A final solution to the endless Ford V8 comments

[64studeavanti]

I believe the Ford 289 came out in 1963. Of course, the Stude 289 came out in in MY 1956.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Well...…….when DID the Ford 289 come out?

April 1963

[STEWDI]

Well, the "flier" will help most people, BUT ..... the Studebaker foundry did not close in Dec. '63. Was it not kept in production for a time to supply engines for the '64's produced in Canada (there's always seems to be a footnote to any statement)? l believe so.

Also, it would correct another slight problem to change the flier to read " no other manufacturer's engines were installed in a postwar Studebaker car, by Studebaker." Two significant exceptions to the previously-worded statement were the Continental engines fitted to 3 model years of Erskines (ok, there were technically another automobile brand) and more recently, the GM 2-stroke diesel engines optional in early '60's larger Studebaker trucks.

Most people won't care about the "corrections". Use them only if you want. But you may have some historical nerds there at the concours, too - you never know!

[studegary]

Well, the "flier" will help most people, BUT ..... the Studebaker foundry did not close in Dec. '63. Was it not kept in production for a time to supply engines for the '64's produced in Canada (there's always seems to be a footnote to any statement)? l believe so.

Also, it would correct another slight problem to change the flier to read " no other manufacturer's engines were installed in a postwar Studebaker car, by Studebaker." Two significant exceptions to the previously-worded statement were the Continental engines fitted to 3 model years of Erskines (ok, there were technically another automobile brand) and more recently, the GM 2-stroke diesel engines optional in early '60's larger Studebaker trucks.

Most people won't care about the "corrections". Use them only if you want. But you may have some historical nerds there at the concours, too - you never know!

This is better, but still not correct. Remember the GM engines in all 1965-1966 Studebaker cars.

[Buzzard]

Jake,
Perhaps there is room under the photos to display the weight of each complete motor with starters, intakes etc.
Just a suggestion but there must be a vast difference. 460(Ford) vs 650 (Studebaker) is pretty close.

[6hk71400]

Started as a 221 in 1961 then went to 260 then 289 in January February 1963. Studebaker had 7 years on the Ford 289.

Bob Miles

[StudeRich]

I think all this talk about GM 283's is ALL off topic for this Flyer.
It should not be concerned with 232's, 259's NOTHING that is not relevant to the Ford/Stude. 289 difference Story it is TRYING to tell.

Way to complicated already, just KEEP IT SIMPLE, or it won't ALL be read.

[studegary]

I think all this talk about GM 283's is ALL off topic for this Flyer.
It should not be concerned with 232's, 259's NOTHING that is not relevant to the Ford/Stude. 289 difference Story it is TRYING to tell.

Way to complicated already, just KEEP IT SIMPLE, or it won't ALL be read.

Good comment. I was mostly trying to eliminate or correct an erroneous statement.

[AnAvanti4Bob]

Great Job, Jake, you listened to input and are a true supporter of the Studebaker brand!

[WinM1895]

FoMoCo: 221/260 = 1962 // 289 = 1963.

221 = 1962/63 // 260 = 1962/64, 1965 Mustang before production date 8/23/1964.

Early 289 (before production date 8/23/1964): aluminum water pump and timing cover, bell housing mounts to block with 5 bolts.

Late 289 (from production date 8/23/1964 thru 1968): cast iron water pump and timing cover, bell housing mounts to block with 6 bolts.

221/260/289/302/351W valve covers retained by 6 bolts per side, dizzy in front of carb.

289's except HiPo's have hydraulic lifters.

And, be aware that the 289 A/T starter is different than the M/T starter.

Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager.

[bensherb]

And, be aware that the 289 A/T starter is different than the M/T starter.

Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager.

I know it's off topic, but I'm curious. How are the automatic and manual transmission Ford starters different? I've swapped transmissions from manual to automatic in a few Mustangs and F100's and one Galaxie , also put Ford drive trains made up of what was on hand in several "custom" cars and have never encountered any starter issues. Did I somehow get lucky too many times?

[JLB]

I've owned my '63 Avanti for 48 years and I've had many "Know it Alls" over the years, tell me it is a Ford 289. Depending on how that information is delivered to me depends on how I respond. If they are emphatic that it is a Ford 289 I reply that they are correct and that Ford tooled up and made only ONE, 289 with the distributor in the back and as luck would have it, it wound up at the Studebaker Assembly Plant in South Bend, and was installed in my car. Who knew!

[53k]

Some years ago I went to an auction in a long closed salvage yard. One car was a '53 Commander Starliner. It was listed as having a Ford 289 engine. I just had to straighten out that mistake so I went to look at the car. It actually had a Ford 289 under the hood.

[64studeavanti]

Sometimes we can benefit from these misconceptions. For example, I found a NOS Isky ST5 cam with lifters and springs listed on Ebay for a Ford 289. When I examined the pictures, it was clearly for Studebaker. I was the high bid at $125! Even better, it was only 20 miles from where I live.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Some years ago I went to an auction in a long closed salvage yard. One car was a '53 Commander Starliner. It was listed as having a Ford 289 engine. I just had to straighten out that mistake so I went to look at the car. It actually had a Ford 289 under the hood.

I bought this Speedster customized in the early 60's several years ago advertised with a 289...







Sure enough, it had a 289. Just not the one I was expecting...