PDA

View Full Version : McKinnon vs. Chevy fuel pumps



Scott
04-03-2007, 04:16 PM
I've read or heard that the fuel pump used on 1965-6 Studebaker McKinnon V8s is a little different than the standard Chevy or GM fuel pump for the 283 engine. Does anyone know if this is true? I think it could be, although I know the standard 283 pump will work. I thought I read the housings or output ports or something is different.

64V-K7
04-03-2007, 05:12 PM
McKinnon engines were HD truck engines. The Fuel pump was probably matched to the intended application..

Bob Johnstone
http://www.studebaker-info.org/7168422/sig2.jpg

Swifster
04-03-2007, 05:52 PM
The ONLY difference would be location for inlet and outlet. There is nothing to suggest this engine is any different than a standard, 195 HP 283. Internally I doubt if there is any difference either. Depending on the manufacturer, the pump may be repairable.

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

1964 Studebaker Daytona

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

Scott
04-03-2007, 06:03 PM
No, what happened is that my pump with less than probably 2000 miles on it must be replaced because the pivot arm holes have gone eccentric and oil is spraying out of the holes. The pump still works. I know that was a standard chevy 283 pump. The other issue is that the edge of the pump comes within 1/8 inch from the inner fender well. I would not call that good engineering - so that lead me me to the question about differences.

Dick Steinkamp
04-03-2007, 09:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by 55Prez

McKinnon engines were HD truck engines.


I don't think so, Bob. My research shows that a 195 HP Chevy 283 is a 195 HP 283. There were no HD truck 195 HP 283's, no unique Canadian Pontiac 195 HP 283's, no Studebaker only 195 HP 283, etc. In fact some (perhaps all) of the 283's originally installed in 65 and 66 Studebakers were most likely from GM's Saginaw, Tonawanda, and Flint factories and not St. Catherine's.

If you know of specific parts (crank, bearings, block, cam, heads, etc) that are unique to a HD truck 195 HP 283, post the part, the part number that is different, and the differences.

I'm not trying to burst any bubbles, but what I can determine, this is an "urban legend" at the same scale as "Studebaker used Ford 289's".




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

64V-K7
04-04-2007, 08:16 AM
>My research shows that a 195 HP Chevy 283 is a 195 HP 283<

Could be and I won't contest it. Throughout the past season, I've been going through my old Turning Wheels mags and thought I read it there.



Bob Johnstone
http://www.studebaker-info.org/7168422/sig2.jpg

Scott
04-04-2007, 09:57 AM
I did order one from SASCO to go on the 1965 Daytona I've recently acquired. When I get it I will compare it to the one on the 1966 Cruiser and report back. I have seen two AC Delco part numbers for 283 engines from the period: 40254 and 40170. I think the 40254 is supposed to be correct for Studebaker, but I'll wait and see what the actual new pump looks like.

Scott
04-05-2007, 08:36 PM
I got my pump today and it IS much different than the Chevy issue pump for the mid sixties. The bowl sits higher which should give more clearance with other parts of the car. I'll take pictures soon. It looks a little like a picture I saw of a 1958 Chevy pump, but it's not even the same as that.

StudeDave57
04-06-2007, 01:16 AM
Scott~
I'm also tired of changing pumps on my '65. I ordered a pump from SASCO to see what an 'NOS' one looked like. [?] Then I took it to my local Chevy dealers' parts department. I was there for at least half an hour with two of the parts guys- neither of them had any idea of what the Chevy application was!!! [:0] :( [V]
Let's hope that when you post the pictures someone will know of a Chevy application~
if there is one... ;)

StudeDave [8D]

Scott
04-06-2007, 10:08 AM
I'll try to take pictures tonight. The first obvious difference is that the Studebaker pump's bowl area is bolted to the upper housing, not crimped. The two part number I listed above: 40254 and 40170 are very different and the bowl is crimped or pressed onto the upper housing.

Scott
04-06-2007, 07:48 PM
Here are photos of a NOS 1965-66 V8 fuel pump.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/238/448848456_dbec629283.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/448848448_f3ae12c4c0.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/448848458_663f7d6a01.jpg?v=0

Mike
04-07-2007, 06:06 AM
Thanks for posting the photos. What brand is the pump? I see a couple of things that are usually better on a "Carter": The ends of pivot pin, for the operating arm, are exposed; and the arm is laminated.
I have a couple of Chevy pumps I can measure, for comparison. Can you can tell me the distance, from the center of the mounting bolts to the bottom of the pump; and from the flange to the most distant edge?
Mike

Scott
04-07-2007, 09:47 AM
The distance from the flange where it contacts the engine block to the farthest edge is 4 1/8" and from the center of the mounting bolt holes to the bottom of the pump is 3 1/8 inches. The box says 24914 on a tab, but that might just be a number for the box. A google search shows nothing for that part number. At least I know where I can get one!

The Chevy pumps work, but the clearance issues concern me somewhat. I'll take a picture later of the Chevy pump installed on the 1966 Cruiser and you'll see what I mean.

It is an AC pump.

N8N
04-07-2007, 03:48 PM
That actually looks very similar to a 56J fuel pump... that probably is not helpful, however :(

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel