PDA

View Full Version : Different Engine Swaps



56H-Y6
03-26-2006, 10:18 AM
Hi
Has anyone ever seen or tried to fit a Packard V-8 (320-352-374) into a Lark-type chassis? Seems like that would be extremely fast in a straight line.

Has anyone fitted an AMC/Jeep 232-258 cu. in. six in place of a Champion flathead six? This seems like a more sensible replacement alternative to the generic SBC: not oversized, tough and longlived, easily available, even has that good basic straight six sound.

Interested to hear if either has been done and if so the results.
Thanks
Steve

Blue 15G
03-26-2006, 10:32 AM
I can't answer your question and am, in general, not a fan of swapping brand-x engines into Studebakers. Still, since you brought up the topic, I thought I'd tack on this related question: Has anyone ever successfully swapped a Chrysler Slant Six into a Studebaker and what was the result? Just curious.

IIRC, isn't the AMC 6 fairly long in length compared to a Studey?

55pres
03-26-2006, 10:54 AM
Hello 56H-Y6

Neat engine swap idea, I think you might find the Packard V8 a bit heavy for the compact Lark. Even with the 352 in the 56 GH, I have heard reports of it being front heavy, however fast none the less. Think about this way, the 352 was rated @ 275 HP, and the 289 R2 was rated @ 280 give or take. If you want a fast Lark, I would build a clone R2 engine, I think it would be much more driveable.

1955 President

Location: Central PA
Job: Student @ Penn State
Love of Studebakers?: High

Roscomacaw
03-26-2006, 11:33 AM
Frank Ambrogio - the acknowledged Guru of '56 Golden Hawks - wrote a piece that appeared in several old car mags fairly recently. The upshot of his writing is that there's something like 200 lbs difference between the front end weight 56 G-Hawk vs. the the 57 G-Hawk. And (if I recall right) the 57 G-Hawk had more of it's front end weight towards it's front (supercharger an all).;)
He goes on to add that it's likely the change to the rear axle location on the rear springs that made the 57 better in handling.

That said, what might be a FITTING swap would be to put that 352 into a PackardBaker sedan! Or Packard Hawk.;) Gotta be a fairly easy job on the Hawk.:D

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

imported_n/a
03-26-2006, 11:37 AM
What 55 pres said--that Packard engine was very heavy! Learned this years ago when loading a 55 Clipper and 56 352 onto a trailer. Still, I wondered why the development project was essentially wasted on only two years of production. It might've been a very good engine for use in Studebaker trucks afterward. I see that they did have a weak link because of premature oil pump housing/shaft wear (that surely could've been resolved). That said, I won't be installing a dual-quad 374 into the packebaker. 289 is fine. Thanks.

Alan
03-26-2006, 11:57 AM
Steve, If you want to put some thing nice in place of the old six, try a 4.0 Jeep 87 up 242 from a Cherokee or Comanche.

Dan White
03-26-2006, 02:38 PM
The new DOHC I6 from GM that is used in the mid-sized SUVs (Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, and Buick Rainier) would be an interesting swap. It has 291 HP and nice torque. We have one in my wife's Buick Rainier and it is a very nice setup. If it is too long they also take the same configuration and chop off one cylinder and have an I5 w/ 220Hp ( an I4 is also available).

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

sbca96
03-26-2006, 03:30 PM
The easiest and best swap would be an LT1/4L60E or T56 from a 4th Gen
F-body, because it will fit like the earlier small blocks, but has
shown to be a long lasting powerful engine. The next one to consider
would be the LS1, because its all aluminum, you could really balence
the weight on an Avanti II to better then the 60/40 that Studebaker
had ended up with. I am fighting that urge with the 63 Avanti right
now since I have a T56 waiting to go in, and no available adapter. If
Fairborn Studebaker comes through, I should have the trans in within
the year ..... keep your fingers crossed.;)

Tom

1963 Studebaker Avanti (http://hometown.aol.com/sbca96/images/63avanti.jpg), 102,000, custom made brake brackets to mount 1998 Mustang GT 4 wheel disc brakes (soon to get 13" Cobra front brakes, 2003 Mustang Cobra 17" wheels, GM altenator, will be getting : 97 Camaro Z28 tan leather seats, 97 Camaro Z28 T-56 6-speed trans, Ported 'R3' style Avanti heads with stainless full flow valves, 'R3' 276 duration cam w/chrysler solid lifters, shortened push rods, aluminum cam gear, Edelbrock AFB Carb, GM HEI distributor, 8.8mm plug wires, waiting in the garage.

