I am going to be viewing a '62 Hawk for sale that is described as having a rebuilt 259 motor bored out to a 289. While I am told this is not even physically possible, how does one tell the difference between the two with the motor in the car? I'm new to the Studebaker world, having been held incommunicado in the Edsel and Kaiser world for the last 35 years.
-
-
Sure it is possible to turn a 259 into a 289, however it's not a matter of "boring it out" because they have the same bore. The 289 has a longer stroke than the 259; the engines are basically the same with the exception of the crank and pistons. Easiest way to determine would be to pull the plugs, turn the engine over by hand, and measure the stroke.
FWIW it is also possible to put a fairly healthy overbore on either engine as well, .060" plus should be fine on most blocks (assuming no core shift)
If the block started off as a 259, it probably isn't the original engine in the car, I didn't think you could get a '62 Hawk with a 259? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't know if that is important to you or not.
nate
--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel -
This car is on EBAY. If you look at the photo of the engine it looks like on the valve cover it says Bearcat, or something like that. What does that mean?Comment
-
Bearcat was a name they chose to use for the 259 engines in 1955. Fact is (I looked at the car via ebay just now) those valve covers are wrong for this Hawk. Maybe the engine's from a 55 or maybe just the valve covers are - who knows[?]
As N8N pointed out, it's impossible to know FOR SURE what displacement a late Stude V8 is without checking the stroke. Just because it has an engine serial# that indicates 259 or 289, that's no real insurance that the engine hasn't been modified internally all these years after the last Stude was built.
The difference in the performance of the two is minimal for average driving. Some folks feel the 259s a better engine, all in all.
I will say one thing, the seller's assessment of the car being very close to "concours" is generous, at best. It looks like it's a nice 30-footer and it may well run good. But "near concours"[V]
BTW, If one could find the right pistons to sub, you could indeed build a short-stroke 289 using a 259 crankshaft. You'd wanna check the block you were gonna bore, for "core shift". But assuming the core shift was minimal - AND you found adequate substitute pistons - the block could tolerate being hogged out to accomplish an additional 30 cu.inches![:0]
Miscreant at large.
1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FSNo deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.Comment
-
Hey Big fellow,
If my calculator did not screw up
it would take a .190 boring to make a 3 1/4 inch stroke 289 from a 259. My 259 was bored .040 and is 265.3 ci, again if the calculator did not misfigure.
On that topic, Ted Harbit can probably lead you to a supplier for pistons, or Phil Harris, who bought Ted out recently.
<<BTW, If one could find the right pistons to sub, you could indeed build a short-stroke 289 using a 259 crankshaft. You'd wanna check the block you were gonna bore, for "core shift". But assuming the core shift was minimal - AND you found adequate substitute pistons - the block could tolerate being hogged out to accomplish an additional 30 cu.inches![:0]
Miscreant at large.
1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS
[/quote]
Sam RobertsComment
-
As far as I know, the '62 GT Hawk came standard with a 289 cu.in. engine. I know for certain that the '63 did.
Rog'59 Lark VI Regal Hardtop
Smithtown,NY
Recording Secretary, Long Island Studebaker ClubComment
-
The engine has the older 4-bolt valve covers,so at least the valve covers and probably the heads are older.I don't remember what year they went to 2 bolts,but i know it was 61 or earlier. The addition of the electric fan makes me wonder if the block was ever cleaned out,as has been mentioned in TW many times. If those coolant passages weren't cleaned,the engine may never cool right.
Concours condition?[V]
not golden hawk,not silver hawk,just hawk.Oglesby,Il.Comment
-
IT was '61 that they went to the 2-bolt covers but the only thing it takes to go one way or the other (besides the actual covers themselves) is the changing of two of the bolts that secure the rocker stands to the heads.
What I'm saying is that you can interchange 4-bolt and 2-bolt covers across all the years of Stude V8 if you choose to. Now - WHY - someone would put those older covers on a later car would make me suspicious. Suspicious that they just changed out a whole engine for some reason.[}
]
Of course, if it's a good-running engine, no real foul as far as driving goes. But to call it "near councours" - I do have a problem with that.
Sam, I said what I did because I know that some 289s have indeed been bored to 3&3/4". I have one in my possession as a matter of fact.[:0] This mod uses AMC 304 pistons that are decked a bit and standard Stude V8 rods that have had their upper ends reworked. These are used with the 289 crankshaft. This effectively creates a 321cu.in. engine.
So my figuring was that if you could find (As I'm sure one could[:I]) 3&3/4"pistons to work with the 259 crank, you'd come close to building a short-stroke 289.
There are head gaskets available for this 3&3/4" overbore, BTW.
ALSO - back to the valve covers - Stude made a four-hole version of the late style valve cover. I believe SASCO has them in stock. I know I have one I got there a couple years ago and I came across an engine out of a Champ truck that had one on it.
Miscreant at large.
1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FSNo deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.Comment
-
I'm thinkin' that they went to two hole valve covers in '60. I have two-holers on my '60 Lark, 259, and no reason to think that it didn't come that way.
Also, Bob, on the "Stude made a four-hole version of the late style valve cover. I believe SASCO has them in stock." thing. In other words, they were 4-holers with breather caps? I'd be interested in a set or two.
Sonny
Comment
Comment