PDA

View Full Version : More Barn Find Fun!



drrotor
10-16-2016, 11:27 PM
Here's the one picture I have of the '63 Daytona Convertible I rescued from a 40-year sleep in a barn. Parked in running condition in 1976, has around 78,000 actual miles. i bought it including a complete, loaded, and very rusty 1963 Cruiser-- 289, A/T, P.Steering, 331 Twin Traction, etc. I will bring it home after I build a shed for it. Fun times!59154

Hallabutt
10-17-2016, 01:04 AM
Kenny,

Is that Walt Thompson's car?

sals54
10-17-2016, 01:24 AM
Looks like its time to yank that boat anchor outa that Convert and transplant the 289. Now you'll have a real drivers car. Congrats

Hallabutt
10-17-2016, 01:25 AM
Kenny,

No need to respond, I know the cars very well. Known Walt for over forty years, and the cars as well. I guess that all things have to come to an end, just glad that there is someone willing to do something with some of his exceptional stash of cars.-Bill

drrotor
10-17-2016, 08:57 AM
Looks like its time to yank that boat anchor outa that Convert and transplant the 289. Now you'll have a real drivers car. Congrats
Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

thunderations
10-17-2016, 09:24 AM
Change the suspension, rear end and brakes over too.
Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

TWChamp
10-17-2016, 10:02 AM
Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

I'd sure keep a nice clean low mileage convertible all original. Nothing wrong with a six.

Commander Eddie
10-17-2016, 02:34 PM
I agree with TWChamp. I had a 62 sedan with a six and it ran just fine. The lighter engine made steering with no power steering a breeze. Got decent gas mileage as well. A lot less work for you to keep it stock.

Bullet
10-17-2016, 07:32 PM
Agree on keeping the 6 cyl. I had a 63 Cruiser with auto, ran great and great gas mileage. Took that car everywhere. Also had a 6 64 convertible, on the registry, that was a 6 with 3spd. That one needed the OD.

Mark

sals54
10-17-2016, 11:44 PM
I'll be the naysayer... That 6 is gonna cause nothing but grief for you. You'll spend as much or more on the rebuild and what'll you get? Low power, mediocre gas mileage, 6 cylinder brakes and p*ss poor acceleration. At least with the 289 you'll have the torque you need to get that car up and going down the road. Chirping the tires as you jump on it while ramping onto the freeway is an added bonus. And the fun part is... you'll be getting comparable gas mileage all the while. All the other parts from that rusted out Cruiser will bolt right into the Convert. Front springs, rear end, brakes, radiator etc. And since most of it will need some freshening up anyway, you may as well put in the good stuff.
And just for giggles, go out for a drive in somebody's 6 cylinder Lark and someone else's 289 Lark and see the difference for yourself. I'll bet 10 bucks the 289 will make you smile, while the 6 will make you wish you were still driving the 289.
Don't cheat yourself out of building the car for yourself, not for some other guy 20 years from now who's lamenting the fact that its missing its original engine. Oh, brother.

drrotor
10-18-2016, 12:25 AM
Kenny,

Is that Walt Thompson's car?

Yes:rolleyes:

drrotor
10-18-2016, 12:43 AM
I'll be the naysayer... That 6 is gonna cause nothing but grief for you. You'll spend as much or more on the rebuild and what'll you get? Low power, mediocre gas mileage, 6 cylinder brakes and p*ss poor acceleration. At least with the 289 you'll have the torque you need to get that car up and going down the road. Chirping the tires as you jump on it while ramping onto the freeway is an added bonus. And the fun part is... you'll be getting comparable gas mileage all the while. All the other parts from that rusted out Cruiser will bolt right into the Convert. Front springs, rear end, brakes, radiator etc. And since most of it will need some freshening up anyway, you may as well put in the good stuff.
And just for giggles, go out for a drive in somebody's 6 cylinder Lark and someone else's 289 Lark and see the difference for yourself. I'll bet 10 bucks the 289 will make you smile, while the 6 will make you wish you were still driving the 289.
Don't cheat yourself out of building the car for yourself, not for some other guy 20 years from now who's lamenting the fact that its missing its original engine. Oh, brother.

Well, I do have some experience in this area. My Step-Son had a '64 Wagonaire with a 6/stick, no power steering. I have a '64 Daytona 289 w/ power steering. The Daytona just feels more polished, capable, and smooth. And of course much more powerful.
The 6 is OK and all, but two factors: I happen to know this convertible has a weak transmission that needs repair anyway, and besides, I have a COMPLETE parts car with all the good bits... also, if you look on Hagerty' s value guide, they knock the car 20% for being a 6 cylinder.
So-- I'm back to my original question, which is: does anyone know how the car sits and rides with a V8 on 6 cyl. front springs?

sals54
10-18-2016, 01:08 AM
As far as the 6 cyl springs go... I originally put a V8 in my 54 Coupe which was a Champion 6. The V8 made the car sit rather low in the front, but I didn't mind that too much. At least for a while. Back in the 70s the "jacked up" look was still the rage.
Decent shocks will help if you keep the 6 cyl springs for now, but it will sit lower and rides softer.
I later put in V8 springs but the car then sat too high. I originally cut one coil out to lower it and was quite happy with that. A spring swap is not too tough anyway.

jackb
10-18-2016, 08:43 AM
You can see what old V8 springs look like on 90% of the cars we have and for sale. Some applaud the "rake" ..I see it as a lazy man's resto effort. Now if you were placing old V8 springs in a 6 banger with new suspension rubber etc.... maybe. Forget about not replacing the rubber when you put in new V8 springs...

nels
10-18-2016, 08:52 AM
I hate to say it but the convertible was probably parked do to a cracked cylinder head?

