Engine: '63 Cruiser Drivetrain swap into a '60 Lark Wagon....

[cultural infidel]

What all would be involved in swapping a '63 Lark Cruiser drivetrain into a '60 Lark Wagon? The '63 has a 289 w/ AT / Power Steering and the '60 is a 259 w/ 3 on tree. I am assuming that the driveshaft would need to be addressed to make it fit properly with the AT.

[sals54]

Not too tough on this one. Virtually all parts will interchange as though they were born there. I don't recall the wheelbase on the two cars, but check to see if they are the same. If so, even the driveshaft will swap over. Do you have the rear end from the Cruiser also? If so, swap that in too. The brakes should be the same or very close to the same. But just in case keep the Cruiser brakes too. The frames are same except for the length, but check that to be sure, so the suspension will be easily exchanged. Its one of the easiest swaps to do. Change out the steering column so you have the shifter and indicator for the automatic. All that linkage will bolt in too.

[Hallabutt]

Infidel,

So what's wrong with the 259, three speed? Unless the original is trashed I can't see any reason to put a great deal of effort into a project for very little positive return! By the way, you are probably not going to get away without also changing the rear-end, because of the different gear ratios. Both cars should have a Dana 44, so except for the 63's self adjusting brakes the swap should be pretty straight forward, but again why go through the trouble?

[TWChamp]

I was thinking the same thing as Hallabutt. I'd sure be satisfied with a 259, and would like the work and cost savings.

[GrumpyOne]

Infidel,

So what's wrong with the 259, three speed? Unless the original is trashed I can't see any reason to put a great deal of effort into a project for very little positive return! By the way, you are probably not going to get away without also changing the rear-end, because of the different gear ratios. Both cars should have a Dana 44, so except for the 63's self adjusting brakes the swap should be pretty straight forward, but again why go through the trouble?

Well... For starters, many of us older lazier types would prefer the automatic which should be the heavy duty version since it's coupled to a 289.

But that's just me but I do fit the personality of old 'n lazy..

[cultural infidel]

Not too tough on this one. Virtually all parts will interchange as though they were born there. I don't recall the wheelbase on the two cars, but check to see if they are the same. If so, even the driveshaft will swap over. Do you have the rear end from the Cruiser also? If so, swap that in too. The brakes should be the same or very close to the same. But just in case keep the Cruiser brakes too. The frames are same except for the length, but check that to be sure, so the suspension will be easily exchanged. Its one of the easiest swaps to do. Change out the steering column so you have the shifter and indicator for the automatic. All that linkage will bolt in too.

I believe that the rear end is still in tact with the car. It was rear ended a few years back from what I have been told. Has been parked ever since. This is all promising info, Sal! Thanks!

Infidel,

So what's wrong with the 259, three speed? Unless the original is trashed I can't see any reason to put a great deal of effort into a project for very little positive return! By the way, you are probably not going to get away without also changing the rear-end, because of the different gear ratios. Both cars should have a Dana 44, so except for the 63's self adjusting brakes the swap should be pretty straight forward, but again why go through the trouble?

I have wanted to swap out to an AT for quite some time. It was the original intention of my Uncle and I when it was his car. He wanted it to be a easy around town driver when needed, especially with the hills of Seattle. I would much rather have an AT anyways. I have always had one and quite like the ease of driving them, but maybe I am just lazy lol. My intent on the original engine/trans is to rebuild at some point and store(since I have the space) if I ever decide to go back to the original combo down the line.

[StudeRich]

Well... For starters, many of us older lazier types would prefer the automatic which should be the heavy duty version since it's coupled to a 289.
But that's just me but I do fit the personality of old 'n lazy..

So I take it you did not read Post 6, 8, 10 and 13 here:

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?98385-Identifying-an-Avanti-automatic-transmission

Normally Standard, non "R" Series, 289's did NOT have H.D. Flight-O-Matics.

[63t-cab]

Maybe that's His personal preference as a combo?, Factory or not.

So I take it you did not read Post 6, 8, 10 and 13 here:

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?98385-Identifying-an-Avanti-automatic-transmission

Normally Standard, non "R" Series, 289's did NOT have H.D. Flight-O-Matics.

[StudeRich]

That would be fine Joseph, but THAT is NOT what the Man said!
You need to learn to READ what people actually SAY, not what you THINK they may have.

If uncorrected, these incorrect statements tend to mislead the newbies that want to know how they actually were built to know what to expect if still original.

[GrumpyOne]

So I take it you did not read Post 6, 8, 10 and 13 here:

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?98385-Identifying-an-Avanti-automatic-transmission

Normally Standard, non "R" Series, 289's did NOT have H.D. Flight-O-Matics.

Well... Excuse me!

You mean to say that the engine/PowerShift combo that I removed from a '63 Hawk wasn't HD as the engine was a standard run-of-the-mill 289, not an R series!

I don't profess to know it all but can cite my personal experiences.

(snort)

[Treblig]

Well... Excuse me!

You mean to say that the engine/PowerShift combo that I removed from a '63 Hawk wasn't HD as the engine was a standard run-of-the-mill 289, not an R series!

I don't profess to know it all but can cite my personal experiences.

(snort)

I've heard a deer snort and a hog snort but I've never heard a SDC member snort............pretty cool!!

Treblig

[drrotor]

So I take it you did not read Post 6, 8, 10 and 13 here:

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?98385-Identifying-an-Avanti-automatic-transmission

Normally Standard, non "R" Series, 289's did NOT have H.D. Flight-O-Matics.

I believe 6 cylinder cars had a "light duty" auto trans, and v8 cars had a comparably "heavy duty" transmission-- am I wrong? Or do we need to refer to them as "medium duty" so that we can accurately call the "heavy duty" ones "heavy duty"? How about we call them 'Heavier duty"? Holy Smokes!

[rkapteyn]

Many questions on this forum can be answered by going back to the forum archive and look at the posts.
108 pages with thousands of posts.
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...x.php/f-8.html.
Many forum readers probably do not know that this archive is available.
Robert Kapteyn

[mbstude]

Many questions on this forum can be answered by going back to the forum archive and look at the posts.
108 pages with thousands of posts.
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...x.php/f-8.html.
Many forum readers probably do not know that this archive is available.
Robert Kapteyn

While a good source of info, it's a lot easier to start a fresh thread than it is to potentially spend hours trying to find an answer.

Just because someone remembers a thread covering a topic 5 years ago, doesn't mean the question can't be answered again.

[63t-cab]

Excellent point Matt !!!

While a good source of info, it's a lot easier to start a fresh thread than it is to potentially spend hours trying to find an answer.

Just because someone remembers a thread covering a topic 5 years ago, doesn't mean the question can't be answered again.