Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WHAT,a 65 Studebaker with a CHEVY engine???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jim B PEI View Post
    Now, if GM had been smart enough to badge certain upscale models of Chevy and Pontiac as 'Olds Rocket powered' or 'Cadillac powered' as Studebaker did with 'Avanti powered', there wouldn't have been any kerfuffle. Marketting mistake created by overpaid and out of touch execs listening to beancounters, and going for the shortest term gain.
    Had that been ten years earlier, like in 1966 when an Olds "Golden Rocket" really did go like a r........, it may have worked. Remember in 1978 when that customer took GM to court, any of those emission-choked engines, regardless of its 'fast' name was a slouch.

    Craig

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Johnnywiffer View Post
      And didn't Chrysler use V-Dub engines in their sub-compacts? And AMC use some non AMC 4-cyl engines in Pacers and Gremlins?

      John
      Hey, I can post some "facts" (if something off the 'net is really a fact...) "For 1977,At mid-year, a 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder engine designed by Porsche/Audi was made available. This engine featured an overhead camshaft and an aluminum cross-flow head." from here http://www.allpar.com/amc/gremlin.html

      And my parents had both a Dodge Omni (78 or 79) with a VW engine (Dad didn't want to pay extra for the 2.2 Chrysler engine) and a Chevy Cavalier (84) with a VW engine. BOth of them were dog-slow, and both ended up blowing the head gaskets, (and the Chevy one actually threw a rod). Unfortunately the county we lived in (Waukesha Co. Wisconsin) had emission laws that basically said you had to replace one engine with the exact same one, no engine swaps would be emissions legal where we lived.
      Proud new owner of a 56 Power Hawk!

      Comment


      • #33
        Without grease, my 53 would've stalled out pulling on a string. It was a very nice looking car (yellow), but that pitiful flathead 6 coupled with an auto trans was dangerous to get out in traffic. It had NO power. Even after I had it rebuilt.

        Originally posted by Johnnywiffer View Post
        Didja ever try wiping the grease off?

        Years ago, they used to grease pigs and try to catch 'em. Very hard to catch but...wipe off the grease..much easier. So next time you try to pull a greasy string with your Studebaker, see if wiping off the grease doesnt make it work better.

        Same thing with lightning...

        John
        edp/NC
        \'63 Avanti
        \'66 Commander

        Comment


        • #34
          Love Chevy performance cars. I also own a 2007 Vette that I bought brand new (cause there's no new Studebakers). But I still consider my '66 a real Studebaker. It's kinda like when GM did away with all the great diverse engines they used to put in their Olds, Caddies, Buicks, and Pontiac models and replaced 'em with 305 CID Chevy engines. No idea exactly what brought on my fascination with Studes starting way back in 1972. No one in my family ever owned one.

          Originally posted by Bob Andrews View Post
          Funny thing. I don't consider 65-66 Studes because of the Chevy engine. What makes it funny is I'm a die-hard Chevy lover; and know Chevy engines inside and out; and know they're excellent engines, cheaper to buy, fix, and hop up than Studes; and have no problem whatsoever with those that put them in Studes, knowing it's the most sensible choice. It's just that my interest in Studes includes not just the cars, but Stude running gear and getting to know them. For me, if I want a Chevy I'll get a another Camaro or Chevelle or Vette. BTDT.
          edp/NC
          \'63 Avanti
          \'66 Commander

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BobGlasscock View Post
            I just ordered my '65 Cruiser, so thanks for the info. I'm cancelling.
            I just ordered one of those too. Ditto.

            Comment


            • #36
              IF I could've ordered one, it'd be a 2 dr with 283 and stick shift. I could then add a 4V carb, a 3/4 cam, dual exhausts and have a pretty decent little runner...

              Originally posted by MyStude_51 View Post
              I just ordered one of those too. Ditto.
              edp/NC
              \'63 Avanti
              \'66 Commander

              Comment


              • #37
                I still prefer a '64 Stude to a '65 or '66 because of the Stude engines, but I could very much enjoy a Timberline Turquoise '66 Cruiser or Daytona!

                I don't believe a Chevy 305 or even 350 was ever placed in a Cadillac during that late '70's time period...but I do remember what started it all. Olds models were built with Chevy 350's when customers thought they were getting a "Rocket V8". If there was an "L" in I think, the fifth (not sure) digit of the serial number, the car had a Chevy V8. GM said the customer paid for a 170 hp 350-4 barrel V8 and that's what they got! My friend's grandfather was very miffed that his '78 Delta 88 had a Chevy engine. I remember him saying, "I thought I paid for a Rocket V8".

                On a side note, but in reply to a post or two from above, I lived, breathed, ate, slept, and died Chevys in my youth, and I'm not aware of any VW-powered Cavaliers; also, the S-10 and S-15 were a GM design which Isuzu hung their grille and nameplates on, not vice-versa.
                Bill Pressler
                Kent, OH
                (formerly Greenville, PA)
                Currently owned: 1966 Cruiser, Timberline Turquoise, 26K miles
                Formerly owned: 1963 Lark Daytona Skytop R1, Ermine White
                1964 Daytona Hardtop, Strato Blue
                1966 Daytona Sports Sedan, Niagara Blue Mist
                All are in Australia now

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bill Pressler View Post
                  ...but I do remember what started it all. Olds models were built with Chevy 350's when customers thought they were getting a "Rocket V8". If there was an "L" in I think, the fifth (not sure) digit of the serial number, the car had a Chevy V8. GM said the customer paid for a 170 hp 350-4 barrel V8 and that's what they got! My friend's grandfather was very miffed that his '78 Delta 88 had a Chevy engine. I remember him saying, "I thought I paid for a Rocket V8".

                  On a side note, but in reply to a post or two from above, I lived, breathed, ate, slept, and died Chevys in my youth, and I'm not aware of any VW-powered Cavaliers; also, the S-10 and S-15 were a GM design which Isuzu hung their grille and nameplates on, not vice-versa.
                  Bill: You are certainly correct about "what started it all;" the 1978 Olds not-so-Rocket 350 V-8s.

                  GM had spent 70-odd years convincing generations of customers they could step up the ladder all across the board if they'd "start" with a Chevy and with hard work and perserverance, would bequeath a Cadillac to their heirs upon their demise...or something like that. So the "where's the beef?" that came about when little 350 Chevy engines were found lurking where huge Rocket 350s were supposed to be, caused many long-time customers to feel betrayed.

                  It might be said that a more classic case of good marketing for generations having gone bad cannot be found!

                  The Isuzu / S-10 / S-15 discussion I think refers to the fact that some of the earliest S-10s and S-15s used Isuzu 4-cylinder engines. And they were lousy until GM started fitting their own 2.5L "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder engines as the base engine in those trucks circa 1985. BP
                  We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The Isuzu / S-10 / S-15 discussion I think refers to the fact that some of the earliest S-10s and S-15s used Isuzu 4-cylinder engines. And they were lousy until GM started fitting their own 2.5L "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder engines as the base engine in those trucks circa 1985. BP[/QUOTE]

                    That is true, but there was a quote pretty far up about, as I took it, the entire vehicle being an Isuzu design (and also the Ranger being a Mazda design). Isuzu sold the Chevrolet S-10 as the "Hombre" in the States for a few years. I'm not as 'up' on Ford product as GM of that time, but I can remember distinctly-Mazda pickup designs...I thought (but could be wrong) that the Ranger was a Ford design which Mazda hung their name on, not the opposite.
                    Bill Pressler
                    Kent, OH
                    (formerly Greenville, PA)
                    Currently owned: 1966 Cruiser, Timberline Turquoise, 26K miles
                    Formerly owned: 1963 Lark Daytona Skytop R1, Ermine White
                    1964 Daytona Hardtop, Strato Blue
                    1966 Daytona Sports Sedan, Niagara Blue Mist
                    All are in Australia now

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ...and back to a little Studebaker content ...

                      The GM HUMMER H2 was not built by GM at all!
                      They were built by AM General in the greater South Bend area with the help of a few former Studebaker employees.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X