Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Uh-Oh: Did Plymouth make Studebaker 259 V8s?

  1. #1
    Golden Hawk Member BobPalma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brownsburg, IN, USA.(NW suburban Indianapolis)
    Posts
    22,497

    Uh-Oh: Did Plymouth make Studebaker 259 V8s?

    Doing some research for my December 2018 Hemmings Classic Car column, I ran across an interesting tidbit :

    The first-year 1955 Plymouth V-8 (1955 only) displaced 259.2 cubic inches. That's exactly the same as the Studebaker 259 because both engines have the same bore and stroke.

    By contrast, "289" Studebaker and "289" Ford V-8s really have different displacements when carried out to three places because they have different bores and different strokes. To wit:

    The "289" cubic inch Studebaker V-8 actually displaces 289.066 cubic inches with its 3.5625" bore and 3.6250" stroke.

    The "289" cubic inch Ford V-8 actually displaces 288.524 cubic inches with its 4.00" bore and 2.87" stroke.

    (Geeze, we no sooner settle the Studebaker / Ford 289 question and now we have to address the 259.2 Studebaker / Plymouth 259.2 discrepancy! ) BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    Ayn Rand:
    "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

  2. #2
    President Member Commander Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dundee, Oregon
    Posts
    3,076
    Bob,
    Why don't we just say, if asked, that Studebaker sold 259 V-8s to Plymouth for one year to help them out. Not true, but it will sound plausible to some.
    Ed Sallia
    Dundee, OR

    Sol Lucet Omnibus

  3. #3
    Golden Hawk Member BobPalma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brownsburg, IN, USA.(NW suburban Indianapolis)
    Posts
    22,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Eddie View Post
    Bob,
    Why don't we just say, if asked, that Studebaker sold 259 V-8s to Plymouth for one year to help them out. Not true, but it will sound plausible to some.
    That sounds good, Ed. That way, Plymouth could get into the V-8 market right away while they were developing their own engine for 1956, right? (Kind of like American Motors bought Packard V-8s until their own new 250 V8 was ready to go in the middle of the 1956 model year.)

    That's as good a story as any we've heard for awhile. BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    Ayn Rand:
    "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

  4. #4
    President Member t walgamuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    lafayette in
    Posts
    4,350
    Yeah but what about the battery hold down strap?
    Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

  5. #5
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    British Columbia & Arizona
    Posts
    2,165
    If you haven't heard a good rumor by noon, start one.

  6. #6
    Golden Hawk Member BobPalma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brownsburg, IN, USA.(NW suburban Indianapolis)
    Posts
    22,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
    If you haven't heard a good rumor by noon, start one.
    Good point, Bill.

    This tongue-in-cheek "yuk" will probably be circulated as fact by the end of the day! BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    Ayn Rand:
    "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

  7. #7
    President Member Commander Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dundee, Oregon
    Posts
    3,076
    And I will deny I had anything to do with it.
    Ed Sallia
    Dundee, OR

    Sol Lucet Omnibus

  8. #8
    Speedster Member greyben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sagle, ID
    Posts
    308
    It's interesting that Plymouth also used the same crank bearing diameters.
    In the end Ignorance will have conquered all adversaries

    Don't hasten the end

  9. #9
    President Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Niotre Dame, IN USA
    Posts
    2,339
    Somewhere, i read that Plymouth used a Dodge V8 in 1955 and had their own V8 in 1956. My '55 Plymouth was my first V8.

  10. #10
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA. 94087
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by greyben View Post
    It's interesting that Plymouth also used the same crank bearing diameters.
    That's possible, but I don't imagine their's used a forged crank, with the thrust bearing in the front, adjustable end play, or a gear drive for the cam.

    Mark
    Last edited by S2Deluxe; 06-26-2018 at 06:47 PM.


    S2Deluxe = (5H - C3).

  11. #11
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Above the Equator
    Posts
    1,830
    It's all Kevin Bacon's fault. Everything is related to everything else.

    So..., the 289 (Ford) in my Sunbeam Tiger is really a Studebaker engine even though Rootes was controlled by Chrysler. My Pinto wagon has a German engine (2.0). My Canadian built Valiant priobably has..., a Canadian built engine. The engine in my '63 Rambler American (eventually owned by Renault, Chrysler, Mercedes, Fiat) is really a Nash engine. The "replacement" engine in my '64 Studebaker was really a Chevy (McKinnon) engine (now a American 350). The engine in my Datsun 510 is really linked to Mercedes for the stealing of a patented design (The bastard step-child?). And the engine in my '61 Corvair is just as likely to be found in experimental aircraft these days. Yea, it is tough to find enough parking places when we have (vehicular) "family reunion."
    '64 Lark Type, powered by '85 Corvette L-98 (carburetor), 700R4, - CASO to the Max.

  12. #12
    Speedster Member whitehawk759's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    193
    I had a fellow that was driving a nice original 1957 Hawk that his had a Packard "big" 289 that Studebaker had bought from Ford.
    I don't know how to unravel that one?
    Don Watson
    61 Hawk

  13. #13
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    west bloomfield, mi
    Posts
    145
    The Tucker had a Franklin Air cooled, that was a helo engine, and half the cars done and gone companies seemed to use Continental motors, last how many engines did the Jeep CJ's use, from Buick to Nash, seems the only pure engine usage (except for Packard) is us.

  14. #14
    Golden Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wappingers Falls, New York, USA.
    Posts
    20,870
    Quote Originally Posted by mike cenit View Post
    The Tucker had a Franklin Air cooled, that was a helo engine, and half the cars done and gone companies seemed to use Continental motors, last how many engines did the Jeep CJ's use, from Buick to Nash, seems the only pure engine usage (except for Packard) is us.
    Not if you go back far enough in Studebaker history.
    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

  15. #15
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    west bloomfield, mi
    Posts
    145
    how far back? EMF?

  16. #16
    Golden Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wappingers Falls, New York, USA.
    Posts
    20,870
    Quote Originally Posted by mike cenit View Post
    how far back? EMF?
    Not that far back. For example, the diesels used in both cars and trucks.

    EDIT: How about all of the 1965-1966 model cars?
    Last edited by studegary; 06-27-2018 at 10:14 PM.
    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

  17. #17
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    west bloomfield, mi
    Posts
    145
    True, I was kind of thinking regular production stuff, trucks always had options, the GM diesel etc, and the 65/66 aside from Canada.

  18. #18
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,515
    The Erskine used a Continental 9-F engine.

    Craig

  19. #19
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    west bloomfield, mi
    Posts
    145
    Craig, I guess that ends that, thanks

  20. #20
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Carmel, Indiana
    Posts
    133
    The "289" cubic inch Studebaker V-8 actually displaces 289.066 cubic inches with its 3.5625" bore and 3.6250" stroke.

    The "289" cubic inch Ford V-8 actually displaces 288.524 cubic inches with its 4.00" bore and 2.87" stroke.



    Know-it-all car fan: "But, but, but...... it is the same engine! A friend of mine told me that!!"

  21. #21
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by whitehawk759 View Post
    I had a fellow that was driving a nice original 1957 Hawk that his had a Packard "big" 289 that Studebaker had bought from Ford.
    I don't know how to unravel that one?
    Laugh your arse off and then walk away! If remarks are required your retort should be, "Funniest darned (*&%!) garbage I've heard all day!!!)
    Bo

  22. #22
    Speedster Member greyben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sagle, ID
    Posts
    308
    I know for a fact that some Studebakers used a 390 Packard engine. (Car Show intellect) I also once met a man whose uncle special ordered a '52 with a 289 from the factory.
    In the end Ignorance will have conquered all adversaries

    Don't hasten the end

  23. #23
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by BobPalma View Post
    Doing some research for my December 2018 Hemmings Classic Car column, I ran across an interesting tidbit :


    By contrast, "289" Studebaker and "289" Ford V-8s really have different displacements when carried out to three places because they have different bores and different strokes.
    Studebaker 289 introduced in 1956, Ford 289 introduced in 1963.

    Studebaker: Solid lifters, dizzy located behind carburetor, valve covers retained by two studs/nuts that poke thru center of cover. Originally had a partial flow oil filter mounted on top of engine, in front of carb.

    Ford: Hydraulic lifters (except HiPo), dizzy located in front of carb, valve covers retained by 6 bolts around the perimeter, full flow oil filter threads into adapter on left side of block.

    Packard 320 & 352 introduced in 1955. 320 dropped in 1956, while the 374 was introduced. 56J's used the 352.

    Ford 352 introduced in 1958 & 390 introduced in 1961.

    Most people don't have a clue what engine size they have, and don't have a clue who made it.

    One cluck on the Ford truck site I'm a member of, swore that 1968/76 F100/350's used the Dodge 360.

    Uh huh, Ford 360/390 used the same block and heads, the only difference was the stroke. 360 only installed in F100/350's.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 06-28-2018 at 02:22 PM.

  24. #24
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,515
    Quote Originally Posted by WinM1895 View Post
    Studebaker 289 introduced in 1956, Ford 289 introduced in 1963.

    Studebaker: Solid lifters, dizzy located behind carburetor, valve covers retained by two studs/nuts that poke thru center of cover. Originally had a partial flow oil filter mounted on top of engine, in front of carb.
    True for 1960 & later; two studs & nuts holding valve cover. Previous years had four per valve cover.

    Craig

  25. #25
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by 8E45E View Post
    True for 1960 & later; two studs & nuts holding valve cover. Previous years had four per valve cover.

    Craig
    I knew it went from 4 studs/nuts to 2, but couldn't remember the year.

  26. #26
    Silver Hawk Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA.
    Posts
    9,577
    Quote Originally Posted by WinM1895 View Post
    Studebaker 289 introduced in 1956, Ford 289 introduced in 1963.

    Studebaker: Solid lifters, dizzy located behind carburetor, valve covers retained by two studs/nuts that poke thru center of cover. Originally had a partial flow oil filter mounted on top of engine, in front of carb.

    Ford: Hydraulic lifters (except HiPo), dizzy located in front of carb, valve covers retained by 6 bolts around the perimeter, full flow oil filter threads into adapter on left side of block.

    Packard 320 & 352 introduced in 1955. 320 dropped in 1956, while the 374 was introduced. 56J's used the 352.

    Ford 352 introduced in 1958 & 390 introduced in 1961.

    Most people don't have a clue what engine size they have, and don't have a clue who made it.

    One cluck on the Ford truck site I'm a member of, swore that 1968/76 F100/350's used the Dodge 360.

    Uh huh, Ford 360/390 used the same block and heads, the only difference was the stroke. 360 only installed in F100/350's.
    Are you saying the 360 was only used in the F100 and F350 or all models between the F100 and F360? I had a 1976 F150 4x4 that had a 360.
    Join me in removing narcissists, trolls, self annoited "experts" and general idiots via the Ignore button.

    The official SDC Forum heel nipper ���

    �Middle age is when your broad mind and narrow waist begin to change places.� E. Joseph Cossman

    For every mile of road, there are 2 miles of ditch. ���

    "All lies matter - fight the kleptocracy"

  27. #27
    Silver Hawk Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA.
    Posts
    9,577
    Quote Originally Posted by studegary View Post
    Not if you go back far enough in Studebaker history.
    A number of 1930's big trucks used Hercules engines as did the 200,000 US6 trucks produced in WW2. My Reo based 1962 Studebaker M-35 has a Hercules diesel.
    Join me in removing narcissists, trolls, self annoited "experts" and general idiots via the Ignore button.

    The official SDC Forum heel nipper ���

    �Middle age is when your broad mind and narrow waist begin to change places.� E. Joseph Cossman

    For every mile of road, there are 2 miles of ditch. ���

    "All lies matter - fight the kleptocracy"

  28. #28
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido View Post
    Are you saying the 360 was only used in the F100 and F350 (no) or all models between the F100 and F350?

    I had a 1976 F150 4x4 that had a 360.
    1968/76 F100/350 = F100/250/350 + 1975/76 F150.

    360/390 = 2WD, 4WD = 360 only.

    30+ years as a Ford parts guy, with 77,000+ posts on Ford Truck Enthusiasts, I don't make too many mistakes.

  29. #29
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    British Columbia & Arizona
    Posts
    2,165
    As Guido stated
    A number of 1930's big trucks used Hercules engines as did the 200,000 US6 trucks produced in WWII
    my 1945 Studebaker US-6 2 1/2 ton is all original with a Hercules JXD Flathead 6 displacing 320 CID and even has the Studebaker "Wheel" cast into the exhaust manifold. Maybe our rumor of the day should state it was actually a destroked Chev 327 or a slightly over bored Chryco 318 polyspheric motor. Just a little time shifting involved.
    Bill

  30. #30
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    west bloomfield, mi
    Posts
    145
    At one time the South Bend Foundry was full of engines stored there, that looked like the 2 1/2 Hercules engines, they may have come from the 2 1/2 ton trucks that were converted to multi fuel

  31. #31
    President Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    North Pittsburgh, ,PA .
    Posts
    1,353
    Bob Bryant, the '55 Dodge V8 was 270 cid, so it wasn't exactly the same as the '55 Plymouth V8, but yes, I also saw somewhere that the '55 Plymouth V8s were built in a Dodge engine plant. Later in the year Plymouth got it's own V8 engine plant. Demand for the new '55 Plymouth V8 was so high that by the Spring of '55 dealers were told to try to steer more customers to the 6 cylinder engines.

    I always found it interesting that the early '55 Studebakers had the 224 V8 and the early '55 Plymouths had the 241. But fairly early in the model year the Studebaker went to the 259 and the Plymouth went to a 260. I don't think that the Plymouth was referred to as a 259, despite it's actual dimensions. Anyway.... it shows that the horsepower race was definitely ON!

  32. #32
    President Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Olathe, KS, USA
    Posts
    628
    I just had a discussion (polite term for "argument") in a QuikTrip parking lot about the "stock hemi" in my Studebaker.

    This guy was on and on about a friend of his with a stock hemi in his Avanti. Of course, we then went of to discuss the fact that Nash, Hudson, and Desoto were NOT part of Studebaker, yet he continued to insist they were.

    I don't get wound up about most people that are mis-informed or just don;t know, but this guy was pushy and insistent.

    I finally told him that his friend obviously installed a Chrysler product in his Avanti if it indeed has a Hemi, because Studebaker never produced one. Desoto had them, being part of the Chrysler group, but no one else.....

    I just walked away. Then later, drove away when he walked up after filling up his Dodge Diesel 4-door 4x4 1-ton excessively noisy Chrysler product and was wanting to discuss it further......

    So I fired up my "Hemi" and moved out!
    Dis-Use on a Car is Worse Than Mis-Use...
    1959 Studebaker Lark VIII 2DHTP

  33. #33
    President Member Xcalibur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,006
    If anyone asks just say "sure" and move on. I've found they don't believe anything we tell 'em, anyway.

  34. #34
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    1,480
    Ever notice how similar the Flat head 6 Mopar and the Studebaker Champion 6 are? Now we really can get something started!

  35. #35
    President Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Olivehurst, CA, USA.
    Posts
    3,378
    I met a guy at a gas station one time that insisted the Dodge made Studebaker engines.
    Pat Dilling
    Olivehurst, CA
    Custom '53 Starlight aka STU COOL


    LS1 Engine Swap Journal: http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/jour...ournalid=33611

  36. #36
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Beverly Hills
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B
    greyben[/B] It's interesting that Plymouth also used the same crank bearing diameters.


    QUOTE=S2Deluxe;1115870]That's possible, but I don't imagine their's used a forged crank, with the thrust bearing in the front, adjustable end play, or a gear drive for the cam.

    Mark
    All Chrysler Corp vehicles used forged cranks until about 1969 or so for the 318, 1972-73 for the larger V-8s, and (I think) about mid-1970s for the Slant Six.

  37. #37
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Beverly Hills
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue 15G View Post
    Bob Bryant, the '55 Dodge V8 was 270 cid, so it wasn't exactly the same as the '55 Plymouth V8, but yes, I also saw somewhere that the '55 Plymouth V8s were built in a Dodge engine plant. Later in the year Plymouth got it's own V8 engine plant. Demand for the new '55 Plymouth V8 was so high that by the Spring of '55 dealers were told to try to steer more customers to the 6 cylinder engines.

    I always found it interesting that the early '55 Studebakers had the 224 V8 and the early '55 Plymouths had the 241. But fairly early in the model year the Studebaker went to the 259 and the Plymouth went to a 260. I don't think that the Plymouth was referred to as a 259, despite it's actual dimensions. Anyway.... it shows that the horsepower race was definitely ON!
    All 1955 Plymouth V-8 engines were Dodge polys, earliest ones 241 (same as the 1953-54 Dodge Hemis), then enlarged to 260 (or 259) to compete better with 55 Ford and Chevy V-8s. Next year, lesser 1956 Plymouth models got a 270 Dodge poly, while Belvederes got the 277 inch version of Plymouth's new V-8 (which looks exactly like the poly 318 it grew into). If you got a power pack V-8 (i.e., 4-barrel carb and dual exhaust) in any 56 Plymouth (other than the Fury), you got the 277. The Dodge poly was the Dodge Hemi with different heads, and can be converted to Hemi by bolting on Dodge Hemi heads. The Plymouth poly is a completely different motor and cannot be converted to a Hemi.
    Last edited by black56hawk; 07-11-2018 at 08:45 AM.

  38. #38
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA. 94087
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by black56hawk View Post
    All Chrysler Corp vehicles used forged cranks until about 1969 or so for the 318, 1972-73 for the larger V-8s, and (I think) about mid-1970s for the Slant Six.
    Yeah, I wasn't so sure about that, after I put it in. Thanks for providing the correct info! Still, I wonder how the quality of the steel they used, for their forgings, compared to the quality of what was used for the Stude cranks?

    Mark
    Last edited by S2Deluxe; 07-13-2018 at 02:01 PM.


    S2Deluxe = (5H - C3).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •