPH identifying the secretary who typed it.

This letter is dated November 27, 1964, so it would have been generated months after McKinnon engines had been confirmed and were being installed in new 1965 Studebakers.

It gushes forth with great benefits of the new engine(s), so I'll spare those with weak stomachs the repulsive task of reading about Studebaker's President beating up on Studebaker's own, now deceased engines.

However, I'll cite three paragraphs of interest, the middle one being particularily humorous, IMHO:

[i]"So that you will know, the old Studebaker Foundry was purchased by Cummins Diesel a

BobPalma
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

Yep, you're RIGHT Bob...there goes the Forum!

All it takes is one GM Sympathetic Stude. nut to ruin the whole bushel !![:0]

We love ya Dick! just not necessarily your preferences and theories!:D

StudeRich


:D Well, Rich, I hope you know Dick and I are just funnin' each other.

On a more serious note, I've just got to figure out how to scan and post things, but until we are thus modernized around here, I'll spend a moment copying ver batim a couple letters that will be of interest to all following this thread.

The first is from Bill Dredge, Director of Studebaker Public Relations, in a personal letter dated February 26, 1964. He says (again, ver batim; no alterations and in its entirety).

[i] Feb. 6,1964
Dear Bob;

You mis-read the Car Life article (as did several hundred other people, judging from my mail).

What was said about American Motors engines was that our foundry and stamping plant continue to operate, supplying parts for Canadian Assembly of Studebakers and supplying American Motors V-8 engine blocks under contract. You see, we have been casting blocks for AM for some time, and are running out that contract in our foundry.

Now -- as for future plans. We obviously must eventually shut down our stamping plant and our engine plant. It isn't economically feasible to run just a small part of this factory--otherwise we never would have made the move to Canada. We will have to seek other sources for stampings--and eventually for engines.

What we expect to do is just what Car Life suggested some months ago--to seek the ultra-modern Ford lightweight 289 engine, or some similarily modern power plant from Ford, Chrysler, or GM to replace both or six and V-8 engines, both of which are hardly the most modern in the industry, although both are mighty tough and dependable.

Don't give up on us yet. We may come up with some goodies that will make Studebaker a more interesting item than it is right now. All best to you. Dredge. (S.) Bill Dredge

[Curiously, Mr. Dredge' letter was obviously hand-typed by himself on an old manual typewriter. Having received many pieces of personal correspondence from Studebaker Public relations during 1962-1965, it was sad to see the professionl nature of modern typewriters and secretary-typed letters give way to personal typings on an old manual typewriter as the company wound down.]

A second letter was sent to "Messrs. Krem and Palma" at my cousin George's then-home with his parents at 308 E. Turner in Roselle IL. We had written to protest the now-confirmed selection of Chevrolet engines and received a two-page letter from Roy B. Bender, President of SASCO. Mr. Bender apparently still had a secretary, because it is typed professionally in a different font, with the initials DPH identifying the secretary who typed it.

This letter is dated November 27, 1964, so it would have been generated months after McKinnon engines had been confirmed and were being installed in new 1965 Studebakers.

It gushes forth with great benefits of the new engine(s), so I'll spare those with weak stomachs the repulsive task of reading about Studebaker's President beating up on Studebaker's own, now deceased engines.

However, I'll cite three paragraphs of interest, the middle one being particularily humorous, IMHO:

[i]"So that you will know, the old Studebaker Foundry was purchased by Cummins Diesel a

nels
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
For what its worth, back in 1998 I talked at length with Harold Johnson, a retired Studebaker engineer. I think his title was "Ass't Eng. Dvpt. Engr. He reported to E. J. Hardig. I asked him why Stude went with the Chev power plant. His response was that nobody at Studebaker really wanted to go with the Chevrolet and that they had tried Ford and I believe Chryler and AMC but the Chev fit was simple. He expressed a lot of personal dissatisfaction with powering the Stude with a GM power plant.

nels
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
For what its worth, back in 1998 I talked at length with Harold Johnson, a retired Studebaker engineer. I think his title was "Ass't Eng. Dvpt. Engr. He reported to E. J. Hardig. I asked him why Stude went with the Chev power plant. His response was that nobody at Studebaker really wanted to go with the Chevrolet and that they had tried Ford and I believe Chryler and AMC but the Chev fit was simple. He expressed a lot of personal dissatisfaction with powering the Stude with a GM power plant.

Dick Steinkamp
03-10-2008, 06:08 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
:D Well, Rich, I hope you know Dick and I are just funnin' each other.


Jees...you Gahlbecks are TOUGH! I put the little clown face and the winky thing there to insure everyone knows I was clowning around and kidding.

However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!

[:o)] ;)


http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-10-2008, 06:08 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma
:D Well, Rich, I hope you know Dick and I are just funnin' each other.


Jees...you Gahlbecks are TOUGH! I put the little clown face and the winky thing there to insure everyone knows I was clowning around and kidding.

However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!

[:o)] ;)


http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

8E45E
03-10-2008, 06:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!



Well, Dick, your '53 would have come from the factory with a Delco distributor!![:0]

Craig

8E45E
03-10-2008, 06:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!



Well, Dick, your '53 would have come from the factory with a Delco distributor!![:0]

Craig

StudeDave57
03-10-2008, 06:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
Jees...you Gahlbecks are TOUGH! I put the little clown face and the winky thing there to insure everyone knows I was clowning around and kidding.
However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!

No harm, no foul~ Just wanted to put some facts out there 'bout those cool 283s!!! BP has never gone for a ride in one of these 'gutless' 283s, I see... [:0] ;)

The "funny" thing about my ownership of this car is the fact that when I bought her, she was just supposed to be 'temparary' transporation while I was getting some much needed work done to my Parkview. Something like 16 years later poor Betsy still waits for the final touches... [:0] :( [V]


StudeDave [8D]

StudeDave57
03-10-2008, 06:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
Jees...you Gahlbecks are TOUGH! I put the little clown face and the winky thing there to insure everyone knows I was clowning around and kidding.
However, I AM glad to see some died in the wool Stude guys supporting a GM engine!

No harm, no foul~ Just wanted to put some facts out there 'bout those cool 283s!!! BP has never gone for a ride in one of these 'gutless' 283s, I see... [:0] ;)

The "funny" thing about my ownership of this car is the fact that when I bought her, she was just supposed to be 'temparary' transporation while I was getting some much needed work done to my Parkview. Something like 16 years later poor Betsy still waits for the final touches... [:0] :( [V]


StudeDave [8D]

Jessie J.
03-10-2008, 10:25 PM
My first Studebaker was a '65 Cruiser with a 283 & FOM, which I soon converted over to a 4 speed, and added a Weiand Hi-rise with AFB, and dual exhaust. It ran pretty good but was no R-2 by a long shot.
What bugged me at the time was that my buddies could go down to the local Chevy dealer and order up a Nova with the optional 327-350 hp. I wish the 327 with a 4 speed or HD FOM had been included on Studebaker's '65-'66 option list, then us "poor folks" could be having fun at the PSMCD's too. :D

Jessie J.
03-10-2008, 10:25 PM
My first Studebaker was a '65 Cruiser with a 283 & FOM, which I soon converted over to a 4 speed, and added a Weiand Hi-rise with AFB, and dual exhaust. It ran pretty good but was no R-2 by a long shot.
What bugged me at the time was that my buddies could go down to the local Chevy dealer and order up a Nova with the optional 327-350 hp. I wish the 327 with a 4 speed or HD FOM had been included on Studebaker's '65-'66 option list, then us "poor folks" could be having fun at the PSMCD's too. :D

jnewkirk77
03-11-2008, 10:39 AM
BP, I didn't know Stude produced blocks for AMC! That's a new one on me. And it got me to thinking, "Well, why couldn't they have used the 250/287/327 AMC was building?" But I seem to remember (and I very well could be wrong here) that Dad and my uncles all said the AMC V8 was a wide engine and, except for the '57 Rebel version, not exactly a performance motor. Too wide for the Studebaker engine bay, possibly? I don't know for sure.

