PDA

View Full Version : 327 Studebaker engine?



chrisrip
12-22-2005, 01:18 PM
I have been told that Studebaker offered a 327 which was actually a Chevrolet engine. Is this true? If so, what was it offered in. Does anyone know any other specifics about it such as color. Did it have any decals on it designating it as a Studebaker engine? Any help would be great. Thanks.....

Dick Steinkamp
12-22-2005, 01:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by chrisrip

I have been told that Studebaker offered a 327 which was actually a Chevrolet engine. Is this true? If so, what was it offered in. Does anyone know any other specifics about it such as color. Did it have any decals on it designating it as a Studebaker engine? Any help would be great. Thanks.....


No, but they offered a 289 which was actually a Ford engine [}:)]:D

The last Studebakers (1965 and 1966) used Chevrolet engines. The V8 was a 283 CID. They were painted black and had valve cover decals identifying them as a "Studebaker Thunderbolt V8". After Studebaker closed, Newman and Altman bought the rights to the Avanti and produced a car called Avanti II. The early ones had Chevrolet 327 (later 350) CID V8's. I believe they had chromed valve covers with "Avanti II 327" decals in the center of the valve covers. I don't know what color these engines were painted.

Studebaker never offered a 327...Chevrolet or otherwise.

-Dick-

Roscomacaw
12-22-2005, 02:31 PM
And Chris, Dick's statement about Stude using a F*rd 289 was made strictly tongue-in-cheek.[}:)] Stude NEVER USED a F*rd engine of ANY sort. Studebaker's 289 just HAPPENED to be of the same displacment. It bears NO resemblence to anything from the blue oval company.;)

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

Alan
12-22-2005, 02:59 PM
That's right Dick, the 327 engine was in the Avanti 2 for a few years. I've got one in my Champ truck. Rember the pictures of the mounts, if you look at the bellhousing and starter, the starter bolts on the bellhousing with 3 bolts, and the engine has the small main bearings. Altman must of bought some surplus 327's. Because Chevy used large mains from late 68 up.

garyash
12-22-2005, 03:01 PM
Shucks, Biggs, you KNOW that those Chebby 327 engines went into the secret '67 production Studebakers, along with those 4-bbl carbs!

Semi-seriously, though, wasn't the 327 engine part of the performance option that never took place for '66 cars ? I have been told that the McKinnon 283s had very thick cylinder walls and could be bored out (3.875" > 4.000") to get a 327 with a crank change (3.00" > 3.25" stroke). The U.S. '58-'62 283 blocks apparently could also be bored .125 over. The 327 crank (2 bolt, 2.30" mains) came in '62. The rods back then all seem to be 5.70" long. The big question would be if the McKinnon block was also relieved to let a longer stroke crank turn free. I've got the old McKinnon block out in the shed - how could I tell (not having a 327 crank handy)? I once-upon-a-time I had a stupid plan to turn my McKinnon 283 into 327.

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Roscomacaw
12-22-2005, 03:19 PM
Gary Ash exhorts: "Shucks, Biggs, you KNOW that those Chebby 327 engines went into the secret '67 production Studebakers, along with those 4-bbl carbs!"

Yes, I was just keeping it hush-hush at the factory's request.:( NOW, blabbermouth, the cat's outta the bag![:0][}:)];) They ARE still buidling them in Canada, don't ya know![8]
One of the reasons GM's got a sliver of an edge over Toyota is because of the vintage drivelines they're supplying Studebaker with![:0]

But seriously.......... I think I too remember the aire about the 327 being intro'd as a Stude option. Heh - who would care anyway if you did such today???:D


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

Dan White
12-22-2005, 04:32 PM
Couple of comments:

1) I seem to remember there is a way to get 327 cuin out of a Stude 289 block, bore it out and stroker and/or offset ground crank? I remember someone having a GT Hawk a few years back with one of these in it.

2) Didn't the later Avantis have 400 cu in Chevy engines, the infamous siamese cylinder small block?

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

BobPalma
12-22-2005, 04:58 PM
[:I] Interesting how often this comes up. Dwain Grindingwer fielded this same question in the January 2006 Co-Operator, soon to arrive in your mail boxes. [:p] BP

BP

chrisrip
12-22-2005, 05:25 PM
Thanks for the info guys....this may sound strange, but here's why I wanted to know. I have a 54 Hudson Super Jet, and I am making a rat rod out of it. I have a real nice 300 horse 327. I was thinking if Studebaker used the bowtie 327, I would just paint this one and make it look like a Stude engine. I may make a "Thunderbolt V8" out of it. Just want something a little different......

Roscomacaw
12-22-2005, 07:29 PM
Chris - now if you REALLY want "C O O L" put a Stude V8 in that Hudson! Man, you talk about something that would generate amazement!!![:0][:0][:0]

Your car - YOUR choice, but bow-tie powered refits abound. They're as common as tap water.[|)] DARE to be differrent!;)

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

Dick Steinkamp
12-22-2005, 08:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by chrisrip

Thanks for the info guys....this may sound strange, but here's why I wanted to know. I have a 54 Hudson Super Jet, and I am making a rat rod out of it. I have a real nice 300 horse 327. I was thinking if Studebaker used the bowtie 327, I would just paint this one and make it look like a Stude engine. I may make a "Thunderbolt V8" out of it. Just want something a little different......


<h4>A 300 HP 327 is a very nice engine! The valve cover decals that say "Studebaker Thunderbolt V8" are available from Studebaker International http://www.studebaker-intl.com/index.html . You will have to get some later, smooth style valve covers, since the 300/327 came with ones that only allow a small HP decal in the middle and the Studebaker decal is long.

Gary Ash who responded here has a nicely detailed "Thunderbolt" in his wagon. Ask him for some pics.

Here's a 365 HP/327 in my '54.

http://static.flickr.com/37/76415896_71d6bd00d2.jpg

-Dick-</h4>

Chicken Hawk
12-22-2005, 10:40 PM
John Erb came up with this several years ago. I'm not positive of the exact bore and stroke but think it was 3.656" bore (R 3) and 3.875" stroke that came out to just over 325 cu. in.

Ted


quote:Originally posted by Dan White

Couple of comments:

1) I seem to remember there is a way to get 327 cuin out of a Stude 289 block, bore it out and stroker and/or offset ground crank? I remember someone having a GT Hawk a few years back with one of these in it.

2) Didn't the later Avantis have 400 cu in Chevy engines, the infamous siamese cylinder small block?

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

Tim Keith
12-23-2005, 12:21 AM
AMC had a 327 V8, but it was also no relation to the Chevy 327.

dcoffield
12-23-2005, 08:32 AM
The main journal sizes are different between the 283(small journal, 2.30") and the 327(medium journal, 2.45"). So if you want to bore and stroke the 283 up to a 327 you would also need to turn the crank main journals down. Rod journals are 2.00" on the 283 and 2.10" on the 327. Both used 5.7" rods. Not plug and play but do-able.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has done this.[?] 283 blocks are a lot cheaper than 327's around here.:)

Skip Lackie
12-23-2005, 09:05 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dan White

Couple of comments:

1) I seem to remember there is a way to get 327 cuin out of a Stude 289 block, bore it out and stroker and/or offset ground crank? I remember someone having a GT Hawk a few years back with one of these in it.

2) Didn't the later Avantis have 400 cu in Chevy engines, the infamous siamese cylinder small block?

Dan White

64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT


IRT Dan White's second question, yes, 1972 - 76 I believe. I have a 74 with the 400 cu in small block. Interestingly, it's stamped with the standard Chevy engine number that indicates the build date, displacement, and the car line and transmission it was built for. Chevy intended the 400 in my Avanti II to be installed in a 74 Malibu with automatic (my car has 4-speed). It is my understanding that all or most of the Chevy 400s installed in Avanti IIs came similarly stamped.

Skip Lackie

chrisrip
12-23-2005, 09:57 AM
Gary Ash....any chance you could post a pic of the Thunderbolt you have in your wagon??

bonehead007
12-23-2005, 10:46 AM
In regard to the last 2 years of Studebaker 65 & 66, what was the reasoning of closing the South Bend plant which had the Studebaker engine manufactured , moving to Canada & putting in a Garbage Motors engine ? Merry Christmas everyone..

N8N
12-23-2005, 10:55 AM
Basically, not enough volume. The plant was designed to produce quite a few more engines (as in an order of magnitude) than they were actually making; and they certainly weren't making any money by continuing to make their own engines.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

garyash
12-23-2005, 11:25 AM
I looked through my Chevy interchange manual for info on Chevy 327 engines. It says that from 1962-67, the 327s were built with 3.25" stroke, 2.30" mains, and 2.00" rod bearings. Crankshaft casting numbers of 2680, 4577, 3734627, 3782680, 3814671, and 3884577 are all supposed to be steel 327 cranks with small journals. Things changed in 1968, with medium (2.45") mains and 2.10" rod journals. Blocks from '62-'67 also have (probably) scallops cut at the bottom of the cylinder bores for either 3.00" or 3.25" stroke. So, in principle, you could take a '65 or '66 McKinnon V8, bore it out to 4.00" and stuff in a 327 crank. You could also just call your local Chevy dealer and buy a remanufactured 350 short block with large diameter 4-bolt mains for lots less money. The older '62-'67 blocks had an oil fill tube in the intake manifold in front and road draft tube at the back of the block. Newer engines use the vent on the valves covers for oil fill.

Anyway, here's my 283 engine in my '65 Wagonaire. Dick was too kind in describing it as nicely detailed as it's a driver. My original McKinon finally blew its head gaskets at 95,000 miles. I was going to have it rebuilt, but it had unrepairable cracks in three places. It got replaced with another 283 block, '66 vintage, non-McKinnon. But, it got bored .040 over, an RV cam, ca. 1982 Camaro 305 HO heads (58cc), MSD electronic distributor, '63 vintage Rochester 4GC carb (4-bbl) and manifold, and dual exhausts. It should make about 235 hp. It has the black valve covers with Thunderbolt labels, though I trimmed the "283" off. The 4-bbl air cleaner got the reproduction of the original Stude label, so it looks pretty much like any other '65 or '66 car.
http://www.studegarage.com/images/65engine2.jpg

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Dick Steinkamp
12-23-2005, 12:27 PM
quote:Originally posted by garyash

My original McKinon finally blew its head gaskets at 95,000 miles. I was going to have it rebuilt, but it had unrepairable cracks in three places.


Hey Gary, stories like these aren't going to help further the "mistique" that the motors used in the '65 and '66 Studebakers weren't REALLY Chevrolet motors, but actually extra special super duty hand assembled motors made specifically to Studebaker's ultra tough specs.[}:)]:D

-Dick-

garyash
12-23-2005, 09:45 PM
Well, the old block gave its last gasp in a great way. I had driven from eastern Massachusetts out to Lenox, MA, at the western end of the state, about 150 miles. I met up with 4 other Studes for a photo shoot for the Hemmings "Special Interest Autos" magazine, recently replaced by Hemmings "Classic Car". We had my '65 Wagonaire, Jack Rodhouse's '63 Avanti R2, Mike Bianco's '60 Lark convertible (Flamingo color), Kathy Rodhouse's '50 Champion 2-dr (her mother's car), and Dennis Jolicoeur's '57 Golden Hawk. We got to drive all of the cars, swapping every half hour, and writing comparative notes. We wound up at Hemmings headquarters in Bennington, VT. It was a good long day, then dinner. Finally, Dennis and I drove back to eastern Mass. about 10:00 pm, through the winding back roads of rural VT and MA, doing 75-80 mph, and pouring on the coal just for fun. Dennis blew his supercharger and I blew my head gaskets. Worth it, though. The day's events were recorded in SIA, October, 2000 edition (but not our drive home!). Strangely, as much fun as it was to put the pedal down in the R2 Avanti, the '50 Champ was also a blast to drive. It makes me want to organize more days when everybody swaps cars for a while. Engines don't last forever, but the original did last 35 years, so no complaints here. I should be so lucky as to live long enough to need to rebuild it again!
http://www.studegarage.com/images/5Studes.jpg

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

DEEPNHOCK
12-24-2005, 12:02 AM
Sigh....
In the first place, it isn't a garbage motor.
The St. Catherines foundry that produced that engine was around a 25 years before the first Studebaker car was ever made.
Studebaker shut down the entire South Bend facility due to managements decision to diversify the organization away from auto manufacturing. The South Bend facility was more expensive to operate than the Hamilton facility, and the phase out of operations was well planned, even though it was not popular in the communities involved.

I find this thread amusing, Studebaker built their V8 for what...13 years?...And the Chevy small block is now celebrating it's 50th anniversary, and Studebaker actually bought the engine from Chevrolet and stuffed it into a Stude....and some Stude types still can't stand it...Amazing...I love all Stude's... period;)
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by bonehead007

In regard to the last 2 years of Studebaker 65 & 66, what was the reasoning of closing the South Bend plant which had the Studebaker engine manufactured , moving to Canada & putting in a Garbage Motors engine ? Merry Christmas everyone..


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/photo/42559113/426827941Lsvfrz
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

DEEPNHOCK
12-24-2005, 12:08 AM
Gary,
I see from your picture you had things covered well from eight o'clock until noon[8)]...
What did you do after lunch;)
Jeff[8D]



quote:
Originally posted by garyash[/i]

Well, the old block gave its last gasp in a great way. I had driven from eastern Massachusetts out to Lenox, MA, at the western end of the state, about 150 miles. I met up with 4 other Studes for a photo shoot for the Hemmings "Special Interest Autos" magazine, recently replaced by Hemmings "Classic Car". We had my '65 Wagonaire, Jack Rodhouse's '63 Avanti R2, Mike Bianco's '60 Lark convertible (Flamingo color), Kathy Rodhouse's '50 Champion 2-dr (her mother's car), and Dennis Jolicoeur's '57 Golden Hawk. We got to drive all of the cars, swapping every half hour, and writing comparative notes. We wound up at Hemmings headquarters in Bennington, VT. It was a good long day, then dinner. Finally, Dennis and I drove back to eastern Mass. about 10:00 pm, through the winding back roads of rural VT and MA, doing 75-80 mph, and pouring on the coal just for fun. Dennis blew his supercharger and I blew my head gaskets. Worth it, though. The day's events were recorded in SIA, October, 2000 edition (but not our drive home!). Strangely, as much fun as it was to put the pedal down in the R2 Avanti, the '50 Champ was also a blast to drive. It makes me want to organize more days when everybody swaps cars for a while. Engines don't last forever, but the original did last 35 years, so no complaints here. I should be so lucky as to live long enough to need to rebuild it again!


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/photo/42559113/426827941Lsvfrz
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

gordr
12-24-2005, 02:44 AM
Dick, according to Curt Lagasse from Edmonton, who's been wrenching on Studes for years, the crank from a 283 Chevy won't fit in a McKinnon block; the counterweights will hit the interior of the block.

Apparently none of the casting numbers on a McKinnon engine show up in Chevy parts books although most parts do interchange. This may well have been intentional on GM's part to ensure a distinction between their "own" engines and competitor's engines.

I'd hazard a guess the Studebaker McKinnons were based on a Chevy industrial engine.

Doesn't mean McKinnons are better or worse than Chevys, just different in subtle ways.

I've got a genuine McKinnon on the stand in my shop. I could get some casting numbers off it, if you know a source of Chevy casting numbers to compare to. For that matter, I could tear it down and actually try fitting in a Chevy crank to verify that assertion. Could be an interesting exercise.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

garyash
12-24-2005, 10:07 AM
Gord, if you can tear down the McKinnon engine you have and check some numbers, that would be great. The crank number would be interesting. I have a set of heads here I can get numbers from. Most Chevy SBC numbers can be found here: http://www.mortec.com/

From the Mortec list of head casting numbers:
3884520....60-67...283..........Some marked "Made in Canada", 60cc chamber, also used by Studebaker
3884520....62-67...327..........Some marked "Made in Canada", 60cc chamber, also used by Studebaker

It seems that the same heads, probably with different gaskets, can be used for 3.875" or 4.000" bore on 283 or 327 engines. So, a crank, new pistons, and a well-centered re-bore might yet make a 327 out of a McKinon 283.

