PDA

View Full Version : McKinnon V-8



JRoberts
03-21-2007, 05:37 PM
Is there any difference between a GM 283 used by Studebaker in '65 and '66 from a Chevrolet 283?

Also, I am considering a more modern overdrive automatic for a '65 V-8 Cruiser. What would you guys suggest and why? Are any modifications needed to install such a tranny?

Thanks for the help,
Joe Roberts

StudeRich
03-21-2007, 05:58 PM
Quite a bit of modification is required, because of the very LARGE size of the Converter Housing part of the THM cases. You need to cut out just the center portion of the crossmember that supports the door posts and cowl, basically the entire front of body. If you can fabricate a dip-down crossmember to replace it, the body may still hang together.

It certainly is not impossible. It does bolt right up. Many people had done it, and many ways. Some frames may not last too long, depending on just how many horses you plan to put in there! It would be relatively simple otherwise, just driveline, throttle or vacuum lines (linkages), shifter rods and quadrant adjustment, modification or replacement etc.

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

whacker
03-21-2007, 07:31 PM
As I understand it, there are a few differences between the Studebaker 283 and the Chevrolet 283. The Studebaker version is the Canadian built truck engine, with heavier duty components and a different oil slinger. There are some other differences as well, but I don't remember them right now. As far as dimensionally, they are the same and the mounts are the same as well. None of these differences should matter if you are considering an engine swap.

StudeRich
03-21-2007, 08:17 PM
Joe; I guess it all depends on what your goal is. Most of those '65-'66's have excellent Cruising gears already 3.07 & all late '65-'66 have the flanged axle, and the Studebaker Flight-O-Matic is every bit as dependable and in my opinion, more so than any THM O.D., their dependability as a general rule is terrible! So what is to be gained?

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

garyash
03-21-2007, 09:00 PM
There was a pretty good discussion of this previously.

See http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2624


[img=left]http://www.studegarage.com/images/gary_ash_m5_sm.jpg[/img=left] Gary Ash
Dartmouth, Mass.
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
web site at http://www.studegarage.com

Swifster
03-21-2007, 10:10 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

...the Studebaker Flight-O-Matic is every bit as dependable and in my opinion, more so than any THM O.D., their dependability as a general rule is terrible! So what is to be gained?

StudeRich

I wouldn't say that. I'd actually go with a 4L60 and either a set of 3.31's or 3.54's. This will give the car some grunt off the line and still have the OD for reasonable mileage. You can also use the 700R4 or 200-4R. If these car take the abuse behind Camaros and Grand Nationals, I'm sure they'll hold up behind that little 283.

If you're handy with programing, you can also use a 4L60E. It's electronically controlled, and there are a few aftermarket controllers so that you won't need the GM ECU. If you go this route, make sure to get the wiring with it.

Mine came with a four speed and I'm looking at a T-5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

Swifster
03-21-2007, 11:17 PM
Bob, just looking at a driveability issue, the mileage will be better than using the FOM and RPM's lower while cruising (no pun intended) the interstates. I'm not harping on the durability of the FOM at all. But you'll find the mileage will be better using a 4L60 than an FOM. I wasn't looking at this as a race issue (it's a Cruiser!). I promise, I will not play the race card in this conversation.

The FOM requires no modifications. With a 4L60 (or other transmissions), you'll need to fabricate the trans mount and possibly a crossmember. The driveshaft may need to be modified or replaced. It may be necessary to take a big hammer to the trans tunnel.

If the car is a nice survivor, I personally would leave it alone. I don't think the cost to modify the car will be offset by the fuel savings. But that wasn't the question that was asked.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

Roscomacaw
03-21-2007, 11:19 PM
Tom, we've had this discussion before. I can only defer to Mr. Harbit's experience with the Flight-o-matics in the Chicken Hawk. If I remember right, he never DID destroy one (the SAME one!) in 12 years of racing it, but on the advice of "experts", was convinced that with the dual turbo evolution of the CH, he'd HAVE to go to a "beefier" TH tranny.
What was it - TWO? - that he thrashed before he got one to hang together. And the first ones, I'm pretty sure, (Ted?) weren't just local tranny shop standard issue.
Sometimes the "experts" are "expert" only with regards to what they're familiar with.[B)] After all, there's LOTSA "experts" that would SCOFF at the thought of a Studebaker engine being competitive. Thing is - I can personally testify that their "expertise" seems a bit hollow as one after another 400 and something, cubic inch contender knuckles under to a paltry 304... or 289 even![:0][:I] Heh - without a huffer even![:p]
Of course, that's why there's not a flush of Studes being raced - 'cause they ain't good fer nuthin'. That and the fact that the "industry" and the rags that thrive off them, are too busy sellin' that bad-ass, bow tie stuff to "rodders" that need easy "insert Tab A into Slot B" creativity out of a box.[^]

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe

StudeRich
03-22-2007, 03:32 PM
I hear the 200R4's are the best behind a V-8, AFTER you spend about $1000.00 to $2000.00 to beef them up to work right!

