Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crankshaft casting numbers

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

  • Crankshaft casting numbers

    In this month issue in TW, It states that casting number 523774 is for a 245 motor. But yet, I have 2 motors setting here for rebuild with casting numbers 523168. Now, Look at this.

    https://www.studebakerparts.com/stud...e=forging.html

    Who is correct????

  • #2
    I just spoke with Carl at Studebaker West. He states that Casting Number 523168 is for a 245 Studebaker Commander 6.

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/cranknum2007.txt

      Comment


      • #4
        The following information is self-explanatory, beginning with my inquiry to Andy Beckman at the museum, and should put this issue to rest. BP


        Hi, Andy;

        'Sorry to bother you, but an SDC member insists information in the May Co-Operator is wrong. I've documented it all I can and so has Dwain Grindinger, but I believe the member is getting flawed information off the internet.

        RE: Crankshaft casting (forging) numbers for the big postwar Commander Six.

        Can you verify: Crankshaft Forging (casting) number 523774 is for a 245 cubic inch engine. I just need a yes or no answer for that question, from an original Studebaker source.

        Also, what crankshaft carries forging #523168? Is that for a 226 or a 245? That may help convince him.

        Thanks. Bob



        Dear Bob:Part #523774 is for a 1949 245 crankshaft. Just the bare shaft, with no other parts on it. Add the pilot bushing, and you get Crankshaft Assembly Part #523168 Andy


        Hi, Roy;

        I copied you with a memo from Andy Beckman, Archivist at The Studebaker National Museum, when I asked him about this. We are getting pretty far away from original Studebaker documents on the internet, so it is best to "go to the source" when a question arises.

        I believe the number 523774 never had anything to do with a 226 crankshaft, so my response to the inquiry from member Neil Wollam stands as printed in the May 2011 Co-Operator. The subject crankshaft about which he inquired is for a 245, not a 226. The main bearing journal diameter Neil reported is also consistent with a 245.

        There have been errors in The Co-Operator in the past and will probably be more in the future, but we try to hold them to a minimum with considerable checking and cross-checking before going to press, especially when there is anything potentially questionable.

        Cheers and best.

        Bob Palma
        Technical Editor,
        Turning Wheels
        We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

        Ayn Rand:
        "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

        G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by royvaldez View Post
          In this month issue in TW, It states that casting number 523774 is for a 245 motor. But yet, I have 2 motors setting here for rebuild with casting numbers 523168. Now, Look at this.

          https://www.studebakerparts.com/stud...e=forging.html

          Who is correct????
          BOTH! Since both numbers have been observed on crankshafts having the larger journal sizes of a 245. Both numbers are also shown in bearing catalogs for 245 engines.
          AL SORAN RACING

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dwain G. View Post
            BOTH! Since both numbers have been observed on crankshafts having the larger journal sizes of a 245. Both numbers are also shown in bearing catalogs for 245 engines.
            Indeed, Dwain. Andy didn't come right out and say it, but this might be one of those rare (and I do mean rare) instances where a casting number and a part number are one and the same.

            Let's face it, it would have been all but impossible to buy a "plain" 523774 crankshaft without a pilot bushing, so 523774 may have served as both a casting number and a part number. (Neil Wollam, who asked the question that started all this, stated that 523774 was cast on the subject crankshaft in his possession.)

            As Andy and the Parts Books say, the more common number was 523168, which was a 523774 crankshaft with pilot bushing fitted. 523168 would be the service part ordered by someone who wanted a new 245 crankshaft.

            In any case, both 523774 and 523168 were always associated with a 245 crankshaft; the question at hand.

            (Now, I'm trying to think of another example where a casting/forging number also served as a part number.) BP
            We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

            Ayn Rand:
            "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

            G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

            Comment


            • #7
              (Now, I'm trying to think of another example where a casting/forging number also served as a part number.) BP

              _____________________________________________

              Six cylinder heads are a good example.
              AL SORAN RACING

              Comment

              Working...
              X