I need to get rid of this engine/trans, are there any pieces that I should save from the engine or trans? It is minus exhaust/distributor and water pump already. Scrap value is about $40. Thanks for comments.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Scrapping 1953 232 Engine w/AT
Collapse
X
-
Save the intake manifold and carburetor. That way you can put them on a later engine and it will look like an early engine.
Some folks on the forum might like to have the transmission.RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.
10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
-
I have a spare 232 engine, and need the oil filler tube along with the push rod for the fuel pump. I have a bunch of spare parts, but, so far have not stumbled across one of those oil filler necks with the hole and push rod for a top mounted fuel pump. I have several of the later ones, but none for the 232.John Clary
Greer, SC
SDC member since 1975
Comment
-
Originally posted by jozek View PostI need to get rid of this engine/trans, are there any pieces that I should save from the engine or trans? It is minus exhaust/distributor and water pump already. Scrap value is about $40. Thanks for comments.
barry@studebakersite.com
Comment
-
Originally posted by jozek View PostI need to get rid of this engine/trans, are there any pieces that I should save from the engine or trans? It is minus exhaust/distributor and water pump already.
232" Crankshafts have the same stroke as the ones from the later 259"s, but have smaller lighter counter weights due to the larger piston used in the later engines. They can be used in the later non-full flow engines, if the piston and connecting rod assemblies are lightened appropriately. They may be redrilled to work in the full flow blocks as well. This results in a lighter rotating assembly that will accelerate a little more quickly.
Maybe I'm a little biased but it seems a shame to me that being scrapped is the fate of so many 232"s. It takes a little more work but I believe they have every bit as much potential as the later engines!
Marksigpic
S2Deluxe = (5H - C3).
Comment
-
Maybe I'm a little biased but it seems a shame to me that being scrapped is the fate of so many 232"s. It takes a little more work but I believe they have every bit as much potential as the later engines!
Mark[/QUOTE]
232 CI Stude V8's are by-passed in favor of the 259-289 CI versions for many of the same reasons that the late 70's 267 CI small block Chevy V8 is avoided in favor of the larger CI small block Chevy V8's,,,,,"Bang for the buck"!!
Comment
-
Is it not possible, to get the very same amount of power from a 232", as can be had with the later Stude V8s? The only additional expense required is the cost of making the same upgrades as the factory did. Altough this may not be insignificant? In a car with an original 232" engine, it does allow a significant Bang for those bucks! To be able to state truthfully that it is still powered by the older original engine and has comparable power to several newer possible replacements! It's up to the individual owners to make their own decisions and I don't have any problems with that. Am I assuming incorrectly, that a lot of perfectly serviceable 232"s, have been scrapped in favor of later, better Bang for the buck engines, that don't really have all that much more over all potential? Please forgive me if I'm ranting too much?
Thanks,
Mark
Originally posted by SN-60 View Post232 CI Stude V8's are by-passed in favor of the 259-289 CI versions for many of the same reasons that the late 70's 267 CI small block Chevy V8 is avoided in favor of the larger CI small block Chevy V8's,,,,,"Bang for the buck"!!Last edited by S2Deluxe; 03-27-2016, 10:11 PM.sigpic
S2Deluxe = (5H - C3).
Comment
Comment