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

Swifster
03-22-2007, 09:50 PM
Rich, I know you have your opinions about GM parts on a Studebaker, but remember, the 200-4R was the transmission behind the Buick Grand National. It wouldn't need any beefing up to hand a 195 HP 283. Personally I like the 4L60, but that's just me.

As to Joe's first question, yes, the Studebaker 283 is the same engine (with the exception of the valve covers) and the Chevy 283.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
03-22-2007, 10:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by Swifster

As to Joe's first question, yes, the Studebaker 283 is the same engine (with the exception of the valve covers) and the Chevy 283.


There is no difference between the Stude 283 and any other 195 HP 283 that General Motors built. In fact there is a good chance that many (perhaps most) were from the Tonawanda, Flint and Saginaw GM plants and not the St. Catharines (McKinnon) plant. (but we'll probably still call them "McKinnons" and not "Chevys" ;)

Actually, even the valve covers were straight out of the GM parts bin. I've seen them on marine and other applications where the Chevrolet script wouldn't be appropriate.

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
03-22-2007, 11:26 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp

Actually, even the valve covers were straight out of the GM parts bin. I've seen them on marine and other applications where the Chevrolet script wouldn't be appropriate.



Don't you just hate Canadian Pontiacs :D.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

StudeRich
03-23-2007, 06:12 PM
Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!

But I have to tell ya about my son's 2001? Chev C1500 4X4 with the 4.3 V6 & that trans. We have smoked the whole thing twice and it's on it's way out again. The Trans shop in Sacramento rebuilt it after it crawled into the swap meet at the International meet with only 2nd gear left. He said the 3th gear clutch drum NEVER gets adaquit oil when the converter goes into lockup. He drilled some passages bigger, added clutches everything possible to beef it up the first time, all for nothing. He also said never pull any hills or load in O.D. which we always knew, but also said to give it more gas and unlock the converter when approaching hills. Bah !! what a POS!

So you can easily understand my pregidous opinion, because this is NOT the first I have heard of the problems with all GM Overdrives! I'll agree that maybe the best trans. out there is the THM 400, but it's way obsolete now with everyone wanting Overdrive. Funny thing, you NEVER hear of a problem with a FORD AOD! [}:)]


Maybe this is just one of those things you can ask 6 guys if their equipment is good & get positive ans. & 6 more say the opposite ![}:)]

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

Dick Steinkamp
03-23-2007, 07:45 PM
quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!


I've had the opposite experience. I had the non electronic version of the 4L60E (TH700R4) in my '88 Safari with the 4.3 V6...bought new. I sold it with 260,000 miles on it and it still shifted as new. Towed a lot with it also.

My '01 Sierra has the 4.3 and the 4L60E. 120,000 miles so far. Tranny works perfectly. I've towed a lot with this rig including many trips up and down I5 over a 4,400' pass with a load, over I90 with an M15, and recently with Scotts Imperial Convertible.

If you are towing or have the truck loaded and DON'T push the TOW/HAUL button you will probably burn out the tranny ahead of schedule. That reprograms the tranny for later shifts and keeps it out of OD for all but the most level roads at over 70 MPH.

Frank V runs a TH700 in his FAST R2 powered Champion coupe.

Sorry about your experience with the tranny, but I don't think it's indicative of everyone's experience.





http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

DEEPNHOCK
03-23-2007, 07:53 PM
I agree!
I have an '03 Silverado with a V6 something under the hood and an overdive automatic trans
(I think it's an automatic..I can't see a third pedal under there;))
I know nothing about anything under the hood on this pickup, other than the dipsticks.
I can tow the yellow pos behind it just fine. Push the tow button and put it in '3' and go... Runs right at 3000 rpm at 73 mph... Likes that rpm (happy range)..
Haven't had a single problem with it at all...
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!


I've had the opposite experience. I had the non electronic version of the 4L60E (TH700R4) in my '88 Safari with the 4.3 V6...bought new. I sold it with 260,000 miles on it and it still shifted as new. Towed a lot with it also.
My '01 Sierra has the 4.3 and the 4L60E. 120,000 miles so far. Tranny works perfectly. I've towed a lot with this rig including many trips up and down I5 over a 4,400' pass with a load, over I90 with an M15, and recently with Scotts Imperial Convertible.
If you are towing or have the truck loaded and DON'T push the TOW/HAUL button you will probably burn out the tranny ahead of schedule. That reprograms the tranny for later shifts and keeps it out of OD for all but the most level roads at over 70 MPH.
Frank V runs a TH700 in his FAST R2 powered Champion coupe.
Sorry about your experience with the tranny, but I don't think it's indicative of everyone's experience.

Swifster
03-24-2007, 11:50 PM
Chrysler FWD transmissions are the only ones that I've had fail on me. And at that, Chrysler replaced the entire unit at no cost after the warranty ran out. My Ranger has the 5-spd AOD and so far, so good with 165K on it. I've towed with it long and hard (the Daytona has about 4K on the tow dolly).

One tip I received from the trans tech at the Ford dealer in Saline, MI in 2002 was not to do the shift from reverse to drive without coming to a stop. Not doing so with blow out the valve body gaskets on the 2001 models only. They upgraded to a thicker gasket for 2002. I have a 2001 and again, I've had no issues.

My GM experience has been at a GM dealer. While not every vehicle will be trouble free, you do get to see what is a common occurance and just a freak of nature. The GM transmissions have been excellent for the most part. Some engines, ehhhhhh, so-so. But GM builds these for mileage as well as durability.

Or let me put it this way, and every car company is the same in this regard. When the Olds Aurora first came out, the 4.0L V8 was bullet proof. Warranty claims were almost nonexistant. So the bean counters see this a say, 'Hey, we can save a few bucks if we replace the rod bolts with cheaper pieces. So the save .03 per bolt (multiply this by 16 for each car, and then by 'X' number of cars, and remember this is a Northstar engine). Now warranty claims are thru the roof. At some point the manufacturer reaches a 'happy' medium of part cost vs part failure (and the warranty cost). They don't care if the part fails at 95K if the warranty was for 36K.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

pete
03-26-2007, 05:29 AM
personal i wouldnt touch the 283 as i had one in my 65 it run perfectly and all that but now i have a 63 259 and boy what a power difference in every way i say you cant go past the stude motor overall

Dick Steinkamp
03-26-2007, 10:42 AM
'65 Chevy 2 bbl 283...195 HP @ 4800 RPM, 285 ft pounds of torque at 2400 RPM

'63 Stude 2bbl 259 ...180 HP @ 4500 RPM, 260 ft pounds of torque at 2800 RPM.




http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

41 Frank
03-26-2007, 10:59 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp



I've had the opposite experience. I had the non electronic version of the 4L60E (TH700R4) in my '88 Safari with the 4.3 V6...bought new. I sold it with 260,000 miles on it and it still shifted as new. Towed a lot with it also.



Frank V runs a TH700 in his FAST R2 powered Champion coupe.


Correction on the 700R-4 in the 41 Champion, actually it is a 200-4R ,it is a BOP transmission in other words all gm divisions used it including turbo Buick GN so I figured it would be strong enough.Properly built they are good for up to 500 hp,not something I have to worry about(g) I used it because of space considerations and it has a higher ratio first gear than the 7004R so it has a smaller drop in rpm between first and second.




http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

[/quote]

Dick Steinkamp
03-26-2007, 11:15 AM
quote:Originally posted by 41 Frank
Correction on the 700R-4 in the 41 Champion


Sorry Frank [:I].

I've heard good things about the TH2004R. Not only a better gear spread, but also a smaller package AND bolts in where most other GM transmissions were (not that that's a factor with your ride :))



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

stude freak
03-27-2007, 12:00 AM
Ok guys my 2cents worth.Isnt the 200 a metric tranny?I think its good up to 300 hp. uses a vacumn kick down ,where as the 700 r4 is cable kickdown good to 500 hp.I think the 200 was the equivilent to 350 with over drive and 700 was for the 400 overdrive replacement.Correct me if im wrong ,I been there before.

David Baggett Mantachie,Ms.

41 Frank
03-27-2007, 07:35 AM
quote:Originally posted by stude freak

Ok guys my 2cents worth.Isnt the 200 a metric tranny?I think its good up to 300 hp. uses a vacumn kick down ,where as the 700 r4 is cable kickdown good to 500 hp.I think the 200 was the equivilent to 350 with over drive and 700 was for the 400 overdrive replacement.Correct me if im wrong ,I been there before.

David Baggett Mantachie,Ms.


The 200 metric is a different tranny, the 200 4R is cable operated just like the 700R4

Dick Steinkamp
03-27-2007, 11:12 AM
quote:Originally posted by stude freak
200 was the equivilent to 350 with over drive and 700 was for the 400 overdrive


Both the TH700R4 and the TH2004R are at least as stout as the non OD TH350.

There was no GM OD tranny as stout as the TH400 until the 4L80E that came along around 2001 or so (it's still in production).

For a super strong auto, try the Allison that GM uses behind their Izuzu diesel.

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg