Uh-Oh: Did Plymouth make Studebaker 259 V8s?

[BobPalma]

Doing some research for my December 2018 Hemmings Classic Car column, I ran across an interesting tidbit :

The first-year 1955 Plymouth V-8 (1955 only) displaced 259.2 cubic inches. That's exactly the same as the Studebaker 259 because both engines have the same bore and stroke.

By contrast, "289" Studebaker and "289" Ford V-8s really have different displacements when carried out to three places because they have different bores and different strokes. To wit:

The "289" cubic inch Studebaker V-8 actually displaces 289.066 cubic inches with its 3.5625" bore and 3.6250" stroke.

The "289" cubic inch Ford V-8 actually displaces 288.524 cubic inches with its 4.00" bore and 2.87" stroke.

(Geeze, we no sooner settle the Studebaker / Ford 289 question and now we have to address the 259.2 Studebaker / Plymouth 259.2 discrepancy! ) BP

[Commander Eddie]

Bob,
Why don't we just say, if asked, that Studebaker sold 259 V-8s to Plymouth for one year to help them out. Not true, but it will sound plausible to some.

[BobPalma]

Bob,
Why don't we just say, if asked, that Studebaker sold 259 V-8s to Plymouth for one year to help them out. Not true, but it will sound plausible to some.

That sounds good, Ed. That way, Plymouth could get into the V-8 market right away while they were developing their own engine for 1956, right? (Kind of like American Motors bought Packard V-8s until their own new 250 V8 was ready to go in the middle of the 1956 model year.)

That's as good a story as any we've heard for awhile. BP

[t walgamuth]

Yeah but what about the battery hold down strap?

[Buzzard]

If you haven't heard a good rumor by noon, start one.

[BobPalma]

If you haven't heard a good rumor by noon, start one.

Good point, Bill.

This tongue-in-cheek "yuk" will probably be circulated as fact by the end of the day! BP

[Commander Eddie]

And I will deny I had anything to do with it.

[greyben]

It's interesting that Plymouth also used the same crank bearing diameters.

[Bob Bryant]

Somewhere, i read that Plymouth used a Dodge V8 in 1955 and had their own V8 in 1956. My '55 Plymouth was my first V8.

[S2Deluxe]

It's interesting that Plymouth also used the same crank bearing diameters.

That's possible, but I don't imagine their's used a forged crank, with the thrust bearing in the front, adjustable end play, or a gear drive for the cam.

Mark

[wittsend]

It's all Kevin Bacon's fault. Everything is related to everything else.

So..., the 289 (Ford) in my Sunbeam Tiger is really a Studebaker engine even though Rootes was controlled by Chrysler. My Pinto wagon has a German engine (2.0). My Canadian built Valiant priobably has..., a Canadian built engine. The engine in my '63 Rambler American (eventually owned by Renault, Chrysler, Mercedes, Fiat) is really a Nash engine. The "replacement" engine in my '64 Studebaker was really a Chevy (McKinnon) engine (now a American 350). The engine in my Datsun 510 is really linked to Mercedes for the stealing of a patented design (The bastard step-child?). And the engine in my '61 Corvair is just as likely to be found in experimental aircraft these days. Yea, it is tough to find enough parking places when we have (vehicular) "family reunion."

[whitehawk759]

I had a fellow that was driving a nice original 1957 Hawk that his had a Packard "big" 289 that Studebaker had bought from Ford.
I don't know how to unravel that one?

[mike cenit]

The Tucker had a Franklin Air cooled, that was a helo engine, and half the cars done and gone companies seemed to use Continental motors, last how many engines did the Jeep CJ's use, from Buick to Nash, seems the only pure engine usage (except for Packard) is us.

[studegary]

The Tucker had a Franklin Air cooled, that was a helo engine, and half the cars done and gone companies seemed to use Continental motors, last how many engines did the Jeep CJ's use, from Buick to Nash, seems the only pure engine usage (except for Packard) is us.

Not if you go back far enough in Studebaker history.

[mike cenit]

how far back? EMF?