Studebaker V8 Engines in 1959 (259 only)

[herbpcpa]

I was looking up Studebakers in a book about American vehicles and noticed that the only V8 Studebaker offered in 1959 was the 259 cubic inch engine, no 289 was available. All 1959 Silver Hawks came with a 259 V8 or a six cylinder. I believe 1959 was the first year for the OHV six cylinder engine.
Can anyone offer an insight into way Studebaker would not offer a 289 in 1959?

As a second question I was wondering if the smaller Studebaker V8 would have better "low-end torque" than the 289 and would tolerate higher RPMs.

[RadioRoy]

The OHV six appeared in 1961, not 1959.
There were some 289 engines built for trucks in 1959, but not many. I had a late 1958 289 and an early 1960 289 and they were only some 420 or so serial numbers apart.
The story goes that Studebaker was on an economy kick in 59 and almost dumped the Hawk in one of those years close to that.

[Jett289]

I know the flathead 170 cu in 6 cyl was available on the larks in 1959 .. The OHV 6 cyl 170 cu in came out in 1961.. Not to sure about the V8 though so I'm sure someone in the know will reply.

[StudeRich]

Flathead 169/170 Six 1939 to 1954, 1955-'58 "185" and 1959-'60 "170".
Overhead valve "170" Skybolt Six 1961 to 1964
224 V8, 1955 Commander (Early), and all V8 Trucks and 1956 Trucks
259 V8, 1955 Late Comm./Pres. to 1964 Cars, and 1957 to 1958 & 1960-'64 all V8 Trucks
289 V8, 1956-1958 Presidents, includes '56 Sky Hawk & '57-'58 Hawks.
289 V8, 1961 Cruiser Option, '60-'61 Hawks, 1962 to 1964 Cars, ALL 1959 Trucks, 1957 to 1964 C Cab, & 1960 to 1964 T Cab Option.

The interesting thing about the 289 usage in 1959 is that ALL 1959 "Studebaker" & "Studebaker Deluxe" Trucks had 289's!
NO Transtars, No 259's (possibly except Scotsman) and no 289's in Larks except Special Order, Fleet or Police.

Some of the Numbers lacking in Cars for 289's were made up by all Trucks! Keeping that 289 Engine Line GOING.

UPDATE: Add "185" Flathead usage.

[jackb]

don't forget that orphan 226/245 Big 6 ....

[S2Deluxe]

Flathead 169/170 Six 1939 to 1960
Overhead valve "170" Skybolt Six 1961 to 1964
224 V8, 1955 Commander, President, Trucks and 1956 Trucks
259 V8, 1955 to 1964 Cars, and 1957 to 1958 & 1960-'64 all V8 Trucks
289 V8, 1956-1958 Presidents, includes '56 Sky Hawk & '57-'58 Hawks.
289 V8, 1961 Cruiser Option, '60-'61 Hawks, 1962 to 1964 Cars, ALL 1959 Trucks, 1957 to 1964 C Cab, & 1960 to 1964 T Cab Option.

The interesting thing about the 289 usage in 1959 is that ALL 1959 "Studebaker & Studebaker Deluxe" Trucks had 289's!
NO Transtars, No 259's (possibly except Scotsman) and no 289's in Larks except Special Order, Fleet or Police.

Some of the Numbers lacking in Cars for 289's were made up by all Trucks! Keeping that 289 Engine Line GOING.

I believe the '55 - '61 flatbread 6s were the 185 cu. in. versions.

Mark

[RadioRoy]

<>I believe the '55 - '61 flatbread 6s were the 185 cu. in. versions. <>

The Champion flat head six was 185 CI only in the years 55-58. In 59-60, the flat head went back to 170, or 169.6 CI.

[Skip Lackie]

I believe the '55 - '61 flatbread 6s were the 185 cu. in. versions.

Mark

The venerable 245.6 ci Commander flathead 6 remained available in trucks through the 1960 5E series, and although technically not available after that, ten 1961 6E trucks were also built with this engine for special orders. At least one, the world's only 6E14D (4WD) survives and has a 1961 interior, trim, and paint.

And as Rich noted, all 1959 V8 trucks [edit: sold in the US] except Scotsman came with the 289, though presumably the company would have installed a 259 in one for a special order.

[studegary]

And as Rich noted, all 1959 V8 trucks except Scotsman came with the 289, though presumably the company would have installed a 259 in one for a special order.

This is true for 1959 domestic trucks, but not for exports. All export V8 1959 trucks, except for 2 ton HD, came with 259 V8s (except 289 by special order). This totaled 479 non-Scotsman 1959 trucks with 259 V8s.

[BobPalma]

As a second question, I was wondering if the smaller Studebaker V8 would have better "low-end torque" than the 289 and would tolerate higher RPMs.

The six-cylinder engine question has been well-answered, Herb, but I see that no one has addressed your V8 engine question.

Simply put, a 259 will have less torque than a 289 because the 259 has a shorter stroke, yet they have the same bore. BP

[JoeHall]

The six-cylinder engine question has been well-answered, Herb, but I see that no one has addressed your V8 engine question.

Simply put, a 259 will have less torque than a 289 because the 259 has a shorter stroke, yet they have the same bore. BP

The torque difference between 259 and 289 is barely discernible, IMHO.

[S2Deluxe]

As a second question I was wondering if the smaller Studebaker V8 would have better "low-end torque" than the 289 and would tolerate higher RPMs.

Aside from the differences in crankshaft and piston specifications, the Studebaker 259 and 289 are the same engine. You can also include include the 224 in that statement. Both intake and exhaust systems have the same air flow capability. The shorter stroke engines must spin at a higher RPM levels to flow the same volume of air. Yes the shorter stroke engines can generate the same levels of horsepower and torque as the longer stroke engines but must spin faster to do it. So No for the Better low end torque but but yes for tolerating higher RPMs.

Mark

[PackardV8]

but but yes for tolerating higher RPMs. Mark

In theory, yes. In practice, the 289" crankshaft will tolerate any RPMs the OEM Studebaker valve train will.

Jack Vines

[Skip Lackie]

This is true for 1959 domestic trucks, but not for exports. All export V8 1959 trucks, except for 2 ton HD, came with 259 V8s (except 289 by special order). This totaled 479 non-Scotsman 1959 trucks with 259 V8s.

Thanks Gary. Post edited to correct.

[56H-Y6]

Management apparently took the tact that the larger 289 was unnecessary for a lighter-weight compact car to have adequate performance and return good fuel economy. As it turned out, the V8 engine produced the economical operation better than the flathead six did.