Now, if you could just find one of the small-journal '62-'67 327 cranks (numbers in a post above) and see if that turns free in the mains. At least you might be able to see if the scallop-cuts are there for the 3.25" stroke cranks. I wonder if the scallops could be machined in if they are not there?
http://www.studegarage.com/images/sbc_scallops.jpg


Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Dick Steinkamp
12-24-2005, 11:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by gordr

Dick, according to Curt Lagasse from Edmonton, who's been wrenching on Studes for years, the crank from a 283 Chevy won't fit in a McKinnon block; the counterweights will hit the interior of the block.

Apparently none of the casting numbers on a McKinnon engine show up in Chevy parts books although most parts do interchange. This may well have been intentional on GM's part to ensure a distinction between their "own" engines and competitor's engines.

I'd hazard a guess the Studebaker McKinnons were based on a Chevy industrial engine.

Doesn't mean McKinnons are better or worse than Chevys, just different in subtle ways.

I've got a genuine McKinnon on the stand in my shop. I could get some casting numbers off it, if you know a source of Chevy casting numbers to compare to. For that matter, I could tear it down and actually try fitting in a Chevy crank to verify that assertion. Could be an interesting exercise.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands


Gary is saying that McKinnon made 283's may be factory relieved for a 327 crank and Gord is saying that even Chevy 283 cranks may not fit in a Mckinnon made 283. I'm confused[?];)

Gord, I will bet you lunch at Portland this year (although, come to think of it, I already owe you a lunch for that brake lining deal:)) that the Mckinnon made 195 hp 283's were no different than a 195 hp 283 from Flint, Tonawanda, or any other GM foundry.

Here's another list of casting numbers...

http://www.nastyz28.com/sbchevy/sblock.html

Note that the only 283's that appear to be unique castings are the ones for a Chevy II due to different oil filter boss (and I think the different dip stick location)

I have a 1971 Motor's manual that lists "engine identification codes". This is the 2 or 3 letter suffex of the engine number. For example, GF was a 283 with P/G in a full size Chevrolet. Unfortunately, my book doesn't list 283 Studebaker EIC's. Maybe the 1965 or 1966 Motor's manual does. Or maybe we can decode it here... http://www.nastyz28.com/spmenu.html (although I don't see any EIC's unique to Studebaker here either) I would think that the Studebaker 283's would get a unique EIC from General Motors (not a unique casting number). Maybe Gary and Gord can post their 283 serial numbers here and someone can report back with the translation of the EIC. (BTW, these serial numbers should have a leading "K" to designate they were cast at the St. Catherines, Ontario, foundry...I would add, however, that even though Studebaker's 283's PROBABLY were from the St. Catherines plant due to the proximity to Studebaker's assembly location, there is a strong possibility that not all 283's installed by Studebaker were K code motors. If the St. Catherines plant could not supply Studebaker's needs...for a variety of reasons - strike, cleaning, retooling, overcapacity, etc...GM would then supply the same engines from another plant...most likely Flint). If you guys could also post your casting numbers (maybe even date codes), that would be great too. (I can find no casting numbers unique to a specific GM foundry. It appears that ALL foundrys used the same casting numbers but identified the foundry of origin by the leading letter of the stamped serial number)

IMHO, the EIC would be the ONLY difference between a 283 destined for a Chevelle and one destined for a Studebaker. GM does some stupid things, but I don't think they were stupid enough to make different "flavors" of their 195 HP 283 in their different factories...especially to the point suggested by Gord where even the crankshafts would not be interchangeable (no offense, Gord :))

There is a lot of anecdotal "data" floating around about the 283's used in Studebaker cars in 1965 and 1966. Their made out of special high nickle steel, they h

Swifster
12-24-2005, 01:55 PM
What would have been a great way to go out would have been building a few '66 Commanders or Daytonas with the Chevy L-79 (327/350). With the same engine as the optional Nova SS engine, Studebaker could have gone out in a final blaze of glory with what was available to them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Sterling Heights, MI

Ancient Chinese Proverb: "Injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown!"

1964 Studebaker Daytona - Laguna Blue, Original 4-Spd. Car, Power Steering, Disc Brakes, Bucket Seats, Tinted Glass, Climatizer Ventilation System, AM Radio (136,989 Miles)

studegary
12-24-2005, 02:15 PM
The way that I remember it. - When Studebaker decided to go with someone else's engines, the engineers looked at many factors, the two main ones being ease of installation and cost. They settled on GM/Chevrolet engines. The two main factors that came into play on the source of the selected engines was proximity/cost of shipping and Canadian built to eliminate duty/tariff and to increase Canadian content in the cars. I vaguely remember discussing this subject with Harold Churchill.

dcoffield
12-24-2005, 02:31 PM
Did Studebaker buy the whole assembled engine from McChevy or just the castings and assemble in house? From what I've seen of GM engine plants, if they bought the assembled package, there would probably be very little difference between the two. I would also assume that if Studebaker bought a standard Chevy engine, they would try to spin it as being different/better in an attempt to gain sales.

BTW my 65 Commander 283 block is a 3849852 and it's listed in Mortecs chevy engine casting numbers as 57-66. I didn't write down the head numbers, but I remember looking them up in the chevy numbers and they were there.

Also, I don't see a build suffix for 1965 that references a Studebaker model on the NastyZ28 web site. This would indicate that perhaps there was no special 'Studebaker' build for the 283 engines.

Dick Steinkamp
12-24-2005, 02:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by dcoffield

Did Studebaker buy the whole assembled engine from McChevy or just the castings and assemble in house?


I believe they were turn key, assembled, complete, 2 bbl 195 HP 283's (down to the stock Chevy air cleaner and Chevy rams horn exhaust manifolds). The only differences (that I can determine) was the fuel pump (the stock Chevy pump interfered with the Stude cross member), the engine color (black instead of orange), and the valve covers (didn't have the raised "Chevrolet" script). Studebaker would have defeated their purpose of outsourcing the engines if they chose to do machine work and assembly on the low volume they needed.

I wonder if GM stamped the engine serial number before the engine left their plant or if Studebaker stamped it when it arrived in theirs? I also now wonder if Studebaker GM engines carry he same engine ID code as their GM counterpart (assembly plant code, production date and suffix code)?

Also, I wonder where the GM 6 cylinder engines were produced that were installed in Studebakers? Did the McKinnon plant also make 6's or were they supplied from another GM plant? Anybody got a 6 cylinder 65 or 66 that could provide the engine serial number?

-Dick-

dcoffield
12-24-2005, 03:09 PM
The main casting number is cast right into the block at the foundry. Normally on a Chevy engine there are 2 other numbers, an engine id code and the serial number.

The engine ID tells the plant that assembled it (K for St. Catherines/ KcKinnon), the date of assembly, and a suffix code that tells model year, CID, HP, carb barrels, car body info, and application stuff like trans type, police model, ....

I can't see the engine id number on mine. Sometimes they were placed back too far and are under the head. If one of you can find the engine ID, that would be a pretty good indication that they were full Chevy builds.

I have a serial number of 805537457.

Dick Steinkamp
12-24-2005, 03:33 PM
quote:Originally posted by dcoffield

The main casting number is cast right into the block at the foundry. Normally on a Chevy engine there are 2 other numbers, an engine id code and the serial number.

The engine ID tells the plant that assembled it (K for St. Catherines/ KcKinnon), the date of assembly, and a suffix code that tells model year, CID, HP, carb barrels, car body info, and application stuff like trans type, police model, ....

I can't see the engine id number on mine. Sometimes they were placed back too far and are under the head. If one of you can find the engine ID, that would be a pretty good indication that they were full Chevy builds.

I have a serial number of 805537457.


According to the SDC web site here... http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tech_v8data.asp

1965 V8's began with sn 805,420,0001 and 66's with 776,400,001. Did Studebaker really build over 110,000 V8 cars in 1965? If not, I wonder why engine serial numbers were skipped?