Of course, the "new" 290/304/343/360/390/401 (I think I got 'em all) that came along in mid-'66 would've been a better option, I think, but by the time it came out, of course, Studebaker had already closed Hamilton. So that's pretty much academic.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-11-2008, 10:39 AM
BP, I didn't know Stude produced blocks for AMC! That's a new one on me. And it got me to thinking, "Well, why couldn't they have used the 250/287/327 AMC was building?" But I seem to remember (and I very well could be wrong here) that Dad and my uncles all said the AMC V8 was a wide engine and, except for the '57 Rebel version, not exactly a performance motor. Too wide for the Studebaker engine bay, possibly? I don't know for sure.

Of course, the "new" 290/304/343/360/390/401 (I think I got 'em all) that came along in mid-'66 would've been a better option, I think, but by the time it came out, of course, Studebaker had already closed Hamilton. So that's pretty much academic.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

DEEPNHOCK
03-12-2008, 06:41 PM
But..but..Bob...
You're a Mopar guy.
What'cha got against a Hemi?[}:)]
Jeff[8D]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/deepnhock/Jeff%20Rice%20Studebaker%20Pictures/RedRamHemiLS1.jpg


quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]
Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)



[quote]Originally posted by BobPalma
And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP

DEEPNHOCK
03-12-2008, 06:41 PM
But..but..Bob...
You're a Mopar guy.
What'cha got against a Hemi?[}:)]
Jeff[8D]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/deepnhock/Jeff%20Rice%20Studebaker%20Pictures/RedRamHemiLS1.jpg


quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
:D We've got a few of those here, don't we. [^]
Speaking of which, has anybody here ever put a small block Chevy in a Studebaker? [}:)] ;)



[quote]Originally posted by BobPalma
And Dick Steinkamp now knows this topic is like Whack-a-Mole; you might think you've clubbed it to death, but.... :(;)[}:)] :DBP

BobPalma
03-12-2008, 07:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

But..but..Bob...
You're a Mopar guy.
What'cha got against a Hemi?[}:)]
Jeff[8D]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/deepnhock/Jeff%20Rice%20Studebaker%20Pictures/RedRamHemiLS1.jpg



:D Nothing at all, Jeffster. [:p] (Good Grief! I've heard of the hole-in-the-hood gang, but not the hole-in-the-firewall group!:D) [8D]BP

BobPalma
03-12-2008, 07:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

But..but..Bob...
You're a Mopar guy.
What'cha got against a Hemi?[}:)]
Jeff[8D]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/deepnhock/Jeff%20Rice%20Studebaker%20Pictures/RedRamHemiLS1.jpg



:D Nothing at all, Jeffster. [:p] (Good Grief! I've heard of the hole-in-the-hood gang, but not the hole-in-the-firewall group!:D) [8D]BP

Swifster
03-12-2008, 09:58 PM
Being a Mopar guy, a few neutral observations could be made regarding the Chevy vs Ford debate. I think they got the choice right [}:)]. The Ford small block at the time came in two flavors, 260 and 289. I'm sure this appealed to the engineering staff by engine sizes alone. While considered by many here to be a 'belly button' engine, it was and is the most popular engine ever built.

I've always said the best way Studebaker could have gone out would have been with a 327/350 option in '66. I bet GM said no to 327's and any version of a 283 that didn't include a two-barrel. The 289 would have fit, but other Ford engine families would not. I don't think would have been shipping any 'K' code engines even if they were available.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1826.83)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/rollingpi.gif http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/01-01-05TheStartingPoint.jpg http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg

Swifster
03-12-2008, 09:58 PM
Being a Mopar guy, a few neutral observations could be made regarding the Chevy vs Ford debate. I think they got the choice right [}:)]. The Ford small block at the time came in two flavors, 260 and 289. I'm sure this appealed to the engineering staff by engine sizes alone. While considered by many here to be a 'belly button' engine, it was and is the most popular engine ever built.

I've always said the best way Studebaker could have gone out would have been with a 327/350 option in '66. I bet GM said no to 327's and any version of a 283 that didn't include a two-barrel. The 289 would have fit, but other Ford engine families would not. I don't think would have been shipping any 'K' code engines even if they were available.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1826.83)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/rollingpi.gif http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/01-01-05TheStartingPoint.jpg http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg

Jessie J.
03-12-2008, 10:16 PM
In case anyone hasn't noticed that particular "Hemi", is NOT really a Hemi at all.

Jessie J.
03-12-2008, 10:16 PM
In case anyone hasn't noticed that particular "Hemi", is NOT really a Hemi at all.

jnewkirk77
03-13-2008, 12:14 AM
Tom, some of Ford's engines (oh, pretty much anything bigger than a Windsor) had a hard time fitting in their OWN cars! Dad related such a story to me a couple of weeks ago when we made our expedition to the pull-a-part yard:

"Your Grandpa had an orange Country Squire with the 429 in it, and your Uncle Tim and I decided we'd surprise him and change the plugs in it while he was at work.

"Well, we were the ones who got the surprise. We got the front six plugs out just fine, but we must have spent two hours trying to figure out how to get those back two out. We used about every tool and cuss word in the book, and nothin' worked!

"So we finally took it out to Gene Lewis Ford and asked them to take a look and see what we were doing wrong. Turns out we didn't do ANYTHING wrong, not at all. They took it back to the service bay and got under the car, loosened the transmission mount and jacked it up. Then they had to get out a special wrench, and even then it took 'em about 10 minutes."

I have to admit, that story reminded me a lot of my first car, a '78 Dodge Diplomat with a two-barrel Lean Burn 318 (remember those?), which looked like it'd been shoved in there with a BIG shoehorn. The service manual Dad bought for it recommended, in the case of a spark plug change, that you remove these odd-looking aluminum panels from the inner fenders and also remove the front wheels for "improved access."

Yeah, sure. Whatever.

Well, after I bled all over both sides of the engine compartment and called that poor car every name under the sun, I figured out that they weren't kidding.

So when I got my truck, I praised the good Lord for sending me a vehicle that I can actually get my hands around to work on. Changing plugs and a whole lot of other parts, man, it's a breeze!

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-13-2008, 12:14 AM
Tom, some of Ford's engines (oh, pretty much anything bigger than a Windsor) had a hard time fitting in their OWN cars! Dad related such a story to me a couple of weeks ago when we made our expedition to the pull-a-part yard:

"Your Grandpa had an orange Country Squire with the 429 in it, and your Uncle Tim and I decided we'd surprise him and change the plugs in it while he was at work.

"Well, we were the ones who got the surprise. We got the front six plugs out just fine, but we must have spent two hours trying to figure out how to get those back two out. We used about every tool and cuss word in the book, and nothin' worked!

"So we finally took it out to Gene Lewis Ford and asked them to take a look and see what we were doing wrong. Turns out we didn't do ANYTHING wrong, not at all. They took it back to the service bay and got under the car, loosened the transmission mount and jacked it up. Then they had to get out a special wrench, and even then it took 'em about 10 minutes."

I have to admit, that story reminded me a lot of my first car, a '78 Dodge Diplomat with a two-barrel Lean Burn 318 (remember those?), which looked like it'd been shoved in there with a BIG shoehorn. The service manual Dad bought for it recommended, in the case of a spark plug change, that you remove these odd-looking aluminum panels from the inner fenders and also remove the front wheels for "improved access."

Yeah, sure. Whatever.

Well, after I bled all over both sides of the engine compartment and called that poor car every name under the sun, I figured out that they weren't kidding.

