Hobby Commentary w/ Stude Reference

[BobPalma]

Today I attended a multi-make hot rod show with my '64 Daytona hardtop and parked next to my Hudson friend Larry Kennedy to get caught up. I think Larry has 43 [:0] Hudsons currently (seriously) but today elected to drive a certain 1951 Hornet 4-door sedan. This particular Hornet is powered by a 1957 Nash Ambassador V-8, removed from a totalled '57 Nash and skillfully installed in the Hornet in 1958! It's been in there ever since and the car has been driven well over 100,000 miles in that configuration. [:I]

One of Larry's favorite exercises is to notice fellow hobbyists looking in the Hornet's engine bay and scratching their heads. [8D] He has shown the car off and on for years and every chance he gets, he asks observers if they know what kind of engine it is. [?] To date, no one has correctly identified it as an AMC V-8! The most frequent guesses he gets, in order, are: Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Studebaker [8D].

Personally, I think this is pretty sad...especially when I see a cluster of three or four guys over 50 years old peering under that hood and nobody knows what it is they are looking at. For heaven's sake, they made the engine for 11 model years, from its introduction as a 250 cubic incher in mid 1956 to its final configuration as either 287 or 327 cubic inches before bowing out at the end of the 1966 model year. It was a good engine, too. Not as good as a Studebaker V-8, of course...but then again, nothing is. [^]

My wife thinks I'm picky; "How are guys supposed to know that?" Well, at multi-make shows, you'd think that someone over 50 years old would have recognized it by now, wouldn't you? Are all hobbyists that myopic? (Incidentally, the deck lid of this Hornet has a 1952 Studebaker Commander "V" V-8 emblem in the center of the deck lid. Of course, that doesn't say Studebaker anywhere on it.)

Just musing...BP

[41 Frank]

I know that I for one would have no trouble spotting that it was an AMC engine but I am a little older then 50-ish ,but you are absolutely right Bob in your observation. What causes this phenomenon? The fact that the majority of car people have never taken the time to broaden their knowledge any further then the major brands has alot to do with it I think. Since I like all orphans I take an interest in knowing some of the major points about all of them. Since I have been going to a lot of cruisenights this summer I get a lot of this: "Was that V8 Stude motor original equipment in 1941?" They are looking at an R-2 with finned valve covers etc. in a 1941 Champion.Of course it says Studebaker on the valve covers.

[41 Frank]

I know that I for one would have no trouble spotting that it was an AMC engine but I am a little older then 50-ish ,but you are absolutely right Bob in your observation. What causes this phenomenon? The fact that the majority of car people have never taken the time to broaden their knowledge any further then the major brands has alot to do with it I think. Since I like all orphans I take an interest in knowing some of the major points about all of them. Since I have been going to a lot of cruisenights this summer I get a lot of this: "Was that V8 Stude motor original equipment in 1941?" They are looking at an R-2 with finned valve covers etc. in a 1941 Champion.Of course it says Studebaker on the valve covers.

[N8N]

In everyone's defense, I wouldn't know an AMC V-8 if it jumped up and bit me in the ass. I've probably had more opportunity than most to be exposed to them, too, as a couple older family members had AMCs or Jeeps, but by the time I was old enough to take note, they had all gone to the big parking lot in the sky except for an Eagle with the 258 straight six. For most people younger than I, "AMC" probably has about as much relevance to their own lives as "Studebaker" in terms of cars they're likely to remember seeing on the road.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[N8N]

In everyone's defense, I wouldn't know an AMC V-8 if it jumped up and bit me in the ass. I've probably had more opportunity than most to be exposed to them, too, as a couple older family members had AMCs or Jeeps, but by the time I was old enough to take note, they had all gone to the big parking lot in the sky except for an Eagle with the 258 straight six. For most people younger than I, "AMC" probably has about as much relevance to their own lives as "Studebaker" in terms of cars they're likely to remember seeing on the road.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[Alan]

Good thing he didn't put in a 55 Hornet V8 320, or 56 Hornet 352 which are Packard engines. That would have realy fooled em.

[Alan]

Good thing he didn't put in a 55 Hornet V8 320, or 56 Hornet 352 which are Packard engines. That would have realy fooled em.

[Blue 15G]

One possible reason for people not remembering the old AMC V-8 is that the vast majority of Ramblers back then had 6 cylinder power. There were far more Rambler Classic 6s than there were Classic V-8s or Ambassadors. But a lot of Studebakers had V-8s, even in the Lark era.

That said, my brother had a '62 Ambassador V-8 for awhile back in '68 and it was a good engine. Some people thought the car was a Lark. Some things never change.

[Blue 15G]

One possible reason for people not remembering the old AMC V-8 is that the vast majority of Ramblers back then had 6 cylinder power. There were far more Rambler Classic 6s than there were Classic V-8s or Ambassadors. But a lot of Studebakers had V-8s, even in the Lark era.

That said, my brother had a '62 Ambassador V-8 for awhile back in '68 and it was a good engine. Some people thought the car was a Lark. Some things never change.

[GTtim]

Bob, is this the AMC engine with the big valve covers? I had a '65 Marlin with a 287, but that was a different engine, right?

Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

[GTtim]

Bob, is this the AMC engine with the big valve covers? I had a '65 Marlin with a 287, but that was a different engine, right?

Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

[BobPalma]

quote:Originally posted by GTtim

Bob, is this the AMC engine with the big valve covers? I had a '65 Marlin with a 287, but that was a different engine, right?
Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

Nope: Same basic engine as your '65 Marlin, Tim. [^] Mid-1956 through 1966, AMC's "own" V-8 was either 250, 287, or 327 cubic inches. They all looked pretty much alike on the outside, just like trying to quickly eyeball 224-259-289 Studebaker V-8s (232 Studes being noticeably different due to the fuel pump location and much different intake manifold). [8D] BP

[BobPalma]

quote:Originally posted by GTtim

Bob, is this the AMC engine with the big valve covers? I had a '65 Marlin with a 287, but that was a different engine, right?
Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

Nope: Same basic engine as your '65 Marlin, Tim. [^] Mid-1956 through 1966, AMC's "own" V-8 was either 250, 287, or 327 cubic inches. They all looked pretty much alike on the outside, just like trying to quickly eyeball 224-259-289 Studebaker V-8s (232 Studes being noticeably different due to the fuel pump location and much different intake manifold). [8D] BP

[BobPalma]

quote:Originally posted by N8N

In everyone's defense, I wouldn't know an AMC V-8 if it jumped up and bit me in the ass. I've probably had more opportunity than most to be exposed to them, too, as a couple older family members had AMCs or Jeeps, but by the time I was old enough to take note, they had all gone to the big parking lot in the sky except for an Eagle with the 258 straight six. For most people younger than I, "AMC" probably has about as much relevance to their own lives as "Studebaker" in terms of cars they're likely to remember seeing on the road.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Point well taken, Nate. That's why I confined my remarks to guys over 50 years old. I figure they ought to know the difference if they claim to be "car guys" of long standing. Knowing the basic shape of a given American-made V-8 engine from the V-8 era would seem kind of like entry-level knowledge if you lay claim to being much of a car nut. [:0] I wouldn't necessarily expect younger fellas to know the difference yet. BP

[BobPalma]

quote:Originally posted by N8N

In everyone's defense, I wouldn't know an AMC V-8 if it jumped up and bit me in the ass. I've probably had more opportunity than most to be exposed to them, too, as a couple older family members had AMCs or Jeeps, but by the time I was old enough to take note, they had all gone to the big parking lot in the sky except for an Eagle with the 258 straight six. For most people younger than I, "AMC" probably has about as much relevance to their own lives as "Studebaker" in terms of cars they're likely to remember seeing on the road.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Point well taken, Nate. That's why I confined my remarks to guys over 50 years old. I figure they ought to know the difference if they claim to be "car guys" of long standing. Knowing the basic shape of a given American-made V-8 engine from the V-8 era would seem kind of like entry-level knowledge if you lay claim to being much of a car nut. [:0] I wouldn't necessarily expect younger fellas to know the difference yet. BP