Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different Engine Swaps

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    quote:Originally posted by studegary
    I believe that was an error on Frank's part. If I remember correctly, the change in rear axle placement on the rear springs from in the center to off center was made for the 1958 model year
    Correct me if I am wrong, but the axle PLACEMENT didnt actually change
    it was the addition of longer leaf springs that happened. I dont seem
    to remember any change in wheelbase, but the springs got longer in
    between my friends 56 Sky Hawk and my 60 Hawk.

    quote:Originally posted by Blue 15G

    It would be fun to go the other way too, and take an Avanti and put a Champion flathead in it. .... "What the....???? WHO DID THIS???"
    I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
    that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
    unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
    modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
    be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
    wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

    Tom
    '63 Avanti R1, '03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, TKO 5-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves.
    Check out my disc brake adapters to install 1994-2004 Mustang disc brakes on your Studebaker!!
    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...bracket-update
    I have also written many TECH how to articles, do a search for my Forum name to find them

    Comment


    • #17
      Back in my boating days{the early 90's} I once saw a 352 Packard V8 that was factory installed in a steel hull cabin cruiser type boat manufactured by the Tucker Boat Company not to be confused with the Tucker automobile. The boat was manufactured in the mid 50's. Just remember one thing. The two happiest days in a boat owners life are 1- the day you takes posession of the boat and 2- when you get rid of it. Take that with a grain of salt but it sure applied to my situation. jimmijim
      sigpicAnything worth doing deserves your best shot. Do it right the first time. When you're done you will know it. { I'm just the guy who thinks he knows everything, my buddy is the guy who knows everything.} cheers jimmijim*****SDC***** member

      Comment


      • #18
        I like Jessie's approach to this: Neat - yeah, but not practical. If there's only 40lbs. difference (and I think he's right. I was working from memory when I said 200lbs and Mr. Ambrogio's article wasn't something I worried about memorizing) it would be the same as adding A/C - weightwise. Or A/C and PS and an optional hood ornament.[}]

        And, yes Tom. No wheelbase change. But the idea was to get the axle off dead center of the leaf springs. Lenghten one end of the springs and the axle no longer perches where it used to ...... relative to spring length[)] That (presumably) is what engineering was trying to achieve without causing complete body redesign.

        Miscreant at large.

        1957 Transtar 1/2ton
        1960 Larkvertible V8
        1958 Provincial wagon
        1953 Commander coupe
        1957 President 2-dr
        1955 President State
        1951 Champion Biz cpe
        1963 Daytona project FS
        No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

        Comment


        • #19
          quote:[ Just remember one thing. The two happiest days in a boat owners life are 1- the day you takes posession of the boat and 2- when you get rid of it. Take that with a grain of salt but it sure applied to my situation.
          That certainly applies to swimming pools! Got rid of mine recently, and life is good. I have mixed emotions about the boat, but I don't miss it terribly.


          www.davesplaceinc.com
          sigpic
          Dave Lester

          Comment


          • #20
            I suspect that the difference between the Stude V-8 and the Packard V-8 is not so much the total weight but where the weight is. The Packard V-8 while not a whole lot heavier is physically a lot bigger - mostly longer - than the Stude V-8 and some of that weight will inevitably be farther forward. The Stude engine in a C-K is almost a "front-mid" engine design; the front of the Packard engine is a good 6" farther forward, if not more, in the same chassis.

            That said, by all accounts the Packard engine is a good one, and probably has more potential than a Stude due to larger displacement and milder tuning, but cams, big valves, lighter manifolds/flywheels etc. are harder to find than for a Stude as the Packard engine was only built for a couple of years.

            nate

            --
            55 Commander Starlight
            62 Daytona hardtop
            http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
            --
            55 Commander Starlight
            http://members.cox.net/njnagel

            Comment


            • #21
              quote:Originally posted by sbca96

              quote:Originally posted by studegary
              I believe that was an error on Frank's part. If I remember correctly, the change in rear axle placement on the rear springs from in the center to off center was made for the 1958 model year
              Correct me if I am wrong, but the axle PLACEMENT didnt actually change
              it was the addition of longer leaf springs that happened. I dont seem
              to remember any change in wheelbase, but the springs got longer in
              between my friends 56 Sky Hawk and my 60 Hawk.



              Tom
              The wheelbase of all 1953-1964 models is 120.5 inches. I do not believe that I said that the wheelbase changed. The change that was made for 1958 was that the rear axle was no longer equidistant from the front and rear ends of the leaf springs. Obviously, the springs and their placement changed.
              Gary L.
              Wappinger, NY

              SDC member since 1968
              Studebaker enthusiast much longer

              Comment


              • #22
                quote:Originally posted by sbca96


                I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
                that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
                unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
                modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
                be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
                wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

                Tom
                That Avanti also came to mind for me, but I have tried to ignore the car <G>. I saw that Kvanti in Las Vegas in 1989. I thought that it probably wasn't fuel efficient because it was so underpowered. I have not seen anything about it for about 15 years. I wonder if it still exists. Maybe it was converted back - let's hope so.
                Gary L.
                Wappinger, NY

                SDC member since 1968
                Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                Comment


                • #23
                  quote:Originally posted by studegary

                  quote:Originally posted by sbca96


                  I remember many years ago having that very same reaction to an Avanti
                  that received a front wheel drive subframe from a Dodge 'K' car. The
                  unfortunate Avanti was advertised as being "classic styling with a
                  modern fuel efficent engine". I almost barfed. Not many choices can
                  be worse then a 'K' car engine, but to make it front wheel drive?? I
                  wonder what happened to that car, was in LA, California.

                  Tom
                  That Avanti also came to mind for me, but I have tried to ignore the car <G>. I saw that Kvanti in Las Vegas in 1989. I thought that it probably wasn't fuel efficient because it was so underpowered. I have not seen anything about it for about 15 years. I wonder if it still exists. Maybe it was converted back - let's hope so.
                  Gary,

                  I also remember seeing the "Kvanti" at Las Vegas. It was my understanding that the car was built up from a wreck or a parts car; at least a good restorable Avanti wasn't sacrificed to make it. I guess it must have seemed like a good idea at the time[)]

                  Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
                  Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Now that I've heard about the KVanti, I feel much better about my International Harvester-powered Edsel Project.[8]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      quote:Originally posted by gordr
                      I also remember seeing the "Kvanti" at Las Vegas. It was my understanding that the car was built up from a wreck or a parts car; at least a good restorable Avanti wasn't sacrificed to make it.
                      I remember it being an Avanti II, but it was a steel bumper one. The
                      car had been in an accident, and it was claimed that it was not able
                      to be repaired, BUT, the fiberglass was able to be repaired ... so I
                      dont see how the frame could have been that bad off. The rails were
                      cut off .. and the K cars subframe welded in. I remember thinking
                      at the TIME that the car should have been parted out instead, its bad
                      that a once proud Avanti should drag its rear end around like a poor
                      paralysed dog. Should have died with dignity, then become FWD.[xx(][V]

                      Tom
                      '63 Avanti R1, '03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, TKO 5-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves.
                      Check out my disc brake adapters to install 1994-2004 Mustang disc brakes on your Studebaker!!
                      http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...bracket-update
                      I have also written many TECH how to articles, do a search for my Forum name to find them

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        At Frank Ambrogio's '56 Golden Hawk site, http://1956goldenhawk.com/ , you can read about the front end weight story. Under "Options" there's a recent article, "56J Front End Weight Bunk", about how the '56 came to be declared nose heavy by the auto press. Actual weight comparisons of the Packard components vs Stude are in the news letters, also available on site. Weights are much closer than tradition has it. I was supprised that the Ultramatic was lighter than the OD.
                        I think the weight was further forward, with the Packard. It would be interesting to compare weight on each wheel.
                        Mike M.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I totally agree.
                          There are a whole bunch of big block Chevrolet powered C/K's and pickups on the road that run and handle just fine. A truck can be done even easier, room and weight wise.
                          Jeff[8D]



                          quote:Originally posted by Mike

                          At Frank Ambrogio's '56 Golden Hawk site, http://1956goldenhawk.com/ , you can read about the front end weight story. Under "Options" there's a recent article, "56J Front End Weight Bunk", about how the '56 came to be declared nose heavy by the auto press. Actual weight comparisons of the Packard components vs Stude are in the news letters, also available on site. Weights are much closer than tradition has it. I was supprised that the Ultramatic was lighter than the OD.
                          I think the weight was further forward, with the Packard. It would be interesting to compare weight on each wheel.
                          Mike M.
                          HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                          Jeff


                          Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                          Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Thanks Mike. I knew I wasn't too far off the mark on Frank's article. I have a hard copy of that piece and didn't care to try and find it in my "filing system"[xx(]

                            Miscreant at large.

                            1957 Transtar 1/2ton
                            1960 Larkvertible V8
                            1958 Provincial wagon
                            1953 Commander coupe
                            1957 President 2-dr
                            1955 President State
                            1951 Champion Biz cpe
                            1963 Daytona project FS
                            No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Now that I think of it, I have a hemmings article about the 56 G hawk, I do remember them saying it wasn't really the weight of the engine that made the car handle bad/nose heavy, it was the springs/placement of rear leafs.

                              1955 President

                              Location: Central PA
                              Job: Student @ Penn State
                              Love of Studebakers?: High

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X