Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
289 start up video
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by StudeRich View PostSounds really good and LOOKS Great, but it definately will need a head torque and valve adjustment after break-in.
Comment
-
'Sounds good! BPWe've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.
G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.
Comment
-
Thanks for the inspiration! Really looks nice!Pat Dilling
Olivehurst, CA
Custom '53 Starlight aka STU COOL
LS1 Engine Swap Journal: http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/jour...ournalid=33611
Comment
-
Looks like the rear motor/tranny mounts are installed backward. That may explain why the fan belt is so close to the lower radiator hose. Flip them around (left to right and right to left) and the engine will shift forward 1/2 to 3/4". As is, you're gonna need to "sleeve" the lower radiator hose with something. Otherwise, that slack side of the belt will flop around and chew a hole in the hose eventually. If you install the aforementioned mounts correctly, you probably won't need to sleeve the hose. Plus, the forward mounts will sit more squarely in place, instead of being tugged toward the rear.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JoeHall View PostLooks like the rear motor/tranny mounts are installed backward. That may explain why the fan belt is so close to the lower radiator hose. Flip them around (left to right and right to left) and the engine will shift forward 1/2 to 3/4". As is, you're gonna need to "sleeve" the lower radiator hose with something. Otherwise, that slack side of the belt will flop around and chew a hole in the hose eventually. If you install the aforementioned mounts correctly, you probably won't need to sleeve the hose. Plus, the forward mounts will sit more squarely in place, instead of being tugged toward the rear.
Comment
-
The 1953's with the Studebaker Automatic did not not use that Converter Housing OR those Motor Mounts, so I doubt the hole pattern in the crossmember is correct unless it is from a '56 and on Hawk.StudeRich
Second Generation Stude Driver,
Proud '54 Starliner Owner
SDC Member Since 1967
Comment
-
Originally posted by 53commander View PostI have tried the mounts both ways with no better luck when I first put the motor in. The mounts wont clear the trans the other way. I figured it was because it's a 289 in a 53 chassis but it was something I was going to tinker with later (one of the bugs I mentioned). Thanks for noticing it, funny you mentioned the lower hose too because I had plans to make a sleeve for it so the belt doesn't rub. The driveshaft and mount fits perfectly.
I looked in the 1959-64 Shop Manual and became really confused. Apparently those mounts are reversed (as yours are now) on six cylinders. They used the same picture (of the mounts on a six cylinder) in both the six & eight cylinder engine sections. In the Flightomatoc section, all pix are of a FOM behind a six cylinder. The only accurate picI found in the manual was on page 3, figure 2, in the ENGINE V8 section. After swapping those mounts around, all the above peculiarities disappeared. In your video, at the #2 second mark, the driveshaft mount is cock-eyed, shifted toward the rear. I am betting if the mounts are reversed, that mount will align itself as it should be.
I agree with Rich, probably not gonna get that tranny crossmember to clear the later FOM, but that is whole mother issue.
Just tryin to save you some grief
Comment
-
Originally posted by JoeHall View PostI am betting if the mounts are reversed, that mount will align itself as it should be.
I agree with Rich, probably not gonna get that tranny crossmember to clear the later FOM, but that is whole mother issue.
Just tryin to save you some grief
Comment
-
I have no bout you will get all the bugs ironed out, and be tooling around in no time. Sometimes, there are a few challenges on swapping parts around on Studes, but overall, they are very versatile, as far as what is possible. I bet that 53 Is really gonna scat with the later, larger CId motor.
Comment
Comment