55pres
03-26-2006, 05:23 PM
nah, I think the last thing I would want in my stude would be a chevy, I'd have to draw the line at a chevy transmission.

About the subject line, I think it might be neat (maybe not practical) to see a big Packard V8 in a Lark.

A good point was raised, why didn't Studeabaker use the Packard V8 in trucks? I think a 352 with dual quads would be an awesome truck engine!

1955 President

Location: Central PA
Job: Student @ Penn State
Love of Studebakers?: High

Swifster
03-26-2006, 05:55 PM
If it's just for a street/strip car, a 374 with dual quads would be great in a Lark. I'm trying the GM GenIII in my Daytona (I got an LS2 aluminum block a few months back and I'm saving my pennies for a Lunati stroker kit for 402 CI). It's a little smaller in size than a Chevy small block, and weighs around 400 lbs fully dressed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Lakeland, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

Michigan Speed - www.michiganspeed.com
Club Hot Rod - www.clubhotrod.com
LS1 Tech - www.ls1tech.com

mbstude
03-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Although backwards from your idea of swaps, I know of an old (50's-60's model) Jeep station wagon that has a Stude OHV six in it.[:0] I've in some old books that the bellhousing for the tranny have the same bolt pattern so it could be possible to still use the other tranny of choice. As far as I know, that wagon has been setup like that for a LONG time...

Matthew Burnette, the 16 year old Stude nut. South Georgia Chapter
http://jnautoair.com/images/yelstude2.jpg
63 Daytona HT (my car),57 Silver Hawk, 51 Champ Starlight, 63 GT Hawk,64 Commander Wagonaire,59 Scotsman P/U,56 Champ 2 door,81 Avanti II,56 Sky Hawk,65 Daytona 2 door,62 Cruiser,55 P/U(V-8)
MANY more Studes and a few parts cars
http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstude101
And here: http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstudepagetwo

studegary
03-26-2006, 06:50 PM
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

Frank Ambrogio - the acknowledged Guru of '56 Golden Hawks - wrote a piece that appeared in several old car mags fairly recently. The upshot of his writing is that there's something like 200 lbs difference between the front end weight 56 G-Hawk vs. the the 57 G-Hawk. And (if I recall right) the 57 G-Hawk had more of it's front end weight towards it's front (supercharger an all).;)
He goes on to add that it's likely the change to the rear axle location on the rear springs that made the 57 better in handling.




I believe that was an error on Frank's part. If I remember correctly, the change in rear axle placement on the rear springs from in the center to off center was made for the 1958 model year, not between the '56 and '57 models. I do believe that there were some steering changes made for 1957. I owned a '57 Golden for nine years and have worked on many '56 Goldens. From my experience with them, I found that the '56s tend to plow more.

Blue 15G
03-26-2006, 07:28 PM
It would be fun to go the other way too, and take an Avanti and put a Champion flathead in it. Just imagine the expression on people's faces when you popped the hood at a car show.

"What the....???? WHO DID THIS???" [:0] :D

DEEPNHOCK
03-26-2006, 07:34 PM
A couple of years ago there was a pretty good effort to build a Bonneville Avanti just like this....
Don't know tha status of that project today though...
Jeff[8D]



quote:Originally posted by Blue 15G

It would be fun to go the other way too, and take an Avanti and put a Champion flathead in it. Just imagine the expression on people's faces when you popped the hood at a car show.

"What the....???? WHO DID THIS???" [:0] :D

Jessie J.
03-26-2006, 08:48 PM
Seems that Frank Ambrogio concluded that the Packard V-8 engine only weighed about 40 lbs. more than the Paxton equipped Stude V-8.
The differences in the handling between the '56 and the '57s Golden Hawks being more a matter of chassis and suspension changes than of any radical change in front-end weight or total weight distribution.
That said, I had long contemplated a Packard V-8 swap into my '62 Lark, and have concluded that there are several good reasons why the Packard V-8 is not a really good choice for a Lark.
1. The Lark V-8s were already very "nose heavy", adding even another 40 lbs. would be another step in the wrong direction.

2. The purpose of such a swap would ostensibly be to provide an increase in performance, but a Stude 259-289 with supercharger IS capable of equal or superior acceleration.

3. The Packard engine IS an antique, relatively rare, and performance parts are both hard to come by and very expensive, not a engine that you would want to regularly operate at extremes to extract its maximum capabilities.

4. There are myriad more modern engine designs with much larger displacements, lighter weights, with more HP and higher torque, better parts availability, and that are more compact and easier to install.

Yet as a "show-piece" intended to impress the show-goers by just sitting there with its hood up, it might be a very successful.

sbca96
03-27-2006, 03:43 AM
quote:Originally posted by studegary
I believe that was an error on Frank's part. If I remember correctly, the change in rear axle placement on the rear springs from in the center to off center was made for the 1958 model year

Correct me if I am wrong, but the axle PLACEMENT didnt actually change
it was the addition of longer leaf springs that happened. I dont seem
to remember any change in wheelbase, but the springs got longer in
between my friends 56 Sky Hawk and my 60 Hawk.


quote:Originally posted by Blue 15G

It would be fun to go the other way too, and take an Avanti and put a Champion flathead in it. .... "What the....???? WHO DID THIS???"

I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

Tom

jimmijim8
03-27-2006, 06:22 AM
Back in my boating days{the early 90's} I once saw a 352 Packard V8 that was factory installed in a steel hull cabin cruiser type boat manufactured by the Tucker Boat Company not to be confused with the Tucker automobile. The boat was manufactured in the mid 50's. Just remember one thing. The two happiest days in a boat owners life are 1- the day you takes posession of the boat and 2- when you get rid of it. Take that with a grain of salt but it sure applied to my situation. jimmijim

Roscomacaw
03-27-2006, 08:39 AM
I like Jessie's approach to this: Neat - yeah, but not practical. If there's only 40lbs. difference (and I think he's right. I was working from memory when I said 200lbs and Mr. Ambrogio's article wasn't something I worried about memorizing) it would be the same as adding A/C - weightwise. Or A/C and PS and an optional hood ornament.[}:)]

And, yes Tom. No wheelbase change. But the idea was to get the axle off dead center of the leaf springs. Lenghten one end of the springs and the axle no longer perches where it used to ...... relative to spring length[:o)] That (presumably) is what engineering was trying to achieve without causing complete body redesign.

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

Studedude
03-27-2006, 09:58 AM
quote:[ Just remember one thing. The two happiest days in a boat owners life are 1- the day you takes posession of the boat and 2- when you get rid of it. Take that with a grain of salt but it sure applied to my situation.That certainly applies to swimming pools! Got rid of mine recently, and life is good. I have mixed emotions about the boat, but I don't miss it terribly.

http://www.davesplaceinc.com/sdcforum/logo.jpg
www.davesplaceinc.com

N8N
03-27-2006, 10:14 AM
I suspect that the difference between the Stude V-8 and the Packard V-8 is not so much the total weight but where the weight is. The Packard V-8 while not a whole lot heavier is physically a lot bigger - mostly longer - than the Stude V-8 and some of that weight will inevitably be farther forward. The Stude engine in a C-K is almost a "front-mid" engine design; the front of the Packard engine is a good 6" farther forward, if not more, in the same chassis.

That said, by all accounts the Packard engine is a good one, and probably has more potential than a Stude due to larger displacement and milder tuning, but cams, big valves, lighter manifolds/flywheels etc. are harder to find than for a Stude as the Packard engine was only built for a couple of years.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

studegary
03-27-2006, 01:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by sbca96


quote:Originally posted by studegary
I believe that was an error on Frank's part. If I remember correctly, the change in rear axle placement on the rear springs from in the center to off center was made for the 1958 model year

Correct me if I am wrong, but the axle PLACEMENT didnt actually change
it was the addition of longer leaf springs that happened. I dont seem
to remember any change in wheelbase, but the springs got longer in
between my friends 56 Sky Hawk and my 60 Hawk.



Tom


The wheelbase of all 1953-1964 models is 120.5 inches. I do not believe that I said that the wheelbase changed. The change that was made for 1958 was that the rear axle was no longer equidistant from the front and rear ends of the leaf springs. Obviously, the springs and their placement changed.

studegary
03-27-2006, 02:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by sbca96


I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

Tom


That Avanti also came to mind for me, but I have tried to ignore the car <G>. I saw that Kvanti in Las Vegas in 1989. I thought that it probably wasn't fuel efficient because it was so underpowered. I have not seen anything about it for about 15 years. I wonder if it still exists. Maybe it was converted back - let's hope so.

gordr
03-27-2006, 04:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary


quote:Originally posted by sbca96


I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

Tom


That Avanti also came to mind for me, but I have tried to ignore the car <G>. I saw that Kvanti in Las Vegas in 1989. I thought that it probably wasn't fuel efficient because it was so underpowered. I have not seen anything about it for about 15 years. I wonder if it still exists. Maybe it was converted back - let's hope so.


Gary,

I also remember seeing the "Kvanti" at Las Vegas. It was my understanding that the car was built up from a wreck or a parts car; at least a good restorable Avanti wasn't sacrificed to make it. I guess it must have seemed like a good idea at the time[:o)]

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

imported_n/a
03-27-2006, 08:22 PM
Now that I've heard about the KVanti, I feel much better about my International Harvester-powered Edsel Project.[8]

sbca96
03-27-2006, 10:30 PM
quote:Originally posted by gordr
I also remember seeing the "Kvanti" at Las Vegas. It was my understanding that the car was built up from a wreck or a parts car; at least a good restorable Avanti wasn't sacrificed to make it.

I remember it being an Avanti II, but it was a steel bumper one. The
car had been in an accident, and it was claimed that it was not able
to be repaired, BUT, the fiberglass was able to be repaired ... so I
dont see how the frame could have been that bad off. The rails were
cut off .. and the K cars subframe welded in. I remember thinking
at the TIME that the car should have been parted out instead, its bad
that a once proud Avanti should drag its rear end around like a poor
paralysed dog. Should have died with dignity, then become FWD.[xx(][V]

Tom

Mike
03-28-2006, 02:40 AM
At Frank Ambrogio's '56 Golden Hawk site, http://1956goldenhawk.com/ , you can read about the front end weight story. Under "Options" there's a recent article, "56J Front End Weight Bunk", about how the '56 came to be declared nose heavy by the auto press. Actual weight comparisons of the Packard components vs Stude are in the news letters, also available on site. Weights are much closer than tradition has it. I was supprised that the Ultramatic was lighter than the OD.
I think the weight was further forward, with the Packard. It would be interesting to compare weight on each wheel.
Mike M.

DEEPNHOCK
03-28-2006, 06:43 AM
I totally agree.
There are a whole bunch of big block Chevrolet powered C/K's and pickups on the road that run and handle just fine. A truck can be done even easier, room and weight wise.
Jeff[8D]



quote:Originally posted by Mike

At Frank Ambrogio's '56 Golden Hawk site, http://1956goldenhawk.com/ , you can read about the front end weight story. Under "Options" there's a recent article, "56J Front End Weight Bunk", about how the '56 came to be declared nose heavy by the auto press. Actual weight comparisons of the Packard components vs Stude are in the news letters, also available on site. Weights are much closer than tradition has it. I was supprised that the Ultramatic was lighter than the OD.
I think the weight was further forward, with the Packard. It would be interesting to compare weight on each wheel.
Mike M.

Roscomacaw
03-28-2006, 09:28 AM
Thanks Mike. I knew I wasn't too far off the mark on Frank's article. I have a hard copy of that piece and didn't care to try and find it in my "filing system"[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

55pres
03-28-2006, 08:55 PM
Now that I think of it, I have a hemmings article about the 56 G hawk, I do remember them saying it wasn't really the weight of the engine that made the car handle bad/nose heavy, it was the springs/placement of rear leafs.

1955 President

Location: Central PA
Job: Student @ Penn State
Love of Studebakers?: High