New (to me) '55 Studebaker Wagon

[Spamcan]

I’ll give that a go next drive, once I get the brakes/bearing issue resolved. So is it intended to not get above 45-ish MPH? I’m revving pretty high at that speed.

[Spamcan]

Got the tires off, that was fun, not! Taking the wheels in for new rubber, main tires are 15 years old and cracked, spare is from 1975!

I see what looks like glazing on the pads and drum, so guessing I have a failing brake cylinder. It doesn't seem at this point that it's a bearing going, but when I can I'll put it into N and rotate the rear and see if anything grinds or whatnot.

I also need to see if I can run the fronts without the spacer, give me some fender clearance.

[Spamcan]

On a good note, now that I have fresh Ethanol-free fuel and Seafoam in the tank and have run the engine a bit, 2 great things have happened:
1. It runs so much smoother now, even starts better.
2. The post-drive fumes are almost non-existent. So was it the fuel itself (bad fuel?), or maybe with the carb/engine running better that fuel is just burned off properly now?

[Spamcan]

Well, lots of updates about this Conney. I have it at a shop that has done the following:

Swapped the read axle for a Dana 44 in 3.31 (from 3.92) for better top end speed (thanks to StudeRich and his son, from whom I bought it)

The front (unknown model) disk brakes swapped for a complete Turner brake kit

The engine has been pulled out for resolving the oil leaks, it's being completely rebuilt since it had a blown head gasket and dad ran water instead of coolant and now many of the coolant passages are plugged up. They're going to tank the block and I'll have them paint it black. With StudeRich's help, we've found out this 259ci engine had been redone to a 289ci. The camshaft is the 289 Long Nose for the Full Flow-Oil Filter, and dished pistons. You can see in the pics how gummed up the piston heads are.

Now it makes sense why the engine has the Holley 1850 600cfm carb, Lionel Stone intake and the transmission swapped from the manual OD to the Borg/Warner Flight-O-Matic.

The car, sans engine, is back at the house and I'll also be doing a cleanup of the engine bay and whatever else.

Next up once the car is whole again, a transmission servicing.

[Spamcan]

And I had a poster made to display when I take the Conney to a show or get together. And randomly found this shirt on Amazon!

[StudeRich]

With StudeRich's help, we've found out this 259ci engine had been redone to a 289ci. The camshaft is the 289 Long Nose for the Full Flow-Oil Filter, and dished pistons.

NOT exactly Dave.
Make that a 289 Crankshaft!

And, the Engine was Never a 259, just an all Original, 1963 Full Flow 289, verified by Crankshaft Forging # and Block Serial Number, your Post # 47: P94442, which I responded to I.D. in a PM.

This is what happens when you have 66 Posts in the String, and Many PM's to me and others, the info gets all stirred up like Cool Aid in Water! Lol!

Cool T Shirt Dave!

[Spamcan]

StudeRich, in regards to the crankshaft, what I posted above is what you told me via email. lol. Yes, lots of data from many sources, I’m still trying to gather and correctly identify everything from yours all all others help I’m getting here. I appreciate everyone’s input!

As far as the block/engine, is not what Dwight wrote on post Chapter Membership Chair Discussion of this thread potentially correct? “For 1955 ONLY the P indicates it is a 259. For 1956-1964 259s were V, and 289s were P.” I don’t know if this engine was originally a ‘55 259 “P” labeled engine, that’s had been reworked as a 289. Or, if it’s a 1956+ actual 289 that’s been fully swapped into the Conney maybe along with the transmission at the same time. Does the block # alone identify the actual data needed to fully ID the original specs? As Dwight mentioned and I’ve forgotten, I need to look for the date code on the block at the back by the distributor. I’ll see if I can get that, which will surely help identify which engine this truly is.

Per the Production Order, the Engine Number was: VL 3380. So this car seems to be originally powered by a 259.

I still leave it open (in my mind, for now) that it could be a reworked 259 since there are aftermarket parts that to me kind of indicate a “tuned up“ engine: the carb, intake and valve covers.

But again, all the past history has been lost when dad passed. The investigations continue! 😉

[StudeRich]

The ORIGINAL Engine Serial Number per your PO was VL-3380, a Los Angeles Assembled 1955 Commander 259, not a President 259. I do not recall EVER getting THAT info!
However it does not matter since that Engine is Long Gone.

What Dwight told you was before he knew that you actually HAD P94442, a 1963 289 Engine.

You see, from our SDC Website Posted V8 Engine Serial Number Charts, we are able to tell the Exact YEAR of Any Engine by how High or more correctly, what Range of yearly Starting Numbers they are, within the V or P Category.

The Few rare "P" Serialized 1955 President only 259 Engines were Very Low Numbers shown in the Chart, and all "P" Numbered Engines AFTER that like your 1963, are 289's.

At that Time we knew little of WHAT we were dealing with except you have a '55, so Dwight was only mentioning the POSSIBILITIES, not Facts, and that did mislead you, sorry.

Then there is THIS:
Clearly showing that THIS Engine is a Late 1962 to 1964 Full Flow Engine, due to the obvious Oil Filter Adapter on the Right, Rear, and Cup Type Core (Freeze) Plugs.
So we know it's Year Range, but then the "Dished" 289 Pistons and the 289 Crank Forging Number finalized and proved No changes were made from New, from what we already knew from the Engine Serial Number P94442 is doubly Proven to be a '63 289 by THAT Number which is Above a '63 Starting # and Below a '64 Starting Number.

Whew!! I am out of Breath, are we done Now?

[Spamcan]

OK, that explains and clarifies a lot of my questions. I wasn't doubting your wisdom Rich, I just had questions and was looking for info for my own Studebaker knowledge growth. Thank you for the details and those identifiers. And you are correct, about the PO info, I only recently received the PO from the Studey Museum, so it's new info to the overall picture of this car.

I think this also relives the concerns you had Rich over if the crank needed reworking for working in a 259 block.

It surely seems as if the whole powertrain was swapped out at some time - engine, tranny and drive shaft, and the steering column to accommodate swapping from manual or auto trans. I'm 95% sure that had to be done by an owner before dad acquired it. This level of work was not in dads wheelhouse, nor could I see him even having someone do it.

I need to take a Studebakers 101 and 201 course from you!

[rockne10]

... get pics (including the VIN wherever it's at on the truck - left dash area like newer vehicles?)

Truck Serial No. plate would be on the left side of the seat riser just as you open the driver's door.

[Spamcan]

Truck Serial No. plate would be on the left side of the seat riser just as you open the driver's door.

Brad, we got it as you’ll see on post 25, serial # 8846259


More updates from a visit from the shop doing the engine rebuild. Hopefully I remember all he told me and get all the nomenclature correctly.
1. All of the valve seals were mostly gone or not even existing anymore, surely a large cause of the oil in the cylinders.
2. Several valve guides are loose, the valve stems could rock around/shake in the guides. He wants to see what he can do to resolve, re-sleeve?
3. the crankshaft looked good to him wear-wise but they’re going to spec it
4. they’ll do the normal wear/tear replacements like piston rings, valve seals and maybe the oil pump
5. he wants to get the cylinders bored
6. he feels the pistons and rods were good, no galling or whatnot on the sides of the pistons.

[r1lark]

2. Several valve guides are loose, the valve stems could rock around/shake in the guides. He wants to see what he can do to resolve, re-sleeve?

New valve guides are readily available from our Studebaker vendors.