PDA

View Full Version : 224V8 Studebaker's "OUTLIER"



jclary
06-20-2016, 08:00 AM
In statistics/data gathering, there is a term "outlier" used to describe an anomaly, or observation, not supported or explained by the sum of the data. Usually, it is an indication that an error exist somewhere in the process. But, not always.:confused:

Not wanting to completely DE-rail another member's thread, where the subject is, that his original engine has been replaced, I've decided to create this thread. The reason is, that, for some reason to which I have never heard a definitive explanation...Studebaker, seems to have taken a step "sideways," instead of a forward progression, in engine production when they produced the 224 V8.:confused:

The subject got me to thinking:rolleyes:...what other similar "outlier" examples (of engine offerings) are there? My first thought, was the Ford 260V8. The Chevy 265 came to mind, but I don't think it qualifies, due to the fact that it was an introductory V8, much like the Studebaker 232, and things "progressed" from there. The Studebaker 224, and the Ford 260's were short run, and a way-stop, among a trend of "bigger is better," trend.:)

Therefore, I thought I would throw the subject of "outlier" engines to the General-Studebaker Specific forum,at large, and see where the discussion leads. Since the focus began with the Studebaker 224, I thought this would be very appropriate to place the discussion here. If there are other engines, by Studebaker, that would fit the description as "outlier"...let us know. However, examples of similar occurrences, among other makes, could be informative as well.:!:

r1lark
06-20-2016, 09:08 AM
John, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are going for here, but I'll throw out just a few of what I think you are looking for:

Chevy 262 smallblock
Oldsmobile 330 V8
Pontiac 326 V8
Pontiac 301 V8
Ford 255 smallblock V8

Not sure your example of the Ford 260 smallblock fits your outlier category - this was an expansion of the original 221 smallblock but was short-lived because the performance wars were heating up and was subsequently enlarged to the longer lived 289 (Ford, not Studebaker :))

karterfred88
06-20-2016, 10:32 AM
Perhaps all of Chey's small blocks should be included. By playing with bore sizes and various strokes there are ups and downs and ups and downs all over the place, especially once smog regulations and mandatory mileage started, no rhyme or reason it seems. Don't know of any other Stude variations--maybe in the flatheads.

shifter4
06-20-2016, 10:40 AM
Ford also did various things with the FE series .

332 , 352 , 390 , 406 , 427 etc .

jpepper
06-20-2016, 11:44 AM
The Ford 360 FE truck engine comes to mind. It was 390 block, rods, and pistons with a 352 crank. Made no sense or power.

Alan
06-20-2016, 12:23 PM
The Stude 224 was a right on engine for me and a few other racers of the 60's. Including Bill Burke. There would have been no every day record holding Studes without it. The engine in EX-2143 had a .040" over full flow block with a 224 crank for 229 inches. My record setting UDRA M Stocker had a 3.625" bore and a 224 crank for 232ci. All other records were set under USAC Standards and Stude payed USAC over $100,000 to over see them. Money that you or I could only dream of back then.

jclary
06-20-2016, 12:32 PM
John, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are going for here, but I'll throw out just a few of what I think you are looking for:

Chevy 267 smallblock
Oldsmobile 330 V8
Pontiac 326 V8
Pontiac 301 V8
Ford 255 smallblock V8

Not sure your example of the Ford 260 smallblock fits your outlier category - this was an expansion of the original 221 smallblock but was short-lived because the performance wars were heating up and was subsequently enlarged to the longer lived 289 (Ford, not Studebaker :))

Well...to demonstrate/admit, there's a lot I "don't" know...I am unfamiliar with the Ford 221 or a 255. My intent was to ferret out those instances of engines offered that could NOT be included as a technical "progression/improvement," over its predecessors.:confused:


Perhaps all of Chey's small blocks should be included. By playing with bore sizes and various strokes there are ups and downs and ups and downs all over the place, especially once smog regulations and mandatory mileage started, no rhyme or reason it seems. Don't know of any other Stude variations--maybe in the flatheads.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure any SBC qualifies. Mainly, because there seems to be a "progression" of offerings. For example, the Chevy 265, like Studebaker, had no full flow oil filter. Oil filters were an option as a by-pass filter, just like Studebaker. I believe the progression, was a full flow filter with the 283 version. For purposes of this discussion, I'd like to avoid the entanglement of goofy "add-on" engineering "quackery" rushed to market in an attempt to comply with vague nefarious legislated regulations.:rolleyes:


The Ford 360 FE truck engine comes to mind. It was 390 block, rods, and pistons with a 352 crank. Made no sense or power.

This is a great example of what I am seeking in this conversation. If I ever knew of a Ford "360"...I have forgotten. While I'm confessing to shortcomings in my knowledge of "car stuff"...I will also admit that I'm probably full of "urban legend" myths as well.:o So, even if I appear confident in what I post, I appreciate knowledgeable correction.:!:

To add to jpepper's example, how 'bout the Chevy 348? My (faulty) memory is that it was a truck engine re-assigned to passenger cars. I also recall it getting a reputation, and thus, nicknamed, the "PUSH-ROD BENDER." In fact, it might be an "outlier" to the "outlier," since it might be the first "Big Block" Chevy V8. If so, it could be an "introductory" offering and their big blocks progressed from there. But, regarding the 348, I really don't know if it was their first big block engine.:confused:

j.byrd
06-20-2016, 01:08 PM
jpepper, the 360 may have not made sense or power, but at least it got horrible gas mileage, ha !

jclary, the 221 was the 1st edition of the "thinwall" V-8 introduced in 62 as "the Fairlane V-8". Two barrel only, and the cubic inch size was done to celebrate the 1st ever Ford, the 221 c i flathead ! Shelby used this engine as the test fit in the earliest Cobras while waiting for the 260s to get to him. I had one in a 4 door 62 Fairlane, the little guy was smooth as silk, and slow as smoke off barnyard cowpiles on a cool morning. Oh, and the 255 Ford was a complete failure in 80 and 81 for the Fox platforms. I don't remember a single piece that would interchange for any kind of improvement possibilities, or else a replacement 302 cost less, but it was a bad move..

Scott
06-20-2016, 01:12 PM
I've read that the Studebaker 250.8 cu in. eight was destroked in 1933 to 236 cu. in. I wonder what the reasoning was for that. Also, there was the change in the late 50s from the 185 6 to the 170. What a dumb idea that was.

64studeavanti
06-20-2016, 01:36 PM
I don't know if the 348 was originally a truck engine. I had a friend who had one in a 58 wagon. BTW, the 348 became the 409 and eventually the 427! So maybe not the anomaly we are looking for.

8E45E
06-20-2016, 01:37 PM
A Chevrolet 307.

What a dog!

Craig

PackardV8
06-20-2016, 03:39 PM
The one thing which makes it difficult to understand coming back with a smaller version when the larger already exist is there's no real manufacturing cost savings or fuel economy improvement; it's just all marketing. Someone asked why Studebaker went back to the 170"? Because the 1960 Ford 144", GM 145" and Mopar 170" compacts had smaller displacement engines and the perception was smaller = better fuel economy. However, when the public discovered those buzzing little anvils were so underpowered, the Big Three immediately increased displacement of their sick sixes to larger than the Stude.

Examples of wrong-way thinking:
170" Champion instead of 185"
224" Studebaker V8 instead of 259"
255" SBF instead of 302"
262"/307" SBC instead of 350"
360" BBF FE-series
366" BBC
370" BBF 385-series

jack vines

Ron Dame
06-20-2016, 05:45 PM
what was the supposed value of a 224? Short stroke?

studeclunker
06-20-2016, 06:03 PM
In statistics/data gathering, there is a term "outlier" used to describe an anomaly, or observation, not supported or explained by the sum of the data. Usually, it is an indication that an error exist somewhere in the process. But, not always.:confused:

Not wanting to completely DE-rail another member's thread, where the subject is, that his original engine has been replaced, I've decided to create this thread. The reason is, that, for some reason to which I have never heard a definitive explanation...Studebaker, seems to have taken a step "sideways," instead of a forward progression, in engine production when they produced the 224 V8.:confused:

The subject got me to thinking:rolleyes:...what other similar "outlier" examples (of engine offerings) are there? My first thought, was the Ford 260V8. The Chevy 265 came to mind, but I don't think it qualifies, due to the fact that it was an introductory V8, much like the Studebaker 232, and things "progressed" from there. The Studebaker 224, and the Ford 260's were short run, and a way-stop, among a trend of "bigger is better," trend.:)

Therefore, I thought I would throw the subject of "outlier" engines to the General-Studebaker Specific forum,at large, and see where the discussion leads. Since the focus began with the Studebaker 224, I thought this would be very appropriate to place the discussion here. If there are other engines, by Studebaker, that would fit the description as "outlier"...let us know. However, examples of similar occurrences, among other makes, could be informative as well.:!:

I believe it was in Turning Wheels that I read Studebaker bought the design of the 224 from Cadillac whilst they were finishing out the design process for a Studebaker OHV V8 (the 259). Hence, this design doesn't seem to fit your definition, as the motor was produced by Studebaker, though a Cadillac design. Then again, I'm really not a gear-head and these things really aren't very clear to me. The thing I don't understand is why Studebaker discontinued the 245. It was a good motor and people like my Father loved it. The old man never really trusted a V8. Although he sure seemed to love the speed of one...

r1lark
06-20-2016, 07:01 PM
I believe it was in Turning Wheels that I read Studebaker bought the design of the 224 from Cadillac whilst they were finishing out the design process for a Studebaker OHV V8 (the 259). Hence, this design doesn't seem to fit your definition, as the motor was produced by Studebaker, though a Cadillac design. Then again, I'm really not a gear-head and these things really aren't very clear to me. The thing I don't understand is why Studebaker discontinued the 245. It was a good motor and people like my Father loved it. The old man never really trusted a V8. Although he sure seemed to love the speed of one...

Ron, there was nothing much different between a 259 and a 224 besides the crankshaft and pistons. They are not a different engine design. The 232 was in production for several years before the 224 came out. The 224 and 259 were upgrades of the original 232, especially in the area of the head porting, intake manifold, and exhaust manifolds.

I sorta doubt that you saw this in Turning Wheels :).

Skip Lackie
06-21-2016, 01:42 PM
I believe it was in Turning Wheels that I read Studebaker bought the design of the 224 from Cadillac whilst they were finishing out the design process for a Studebaker OHV V8 (the 259). Hence, this design doesn't seem to fit your definition, as the motor was produced by Studebaker, though a Cadillac design. Then again, I'm really not a gear-head and these things really aren't very clear to me. The thing I don't understand is why Studebaker discontinued the 245. It was a good motor and people like my Father loved it. The old man never really trusted a V8. Although he sure seemed to love the speed of one...

IMHO, the 245 was obsolescent, if not totally obsolete, by 1951 when the 232 V8 came out. Its design dated to the early 30s, and by the early 1950s, flatheads were passe in everything except lawnmowers. Studebaker continued to offer it in trucks, where relatively high torque at low RPMs was still valued for things like delivery trucks. Chrysler did the same thing with its (more modern) flathead 6 until 1954. The real question should be why the company didn't immediately offer the V8 in its trucks as soon as that engine became available, instead of waiting until 1954/55. More than half of the Stude trucks sold in 1955 (the first year the V8 was available in all truck lines) were equipped with V8s, which tells us how badly the company was misjudging the truck market. The Commander 6 was dropped from the lineup for 1956, but was made available again in February 1956 in response to those few customers wanting a low-revving lugger. It continued to sell in small numbers until 1960. I have a 245 in my 3R6 pickup and love it, but its limitations are all too obvious.

Scott
06-21-2016, 04:07 PM
IMHO, the 245 was obsolescent, if not totally obsolete, by 1951 when the 232 V8 came out. Its design dated to the early 30s, and by the early 1950s, flatheads were passe in everything except lawnmowers. Studebaker continued to offer it in trucks, where relatively high torque at low RPMs was still valued for things like delivery trucks. Chrysler did the same thing with its (more modern) flathead 6 until 1954. The real question should be why the company didn't immediately offer the V8 in its trucks as soon as that engine became available, instead of waiting until 1954/55. More than half of the Stude trucks sold in 1955 (the first year the V8 was available in all truck lines) were equipped with V8s, which tells us how badly the company was misjudging the truck market. The Commander 6 was dropped from the lineup for 1956, but was made available again in February 1956 in response to those few customers wanting a low-revving lugger. It continued to sell in small numbers until 1960. I have a 245 in my 3R6 pickup and love it, but its limitations are all too obvious.
My guess is that Studebaker didn't want to introduce the V8 earlier either for cost reasons (price point) or because farmers who often bought the trucks were already very famliar with the 245 and how to fix or troubleshoot it. There might also have been the factor of parts-on-hand in local rural areas to make repairs. On top of that Studebaker might have assumed - probably correctly - that farmers were a conservative bunch who were interested in new technology, but liked to stick with the tried-and-true. Remember, Studebaker was making horse drawn wagons until 1920!

Skip Lackie
06-21-2016, 05:52 PM
My guess is that Studebaker didn't want to introduce the V8 earlier either for cost reasons (price point) or because farmers who often bought the trucks were already very famliar with the 245 and how to fix or troubleshoot it. There might also have been the factor of parts-on-hand in local rural areas to make repairs. On top of that Studebaker might have assumed - probably correctly - that farmers were a conservative bunch who were interested in new technology, but liked to stick with the tried-and-true. Remember, Studebaker was making horse drawn wagons until 1920!

Good point on the price point -- I really don't know enough about Studebaker's 1950s price/competitive position in the truck market. However, I would respond to your other points as follows.
1, Stude dealers were already stocking V8 parts to repair and service the 1951 and later Commander cars.
2. They weren't selling many cars after 1952, so they had plenty of foundry capacity to make more V8 engines.
3. The company was already building V8-powered, RHD model 2R28 trucks for the Indian Army -- so they had already done ALL the engineering necessary to install the V8 engine in their line of trucks.

Bottom line: adding V8-powered trucks to their model lineup would have broadened their market base, even if: (a) the 245 engine also remained available, (2) conservative farmers didn't buy any of them, and (3) they only sold a few hundred V8 trucks. Their market share dropped by more than 50% between 1952 and 1954 -- that should have been enough of a scare for them to try ANYTHING to sell more trucks.

SN-60
06-21-2016, 05:57 PM
The 320 CI Packard V8 is an obvious choice......All that meat and no potatoes!! :woot:

Scott
06-21-2016, 06:25 PM
Good point on the price point -- I really don't know enough about Studebaker's 1950s price/competitive position in the truck market. However, I would respond to your other points as follows.
1, Stude dealers were already stocking V8 parts to repair and service the 1951 and later Commander cars.
2. They weren't selling many cars after 1952, so they had plenty of foundry capacity to make more V8 engines.
3. The company was already building V8-powered, RHD model 2R28 trucks for the Indian Army -- so they had already done ALL the engineering necessary to install the V8 engine in their line of trucks.

Bottom line: adding V8-powered trucks to their model lineup would have broadened their market base, even if: (a) the 245 engine also remained available, (2) conservative farmers didn't buy any of them, and (3) they only sold a few hundred V8 trucks. Their market share dropped by more than 50% between 1952 and 1954 -- that should have been enough of a scare for them to try ANYTHING to sell more trucks.

Well, there's always bad management to consider. :rolleyes: