PDA

View Full Version : 224 to 289



TCL
03-14-2005, 07:57 PM
I'm faced with rebuilding the 224 in my '55 half-ton, E7. I have a chance to get a 289 short block that has been rebuilt. Would there be any problem replacing the 224 with the 289? Will the 224 heads work okay on the 289?
Thanks.

Sonny
03-14-2005, 08:58 PM
The 289 will slap right in there TCL, and you can use the 224 heads on the 289 but ya wouldn't want to do that, the ports are a lot smaller than the 289. I'd use as much of that 289 as possible, I think you'd really enjoy the difference!

Sonny
http://RacingStudebakers.com

Roscomacaw
03-15-2005, 10:36 AM
Ahhh.. Sonny, the 224 used the same heads as the 259s & 289s of the day. Same heads, same valves. The only differences were the compression ratio of some of the heads. And the different compression ratio heads were used on the various displacement engines as was required to meet specific needs.
224 259 289, they're all the same save for pistons and crankshafts insofar as interchangeablity goes. There were some changes made along the way but as long as you keep valve trains intact, you should be able to swap from one to another. It was the 232 alone (54 and earlier V8s) that had the teeny ports and valves. And at that, a 232's no slouch.;)
I'd have no problem using that 289 with the 224's heads.:D

Miscreant at large.

Leon
03-15-2005, 01:58 PM
Mr. Biggs- Did the 224 have unique pistons & crankshaft? I've always wondered what the 224 was all about.

Roscomacaw
03-15-2005, 02:54 PM
That's it basically - different pistons and crank. Theory has it that if you can keep the valves from floating, the inherent strength of the 224's crankshaft should let it spin to 9000 RPM! Because of the short stroke, there's more overlap of the crank journals than the other cranks that Stude used. More overlap means more strength.[:0]
Of course, all Stude V8 cranks were forged so they have a leg up on brand Xs to start with!;)

Miscreant at large.

Sonny
03-15-2005, 11:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

Ahhh.. Sonny, the 224 used the same heads as the 259s & 289s of the day. Same heads, same valves. The only differences were the compression ratio of some of the heads. And the different compression ratio heads were used on the various displacement engines as was required to meet specific needs.
224 259 289, they're all the same save for pistons and crankshafts insofar as interchangeablity goes. There were some changes made along the way but as long as you keep valve trains intact, you should be able to swap from one to another. It was the 232 alone (54 and earlier V8s) that had the teeny ports and valves. And at that, a 232's no slouch.;)
I'd have no problem using that 289 with the 224's heads.:D

Miscreant at large.


Ah, Ok, I stand corrected, thanks Bob. I had the 224 and 232 bass-ackwards. [:p] The other thing is, I think you're exactly right, any of the Stude V8s were no slouch, just need a few bolt-on goodies to wake 'em up. Keep us posted on how it goes will ya TCL?

Sonny
http://RacingStudebakers.com

51studer
05-08-2005, 04:04 AM
Don't want to reign on a parade, but I have the same question here. I have the 232.6 and I was told the 259 heads would fit just fine. now in that case, would the 289 heads fit? Are there any differences between them? What would be your advice on this situation? I'm going for the bigger valves and higher compression ratio here. Stude motors are great aren't they.[^]

Tom B
05-08-2005, 07:22 PM
I, too, have one of those 232's that I'd like to enhance. It seems that new heads, be they 259 or 289, (both nearly the same) require the larger flow intake and exhaust manifolds. The engine no longer appears small, destroying the little engine/lots of power effect.

Isn't 12.563 seconds and 53+ mph in an eighth mile sort of slouchy?

Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe
'60 Lark VI

whacker
05-08-2005, 07:42 PM
51studer & TomB, if you want to mount the 259 heads on the 232, there are a few things to look out for. If you go with the standard valves, you may be OK. If you enlarge the valves at all, you may have to relieve the bores right where the valves open. Put modeling clay on the block and put the head in place with the valves mounted. Then tap the valves down lightly to see if the valves hit the corners of the block. If they do, you must relieve these areas. Even the standard 259 valves are cutting it close with the 232 bores. BTDT. Do it right and the difference is remarkable! You can use the 232 intake if you open up the runners and polish them, but you do have to use the 259/289 exhaust manifolds. The 232 intake manifold is a work of art, and much better than the later 2 bbl "flat tops". Or use the early 259 President 4 bbl manifold.

51studer
05-09-2005, 03:04 AM
Thanks man. I figured there would be sorts of problems. I saw it outright and the head gasket would be an issue to make fit right. I was concerned with the oil and water pasage holes lining up and they did, but the smaller bore piston with a larger combustion chamber in the head would create a lip of sorts which would need to be trimmed back a bit. Didn't get to check the valve clearance to bore diameter, but makes sense. Since the stroke of the piston is so short, would this make modifying the top of the cylinder wall feasable? Anywho, anyone let me know.

Roscomacaw
05-09-2005, 02:46 PM
I didn't say anything earlier because I've never tried to fit late heads to an early engine. But the first thing I thought of was possible problems with valve clearance.
I just got rid of a 232 I'd had around here for ages. Otherwise I'd go out and set a late head on it and scope it out.:D

Miscreant at large.

Alan
05-09-2005, 04:25 PM
There is all kinds of room for the larger valve 289 heads on the 224 the 224 has the same bore as the 289 it is 3 9/16" the only difference is the stroke on the 224 it's 2 13/16 and the 259 it's 3 1/4 , and the 289 is 3 5/8" the 232 heads part no.527772 have 1.40 intake valves and exhaust are 1 1/4" and a bowl shaped combustion chamber.Where the 289 heads, part no 1557570 have a more efficent heart chamber slightly larger and 1 9/16 intakes and 1.50 exhausts. The larger exhaust realy wakes up that Stude, I take and put 1 3/4 intakes in them and have run as much as 1 7/8" valves from the R3 in them with no clearance problems on a .030 over bore there is pleanty of room.

Roscomacaw
05-09-2005, 04:43 PM
Yeah, we noted all that earlier on Alan. The question at hand is whether or not one could use the later style heads on a standard 232 block.:D

Miscreant at large.

whacker
05-09-2005, 08:33 PM
Actually, if you want to use the 259 heads on the 232 block, there is a little more to it than just a swap. The earlier blocks are supposed to be higher quality with better tolerances. Ted Harbit is the old pro at this, he dominated his class with the chickenhawk with this modification until they ended his class. The heads to get are the 579555 casting, commonly called the "555" heads (56-61). These are 54.5 CC chambers. If you use the stock intake/exhaust valves, you must also use the valve train components from the later engine (except for the lifters). If you are serious about power, you should go to an Avanti cam, but look for shorter cam life unless you sleeve the lifter bores down and use a lighter lifter. If you use the chevy valve conversion, you will have to modify the pushrods and rocker stands. Use the earlier rocker adjusting screws also. Don't forget to check valve interference as earlier discussed! You can plane the heads as much as 5/32", although I wouldn't go much more than that. You can use the metal shim head gaskets, but you may need to use an octane enhancer, even with premium gas.

Alan
05-09-2005, 08:59 PM
Been there and done that too Mr. Biggs no problem as long as you dont go larger than the 1 9/16" stock intake valve. Or put in a cam larger than a Iskenderian ST-5 which is 26-62 int. 62-26 exh. and .448 lift

51studer
06-01-2005, 02:27 AM
Thanks all. We'll see what happens when I get the heads and have them reworked.