Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studebaker V8 Superiority...or, as I was saying...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I think if allowed a normal progression, the Studebaker V8 would have fared well compared to the competition. The bottom end was sure strong enough. As power and displacement increased the connecting rods would have needed updating. Eliminating the antiquated wrist pin clamp bolt would have been a cost savings and a strength improvement. Ideally a floating pin would have been used but pressed would be okay as well. The R3/R4 used pressed pins unsuccessfully because the pin bore in the rod was not controlled properly. Better machinery would solve that. Cylinder head design and flow was already on their radar. The R3 head was the first step. Caddy, Olds, and Pontiac also siamesed the center exhaust port at one time. They eventually separated them. The Stude combustion chamber was way ahead of the competition and only limited by the machinery making it. A GM LS chamber has features you could say was derived from the Studebaker. With 4.5" bore centers and a crankcase wide enough for about a 3.875 stroke, the Stude V8 could accommodate over 400 CI. Modern casting techniques could take some weight out or aluminum could replace iron in the heads and intake. A modernized Stude V8 would get great fuel economy and be very emission compliant. That is what I think.
    james r pepper

    Comment


    • #32
      I believe Jim is correct. Studebaker, if funds had been available, would have been making continuous improvements and would have been competitive. It was a great starting point and would have continued. I still think it was a shame that they could not keep the Packard V8 in production as their big block version. It had issues but they were solvable as well.

      The other thing I think is not said. "is who really cares". How many of us race or even dyno our engines. I could give a crap less if someones SBC is built to 600 or 1,000 HP in their street rod. What I want is a dependable engine that looks great and different in my car. I could even tell everyone at a car show that my engine is 450 horse and who would know the difference? I would bet that very few in the SDC has a clue what real HP their engine is putting out, as is, R1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ......
      Dan White
      64 R1 GT
      64 R2 GT
      58 C Cab
      57 Broadmoor (Marvin)

      Comment


      • #33
        As long as we are discussing Studebaker-Packard Power, how's about this Packard V8-powered street rod seen at the 2017 Packard Automobile Classics National Meet this past June?



        We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

        Ayn Rand:
        "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

        G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Studebaker 289 and 4-speed in a 30 Ford model A pickup. Has an old Stu V twin carb intake on it.
          Attached Files
          james r pepper

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jpepper View Post
            Studebaker 289 and 4-speed in a 30 Ford model A pickup. Has an old Stu V twin carb intake on it.
            Look for some changes coming to this engine setup....
            HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

            Jeff


            Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



            Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi

              While I understand your point is the Studebaker V8 engine was engineered with oversized bearing surfaces from the start, making it more durable and able to withstand higher stresses contributing to long-term durability, that was not the most cost affective way to engineer for volume production. In general, for everyday passenger car use, over-engineering was affectively giving away a little bit of the unit profit in each car sold.

              GM, as a basic engineering tenet, required close unit costing of every component for whatever application. Continually, material and labor costs were removed with the objective of building the optimum lowest unit cost components, all toward contributing to overall lowest unit cost of the assembled vehicle for a given application relative to the sale price. Every few cents removed from cost over millions of units made them the highly profitable company they were. True, there are example where they went a bit too far, causing premature failures, but that's true of all car companies. When profits are the primary, over-engineering is at cross-purposes with that objective.

              Steve

              Comment


              • #37
                While what you say is true... Studebaker never had enough volume to warrant that kind of scrutiny.
                They took their post WWII gains and invested in a new state of the art (for 1950) automated V8 engine production line.
                While this helped....it also tied their hands to make any changes. They had to live within the machines envelope.
                And the engineering stayed stuck in the early fifties. Not a slam...just a fact.
                Later, there was no board or management approval to update anything. Even the GT Hawk update was a band aid cheapie update.
                Heck, the Avanti was a low budget creation.
                Look at the production numbers compared to any of the majors. They made millions, Studebaker made thousands.
                They did quite well with what they had to work with.
                But... It was not genius cutting edge engineering. It was more heavy duty get it through the warranty period engineering.
                Just a fact based opinion...


                Originally posted by 56H-Y6 View Post
                Hi

                While I understand your point is the Studebaker V8 engine was engineered with oversized bearing surfaces from the start, making it more durable and able to withstand higher stresses contributing to long-term durability, that was not the most cost affective way to engineer for volume production. In general, for everyday passenger car use, over-engineering was affectively giving away a little bit of the unit profit in each car sold.

                GM, as a basic engineering tenet, required close unit costing of every component for whatever application. Continually, material and labor costs were removed with the objective of building the optimum lowest unit cost components, all toward contributing to overall lowest unit cost of the assembled vehicle for a given application relative to the sale price. Every few cents removed from cost over millions of units made them the highly profitable company they were. True, there are example where they went a bit too far, causing premature failures, but that's true of all car companies. When profits are the primary, over-engineering is at cross-purposes with that objective.

                Steve
                HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                Jeff


                Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                Comment

                Working...
                X