Can you post your engine casting number and date code?

Thanks,
-Dick-

dcoffield
12-24-2005, 03:37 PM
Casting number is 3849852

I'll have to go look for the casting date code. I don't see the assembly date code where is normally is.

My engine is blue (like chevy truck engine blue). It's been in the car since my dad got it in about '76 at 14k miles. Did they use blue engines? I would hate to think it was replaced before 14k miles.

Dick Steinkamp
12-24-2005, 03:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by dcoffield

Casting number is 3849852

I'll have to go look for the casting date code. I don't see the assembly date code where is normally is.

My engine is blue (like chevy truck engine blue). It's been in the car since my dad got it in about '76 at 14k miles. Did they use blue engines? I would hate to think it was replaced before 14k miles.


In the link I provided, 3849852 crosses to a 64-68 Small Block Chevrolet 283, 195-220 HP (2bbl and 4bbl models), used in cars and trucks. In the link Gary Ash provided, it crosses to a 57-66 SBC 283. No mention of it being super duty, industrial, marine, McKinnon foundry only or otherwise.

I believe all Studebaker/GM V8's were painted black. Could have been repainted? Could have been a GM replacement "crate engine" with the serial number restamped? Maybe I'm wrong about these engines being black originally? If you can find the date code on the block, it might help answer this one. Here's where to look...
http://www.yearone.com/updatedsinglepages/Id_info/gm_engine_id/engineinfo2.html

-Dick-

dcoffield
12-24-2005, 03:58 PM
I can't find the date code. It's not on the rear flanges by the casting number on either side (at least that I can see, it's still in the car). I also don't see the normal casting 'clocks' that they used to show the hour or shift it was cast. Maybe they weren't on this engine casting.

Any suggestions as where to look for the date stuff?

prager
12-24-2005, 05:41 PM
Bonehead007 stated in an earlier post..Garbage Motors...???? Wow!! I do love my Stude, but I also love the small block Chevy that sits under the hood...Bonehead...how do you figure that these G.M. motors are that bad?? They have stood the test of time, and are still a standard piece in the hot rod world...Greetings from the home of Studebaker....South Bend Indiana...Merry Christmas to all!!! Wes

stude freak
12-24-2005, 06:11 PM
OK. heres my input on that . I read an article on the sbc and the 307 came about from an abundance of 283 cranks n no blocks to put them in
so they used them in the 327 blocks n hence the 307 cu in engine.

Dick Steinkamp
12-24-2005, 06:50 PM
quote:Originally posted by stude freak

OK. heres my input on that . I read an article on the sbc and the 307 came about from an abundance of 283 cranks n no blocks to put them in
so they used them in the 327 blocks n hence the 307 cu in engine.


Strange...the 283 crank has a 3" stroke. The 307 crank has a 3.25" stroke. If you put a 283 crank (3" stroke) in a 327 block (4" bore) you'd actually get a 302. Chevy did make some of engines with this bore and stroke, but I don't think it was to use up 283 cranks :).

OTOH, a 327 crank (3.25" stroke) in a 283 block (3.875" bore) does give you 307 cubes. The 307 was made for at least 4 years. I don't think GM goofed by 4 years worth of excess 283 blocks. In addition, there are no 283's and 307's that share the same block casting number.

Did the article say anything about the Ford 289's that Studebaker used? :D

-Dick-
(sorry, couldn't resist)

garyash
12-24-2005, 07:05 PM
I checked the old heads from my McKinnon engine. The casting number is 3795896. These are 60 cc heads, accordig to the Mortec listing. I've got to fish the old block out of the shed and find the casting number and date code on it. We'll see if it is also 3849852 as the others noted in previous posts. It's not so easy to pick up a block by yourself and flip it over, I found, LOL. The car was built in June 1965, so it was one of the last '65s. It is a black block and had black valve covers. Early '65 blocks had yellow valve covers.

While Dick is worried that my cracked block might sully the reputation of the SBC engine, I guess I should point out that this car had been abandoned in the woods of Maine for many years before the previous owner rescued it. It could have frozen up many times and cracked the block that way. The good news was that it ran strong for many years with several cracks in the block. I always wondered why the coolant had oil scum in it! The real questio is: "Why have I been savig a useless, old cracked Chevy block?" Answer: because it came from a STUDEBAKER!

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

DEEPNHOCK
12-24-2005, 07:27 PM
I kind of doubt it, but you never know...
Think about the massive quantities of engines that GM builds (built)..
Shoot look at the 307 all by itself...
----
307
A 307 in³ (5.0 L) 307 version was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 in (98.4 mm).
The 307 replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross in the 1960s. The later emissions-modified versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net, giving the engine one of the
rlowest power-per-displacement ratings of all time.
----
They built it for six years!
If they had a lot of extra cranks...
Then they must have had an awful lot of extra cranks![:0]
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by stude freak

OK. heres my input on that . I read an article on the sbc and the 307 came about from an abundance of 283 cranks n no blocks to put them in
so they used them in the 327 blocks n hence the 307 cu in engine.


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/photo/42559113/426827941Lsvfrz
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

StudeDave57
12-24-2005, 08:03 PM
Wow, so much knowledge here! [^] All I have to say is that my '65 Cruiser's motor went to 186K before a rebuild, and I only did it 'cause I was being transfered cross-country and didn't know when I'd get the chance to do it again. Who knows, if I hadn't done it then maybe she'd still be runnin' strong- without a rebuild? [:0] She's showing over 257K now! BTW- She's my daily driver, and I DO NOT baby her in the least...

http://racingstudebakers.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=168

[8D]


StudeDave
San Diego, Ca

'54 Commander 4dr
'57 Parkview (it's a 2dr wagon...)
'57 Commander 2dr
'57 Champion 2dr
'65 Cruiser

bonehead007
12-25-2005, 11:31 AM
The only reason I say Garbage Motors is from personnal experiance. My wife recently broke down in our 2001 Chevy van with a V8. After getting towed, we were informed that not only was the fuel pump shot, the head & manifold gaskets wer leaking. They wanted $4000 to repair it. A 3 year old van with 50000 miles. That isn't good quality...Maybe the old GM's were good but, not 2days... Bring back Studebaker...Merry Christmas, Happy New Year & Happy Studebakering everyone...

Swifster
12-25-2005, 01:05 PM
quote:Originally posted by bonehead007

The only reason I say Garbage Motors is from personnal experiance. My wife recently broke down in our 2001 Chevy van with a V8. After getting towed, we were informed that not only was the fuel pump shot, the head & manifold gaskets wer leaking. They wanted $4000 to repair it. A 3 year old van with 50000 miles. That isn't good quality...Maybe the old GM's were good but, not 2days... Bring back Studebaker...Merry Christmas, Happy New Year & Happy Studebakering everyone...


For a fuel pump and headgasket job, even on a van, that dealer was trying gouge big time. I'm using a Gen III (6.0L) in the Daytona and it's a great engine. I think you have a dealer issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Sterling Heights, MI

Ancient Chinese Proverb: "Injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown!"

1964 Studebaker Daytona - Laguna Blue, Original 4-Spd. Car, Power Steering, Disc Brakes, Bucket Seats, Tinted Glass, Climatizer Ventilation System, AM Radio (136,989 Miles)

Alan
12-25-2005, 03:34 PM
Tom, Some dealers are out to get rich. My neighbor took a 97 Honda Civic in to have a head gasket replaced because it was over heating and they told hin the gasket was bad. By the time he got it out of the shop it cost $3,800 for a new head because the cam had worn through the journals the Honda dosn't even use bearings in the head for the cam, iron to aluminum. Replaced all the hoses, belts, timing belt, axel half shafts and the thing still over heats.

gordr
12-25-2005, 03:37 PM
Well, I looked at the 283 McKinnon in the shop. Casting number on the block is 3849852.

Serial number is 77 6440166.

The "77" is stamped separate, and in a slightly different font.

I guess I could pull the pan off and see if the block has the scallops, and maybe get a casting number off the crank.

Where does one look for foundry date codes etc.?

Merry Christmas to all, BTW.:D

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

Dick Steinkamp
12-25-2005, 04:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by gordr

Well, I looked at the 283 McKinnon in the shop. Casting number on the block is 3849852.

Serial number is 77 6440166.

The "77" is stamped separate, and in a slightly different font.

I guess I could pull the pan off and see if the block has the scallops, and maybe get a casting number off the crank.

Where does one look for foundry date codes etc.?

Merry Christmas to all, BTW.:D

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands


Merry Christmas, Gord!

Your casting number is the same as the one in dcoffield's Stude. See my above post for cross. Appears to be a "generic" Chevy 283. From the serial number, your's is a '66. It could be that the 283's used by Studebaker did not have the standard GM engine ID code stamped above the SN since neither yours nor dcoffield's seem to have one. See my above post for the location of the date code.

Here's something interesting...

http://www.autogeek.com/news/Studebaker.pdf#search='mckinnon%20general%20motors'

In chapter 6 it states that the original agreement between GM and Studebaker was for GM to provide the engines from GM of Canada (McKinnon plant). GM reniged on this deal and provided the engines from the US forcing Studebaker to pay duty on them.

If this article is true, it could be that some (most, all?) GM powered Studebakers did not have engines produced at the Mckinnon foundry. If it is also true (need more serial numbers) that the GM engines used by Studebaker do not have the GM engine ID code with the foundry code stamped above the engine serial number we really have no way to tell where the Studebaker/GM engines were built.

-Dick-

gordr
12-25-2005, 05:21 PM
Some more numbers:
There is no date code on the rear flange of the block as in the Year One link you posted, Dick. Under the spark plug wire loom at that location is a "clock" with the pointer pointing straight off to the right side, basically button #6 of ten counting clockwise from the double button.

Now, on the rear face of the block, in the bellhousing area, on the back of the right cylinder bank, there are cast-in numbers HB1, and 852, spaced apart and oriented at an angle to each other.

The casting number on the crank is 3876784.

I haven't looked at the heads yet. There is nothing other than the engine serial number on the pad on the front deck of the block. Many of the parts have "GM" cast on them, including the exhaust manifolds, but I see no Chevy bowties.

There are no machined scallops on the underside of the cylinder bores, but there is relief cast into the block in that area. It looks to me like you could in fact put a longer-stroke crank in there; there seems to be nearly 1/2" clearance between the crank counterweights and the bottoms of the bores.

This block is painted black, by the way, and I am pretty certain it is OEM Studebaker.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

Dick Steinkamp
12-25-2005, 05:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by gordr

Some more numbers:
There is no date code on the rear flange of the block as in the Year One link you posted, Dick. Under the spark plug wire loom at that location is a "clock" with the pointer pointing straight off to the right side, basically button #6 of ten counting clockwise from the double button.

Now, on the rear face of the block, in the bellhousing area, on the back of the right cylinder bank, there are cast-in numbers HB1, and 852, spaced apart and oriented at an angle to each other.

The casting number on the crank is 3876784.

I haven't looked at the heads yet. There is nothing other than the engine serial number on the pad on the front deck of the block. Many of the parts have "GM" cast on them, including the exhaust manifolds, but I see no Chevy bowties.

There are no machined scallops on the underside of the cylinder bores, but there is relief cast into the block in that area. It looks to me like you could in fact put a longer-stroke crank in there; there seems to be nearly 1/2" clearance between the crank counterweights and the bottoms of the bores.

This block is painted black, by the way, and I am pretty certain it is OEM Studebaker.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands


Thanks, Gord.

The site I referenced with casting numbers says this about the "casting clock" you noted...
"On some Saginaw blocks, intakes and exhausts a "clock" was cast into the block. The clock is a circle of 10 dots, one dot for each hour of a shift (usually 10 hour shifts). An arrow points to the beginning of the shift an another dot outside the circle indicates what time of day the cast part was made."

Could it be you have a Saginaw block there? This might go with the article I quoted above that states that the 283's were provided by GM from US plants, not St. Catherines.

I couldn't find the crankshaft casting number you listed. All of the references I could find (below) list a 3876764, but not a 3876784. The 3876764 is a 64-67 283.

http://www.ajgeneral.com/chevy_crankshaft_casting_numbers/
http://www.mortec.com/cranks.htm
http://www.kendrick-auto.com/chevrolet_crankshaft_casting_num.htm
http://www.nastyz28.com/sbcmenu.html

I have also not seen a Chevy bow tie on any small block Chevy cast parts (blocks, heads, etc.). I don't believe GM did this since the engines could be used in Canadian Pontiacs, GMC trucks, Studebakers &lt;g&gt;, and other applications that were not Chevrolet specific.

Thanks again, Gord, for tearing into that engine and posting the numbers.

If there are any other '65, '66 Stude owners out there (6 or V8), please post your casting numbers, serial numbers, and date codes.

Thanks,
-Dick-

bonehead007
12-25-2005, 10:23 PM
Not to make this a gripe page, the problem was that GM uses the "orange" anti freeze which, after 3 yrs or so gets acidic & starts eating away at the gaskets. I talked to a few outside mechanics & they stated the same thing. When I threatened to go to the state A.G. & Consumer Affairs, they called the next day & claimed GM would pick up the parts we pay the labor.The truck was out of warranty. Cost 1000....My point is that its ashame that a company thats been in business for approx 100 yrs still has poor quality while the Japenese,Toyota & Hinda, and now Hyundai are gaining on them. If they keep this up, they'll end up like Studebaker & Packard....

garyash
12-25-2005, 10:34 PM
This morning was bright and sunny, temperature above 50°, so I dragged the old '65 Wagonaire block out of the shed after we had a little Christmas celebration here in Massachusetts. The casting number is same as Gord's, 3849852. The casting date was 5 E 20, day shift, which I take to mean May 20, 1965. Having the 5 in front makes the date less subject to error in interpretation but may be a Canadian-only style. The assembly date for my Wagonaire was June 23, 1965, so the block was turned into a finished engine quickly and installed in Hamilton in about 1 month. The serial number, again like Gord's, has two digits in front and slightly spaced from the rest of the number. It looks like 80 5532846. Most of the U.S. assembly plants used letters, and most of us expected a K for St. Catherines. This engine number is the same as the build record which I got from the Stude National Museum, so it is the original engine for this car. No other assembly date code was found.

There are recesses cast for a longer-throw crank, but they are not machined in. I tried to use a micrometer to check cylinder wall thickness but there was no way I could get a measurement. It would take an ultrasonic tester to measure it.

I wonder what the interpretation of the first two digits of the serial number is?
http://www.studegarage.com/images/65wgn_engine_numbers.jpg

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Dick Steinkamp
12-25-2005, 11:00 PM
quote:Originally posted by garyash

This morning was bright and sunny, temperature above 50°, so I dragged the old '65 Wagonaire block out of the shed after we had a little Christmas celebration here in Massachusetts. The casting number is same as Gord's, 3849852. The casting date was 5 E 20, day shift, which I take to mean May 20, 1965. Having the 5 in front makes the date less subject to error in interpretation but may be a Canadian-only style. The assembly date for my Wagonaire was June 23, 1965, so the block was turned into a finished engine quickly and installed in Hamilton in about 1 month. The serial number, again like Gord's, has two digits in front and slightly spaced from the rest of the number. It looks like 80 5532846. Most of the U.S. assembly plants used letters, and most of us expected a K for St. Catherines. This engine number is the same as the build record which I got from the Stude National Museum, so it is the original engine for this car. No other assembly date code was found.

There are recesses cast for a longer-throw crank, but they are not machined in. I tried to use a micrometer to check cylinder wall thickness but there was no way I could get a measurement. It would take an ultrasonic tester to measure it.

I wonder what the interpretation of the first two digits of the serial number is?



Thanks, Gary.

As I found out and posted earlier, 1965 V8's began with sn 805,420,001 and 66's with 776,400,001 so your SN is in the 1965 range. As I said in that earlier post, it's strange that there are motor serial numbers higher than the number of V8 Studebakers made in 1965. Perhaps Studebaker stamped the "80" (or 77 in the case of 1966's) and GM put in the first 7 digits (and sold these motors to customers in addition to Studebaker).

It also looks like these motors don't have the GM engine ID code stamped above the SN like motors used in GM vehicles did. This makes it tough to determine the GM factory where the motor was built.

So far, that makes 3 GM powered Studes with the same casting number. Again, in the link I provided, 3849852 crosses to a 64-68 Small Block Chevrolet 283, 195-220 HP (2bbl and 4bbl models), used in cars and trucks. In the link Gary Ash provided, it crosses to a 57-66 SBC 283.

-Dick-

studegary
12-26-2005, 02:05 PM
It was common practice for Studebaker, and other manufacturers, to not make a continuous run of engine and/or vehicle serial numbers from one model year to the next. They usually jumped to some higher number, not a number based on the number of units made for a model year.

Roscomacaw
12-26-2005, 02:16 PM
I've read over time where a number of 65 - 66 Studebaker owners upgraded their Studes by installing Studebaker engines.[:0]:D;)

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

Scott
12-26-2005, 02:28 PM
Speaking of the 1965-66 McKinnon V8s, does anyone have a lead on a pair of good original valve covers? All I can find are ones with the Chevrolet script or later ones with holes cut into them (YUK!). Mine need to be blasted and repainted, since they have quite a bit of surface rust. I'm hoping to find another pair, even if they are not perfect, get them cleaned up and repainted and then put them on my engine. I need to replace leaky gaskets and I don't want the engine opened up for a week or more while the current covers get boiled out, cleaned up and painted. Maybe I could trade with someone once my originals are off the car...

Swifster
12-26-2005, 02:46 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

It was common practice for Studebaker, and other manufacturers, to not make a continuous run of engine and/or vehicle serial numbers from one model year to the next. They usually jumped to some higher number, not a number based on the number of units made for a model year.


Another thing to keep in mind is the stock of engines kept by Studebaker for warranty purposes. Obviously Studebaker didn't use 100,000 engines in '65, but I'll bet they had a few hundred engines for warranty purposes.

I'm sure the other thing to consider is that '66 was the first year of California emissions. There may have been a slight spec change between the '65 and '66 engines that didn't require a block or head change. It could be a carb, intake or similar that differed between the years. Otherwise I'm not sure why Studebaker didn't just order 'X' number of engines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Sterling Heights, MI

Ancient Chinese Proverb: "Injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown!"

1964 Studebaker Daytona - Laguna Blue, Original 4-Spd. Car, Power Steering, Disc Brakes, Bucket Seats, Tinted Glass, Climatizer Ventilation System, AM Radio (136,989 Miles)

Jessie J.
12-26-2005, 02:48 PM
In reply to Mr Biggs post above,
I've encountered several over the years, that in fact was the fate of my first Studebaker, a very sharp low mileage '65 Cruiser which I had inherited as an 17 year old kid in 1968, and proceeded to abuse the living hell out of its poor old 283, having fitted it out with a Weiand Hy-Rise intake, big AFB, and hand made dual exhausts, I soon burned up the Flight-o-Matic, and replaced it with a 4 speed which I pounded on daily with 6000 rpm shifts, till it just gave up the ghost.
I moved on to other "hot rods" and sold my Cruiser to a older co-worker who then immediately installed a (supposedly) freshly rebuilt '64 259 and FoM, and I never was able to convince him that the 283 was original, or that it really belonged in that car. :)
I hounded him for a long time attempting to get it back, along with the '64 Daytona HT that I'd also foolishly sold him. No dice, and now both have long since disappeared, and even he knows not where, (of course it is quite possible that he just wanted to make sure that they never fell into my profane hands again. :D)

Roscomacaw
12-26-2005, 03:03 PM
Scott, I've got ONE of those valve covers for sure. The other one maybe floating around here someplace. I'll look and see if I can find it.[8D]

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

Dick Steinkamp
12-26-2005, 04:37 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

It was common practice for Studebaker, and other manufacturers, to not make a continuous run of engine and/or vehicle serial numbers from one model year to the next. They usually jumped to some higher number, not a number based on the number of units made for a model year.


I don't think I was clear in my point...The SDC site lists the beginning SN for the 1965 model year V8 engines as 805,420,001. We've had two '65 V8 engine serial numbers posted on this thread...805,537,457 and 805,532,846. Both are at least 112,000 numbers over the first number for 1965. The SDC site lists the beginning SN for the 1966 V8 engines as 776,400,001. The 1966 V8 serial number posted in this thread was 776,440,166 which is 40,000 over the beginning serial number for the year.

If the SDC listig of beginning SN's is correct, then there are "missing" V8 SN's within the sequence that wern't installed in Studebaker cars.

The only think I can suggest as that the "missing" SN's were sold by GM to other customers.

-Dick-

Dick Steinkamp
12-26-2005, 04:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by Swifster

I'm sure the other thing to consider is that '66 was the first year of California emissions.


Tom,
I think 1962 was the first year for CA emissions requirements.

-Dick-

Roscomacaw
12-26-2005, 05:46 PM
Scott, I did find one valve cover. It would need a trip to the bead blaster or the derust tank. The inside is rusted the worst. I think the outside would clean up OK.:D

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

studegary
12-26-2005, 05:56 PM
Thanks for the clarification of what you (Dick S) were driving at in the engine numbers. It is now clear to me.

I believe that GM numbered the 283 engines sequentially and only certain batches of them reached Studebaker. This would lead me to believe that the Studebaker 283s were basically the same as any other GM 283 made from the same GM engine plant. This would account for the big spread (far larger than Studebaker production) of the numbers. A review of '65-'66 build orders would probably clarify this. As long as your car's engine number matches its build sheet, like Gary Ash's car's previous engine did, then you have the car's original engine.

Of course the other possibility still exists, that the starting engine numbers that you reference are incorrect. The less than 5000 span between the two '65 engines listed would still fall within Studebaker production quantities.

I think that we would need to examine production records and/or have a larger data base of existing engine numbers in order to put this one to bed. I don't have my '65-'66 shop manuals here. What do they list as starting engine numbers (Bob K., Bob P., Dwain)?

garyash
12-26-2005, 06:37 PM
Here are the engine numbers for '65 and '66 for both 6 cylinder and V8 cars. [Thanks for the reminder, Studegary.] It's interesting to see some pattern in the codes. Wherever the engines got built, it looks like GM stuck to a formula for generating the serial number. It doesn't really say WHERE they got built. Note the 590 V8 engines left over from the '65 model year used in '66 Stude cars - and I think there were only 9,000 cars in the '66 run.
http://www.studegarage.com/images/65engine_numbers.gif
I went down the lists of the engine block casting numbers on the web sites that were listed earlier plus a book I have on Chevy numbers. There were only about 5 block casting numbers for 283 engines that were used in both '65 and '66; the 3849852 number is one of them. According to the various lists, these engines were used in various Chevy passenger cars, Chevelles, and '58-67 trucks. The truck usage may be behind the rumor that these are thick wall block scapable of being bored to 4.000". What would be the minimum acceptable cylinder wall thickness for an engine not used for racing, etc?

Why would they need to have even as many as 5 block castings, not counting Chevy II blocks with recessed oil filter bosses? They must all have been capable of running down the same machining line for boring, honing, drilling, and tapping. Changing internal cores for thinner or thicker walls should result in a different casting number. What else would be different? Maybe some Chevy historian can tell us which of the engine plants might have produced the casting used in the Studebaker engines.

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Scott
12-27-2005, 10:21 AM
Thanks Mr. Biggs,

I'm pretty sure my valve covers are rust free underneath, since the've always been on the engine. I think I'd rather have rust on the outside than the inside. I don't need anything urgently, so I'll see if some others pop up and let you know. Maybe it's not a big deal for me to put some rags over the valves while the covers are off, even if it's for a few days. It's winter up here in Minnesota, and I'm not likely to drive the car for a while. I was going to put the new gaskets in myself, which I've never done before. I was told that Permatex #1 is great to put on thinly on either side of the new rubber gaskets, is that true? Can I do it if is below freezing?

Dick Steinkamp
12-27-2005, 11:20 AM
quote:Originally posted by garyash

Here are the engine numbers for '65 and '66 for both 6 cylinder and V8 cars. [Thanks for the reminder, Studegary.] It's interesting to see some pattern in the codes. Wherever the engines got built, it looks like GM stuck to a formula for generating the serial number. It doesn't really say WHERE they got built. Note the 590 V8 engines left over from the '65 model year used in '66 Stude cars - and I think there were only 9,000 cars in the '66 run.

I went down the lists of the engine block casting numbers on the web sites that were listed earlier plus a book I have on Chevy numbers. There were only about 5 block casting numbers for 283 engines that were used in both '65 and '66; the 3849852 number is one of them. According to the various lists, these engines were used in various Chevy passenger cars, Chevelles, and '58-67 trucks. The truck usage may be behind the rumor that these are thick wall block scapable of being bored to 4.000". What would be the minimum acceptable cylinder wall thickness for an engine not used for racing, etc?

Why would they need to have even as many as 5 block castings, not counting Chevy II blocks with recessed oil filter bosses? They must all have been capable of running down the same machining line for boring, honing, drilling, and tapping. Changing internal cores for thinner or thicker walls should result in a different casting number. What else would be different? Maybe some Chevy historian can tell us which of the engine plants might have produced the casting used in the Studebaker engines.

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com


Great info, Gary. Thanks.

I think we made a little progress in the last week or so. We found out that there is not a GM engine ID code (consisting of assembly plant code, production date and suffix code) stamped above the engine serial number as GM did with engines used in GM vehicles. This makes it tough (maybe impossible?) to determine the GM plant the engine was produced in.

On the other hand, we probably raised more questions that we answered. The article I posted a link to http://www.autogeek.com/news/Studebaker.pdf#search='mckinnon%20general%20motors' raises the question of the actual origin of what we Studebaker types call "McKinnon" engines. It could be that some (most, all?) GM engines installed in Studebakers were not from the Mckinnon foundry. The fact that Gord's 1966 motor has the Saginaw foundry "casting clock" tends to support this (while Gary's 1965 has a D/N work shift indicator). Perhaps GM changed their mind for the 1966 model year as to the plant they would use to supply Studebaker?

We haven't addressed Gary's theory that Studebaker 283's had thicker cylinder walls than blocks used in GM cars, and we haven't addressed Gord's theory that Studebaker 283's had a different (smaller?) crank shaft than blocks used in GM cars.

We found that there are "holes" in the serial number sequence, but we don't have an explanation for that.

I'd like to continue to research these questions. If you have a 1965 or 1966 Studebaker, please send me your engine casting number, serial number, and any other markings you can find on the block (ddstnkmp@yahoo.com)

In the meantime (maybe forever), it's really not bad to have a few mysteries surrounding Studebakers. It makes for a little intrigue and some great stories.

Thanks to all who posted on this thread. (I think we may have set a record for most number of "reads")

-Dick-

Dick Steinkamp
12-27-2005, 11:31 AM
quote:Originally posted by Scott

Thanks Mr. Biggs,

I'm pretty sure my valve covers are rust free underneath, since the've always been on the engine. I think I'd rather have rust on the outside than the inside. I don't need anything urgently, so I'll see if some others pop up and let you know. Maybe it's not a big deal for me to put some rags over the valves while the covers are off, even if it's for a few days. It's winter up here in Minnesota, and I'm not likely to drive the car for a while. I was going to put the new gaskets in myself, which I've never done before. I was told that Permatex #1 is great to put on thinly on either side of the new rubber gaskets, is that true? Can I do it if is below freezing?


I've never used anything on the valve cover gaskets (cork or rubber) for a SBC and have never had any leaks. If you have leaks, it's probably because the gasket surfaces of the valve covers are not straight. The valve covers in the Chevy in my '54 has mechanical lifters, so the valve covers are off and on occationally to adjust the valves. I haven't renewed the gaskets (cork) in several years and still no leaks.

The "no name" valve covers (without oil filler holes or vent holes) are not unique to 65-66 Studebaker engines. You can find them in bone yards and swap meets. Sometimes pairs, but more often one of the two on a GM small block didn't have the filler or vent holes.

-Dick-

dcoffield
12-27-2005, 12:26 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


We haven't addressed Gary's theory that Studebaker 283's had thicker cylinder walls than blocks used in GM cars, and we haven't addressed Gord's theory that Studebaker 283's had a different (smaller?) crank shaft than blocks used in GM cars.


I think one could safely assume that any 3849852 block should have the similar cyl wall thickness whether GM or Studebaker application.

If Studebaker had gone through the bother and cost of a special casting they would also have had their name put on it.

But then again, logical thinking doesn't always apply to the auto industry!;)

Dick, when you are collecting info on the 65-66 engines, can you try to get the engine color as well? I'd like to know if I am the only one with a blue block.

Doug

garyash
12-27-2005, 01:08 PM
Dick - actually, my block does have the clock. This may mean it was cast at Saginaw IF that was the only place that used the clock. The other thing about these blocks is that the casting date on the side of the block has the year digit before the month and day rather than at the end. E.g., mine says 5E20 whereas most Chevy info sites on the web usually show dates like E205 for May 20, 1965. Maybe this was unique to one foundry (St. Catherine's?).

Doug - I didn't mean that the blocks that Studebaker used were different from any other 3849852 block, only that this casting number may have thicker walls than the other four (at least) 283 block castings that were also in use in '65-'66. I think the purpose of the thicker walls was to allow multiple rebuilds for truck engines. Thin wall blocks usually allow going only .060 over, but the thick wall could go to a full .125 over, giving the 4.000 bore of the 327. Just don't try to rebuild it after that.

One other rumor I heard once was that these engines were the same as ones used in Canadian-built Pontiacs. Maybe we can send Gord to some junkyards in the wilds of Alberta in the midst of winter to search out '65 and '66 Pontiacs and check their blocks. Take the Weasel, Gord! &lt;G&gt;

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

dcoffield
12-27-2005, 02:07 PM
Is the 3849852 a truck block? I just found a couple of the 3849852 chevy blocks on ebay that list a GF suffix which references 'car' and 'full size' for the 57-66 model years.

I just got the front end up in the air for my disk brake upgrade and was able to get underneath and get the block date code. 5 F 1 (last digit possibly 11 or 21, bracket in the way).

Scott
12-27-2005, 02:21 PM
Thanks, Dick. I think I'll start a new thread, since the valve covers are kind of off topic. The permatex was recommended to me as a precaution, but not necessary.

gordr
12-27-2005, 02:37 PM
Well, I will go and check the date code on my '66 engine, and I'll double-check that crank number.

I really doubt that a blue block would ever have been used by Studebaker as OEM. Remember that Chevy engines were all orange at that date, anyway. I dare say that GM would have had catfits if Studebaker had installed orange engines in their cars.

I would assume it to be good business practice on the part of BOTH GM and Studebaker to try to create some distinction between a Chevy 283 and a Studebaker 283.

GM would not have wanted it known that "the exact same engine" was available in a competitor's car, and Studebaker would want to be able to tell potential buyers that the 283, while admittedly a GM product, was purpose-built for use with the Studebaker power train.

It kind of looks like the McKinnon engines were deliberately "anonymized" by leaving off the code markings. That might also have been intended to keep Studebaker buyers from trying to source parts from the Chevy dealers.:D

Enough speculation, time for some wrenchin'.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

garyash
12-27-2005, 02:53 PM
Looks like the 3849852 block was used in EVERYTHING from full size Chevys to Chevelles to Corvettes to trucks to Canadian-built '63 Pontiac Parisienne's. They were probably cast in several foundries over the years. Even Chris-Craft used them for marine engines - in both left and right rotations! See http://www.usedboatsofdetroit.com/motors_parts.htm for a listing of a pair of these (first two items). Boy, you could back up real fast with a reverse-rotation engine in your car! Just Google on 3849852 to see a sample of uses.

Here's a block for sale where the guy claims that it can be bored to 4.00" and has "thick webbing". I sent an email to him to ask where he got the info, hope he replies.
http://www.drwebman.com/sellit/#283.

I have been thinking about Gord's comments that his buddy said that regular crankshafts wouldn't fit the 3849852 block. There were certainly many crankshafts, including variations in stroke and mains diameter. It's possible that only some of them would turn in this block because of counterweight size and shape. Increasing bore to 4.00" with standard 3.00" stroke gives 302 cu. in., while 4.00" bore and 3.25" stroke gives 327 cu. in. The standard 3.875" bore and longer 3.25" stroke makes a 307 cu. in. engine. Of course, my web searching has not turned up anyone who claims to have actually made anything other than a 283 from this block.

There might be some answers in these books. They seem to have a page on 3849852 blocks.
http://www.bentleypublishers.com/gallery.htm?code=GC64&galleryId=2693
http://www.eroundel.com/gallery.htm?code=GC69&galleryId=1254
Anybody got a copy of one?

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

gordr
12-27-2005, 10:35 PM
Well, I went and had another close look at the 283 in the shop. Casting number on the crank is 3876764, so I had that written wrong before. Actually, the leading corner of the "4" sticks into the gap of the "6", so it tends to look like an "8" if you are hasty.

Found the date code: 5 L 19, which translates to Dec. 19, 1965, if Gary's interpretation of the codes is right. I wonder if GM dropped the "I" for month designation as Studebaker did, to avoid confusion (thereby creating no end of it for later students:D)? And it was afternoon shift at the foundry, too.

Spent the rest of the afternoon pulling the heads off my "second" Suburban which was eating up coolant at a prodigious rate. Heads are going to the shop to be checked for cracks and warps. Not something you usually have to contend with in a Studebaker engine.[8D]

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

Dick Steinkamp
12-27-2005, 11:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by garyash

Dick - actually, my block does have the clock.



Here's another reference to Saginaw blocks having the "clock" along with a link to a pic of it. Does the clock look like yours, Gary?

http://www.chebultz.com/vette/numbers.cfm

I've found references to Flint 3849852 blocks with the date code having month/day/year rather than Y/M/D like yours and Gords. I'll keep looking for known McKinnon and Saginaw blocks to see how they did the date code.

Also, the first paragraph of this is interesting...

http://www.mcjackscorvettes.com/facts/general.htm

Corvette small blocks were cast in Saginaw and machined in Flint. I wonder if there could be some "combo" like this for Studebaker engines (cast in Saginaw and finished in St. Catherines?)

-Dick-

gordr
12-28-2005, 11:01 AM
You know, maybe the explanation for the McKinnon monicker is really simple.

Studebaker, with their plant then in Hamilton, made a deal with GM to buy engines. GM sources the engines from "wherever", but Studebaker takes delivery of them FOB the McKinnon plant of GM. Hence they become known as McKinnon engines in the world of Studebaker, because that's where Studebaker got them.

Any body know if Studebaker used their own trucks or railcars to pick up at Mckinnon, or if the engines were delivered to Hamilton by GM?

I wonder if the engines were painted black by GM, or were they shipped unpainted and painted in the Stude plant?

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

dcoffield
12-28-2005, 11:51 AM
Gord, that makes a lot of sense, and calling them 'McKinnon' engines would be a lot more attractive from a sales perspective than saying they had to buy 'GM' engines.

studegary
12-28-2005, 04:45 PM
Initially, the GM/Studebaker engines were to come from the Buffalo, NY engine plant. I don't see anyone mentioning that. The engines were sourced from the St. Catherines, Ontario plant. That doesn't mean that the blocks or final assembly was done in that GM plant. As a tie-in to the change to GM engines, Studebaker made more money in 1965 than in any year since 1952, except for the good Lark year of 1959.

garyash
12-28-2005, 06:50 PM
Here's the reply from the guy with the 3489852 block for sale:

At this writing I still have my 283 block for sale.
(I'm getting lots of emails on it this week for some reason.)

When I was drag racing back in the early 70's, I built a small-journal 302 for my NHRA E/MP '68 Camaro. A Super Stock driver gave me a list of only 2 or 3 casting numbers of 283's that have thick webbing to allow them to be punched to 4". (I had those numbers on the back of a card and I fear they're long gone.)

I scoured junk yards all over and only found (2) two of these special blocks. I used the first one and kept this one as a spare. (Both had forged steel cranks in them!) We took the first block to Hueytown Alabama and had the guy who did Bobby Allison's machine work at the time punch it to 4", line-bore and deck it. I ran that short block in an "ECONO-ALTERED" car once and then put it in my Camaro. I sold the Camaro before I finished it.

Feel free to contact some old machine shop guys to confirm it'll punch to 4".


Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

Dick Steinkamp
12-28-2005, 08:15 PM
quote:Originally posted by garyash

Here's the reply from the guy with the 3489852 block for sale:

At this writing I still have my 283 block for sale.
(I'm getting lots of emails on it this week for some reason.)

When I was drag racing back in the early 70's, I built a small-journal 302 for my NHRA E/MP '68 Camaro. A Super Stock driver gave me a list of only 2 or 3 casting numbers of 283's that have thick webbing to allow them to be punched to 4". (I had those numbers on the back of a card and I fear they're long gone.)

I scoured junk yards all over and only found (2) two of these special blocks. I used the first one and kept this one as a spare. (Both had forged steel cranks in them!) We took the first block to Hueytown Alabama and had the guy who did Bobby Allison's machine work at the time punch it to 4", line-bore and deck it. I ran that short block in an "ECONO-ALTERED" car once and then put it in my Camaro. I sold the Camaro before I finished it.

Feel free to contact some old machine shop guys to confirm it'll punch to 4".


Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com


I believe him. I wonder if ALL 65-66 Studebakers with V8's used this casting number? Hopefully we'll get a few more owners of these cars to eMail or post some numbers.

-Dick-

Dick Steinkamp
12-28-2005, 08:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

Initially, the GM/Studebaker engines were to come from the Buffalo, NY engine plant. I don't see anyone mentioning that. The engines were sourced from the St. Catherines, Ontario plant. That doesn't mean that the blocks or final assembly was done in that GM plant. As a tie-in to the change to GM engines, Studebaker made more money in 1965 than in any year since 1952, except for the good Lark year of 1959.


There isn't much physical difference distance at all between St. Catharines and Hamilton and Buffalo (actualy Towawanda) and Hamilton. If there was no duty involved, the distance is immaterial.

-Dick-

StudeDave57
12-28-2005, 08:31 PM
Give me a day or two... I'll check my '65's original, and the 'spare' block that I'm told came from a '66 Cruiser.
[8D]

StudeDave
San Diego, Ca

'54 Commander 4dr
'57 Parkview (it's a 2dr wagon...)
'57 Commander 2dr
'57 Champion 2dr
'65 Cruiser

garyash
12-28-2005, 09:37 PM
Excellent point about how close the places are! Tonawanda to the Hamilton Plant on Ferrie St. East in Hamilton is about 58 miles, with St. Catherines in the middle.

http://www.studegarage.com/images/tonawanda_hamilton_map.jpg

See http://collections.ic.gc.ca/industrial/studebaker.htm for info about the Hamilton plant in Studebaker days.

Here's my '65 Wagonaire in front of its birthplace - the Hamilton plant. The picture is from 2002 on our way to South Bend. The building was being used as a storage warehouse for Rheem water heaters at that point.
http://www.studegarage.com/images/Hamilton1.jpg

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

DEEPNHOCK
01-28-2006, 07:37 AM
Man, and those water heaters rust out too!
Must be a club or something;)...
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by garyash
Here's my '65 Wagonaire in front of its birthplace - the Hamilton plant. The picture is from 2002 on our way to South Bend. The building was being used as a storage warehouse for Rheem water heaters at that point.
http://www.studegarage.com/images/Hamilton1.jpg

jonnykay
01-28-2006, 02:10 PM
quote:AMC had a 327 V8, but it was also no relation to the Chevy 327.AMC also had a 390, no relation to Ford and a 401, I believe, no relation to Buick. Man! Those guys copied everybody, didn't they?