PDA

View Full Version : Engines



soxman
07-03-2006, 08:43 PM
I am in need of a stude engine for my 1966 cruiser. The problem i am having is whether or not to put in a 283 or a stude 259 or 289. I want to have some power under the hood. I live in Indiana and do not mind to travel as long as it is not over a two day drive (per work).I would apppreciate any and all feed backs with your opinions and views on this situation.

He Gone!
1963 R-1
1966 Cruiser

imported_n/a
07-03-2006, 08:55 PM
Since it is a 1966 model, I would suggest replacing it with the McKinnon- built type engine, since this is what the car was originally equipped with. Parts for those are readily available at reasonable prices, since they were produced in mass quantities for use in other makes besides Studebaker, such as Checker, GMC and Chevrolet.

PackardV8
07-03-2006, 09:10 PM
Usually, I am trying to talk people out of belly-button-engines in Studes. However, in your case, no good reason I can think of for putting a Stude in a 1966. It would lower the value. Horses for courses. If you plan to enter it in shows, look around for a date correct Chevy (McKinnon) 283. If you want bang for the buck, a 350 crate motor for $1495 or a 383 stroker for $1995 is the most horsepower for the money ever and no one can tell the difference if you dress it up with the old air cleaner and rocker covers.




PackardV8

N8N
07-03-2006, 09:11 PM
I would be sorely tempted to just drop in a GM crate engine, unless originality is a big deal for you. You didn't specify which transmission you have but at least the Flightomatic should be more than stout enough to hold up behind a warm 350. Yes, there are real advantages to a Studebaker engine, such as the bulletproof bottom end and incredibly stout blocks, but honestly, I'm not sure that they outweigh the pain in the butt factor of doing an engine swap when a more powerful bolt in is available.

Another option, albeit more expensive, would be to find a 327 or 302 and build it up for your application. I like that option because I like motors that like revs... Or you might be able to find a late model small block with not too many miles on it in a junkyard.

nate

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

soxman
07-03-2006, 11:24 PM
I guess the Chevy powerplant is what would be easiest. Yes it does have a flightomatic tranny. Obviously a 283 will fit right in. Can I build up a 283 to get good horsepower or is a 327 or 350 a better way. I would put stock covers and air cleaner on (good idea). I guess to much trouble would be involved with trying to put a stude engine in it?

He Gone!
1963 R-1
1966 Cruiser

PackardV8
07-04-2006, 01:08 AM
Having built enough SBCs that I hope I never have to do another one, unless someone gives you a smaller version, go with the 350. They are actually less expensive to buy and build these days than the less common/older engines. They will also make much more torque in daily driving and handle the three-speed automatic much more easily.

You originally mentioned you wanted some power under the hood. Today, you can buy a 383 stroker for very little more than a stock 350. If you want, we can give you a guaranteed all-new parts 383 long block for $1850.

PackardV8

blackhawk
07-04-2006, 03:08 AM
I'd put a Studebaker V8 in it and never give a moments thought to putting in a Chevy. But that is just my bias and I have the engines already in hand so it is easy for me. I have a '65 that I am eventually going to put a Stude V8 into. I gave away the original 283 engine years ago. I like the way a Studebaker engine runs and sounds, and I can trust them. Just my opinion... Dale

pete
07-05-2006, 05:38 AM
well i have a 65 cruiser and yes the 289 was thought of but i just blonked a 600 holly carb on the 283 and its fine gives a bvit more ooof but i still like the stude motors more though

DEEPNHOCK
07-05-2006, 07:46 AM
This is an easy choice (to me anyways)..
Since the car was originally equipped with a 283 GM based engine, you can get a rebuilt long block 350 V8 engine (stock) and pick up 67 cubic inches worth of performance for real easy money. You can still prep it so it will look original. The money you save will then be available to detail and prep the engine compartment, or to add a/c or something like that. Discount Auto Parts has branches in Indiana that sell rebuilds dirt cheap. Shoot, Jasper Engines is in Indiana and they sell a 350 reman for $1900 exchange...and that is list price!
Their core charge is steep though, so keeping your serial numbers 'correct' will be a problem...(But if keeping serial numbers correct is an issue, you already have a problem;)) Swapping in a Stude block will take some work (probably a donor car) to get all the little pieces, and the car will slow down compared to what you have now, unless you spend money on hop up parts.
Just another opinion....
Jeff[8D]


quote:Originally posted by soxman

I am in need of a stude engine for my 1966 cruiser. The problem i am having is whether or not to put in a 283 or a stude 259 or 289. I want to have some power under the hood. I live in Indiana and do not mind to travel as long as it is not over a two day drive (per work).I would apppreciate any and all feed backs with your opinions and views on this situation.
He Gone!
1963 R-1
1966 Cruiser

41 Frank
07-05-2006, 08:08 AM
I have a complete 66 Cruiser for sale, excellent engine 283 and transmission (aut.) 58000 miles, drive home $700.00. E-mail me off forum if interested

gordr
07-05-2006, 01:16 PM
Like the others said, I'd stick with the Chevy family of engines in this case.

Best choice, IMHO, would be to have a good local engine shop rebuild the original 283 if you still have it. Then you will be "numbers-matching" if that should ever be significant, and it will be "stock" as far as judging goes at an SDC meet, again if that's important to you.

There's plenty you can do to warm up the 283, and they made more than adequate power when they were new. I feel the 283 seems a little "snappier" on revving up than does a 350, and they should deliver better fuel economy, all other things being equal.

And, again IMHO, the 283 ranks a little higher on the "cool meter" at a car show, simply because it IS a vintage engine, and not one of the ever-present 350s.

But if you don't have the original engine, or it's pooched, and if time is a factor, go ahead a drop in a 350. You can dress it up to look right, and it'll get the car on the road. And that's a GOOD thing.

As far as going with a Stude 259 or 289, fine if you want to do it, but the car will no longer be stock, and it will require that a lot of stuff be changed. If you have a suitable donor car (say a rusted-out '64 Commander) on hand, and can make one out of two that way, then it's worth considering. If you have to round up all the parts, then it becomes quite a chore.

So a lot depends on your needs, your abilities, and what's available to you. Should be no scarcity of Stude engines (either flavor) in Indiana, the home of Studebaker.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

Dick Steinkamp
07-05-2006, 05:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by gordr
[ go ahead a drop in a 350. You can dress it up to look right, and it'll get the car on the road. And that's a GOOD thing.



I've found that there are a few things that will give away a 350 in a 65-66 Stude. The 350 heads have three bolt holes on each end for accessories. The 283 heads don't. The 350 block doesn't have the vent at the very rear under the distributor. This is where the road tube went on an early 283 and where the vent to the air cleaner went on later 283's. Because of this, you'll have to run at least one valve cover with a hole in it to either run a hose to the aircleaner or to the base of the carb via a PCV valve (depending upon which PCV system you end up using).



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

PackardV8
07-05-2006, 06:21 PM
Every detail you mention is there. They are all easily disguised if someone is going for a 400-point show restoration.

GM, with all its resources, recently re-created the first 1955 Chevy to win a NASCAR race. What was under the hood? A 350 crate motor, naturally, looking very much like the 265" original. A little filling with JB Weld, some touch-up with a grinder, a swap-meet old-style intake and exhaust manifolds and its own mother couldn't tell a 350 from a 265 or 283.

PackardV8

Scott
07-05-2006, 06:25 PM
Just slightly off topic; are the newer Chevy crate motors made with a forged crank? I thought I heard somwhere that forged cranks have been the standard for maybe the last 20 years. Is this correct?

Also, if one were to rebuild a McKinnon V8, what would you have to watch out for - difference wise - to the standard Chevy 283 kits? Would some of the new parts be inferior to the quality of the originals when they were new?

Dick Steinkamp
07-05-2006, 06:50 PM
quote:Originally posted by Scott

Just slightly off topic; are the newer Chevy crate motors made with a forged crank? I thought I heard somwhere that forged cranks have been the standard for maybe the last 20 years. Is this correct?

Also, if one were to rebuild a McKinnon V8, what would you have to watch out for - difference wise - to the standard Chevy 283 kits? Would some of the new parts be inferior to the quality of the originals when they were new?


Most Chevy cranks (in fact most cranks period) were cast not forged since about 1969. There are some exceptions. This is not a bad thing, however...

"Have you always dreamed of owning a forged crank? Stop dreaming. Cast Pontiac cranks are 15 percent lighter than their forged cousins. The ductile cast-iron material of which modern cranks are made also absorbs a certain amount of vibration and so naturally minimizes harmonics.

Forgings are not structurally as rigid as a cast crank. The torsional property of a forging allows it to bend or flex from end to end more easily than a cast crank. Pontiac discovered the benefits of the ductile cast-iron crank in the early 1960s and immediately discontinued its 421 Super Duty forgings in favor of the cast Arma-Steel units for all 1963 Super Duty cars. The cast crank does not flex and it does not bend. Oh, sure, if you spin a bearing the heat generated can bend the crank, but of course this is abnormal use.

If you have an engine that is prone to detonation, a forged crank is for you. It will bend and flex a little farther before it cracks or breaks. But unless you’re running nitro-methane, or are having major tuning problems, a properly prepared cast crank will suffice for any horsepower level achievable with the Pontiac engine today. If you break a properly prepared cast crank, you have other problems."

http://www.pontiacpower.com/Three%20inch%20conversion.htm

"McKinnon" V8's are identical to any other Chevy 283 V8 in every way. In fact, many (most?) "McKinnon" V8's were probably cast and perhaps assembled in a US GM plant (Saginaw, Flint or Tonawanda). We beat that one to death on this thread...

http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/sdc_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2624&SearchTerms=mckinnon




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

imported_n/a
07-06-2006, 02:43 AM
Yes, but wouldn't a Mckinnon have numbers stamped on the block that would be unique to a Studebaker-built car? I'd sure think so. Weren't they painted a color besides orange? Didn't they have decals that said "Studebaker Thunderbolt 283" on them? Those things would make those engines different, and not identical. :)I would suggest that if you ae going to rebuild a 65-66 McKinnon 283(that used cast cranks), that you use the crankshaft from an older 283, around 63 on back. They were all forgings and interchange. It may not run any better, but it will give you bragging rights to have a steel crank in your motor. :)