So when I got my truck, I praised the good Lord for sending me a vehicle that I can actually get my hands around to work on. Changing plugs and a whole lot of other parts, man, it's a breeze!

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

DEEPNHOCK
03-13-2008, 06:35 AM
Heh,heh,heh[}:)];)


quote:Originally posted by Jessie J.

In case anyone hasn't noticed that particular "Hemi", is NOT really a Hemi at all.

DEEPNHOCK
03-13-2008, 06:35 AM
Heh,heh,heh[}:)];)


quote:Originally posted by Jessie J.

In case anyone hasn't noticed that particular "Hemi", is NOT really a Hemi at all.

Swifster
03-13-2008, 07:00 AM
quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77

I have to admit, that story reminded me a lot of my first car, a '78 Dodge Diplomat with a two-barrel Lean Burn 318 (remember those?), which looked like it'd been shoved in there with a BIG shoehorn. The service manual Dad bought for it recommended, in the case of a spark plug change, that you remove these odd-looking aluminum panels from the inner fenders and also remove the front wheels for "improved access."


I do remember those. Chrysler used the same set up on the Aspen/Volare twins and a friend of mine had one with the 318. Had to pull the tires/wheels and those panels with the 10 screws holding them in place. Doing tune ups on the slant six, especially if it had a point type distributor was a pain as well. It was usually easier to remove the distributor to change and set the points vs leaving it in the car.

Using Chrysler engines probably wouldn't have been that good of an idea. The slant six would have been pain to service, and while it was peppy, I don't think the 273 in 2-bbl trim would have been as good as the 283 or Ford 289. I'm not sure if plug access would have been that great either (remember, 340's and 318's weren't available until '68 and '67).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1826.83)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/rollingpi.gif http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/01-01-05TheStartingPoint.jpg http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg

Swifster
03-13-2008, 07:00 AM
quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77

I have to admit, that story reminded me a lot of my first car, a '78 Dodge Diplomat with a two-barrel Lean Burn 318 (remember those?), which looked like it'd been shoved in there with a BIG shoehorn. The service manual Dad bought for it recommended, in the case of a spark plug change, that you remove these odd-looking aluminum panels from the inner fenders and also remove the front wheels for "improved access."


I do remember those. Chrysler used the same set up on the Aspen/Volare twins and a friend of mine had one with the 318. Had to pull the tires/wheels and those panels with the 10 screws holding them in place. Doing tune ups on the slant six, especially if it had a point type distributor was a pain as well. It was usually easier to remove the distributor to change and set the points vs leaving it in the car.

Using Chrysler engines probably wouldn't have been that good of an idea. The slant six would have been pain to service, and while it was peppy, I don't think the 273 in 2-bbl trim would have been as good as the 283 or Ford 289. I'm not sure if plug access would have been that great either (remember, 340's and 318's weren't available until '68 and '67).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1826.83)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/rollingpi.gif http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/01-01-05TheStartingPoint.jpg http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/The%20Daytona%20File/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg

jnewkirk77
03-13-2008, 08:16 AM
And let's not forget that, while the Slant Six was a relatively low engine, height-wise, it was also a LOOOOOONG engine. I doubt it would've fit in a Studebaker without major surgery. All of the Slant Sixes I've had were (thankfully) blessed with electronic ignition; I'd have thrown a fit if I'd had to change points.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-13-2008, 08:16 AM
And let's not forget that, while the Slant Six was a relatively low engine, height-wise, it was also a LOOOOOONG engine. I doubt it would've fit in a Studebaker without major surgery. All of the Slant Sixes I've had were (thankfully) blessed with electronic ignition; I'd have thrown a fit if I'd had to change points.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

studegary
03-16-2008, 11:57 AM
quote:Originally posted by Swifster


I don't think the 273 in 2-bbl trim would have been as good as the 283 or Ford 289. I'm not sure if plug access would have been that great either (remember, 340's and 318's weren't available until '68 and '67).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

ile/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg[/img]


I didn't look up the starting years for 318, but it must be before "'67". My father's 1964 Fury had a 318 and when I ordered my 1966 Charger, I believe that a 318 was standard (I ordered a 361). These are the new thin wall casting 318s, not the 318 that was around even before then.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

studegary
03-16-2008, 11:57 AM
quote:Originally posted by Swifster


I don't think the 273 in 2-bbl trim would have been as good as the 283 or Ford 289. I'm not sure if plug access would have been that great either (remember, 340's and 318's weren't available until '68 and '67).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

ile/Avatar%20Size/07-17-07FrontClipRemoved.jpg[/img]


I didn't look up the starting years for 318, but it must be before "'67". My father's 1964 Fury had a 318 and when I ordered my 1966 Charger, I believe that a 318 was standard (I ordered a 361). These are the new thin wall casting 318s, not the 318 that was around even before then.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

jnewkirk77
03-16-2008, 02:11 PM
The 318 didn't change over to the "LA" (Low A) design, as used by the 273, until '67. The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-16-2008, 02:11 PM
The 318 didn't change over to the "LA" (Low A) design, as used by the 273, until '67. The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

Dick Steinkamp
03-16-2008, 05:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77
The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.


Our '58 Plymouth Suburban wagon my dad bought new had a 318. '58 must have been the first year.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-16-2008, 05:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77
The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.


Our '58 Plymouth Suburban wagon my dad bought new had a 318. '58 must have been the first year.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

BobPalma
03-16-2008, 06:44 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77
The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.


Our '58 Plymouth Suburban wagon my dad bought new had a 318. '58 must have been the first year.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



;) Not quite, Dick. The famous 318 actually first appeared as the optional Plymouth Fury engine for 1957. The base 1957 Fury engine was the 300 CID (OK; 299.6) V-8 with a single 4-bbl. It was stroked slightly to yield 318 CID and topped with 2 4-bbl carbs to make the optional Fury engine for 1957.

In lesser tune with a 2bbl carb, it became the base V-8 for 1958 and 1959 Plymouths. For the 1960 model year and beyond, it became the base V-8 for Dodges, too, until the little 273 was introduced. :DBP

BobPalma
03-16-2008, 06:44 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by jnewkirk77
The older 318 (which I think came out in '59) was the "A" design. It's taller and wider than the LA.


Our '58 Plymouth Suburban wagon my dad bought new had a 318. '58 must have been the first year.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg



;) Not quite, Dick. The famous 318 actually first appeared as the optional Plymouth Fury engine for 1957. The base 1957 Fury engine was the 300 CID (OK; 299.6) V-8 with a single 4-bbl. It was stroked slightly to yield 318 CID and topped with 2 4-bbl carbs to make the optional Fury engine for 1957.

In lesser tune with a 2bbl carb, it became the base V-8 for 1958 and 1959 Plymouths. For the 1960 model year and beyond, it became the base V-8 for Dodges, too, until the little 273 was introduced. :DBP

Dick Steinkamp
03-16-2008, 06:49 PM
Thanks, Bob!

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-16-2008, 06:49 PM
Thanks, Bob!

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s66/ddstnkmp/54%20starlight/HiResS2Dsig2.jpg

wally
03-16-2008, 08:20 PM
The Early Hemi People say you can install early Hemi heads on an A-series "polysphere" engine without any trouble, too.
Makes Me think it is too bad Stude and the larger-cid Packard V8's weren't machined with the same bolt patterns throughout, too. But, I guess you can't have everything.

wally
03-16-2008, 08:20 PM
The Early Hemi People say you can install early Hemi heads on an A-series "polysphere" engine without any trouble, too.
Makes Me think it is too bad Stude and the larger-cid Packard V8's weren't machined with the same bolt patterns throughout, too. But, I guess you can't have everything.

BobPalma
03-17-2008, 05:13 AM
quote:Originally posted by wally

The Early Hemi People say you can install early Hemi heads on an A-series "polysphere" engine without any trouble, too.
Makes Me think it is too bad Stude and the larger-cid Packard V8's weren't machined with the same bolt patterns throughout, too. But, I guess you can't have everything.



:) Wally: Studebaker and Packard were not associated with each other when their respective V-8 engines were developed, so it would have been unlikely they would have cooperated to that extent. By the time they merged in 1954, development of the new Pakcard V-8 for 1955 was all but finished.

'Nice thought, though![^] :DBP

BobPalma
03-17-2008, 05:13 AM
quote:Originally posted by wally

The Early Hemi People say you can install early Hemi heads on an A-series "polysphere" engine without any trouble, too.
Makes Me think it is too bad Stude and the larger-cid Packard V8's weren't machined with the same bolt patterns throughout, too. But, I guess you can't have everything.



:) Wally: Studebaker and Packard were not associated with each other when their respective V-8 engines were developed, so it would have been unlikely they would have cooperated to that extent. By the time they merged in 1954, development of the new Pakcard V-8 for 1955 was all but finished.

'Nice thought, though![^] :DBP

jnewkirk77
03-17-2008, 10:46 AM
You know, Bob ... it hasn't been that long ago that I read somewhere (and please forgive me, guys, it may have been here, but I can't remember, what with all of the stuff I've been doing lately) that the Packard V8 was NOT as heavy as everyone claimed it was. Maybe it was in one of my magazines, seem to remember it coulda been George Hamlin who pointed it out.

I'd LOVE to see someone take a Packard 374 with the dual-quad setup and drop it in an early Lark ... that ought to be a fun ride!!!

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-17-2008, 10:46 AM
You know, Bob ... it hasn't been that long ago that I read somewhere (and please forgive me, guys, it may have been here, but I can't remember, what with all of the stuff I've been doing lately) that the Packard V8 was NOT as heavy as everyone claimed it was. Maybe it was in one of my magazines, seem to remember it coulda been George Hamlin who pointed it out.

I'd LOVE to see someone take a Packard 374 with the dual-quad setup and drop it in an early Lark ... that ought to be a fun ride!!!

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

Daan
03-17-2008, 11:55 AM
OK so what was this letter from Ford all about?

http://s69.photobucket.com/albums/i44/DansStudes/

Daan
03-17-2008, 11:55 AM
OK so what was this letter from Ford all about?

http://s69.photobucket.com/albums/i44/DansStudes/

jnewkirk77
03-18-2008, 07:03 AM
I'll have to try and find the '64 Lark-type feature article in TW (it's around here somewhere), but the gist of the Ford letter was a sales solicitation directed at recent Studebaker purchasers. It had a brochure (on the Falcon, maybe the Fairlane, I think) and letter, and it was all sent in an innocuous envelope that read simply, "A message of interest to Studebaker owners," or something of that nature. The only outward clue that it was from Ford was the Dearborn, MI mailing address in itsy-bitsy tiny print.

It stirred up what Studebaker termed "a storm of indignation" among owners, so the company sent out a package of their own, complete with a letter from Gordon Grundy pledging to stay in the automobile business. He was dead set against getting out when the Board pulled the plug in '66.

Does anyone here have either package so we can see what the "storm" was all about???

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

jnewkirk77
03-18-2008, 07:03 AM
I'll have to try and find the '64 Lark-type feature article in TW (it's around here somewhere), but the gist of the Ford letter was a sales solicitation directed at recent Studebaker purchasers. It had a brochure (on the Falcon, maybe the Fairlane, I think) and letter, and it was all sent in an innocuous envelope that read simply, "A message of interest to Studebaker owners," or something of that nature. The only outward clue that it was from Ford was the Dearborn, MI mailing address in itsy-bitsy tiny print.

It stirred up what Studebaker termed "a storm of indignation" among owners, so the company sent out a package of their own, complete with a letter from Gordon Grundy pledging to stay in the automobile business. He was dead set against getting out when the Board pulled the plug in '66.

Does anyone here have either package so we can see what the "storm" was all about???

Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!