Comparison Of 65-66 Stude Six Cylinder Motors Versus 64 & Earlier

[JoeHall]

Someone recently mentioned on another thread here, how the Stude six is often bashed, and was speaking in reference to a 65/66 motor, IIRC.

When it comes to comparing the "McKinnon Industries" 65/66 to 64 & earlier sixes by Stude, there really is NO comparison. The 65/66, in both the 194 and 230 CID versions, is basically bullet proof, and has plenty of power for a Studebaker. The Stude six OTOH, was quite anemic and problematic, mechanically. Again, NO comparison IMHO.

I say IMHO, because I am aware there are plenty of others who are very fond of the earlier sixes, and will insist they are great little motors. But I doubt many of us would argue against the merits of the 65/66 motors. A kajillion miles on misc GM vehicles (and 65/66 Studes) who used them can't be wrong

[BobPalma]

Well, Joe, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are basically bullet-proof, but they are, overall, "better" than the 170 OHV Studebaker-designed six they replaced. (There's nothing too bullet-proof about stamped rocker arms that had better receive regular oil changes if they aren't going to wear rapidly in their ball seats.)

In fairness to the Studebaker engine, it was state-of-the-art when introduced for 1939, whereas the basic McKinnon-Industries Six had the benefit of almost a quarter-century of additional engine R&D and lubricating technology before it was introduced in the 1962 Chevy II.

"No argument" with your basic premise, however, perhaps just the degree of it! BP

[rodnutrandy]

I think if Studebaker had came out with the overhead valve 6 cylinder ,it would have been better accepted. I think the problem with the later motor is not the motor, but where it came from . Just my 2 cents!

[Warren Webb]

I think if Studebaker had came out with the overhead valve 6 cylinder ,it would have been better accepted.

Not quite correct. Studebaker in 1961 did the same thing as what Chrysler did in 1960- make their flathead six into an overhead valve engine. Studebaker tried using as much of the valve train from it's V-8 causing the thin casting especially on the exhaust side. Chrysler's design was even older from the early 30's compared to 1939 for the Stude. It was an attempt that Studebaker at least attempted on using more parts from it's other sources but in this case it was too little too late.

[junior]

[QUOTE=BobPalma;781409]...[COLOR=#b22222][I] (There's nothing too bullet-proof about stamped rocker arms that had better receive regular oil changes if they aren't going to wear rapidly in their ball seats.)...

...but, but, that was one of the main features that made the SBC so popular and 'bullet-proof' was the simplicity of this design, let alone the light weight, decrease in the cost of production, and ease of adjustment wasn't it Bob? Any engine is going to basically face destruction eventually if oil is not changed, so that factor is a given in most, (if not all) 4 cycle piston engines...Si? Just throwin' it out there. I would have to agree with Joe that the 'new' chubby 6's were better engines for the 65/66 Studebakers than Studebaker's own design. cheers, Junior

[Packard8]

I'm not sure that Studebaker really needed to go to OHV on the six. I've owned 3 Champ six's over the years (50 2 Dr, 51 4 Dr and a 53 Starliner). All 3 seemed up to the job of getting the car down the road, especially the 53 (better aerodynamics?). The flathead Champ consistently either won or scored highly in the Mobil Economy Runs of the 1950's.

I think the decision was more of a marketing than engineering priority....... 6 plugs in a row on a side valve head screamed obsolescence by the 1960's.

[rodnutrandy]

I do admit I was shocked on utube videos that showed Studebaker trucks that had set forever in Alaska start up with just fresh fuel and jumper cables ! Try that with later v8 motors.

[Swifster]

Not quite correct. Studebaker in 1961 did the same thing as what Chrysler did in 1960- make their flathead six into an overhead valve engine. Studebaker tried using as much of the valve train from it's V-8 causing the thin casting especially on the exhaust side. Chrysler's design was even older from the early 30's compared to 1939 for the Stude. It was an attempt that Studebaker at least attempted on using more parts from it's other sources but in this case it was too little too late.

Warren, Chrysler's flat head six had nothing in common with the slant six. The slant six was designed to allow a lower hood line.

[qsanford]

I think AMC converted their flathead to an OHV.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Someone recently mentioned on another thread here, how the Stude six is often bashed, and was speaking in reference to a 65/66 motor, IIRC.

