I recently saw a '66 Daytona for sale that had the Chevy V8. I didn't but the car, but it got me wondering... I know a lot about the Stude V8 but very little about the Chevy V8 they used those last two years. It was a 283, right? Was it lighter than the Stude V8? Was it an ok engine? Did it have the persistent rear main leak like the Stude V8? Do people like it? I think they still used the Flight-O-Matic in those cars- did it have it's own bell housing for the Flight-O-Matic? Interested in hearing anything you'd like to throw out there...
-
-
Yes, a 283" 2-bbl single exhaust and a very good engine, more than 100# lighter than the 289" Stude V8 of the same horsepower and not known for rear main seal leaking. Yes, there was a GM bell housing for the B-W tranny.Originally posted by HawkBuilder View Post
jack vinesPackardV8 -
The Studebaker V8 was/is a tough, completely reliable engine. Unfortunately, it was never designed to be 'opened up' much over 300 CI, and also fairly heavy,.. a fact that definitely hurt Studebaker in the 'cubic inch crazy' early sixties.
Pretty hard to find ANYTHING to criticize the small block Chevrolet V8 (265-400CI) about, other than enthusiasts like them and have used them so often that they are considered a bit 'ho-hum'!
Comment
-
and how is the mileage with the Chevy mill when using the two-barrel? And what two barrel was it?Comment
-
2GV Rochester two barrel carburetor. That carburetor on a 283" was never known for fuel mileage, especially if you were used to Studebaker V-8 mileage.Comment
-
When I was a Teen I Drove My Father's 64 Cruiser "289" Auto. Years later I Bought a 65 Cruiser "283" Auto, good Car/fun Car but I preferred the "289" all Day long.Joseph R. ZeigerComment
-
I have two bullet noses, one with a chevy 283 and one with a Stude 232 V8. They are both good engines, but I think the Chevy is probably better overall. On the other hand, the Stude is definitely better for gas mileage.Originally posted by HawkBuilder View PostComment
-
I agree. My 52 Land Cruiser could get 24 MPG on the highway and the 232 had plenty of power. My 55 Chevy with 265 and overdrive could never top 18 MPG. My 62 Chevy with 283 and overdrive could never top 18 MPG. My 283 was a very smooth nice running engine, but so was my Stude 232 with better fuel economy. I don't recall any oil leaks on my Stude V8, other than the cork valve cover gaskets liked to shrink and leak.Originally posted by Studebakercenteroforegon View PostComment
-
The BW transmission is purported to have only been "mate-able" to the small block Chevy because the Checker company used that transmission with the Chevrolet engine and that is where they sourced it from. I am unfamiliar with the Studebaker engine. My '64 Daytona came with a 65-66 McKinnon drivetrain transplanted. The options, price and availability of the Chevy engine (parts) make it so much more practical over the Studebaker engine. But, for the purists and those who seek to wring performance out of an old engine I applaud you for the efforts. The displacement ranges from 265 to 400 and offers a large spread for application. For someone who has an "average" or less, not unique/not special Studebaker the Chevy engine (trans) is a very practical swap. There is a whole emotional rebuttal to "practical" I'm trying to steer clear of here.
My car now sports a 350 Chevy and a 700R4 transmission. From what I've been informed that combined saves about 200 pounds off the front of the car. I've never checked the mileage but 65 MPH is about 1650 RPM. It sure seems easier on the gas than my 318 Valiant. I'd be curious as to what is attributed to the mileage people get from their Studebaker engines.Last edited by wittsend; 09-20-2016, 12:25 PM.'64 Lark Type, powered by '85 Corvette L-98 (carburetor), 700R4, - CASO to the Max.Comment
-
Wittsend It's called bad math.Comment
-
When I went to college, I bought my older brother's 1963 Impala with 283 V8 and automatic tranny for $200. Needed new tires, and a good carb cleaning, and good to go. (with three kids in college, how I long for those days!!! You got what you saw and heard; no electronics to kill you at a shop 6 months later!)
I drove it from 75,000 miles to 135,000 (when the heater core started to leak INSIDE the car, fogged my windshield all the way home to Minnesota.... and I had to get a car over Christmas break and get back to St.Louis. Sold it for $400 :-) and bought another Impala but a '78 w/ 350 quadra-jet, 15mpg tops!). The only thing I did to that '63 in four years was pull the carb about once a month and change fuel filters and dump rust out of the carb bowl :-), change plugs and points, and some body work. Engine got about 17mpg on the freeway trip to the farm I recall, never any more than that (and that was in the days of 55mph EVERYWHERE, 1984-1987). Engine and tranny never so much as hiccupped; those 283s had ALL the bugs worked out of them by '63 (and the trannys too apparently). Probably the most problem free car I've ever had to this day, for $200 and already 20 years old when I got it. I recall the neighbor kid Dad sold it to drove it for another several years before he crashed it into a deer or something. Sigh....... miss that car and the simplicity. I would literally SIT inside the engine compartment (for the shade from the hood in the college parking lot!) to work on the carb or points! Try that in a car today! :-) (never leaked ANYTHING, ever, by the way)Comment
Comment