55 Commander Engine confusion

[stall]

http://sites.google.com/site/intriguingautomotivehistories/

http://studebakerspeedster.blogspot.com/2008/12/studebakers-new-v-8.html

[HookedonStudies]

The 259 came out mid year. I'm sure others here will fill in the details.

Pat Casey
55 Commander
58 Transtar
62 GT Hawk
66 Cruiser
SDC Member since 1983

[StudeRich]

That is correct, in 1954 there would be NO '55 Commanders with 259 Engines, only Presidents! it was in 1955 when they did the mid year straight Windshield to wraparound changeover on Sedans & Wagons or close to that time. [:0]

The first South Bend Commander 259 was Serial #8,397,201 and Engine #V331,101

Los Angeles Serial 8,843,001 & Engine VL-101

And Canadian Serial 8,958,101 & Engine VC-6201

To further add to the confusion, the '55 President 259's were numbered as prefix "P" just as the '56 & on 289's were. So a real President 289, would have to be Eng.# S/B P22,001 or higher.


StudeRich

[lstude]

There were two 55 Studebaker brochures. One was printed in 9/54 and the other was printed in 1/55. There are others on the late brochure, like the wrap around windshield, air condition, and power windows.








Leonard Shepherd

http://leonardshepherd.com/

[PackardV8]

FWIW, the 16% hp increase from the 224" 140hp to the 259" 162hp was definitely noticeable. The torque increase in the normal driving RPM range was even greater. To me, the 224" always feels sluggish, either in a car or a truck.

I was in sales and marketing for thirty years, so I know the theories about advertising a low base price to get 'em in the door and then inducing trade-ups to get the good stuff. However, as an enthusiast, it has always been difficult to accept the optional price increases and requiring a move up to a more expensive trim level to get the larger displacement, higher horsepower engines. FWIW, the Studebaker 225hp 289" cost $10 more to build than the 140hp 224". That $10 was for the Carter WCFB/AFB 4-bbl and dual exhausts versus the Stromberg 2-bbl and single exhaust. Labor and everything internal was the same cost. That's 60% more horsepower for $10. Making the 225hp engine standard in everything might have helped Studebaker's image and it wouldn't have cost anything.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

[stall]

FWIW, the 16% hp increase from the 224" 140hp to the 259" 162hp was definitely noticeable. The torque increase in the normal driving RPM range was even greater. To me, the 224" always feels sluggish, either in a car or a truck.

I was in sales and marketing for thirty years, so I know the theories about advertising a low base price to get 'em in the door and then inducing trade-ups to get the good stuff. However, as an enthusiast, it has always been difficult to accept the optional price increases and requiring a move up to a more expensive trim level to get the larger displacement, higher horsepower engines. FWIW, the Studebaker 225hp 289" cost $10 more to build than the 140hp 224". That $10 was for the Carter WCFB/AFB 4-bbl and dual exhausts versus the Stromberg 2-bbl and single exhaust. Labor and everything internal was the same cost. That's 60% more horsepower for $10. Making the 225hp engine standard in everything might have helped Studebaker's image and it wouldn't have cost anything.

thnx, jack vines
===================================================================
Just for the record, do you know how long they produced the 224 CID engine in 55 before switching to the 259???

It must have cost a ton to change rods / stroke etc. for a mid-year change. Wowsers

http://sites.google.com/site/intriguingautomotivehistories/

http://studebakerspeedster.blogspot.com/2008/12/studebakers-new-v-8.html

[StudeRich]

quote:Originally posted by stall

Just for the record, do you know how long they produced the 224 CID engine in 55 before switching to the 259???

I don't know the exact number of Months, about 6-7 during a Steel Strike and UAW plant shutdown, one terribly costly year for Studebaker, with more sub-models than ever, more running changes etc.
The excess 224's were used up on '55 and '56 Trucks, no loss there. [:0]

quote:It must have cost a ton to change rods / stroke etc. for a mid-year change. Wowsers

The biggest cost would be the stroked Crank, and it's the same stroke as a 232, so very little difference in the Crank, it does have a different part number, the pin Loc. in the pistons are the only other part that changed, at the Vendor's Expense, no doubt! Just about a break even on cost! [^]
All Stude. V-8 rods are the same except R3,R4.

StudeRich

[studegary]

All 1955 Commanders built in 1954 had the 224 cubic inch engine. Commanders built after January 1955 had the 259 cubic inch engine.

Besides 85 wildcat strikes durig 1955, Studebaker was shut down for a strike from mid-January to mid-February 1955.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer