Stude 224 V-8

[ddub]

Does anyone know why Stude built this engine. As I understand it it is a slightly destroked 259. What was the reason for this? As I recall it was used in trucks in'55?



53 Commander Hardtop
64 Champ 1/2 ton

[JDP]

It was a shorter stroke version of the 259/289. )It has bigger valves then the 232. Used in early 55 Commanders and some trucks. More power then the old 232, better miliage and less piston travel.

Studebaker On The Net http://stude.com
64 GT Hawk
64 R2 4 speed Challenger
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk
63 Daytona Convert.
53 Street rod

[Roscomacaw]

It was the first of the second-generation (Stude) V8s (well, the 259 debuted simultaneously). And I've never gotten a definitive answer as to why it was so short-lived. It debuted with the start of the '55 model year, in Commanders (16G8) and various trucks. As of 1/1/'55 the Commanders started recieving the 259 that had President's had been privvy to from the start of '55. But the 224 lived on thru all off '55 and even into '56 in some truck applications. Weird.[B)] And as soon as the 224 was discontinued, dealers got prompting from the factory to sell new, early Commander buyers to add a 4bbl to their 224 engine.

It's got less in common with the 232 than it does with later iterations of the venerable V8 from South Bend. As JP indicates - it has the later, larger valves and porting AND it shares the 3&9/16ths cylinder bore that all subsequent standard V8s did. It was rated higher in HP than it's 232 cousin - in no small part thanks to the improved breathing (THE primary point of Stude V8 performance to this day - bar none)
It has the shortest stroke of any Stude V8 and this has led to speculation that (in theory) it could spin up to 9K RPM [:0] (provided you could manage to keep the valves playing along [}]) Because of the short stroke, the crankshaft of the 224 has the most "meat" overlap to help it hold together.

Anyway, in essence, it's useful life lasted less than 6 months so far as Studebaker cars were concerned. Why? Surely this thing was well thought out and tested by the engineering dept before it was given the go-ahead for production.
BTW, a Commander 2-dr sedan (WITH/ automatic!) logged 27.44MPG from Los Angeles to the base of Pikes Peak that year. My reference material suggest (but doesn't make clear) that it had a 259 for power.

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

[N8N]

I would suspect that the reason for the discontinuance of the 224 was that it didn't cost any less than a 259, which theoretically wouldn't rev as high but would have more torque down low, which is what most car buyers want (when they say that their car has a lot of power, they are probably actually feeling the low end torque. Most drivers don't hit the power peak of their engines on anything resembling a regular basis.) Probably just not worth it to have to make and stock the unique parts.

Now as to why they made it in the first place, I can't answer that

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[Dwain G.]

It is my belief that the 224 V8 was intended to replace the 245 L-head 6, in trucks at least. Called the Econ-O-Miser in sales brochures, I guess it was supposed to deliver better fuel mileage than the big 6. At the start of the '55 model year the 245 was intended for export sales only, although some were sold in the US.
There is a curious sales letter for 2E models from Feb. 2, 1956 with the headline [u]The "245" Is Back!</u> It goes on to say.......In response to popular demand.......
Makes me think perhaps the 224 didn't live up to expectations as a direct replacement for the 245.

Dwain G.

[Roscomacaw]

As Nate intimates, you'd think that 224 wouldn't stand a chance for low-end pulling power over the long-strokin' 245. It would be interesting to know which one would win in an honest head-to-head contest for economy.

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

[ddub]

Thanks for the info, I've always been curious about that since the 259 came out at the same time. Dwain's comment makes sense that they thought it would be an econmical replacement for the 245 ci 6.
I wonder also if it might have been engineering's failure to understand the market's acceptance of bigger engines than were needed (in their opinion) for prudent, economical driving.

53 Commander Hardtop
64 Champ 1/2 ton

[Blue 15G]

I recall reading somewhere [?] years ago that, as far as passenger car use was concerned, there were some marketing factors. The base '55 Ford V-8 had 272 cubic inches and the new Chevy was a 265. Plymouth introduced their first V-8 for '55 and the early ones were 241 cubic inches. This engine was only offered for a very short time before they changed the engine to 260 cubic inches. Probably, Plymouth and Studebaker both changed to somewhat larger displacement engines to make themselves look comparable, cubic-inch wise, to the competition.

[Transtar60]

This is one question I would like to hear the real answer to. But I imagine all involved have most likely tapped danced off this mortal coil.
The 224 was used in 55-56 in trucks.(Routestar 224).
I imagine farmers hauling grain/cattle etc looked at the 224 V8 as something inadequate compared to the 245.6 six.

Seems to be a constant theme at Studebaker, underestimating the appeal of more C.I.D.

Too bad they didnt think of retaining the Packard V8 as a big truck engine.

[Roscomacaw]

Charlie, there's a big ('55) Stude tractor/tanker truck here in Visalia. I've got pics of it somewhere. It's a 224 5-speed with over and under as well. Was a Texaco truck when new (still wears the colors and logos)but now serves yeoman duty as a dust control truck on a dairy. They fill the tanker section and wet down the lanes between the barns and such.

There's also a 2R16 not far from me that still has it's original crash-box 4spd but ended up with a Packard 352 married to it. It was used to haul grain to mountain customers until the V8 spun a bearing.[xx(]

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

[Guest]

My 2 cents is that H Vance would have liked to get rid of building the low volume production that the 245 saw, after it was eliminated from car production. I am sure that he could see the writing on the wall during the 53-54 model years that Studebaker had to reduce cost and increase production efficiency. Since Vance seems to have been out of touch with the reality of the market forces in the middle 50's I can see that engineering and marketing had to prove to Vance that the market wanted more cubic inches not more efficiency. That is why there was the whole advanced series for 55. Marketing along with the return of Paul Hoffman finally won. But as Paul Hoffman has been quoted to say, it was a bit late to reverse the bad product and labor decisions that Vance had made. Vance was in many ways like George Christopher at Packard, he was a production man not a product planner and couldn't see what the market was demanding. Studebaker should have never shortened the wheelbase in 1951 when the v-8 came out. People didn't want smaller more thrifty cars anymore. Even Chrysler made the same mistake in their 53-54 products. They were sales bombs even though they were built like tanks and had a powerful Hemi engine. Size was king in the middle 50's, so that is why the Big Six came back and the 289 was put into production. In a farmers mind a 245 beats a 224 any day. Had Studebaker brought back the 224 in 58-59 they would have been a better sales success.

Restore it, don't replace it.Keep the Studebaker reproduction industry going

[Roscomacaw]

Sounds plausible!

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

[casey]

I've posted a few times asking about the mileage of the 224 and never got an answer. Now I want to know! What kind of mileage will I get from the 224 with stock two barrel? Assume this would be in a half ton PU, four speed (no overdrive) and a 3.53 rear end.

And what about that fuel pump on the side of the oil filler tube? Is that thing dependable with the long push rod?

[Alan]

My experence has been with 53-54K's the first 54K I bought had a 224 it was a late 54 and the build sheet I got for it said it came with the 224. With a T-86 3OD and a 4.54 rear it got a best of 22 MPG and about 17-18 around town. And there were few freeways around then.

[studegary]

quote:Originally posted by casey

I've posted a few times asking about the mileage of the 224 and never got an answer. Now I want to know! What kind of mileage will I get from the 224 with stock two barrel? Assume this would be in a half ton PU, four speed (no overdrive) and a 3.53 rear end.

And what about that fuel pump on the side of the oil filler tube? Is that thing dependable with the long push rod?

I can't imagine why you would be concerned about the fuel mileage in a set up like that. It is not a set up that I would recommend using for thousands of miles per year of highway driving. My guesstimate is 12-15 MPG.
No problem with the push rod. They last for more than 100K miles. Now the push rod on flathead Fords and Mercurys are another story. Of course the fuel pump on the side of the oil fill tube with a long push rod is not on the 224 that you have been asking about.