Stude 259...

[Stude-Dude]

What year did Stude drop the 259 and run strictly with 289's?

[kmul221]

Right up till the end in South Bend,both V-8's were available + 6cyl.In 65-66 they sourced engines from McKinnon in Ontario similar to a Chevy 283 & 6cyl's were also used

[DEEPNHOCK]

Yessir... And to add....
The McKinnon V8 used in Studebaker's was, is, and will always be a Chevy engine.
No difference whether it was in a Studebaker, or in a Chevrolet.
Exactly the same engine.
They all came off the same line at the McKinnon plant from St Catherine's, Ontario.
The Studebaker people either did not want to use the Chevrolet name, or they were not allowed to use it.
You can look up all the casting numbers for a 'McKinnon' Studebaker V8 engine and find out all the build spec's from the GM casting and stamping numbers pages on the Web.
I do not say this because I have some love affair for the SBC (which I don't)..
I say this for factual reference.
HTIH
Jeff

Right up till the end in South Bend,both V-8's were available + 6cyl.In 65-66 they sourced engines from McKinnon in Ontario similar to a Chevy 283 & 6cyl's were also used

[Stude-Dude]

i've heard that before (from an owner of a GTO)...
i never believed him at first (dad still doesn't!), but i've ran across it in too many places for it NOT to be true...


and yeah, Stude didn't "want" to use the Chevy name, can you blame them?
(i'm making this up, no clue)...

[Stude-Dude]

but it does seem odd that "we" get the 289 and "they" got the 283...
would almost seem like "they" would have preferred to have the "bigger" of the two (not that such a miniscule difference is 'significant' or anything)...

[Corvanti]

'dude, the 289 engine was all studebaker, the 283 ('65 & '66 stude cars) were all ch*vy.
i always thought that the only difference between the engines going to studebaker in those years were the valve covers. but how about the carb, intake and exhaust?

[Jessie J.]

What year did Stude drop the 259 and run strictly with 289's?

Actually it was the other way around, in 1959 the 289 was dropped and the 259 was the only size V-8 offered in regular production passenger cars, including the Hawk.
289's remained optional in the truck lines.

[Bob Andrews]

Actually it was the other way around, in 1959 the 289 was dropped and the 259 was the only size V-8 offered in regular production passenger cars, including the Hawk.
289's remained optional in the truck lines.

OOPS! Not even close Jessie! Just for starters, ever hear of the 'R' engines??

[Jessie J.]

Cut me some slack Bob, The question was " What YEAR...?" I was only referring to the 1959 model year. In 1960 the 289 was again made available, and standard on the Hawk.
Ever hear of R engines in '59 & '60?

[StudeRich]

289 Engines STANDARD?

Actually it was the other way around, in 1959 the 289 was dropped and the 259 was the only size V-8 offered in regular production passenger cars, including the Hawk. 289's remained optional in the truck lines.

The weird thing about 1959 was that yes only 259 Engines were in the Cars offered to the General Public, BUT all of the V-8 Trucks came STANDARD that year only, with the 289 Engines!

This believe it or not, has been proven by checking several Production Orders and several Trucks, I suppose like everything a 259 could be extra special Dealer ordered, but not Standard or even advertised as available! Unusual, even for Studebaker they actually GAVE away those $40.00 optional Engines!
That extra Forged Iron in those long stroke Cranks is expensive you know!

[mbstude]

The weird thing about 1959 was that yes only 259 Engines were in the Cars offered to the General Public, BUT all of the V-8 Trucks came STANDARD that year only, with the 289 Engines!

This believe it or not, has been proven by checking several Production Orders and several Trucks, I suppose like everything a 259 could be extra special Dealer ordered, but not Standard or even advertised as available! Unusual, even for Studebaker they actually GAVE away those $40.00 optional Engines!
That extra Forged Iron in those long stroke Cranks is expensive you know!

I think you're over thinking it Rich. He stated that 289's remained optional in trucks. Trucks were also available with 6 bangers, so that would make a 289 optional.

Just for the sake of confusion, I have a 259 in my 1959 truck. But it didn't leave the factory that way.

[StudeRich]

Toma-toe, Tomot-o

You are right Matt, it depends on how you interpreted "Optional"!
I took Jessie to mean the 289 was optional over the 170 Six, the 245 Six and the 259 V-8, on "C" Cab Trucks (as always), not knowing if he knew about the rare '59 thing or not.

You took it to mean; optional over the Champion 170 Six, and the 245 Six, on "C" Cab Trucks, knowing there were no 259's!

[Bob Andrews]

Cut me some slack Bob, The question was " What YEAR...?" I was only referring to the 1959 model year. In 1960 the 289 was again made available, and standard on the Hawk.
Ever hear of R engines in '59 & '60?

Slack officially cut You said in 1959, not for 1959, so I thought you meant from '59 on. I'm easily confuddled

[Jessie J.]

There is only one way to avoid criticism; do nothing, SAY NOTHING, and be nothing.
-Aristotle

[Jessie J.]

I was using 'standard' automotive nomlecture from the period. When most advertising and price quotations were based on a 'standard' base model vehicle, usually the cheapest 'stripped' 6 cyl. standard-shift in the line. Almost everything was optional. Want a heater? - add $$, want a passenger side sun visor?- add $$, -radio? add $$ dual horns? -add $$, undercoating? -add $$ outside mirror?- add $$ and of course if you want the V-8 -add $$.
Want the optional ''High Performance' V-8? add $$$$ Ka-ching!

Studebaker always excelled in the marketing of optional extras.
An extreme example of this would be say, a 1964 Commander equipped with the optional at extra cost R-3 engine 'Super Lark' package, toss in a few comfort and convenience items, and you could nearly double the sticker price of the base vehicle. Couple this with the fact that the same base model from Dealer inventory could be purchased at a discount from sticker and you can see why few R-3 Commanders were ordered.

Motor Trend's '64 Commander R-2 'Super Lark' listed at $3784 on a $2190 base. And Car Life's '64 R-4 Daytona listed out at $4549 on a $2443 base.
That was a lot of moolah in 1963 bucks. A new 1964 Corvette Sting Ray had a base price of only $4037, just for a little perspective on Studebaker's lack of sales success.