Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A final solution to the endless Ford V8 comments

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

  • Hawklover
    replied
    Originally posted by Studebaker Wheel View Post
    Really disappointed in you guys. If you knew your Studebaker history you would know that Studebaker introduced its first 289 c.i. engine in the 1913 model year. Used it in 3 different models thru 1926 and sold probably over 100,000 cars with a 289 c.i. engines. Sometimes I think that participants in this forum are all convinced that the first Studebaker built was a 1951 Commander V-8.
    LOL........Dick we all are speaking of the Stude V8, the earlier example is not germain to this discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Studebaker Wheel
    replied
    Really disappointed in you guys. If you knew your Studebaker history you would know that Studebaker introduced its first 289 c.i. engine in the 1913 model year. Used it in 3 different models thru 1926 and sold probably over 100,000 cars with a 289 c.i. engines. Sometimes I think that participants in this forum are all convinced that the first Studebaker built was a 1951 Commander V-8.

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Avanti
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post

    I have had people, all the way up the President of Studebaker at that time, tell me that the Studebaker V8 was influenced (partly based on) the Cadillac OHV V8 that came out in 1948 in the 1949 model. Studebaker engineers knew about the engine years before that.
    Of course at first glance someone could mistake the Studebaker and Cadillac engines for each other, unlike the Ford which has no similarity to the Studebaker engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark L
    replied
    deleted.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy R.
    replied
    Jake, before you convince them it's a Studebaker 289, you have to convince them that the door script says Gran TUR-IS-MO, not Torino (see my profile pic for joke).

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessie J.
    replied
    Originally designing the block to accommodate a 4.00 inch bore would not have detracted anything from its robustness.
    There was/is plenty of room within the blocks basic architecture to have easily allowed for the casting of slightly larger cylinders.
    The idea at the late 1940s time though, was to introduce a more efficient and economical engine than the ancient Commander six.

    In the market segment that Studebaker’s engineering and management was aiming for, their new for ‘51 232 cubic inch V-8 was among hottest on the road completely overshadowing Ford’s long reigning flathead and Chevy’s ‘Blue Flame’ 6.
    In designing their new V-8 Studebaker simply didn’t anticipate the coming cubic-inch race that would within few years have all of its competitors flooding the market with engines beyond 300 cubic inches. Even Rambler soon had a modern 327 V-8 in it’s engine lineup.

    Of course the Golden Hawk received the one year only 352 Packard transplant for 1956, but with ‘57 and the end of Packard engine production, came the expensive and failure prone McCulloch blower as a answer to Studebaker’s lack of a large displacement engine.
    That extra expense restricted the availability of the supercharged engine to only the expensive top of the line Golden Hawk and Packard’s.

    With Studebaker already drowning in red ink, funds were no longer available for revising the block or the tooling required to produce a larger displacement engine, which, if the designers had possessed the foresight back in the design stage, would have permitted larger displacements, much better breathing, higher horsepower, and dependable as a brick, engines for around a buck more a unit, rather than the hundreds, and the complexity that fitting the McCulloch blower setup added to the costs of each unit.

    As we know for a fact, Studebaker’s supercharged V-8s can be very competitive performers in short bursts, like drag racing.
    But the blowers will not endure extended high rpm use, and were and are difficult and expensive to obtain parts and service for.
    Most ended up removed, which left the car with a small displacement, low compression, low performance engine.

    So, while Studebaker’s supercharged engines could be competitive performers, their initial cost, and the undependability of the supercharger prevented them from ever being competitive in the market in the extremely important matters of ’bang-for-the-buck’ and product profitability.
    The road not taken, larger cylinders back in 1951, would have made the road to performance so much smoother, durable, and at far less cost.



    Leave a comment:


  • Stude Shoo-wop!
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawklover View Post

    Too bad Studebaker engineering did not plan for the future with increased CID like GM did with the Caddy
    Hold on a minute. If Studebaker had engineered their V8 with an eye towards an increase in cubic capacity instead of high compression ratios, you would have lost the single greatest element of that engine. Due to the robustness of the Stude V8, it was a stone-cold reliable unit that got decent MPG for the time and had lots of power potential to boot. Would you really want to get rid of that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawklover
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post

    I have had people, all the way up the President of Studebaker at that time, tell me that the Studebaker V8 was influenced (partly based on) the Cadillac OHV V8 that came out in 1948 in the 1949 model. Studebaker engineers knew about the engine years before that.
    Too bad Studebaker engineering did not plan fo r the future with increased CID like GM did with the Caddy

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    [QUOTE=candbstudebakers;n1816947]
    Originally posted by WinM1895 View Post
    FoMoCo: 221/260 = 1962 // 289 = 1963.

    221 = 1962/63 // 260 = 1962/64, 1965 Mustang before production date 8/23/1964./Cut/Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager.[/QUOTE

    If I remember right the Ford 221 was a flat head engine, and they did also have a 292. and a 312 before the 260
    "Y" blocks and Flatheads are all Ford old school Engines, the Modeen OHV V8's Bill is talking about are all on Topic, small Blocks like the 289, the 221 is a shorter stroke 260 used in early Fairlanes.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawklover View Post

    Do not berate him too much.........I have had many old time mechanics and machinists tell me that the Studebaker V8 was greatly "influenced" by the first Caddy V8. Indeed I have to say they are correct....having looked closely at early Caddy V8's at numerous car shows over the years.
    I have had people, all the way up the President of Studebaker at that time, tell me that the Studebaker V8 was influenced (partly based on) the Cadillac OHV V8 that came out in 1948 in the 1949 model. Studebaker engineers knew about the engine years before that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawklover
    replied
    Originally posted by 64Avanti View Post
    In 1973 we were headed from San Diego to Southbend for the Studebaker meet. We stopped in Missouri to fill up the truck and I checked the oil. Station attendent insisted that the engine was a Cadillac engine not a Studebaker. After some discussion decided to give up on educating him.
    Do not berate him too much.........I have had many old time mechanics and machinists tell me that the Studebaker V8 was greatly "influenced" by the first Caddy V8. Indeed I have to say they are correct....having looked closely at early Caddy V8's at numerous car shows over the years.

    Leave a comment:


  • candbstudebakers
    replied
    [QUOTE=WinM1895;n1816895]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.[/QUOTE

    If I remember right the ford 221 was a flat head engine, and they did also have a 292. and a 312 before the 260

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    Originally posted by 53k View Post
    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...



    Leave a comment:


  • 64studeavanti
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 53k
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X