TWChamp
10-18-2016, 11:34 AM
Were the 6 engines known to have cracked heads? My 63 Lark six never had a problem, until I made the mistake of running the engine for only about 5 to 10 minutes, then not touching it for 6 months. That blunder locked up the engine, so some day I'll have to rebuild it, or just sell the car.

Replacing a head is a minor thing to be parking a car.

Hallabutt
10-18-2016, 01:15 PM
I've known the car for decades and I truly doubt that there is anything wrong with the engine. A few years ago a select few of us had complete access to an old friend's stash of cars and parts. Walt didn't search out a head then and he could have had his pick, Tom Noller found several. Having said all that it was Walt's plan to use the V8 drive train in the convertible.

T.J. lavallee
10-18-2016, 01:21 PM
I remember reading that the overhead six that was first introduced in the 61' model gave Studebaker headaches. The heads were cracking at an alarming rate. I also remember reading that the problem was addressed so I would think the 62' and up sixes head problem was resolved. That's an assumption on my part. Others here with accurate knowledge on this subject can elaborate or set me straight on this.

8E45E
10-18-2016, 01:23 PM
Nine times out of ten, a cracked head was why OHV six cylinder Studes got 'parked', and the problem was never resolved until the GM-engine cars were introduced for 1965.

Craig

Hallabutt
10-18-2016, 01:42 PM
Walt at one time had amassed a collection of around sixty cars. Some very nice cars were parked for many years, because of the sheer numbers. Kenny just got some of his best! Walt usually carefully chooses the people that he wants to receive his stored treasures. More then twenty years ago I was honored to be entrusted with his original 1962 Daytona convertible. There is never a time that I drive the car that I don't think my good friend! Walt is a special guy, about five years ago he was awarded the title of national Studebaker man of the year.

53k
10-18-2016, 01:57 PM
Were the 6 engines known to have cracked heads? My 63 Lark six never had a problem, until I made the mistake of running the engine for only about 5 to 10 minutes, then not touching it for 6 months. That blunder locked up the engine, so some day I'll have to rebuild it, or just sell the car.

Replacing a head is a minor thing to be parking a car.
Maybe I don't understand what a cracked head is, but I have had two ohv sixes, a '61 convertible and a '62 Regal convertible. The '61 was non-running when I got it (a long time ago). When I turned the engine over I could tell it was the timing gear. Fixed that and started it up. It was running very poorly, missing and such. So, I pulled the head and found cracks around some of the valve seats. I took the head to a local machine shop and as soon as I walked in the door the man said "ah, a Studebaker head". I was afraid that was bad news so I asked him if it could be fixed. He said "sure, no problem" so I left it with him. When I got it back he told me that he simply ground out the valves seats and installed new seats. It ran great after that. Later I bought a cream puff '62. Some cylinders were a little low on compression so I pulled the head expecting the same thing as the '61. Everything looked fine- no cracks, so I had the valves ground, installed the head and had no problems. Keystone Chapter bought it for their 1990 raffle car and they drove it everywhere with no problems. So, is that the kind of cracks we're talking about?

Studebakercenteroforegon
10-18-2016, 02:19 PM
A Studebaker OHV "Skybolt Six" is not as bad an engine as some people on this forum think it is. The problem is cracking between the valve seats, due to the intake and exhaust valve seats being quite close to each other. This is a design issue of trying to have overhead valves operating in such a small bore - 3 inches. Studebaker engineers did rather cleverly cant the valves to gain some room.
But now it is fairly common to install hard valve seats in any engine, so a reworked head may be far better than when it was new. When one of these engines is in good shape, they run very good.

r1lark
10-18-2016, 03:55 PM
I have a '64 Lark-type 4-door that has the OHV 6 in it. With a 3 speed/OD transmission and a 4.27:1 rear axle, it performs quite well. In fact, when one of my Studebaker friends rode in it, the first thing he asked me was did I swap a V8 into it. Highway speeds or 70 - 75 are ok, but you do need to anticipate the hills and speed up a little before you get to them. Now, a OHV 6 with an automatic I don't care much for......that's what this one was when I got it, but a little bit of driving convinced me to swap to an overdrive.

BILT4ME
10-20-2016, 09:32 AM
The long and the short: You need to install the V8 springs with the V8 engine. Otherwise, the tires MAY catch the fenders in a tight turn and braking. BTDT. The 6 cyl springs were much lighter and you will get bad sag and be too soft with the weight of a V8.

Look up the Moog CC655 springs thread here to see what NEW springs are available. (O'Reilly has them I think.)