OverDrive on the '66 Thunderbolt

[studeclunker]

Okay, did they offer the OverDrive on the '66 models, and if so, is this the kick-down switch (in the purplish blotch)?



Sorry about the smallness, but PhotoBucket won't enlarge without possibly tweaking the picture.


Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith
Where the heck is Lewiston, CA?

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by studeclunker

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=3]Okay, did they offer the OverDrive on the '66 models, and if so, is this the kick-down switch (in the purplish blotch)?

Yes, overdrive was an option on '66's. Do you have the chrome OD lockout under your dash next to the hood release?

Craig

[studeclunker]

Uh... it's not one of mine, Craig. The car in question is also in Minnesota. So, not much chance for me to inspect. I just thought I saw a kick-down switch, but it was in the wrong place. Then again... this is not a Studebaker engine.


Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith
Where the heck is Lewiston, CA?

[candbstudebakers]

Since the 65 and 66 cars with the chevy V-8 use a different style of gas peddle the switch would need to be some place other than where you would see it on the study engine, they use a cable style system to pull the carb. lever..bob

Bob Peterson / C & B Studebakers

Castro Valley, CA
canbstudebakers-

[Roscomacaw]

Yes, they did offer OD in 65 & 66. I saw a V8 65 wagon so equipped. That IS an OD switch in the purple haze.[^]


1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[Warren Webb]

My 66 came with V-8 & overdrive but since the trans went out & I had a spare 4 speed, thats whats in it now.

60 Lark convertible
61 Champ
62 Daytona convertible
63 G.T. R-2,4 speed
63 Avanti (2)
66 Daytona Sport Sedan

[2R5]

We just picked up a '66 daytona today that has V8 and 3spd OD on it . It actually belongs to the other guy I just helped with that loading .



[IMG]
Home of the Fried Green Tomato
"IF YOU WANT THE SMILES YOU NEED TO DO THE MILES "

1960 Champ
1964 Daytona HT
1966 Daytona SS

[DEEPNHOCK]

Yes... It [u]IS</u> a Studebaker engine.
It is just not a Studebaker foundry casting.
But Studebaker chose it as a vendor item, and put it in their product line OEM.
Y'all should be ashamed of continually castigating a very legitimate period of Studebaker history.

quote:Originally posted by studeclunker

Uh... it's not one of mine, Craig. The car in question is also in Minnesota. So, not much chance for me to inspect. I just thought I saw a kick-down switch, but it was in the wrong place. Then again... this is not a Studebaker engine.

[Warren Webb]

2R5... I was told that there were around 50 or so Daytona V-8's with overdrive made. Sounds like you have a rare one there also! I believe I got that info from Art Unger if memory is correct. (that was the Daytona Sport Sedan model he was referring to)

60 Lark convertible
61 Champ
62 Daytona convertible
63 G.T. R-2,4 speed
63 Avanti (2)
66 Daytona Sport Sedan

[2R5]

Well its too bad because this car is just a parts car now ...its very much beyond any kind of restoration but I'm sure the owner will save these parts for a future use.



[IMG]
Home of the Fried Green Tomato
"IF YOU WANT THE SMILES YOU NEED TO DO THE MILES "

1960 Champ
1964 Daytona HT
1966 Daytona SS

[hotrodstude]

do scare an old ford man that way when i read 66 thunderbolt my mine turned to the 64 ford fairlane thunderbolts. they did not make an 66 but anything is possible.

2006,f-150,2x4,v-6,5-speed manual,8ft bed, will post stude info when i get it on the road.

[COMMANDERPINK1]

Thanks DEEPNHOCK this continually needs to to reminded as many of mine are 66 models

[studeclunker]

No, Jeff, they are most certainly NOT Studebaker motors! Not that such a thing is any a criticism of the '65 or '66 models. They have their own virtues that are unique to them. There's no point being silly or unrealistic about them though. Frankly, I've mentioned several times that the '66 is one of my favourite Lark types. The Cleveland powerplant is no disadvantage to me. Quite the contrary. In fact, had I the money, I'd be bidding on the subject sedan myself.


Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith
Where the heck is Lewiston, CA?

[DEEPNHOCK]

Where does Cleveland enter into this?[?]
Ron,
You are wrong.
You could not order ANY Studebaker car in 1965 and 1966 with a Studebaker cast 289 engine.
(I left 1964 out because it was a split year as far as the Studebaker cast 289 product being used up).
And it IS a Studebaker engine.
Using your statement, the Powershift transmission is not a Stude transmission because it was made by Borg Warner, and a 44 differential is not Studebaker because it was made by Dana.
You need to re-think your dislike of this Studebaker chosen choice of powerplant.
It is a legitamate Studebaker offering.
Your criticism is misplaced.
While there is a definite preference for the Studebaker produced 259/289/304 powerplant.... It should not be done with the denigration of other legitimate Studebaker offerings.
Yes, that is my opinion.....
I'll stick with it.
I love [u]ALL</u> Studebakers....Even the mongrels[]
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by studeclunker

No, Jeff, they are most certainly NOT Studebaker motors! Not that such a thing is any a criticism of the '65 or '66 models. They have their own virtues that are unique to them. There's no point being silly or unrealistic about them though. Frankly, I've mentioned several times that the '66 is one of my favourite Lark types. The Cleveland powerplant is no disadvantage to me. Quite the contrary. In fact, had I the money, I'd be bidding on the subject sedan myself.

[img]

http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

[studeclunker]

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

Where does Cleveland enter into this?[?]

As I understand it, the Cleveland (G.M. or Chevy) motors were chosen for the '65-6 production as they were the most compatible to the Studebaker drivetrain.

quote:Ron,
You are wrong.
You could not order ANY Studebaker car in 1965 and 1966 with a Studebaker cast 289 engine.
(I left 1964 out because it was a split year as far as the Studebaker cast 289 product being used up).

Yes, this is common knowledge. Your point is[?]

quote:And it IS a Studebaker engine.

On this, Jeff, we will have to agree to dis-agree. I would guess here, that the majority of studebaker owners/members would disagree with you. I will agree that they are Original Factory equipment, necessitated by the shutdown of South Bend operations. But no, they are a G.M. product in a Studebaker automobile.

quote:Using your statement, the Powershift transmission is not a Stude transmission because it was made by Borg Warner, and a 44 differential is not Studebaker because it was made by Dana.
You need to re-think your dislike of this Studebaker chosen choice of powerplant.

Now, here, you are using your opinion to put words into my mouth. Also, I don't believe I've ever, in any way, expressed a dis-like of the '66 models. In fact, just the opposite.

As to the rear and transmission, they have the advantage of also being used in Fords, and possibly some G.M. models as well. So, again, what's your point?

quote:It is a legitamate Studebaker offering.
Your criticism is misplaced.
While there is a definite preference for the Studebaker produced 259/289/304 powerplant.... It should not be done with the denigration of other legitimate Studebaker offerings.
Yes, that is my opinion.....
I'll stick with it.
I love [u]ALL</u> Studebakers....Even the mongrels[]
Jeff[8D]

I've never said the 'ChevyBakers'[)] were illegatimate in any way. Likewise the Packardbakers (my personal favourites). You are assuming a criticisim or denigration where none is implied or said. Once again, using your own assumptions and opinions to put words in my mouth. Nonetheless, you are entirely welcome to whatever assumptions and opinions you wish.




Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith
Where the heck is Lewiston, CA?