When it comes to comparing the "McKinnon Industries" 65/66 to 64 & earlier sixes by Stude, there really is NO comparison. The 65/66, in both the 194 and 230 CID versions, is basically bullet proof, and has plenty of power for a Studebaker. The Stude six OTOH, was quite anemic and problematic, mechanically. Again, NO comparison IMHO.

I say IMHO, because I am aware there are plenty of others who are very fond of the earlier sixes, and will insist they are great little motors. But I doubt many of us would argue against the merits of the 65/66 motors. A kajillion miles on misc GM vehicles (and 65/66 Studes) who used them can't be wrong

I'd agree.

The third gen Chevy 6 (194, 230, 250) lasted from 1962 to 1988. 7 main bearings. I had the 250 CID version in a 1965 Impala. There wasn't a huge difference in performance between that car and a later one I had with a 283. Both were 3 speed sticks. (BTW, the 250 will fit where the 194 and 230 fit if you want an easy upgrade to your 65-66 Stude...plus they are the most readily available of the 3 sizes)

Here's a couple of 250's in a row. This dragster sounded like a swarm of bees!...

[gordr]

Even the 194 Chevy six has about 12% more cubes than the 170 Studebaker six, and much better breathing, bigger bores allow for bigger valves. The Champion six is a great engine for its era, compared to such as the Ford flathead V8 or the Chevy stovebolt six with its splash-and-hope lubrication. Problem is, Studebaker pushed that engine well past its "best before" date because of cost considerations, and the OHV conversion was too little, too late. What they should have done was to make a SOHC head, maybe in a Hemi configuration, with the cam over the intake valves using bucket followers, and the exhaust valves, (being smaller and lighter) worked by offset rockers. Then destroke it, so it is slightly over-square, and tune it to make power via RPM.

[Packard8]

What they should have done was to make a SOHC head,

Interesting point. Somehow Jeep had the R&D resources to develop and market a SOHC I6 in 1962. Neat looking engine, looks a lot like the MB 6's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Tornado_engine

[StudeRich]

I would have to agree that the later GM in line six would trump all of the Stude. Sixes for performance, but just ask forum member Doug Hughes about FUEL Economy! They are terrible!

Doug ought to know, his '63/'66 Lark Custom 2 door has had a 170 OHV, a 230 McKinnon and a Chev. 250 inline 6 Engine!

[BobPalma]

[QUOTE=junior;781501]

...[COLOR=#b22222][I] (There's nothing too bullet-proof about stamped rocker arms that had better receive regular oil changes if they aren't going to wear rapidly in their ball seats.)...

...but, but, that was one of the main features that made the SBC so popular and 'bullet-proof' was the simplicity of this design, let alone the light weight, decrease in the cost of production, and ease of adjustment wasn't it Bob? Any engine is going to basically face destruction eventually if oil is not changed, so that factor is a given in most, (if not all) 4 cycle piston engines...Si? Just throwin' it out there. I would have to agree with Joe that the 'new' chubby 6's were better engines for the 65/66 Studebakers than Studebaker's own design. cheers, Junior

If there is one over-used word in this hobby, it is bulletproof. A slant six MoPar or a 308 Hudson six or a later 235 Chevy six with full-pressure lubrication is bulletproof; the new-for-62 7-main-bearing 194/230 Chevy being discussed is a good enough engine and, overall, "better" than the 112 HP Skybolt Six, but it's not bulletproof.

As far as the stamped rocker-and-ball valve train, it certainly is cheap and easy to manufacture and adjust. All plusses, to be sure.

But I've never seen a pushrod shoved through the cast rocker arms of a Studebaker OHV engine in the 53 years I've been playing with cars. OTOH, I've seen and replaced a handful of those rocker arms and ball studs when a pushrod finally wore its way through the "pushed" end of that rocker arm design...and if the pressed-in stud pulls out of the head for some reason (they rarely do), that's another whole set of problems with which to contend.

As I said, I have no disagreement with Joe's basic premise, and agree with him....but let's not get carried away excoriating Studebaker and heaping undue praise on Generous Motors for making something both functional and cheap, as if Ed Cole and fellow GM engineers are some kind of altruistic geniuses. BP