Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engine displacement, no replacement for displacement!

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

  • Engine displacement, no replacement for displacement!

    I have a '52 232ci Commander engine in my 2R C-cab. All of those beautiful pics and discussion of Bob {roscomacaw} and his Big Inch 289 motor have really got me curious.
    I see that a 259 has the same bore as my 232 but just has a 3-9/16 stroke instead of a 3-3/8 stroke. Stude Int has NOS 259 cranks for sale for under $200.
    Will my block accept the stroker crank? If so, does it take different Rods to offset the stroke? Or different Pistons?
    Are my heads upgradeable, as in machining for larger valves and porting the ports, to flow better for the c.i. increase or would I have to buy 259/289 heads?

    Maybe I am just dreaming out loud, but I thought it is worth asking while I am sitting and waiting for parts.

  • #2
    There were quite a few engineering changes between the 232 and all later engines. These include significant reworking of the heads and valves. I'm not sure that the head bolt pattern is the same from 232 to others either.

    basically, they increased the bore of the 232 (along with these other changes I referred to) to make a 259.

    Then, they decreased the stroke to make the 224, then discontinued the 224.

    then, they increased the stroke to make the 289.

    the 224, 259 and 289 are all similar in design and interchangeability, except for the experimental high powered engines. The main difference in these engines, in stock configuration, is pistons and crankshafts.

    I don't know all the differences, but my thinking is that you want to start with the later block and later heads before doing any mods. By later, I mean 55 and newer.
    RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.


    10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
    4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
    5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon

    Comment


    • #3
      What Roy says.... To LOOK at all the Stude V8s, they appear to be all the same. While in many respects they are, you'd be ahead of the game to start with a later V8. Heck, I've got a full-flow here (I'd have to go look, but I think it's a 289) that I'd be happy to have you haul off. And it was running fine, save for needing valve seals, when I pulled it a year ago. You can easily install larger valves in these later heads. R3 valves, for that matter.
      The valves in the 232 look like roofing nails by comparison to what they used on the 224/259/289 engines. Tiny exhaust ports and manifolds too.
      No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

      Comment


      • #4
        kmac530, you've got it backwards. The strokes of the 232 and the 259 are the same, in fact the cranks are interchangeable for those two (minor length differences). It is the bores that are different. The 232 has a bore of 3 3/8, while the 259, 224, and the 289 all have a bore of 3 9/16. The other main difference between the early block and the later block are the cam followers (lifters). The early ones are bigger and heavier. Early cam wear problems were addressed by reducing the weight of the moving mass in the valve train. The later heads will fit on the early blocks, but you also have to use the later exhaust manifolds, and if you go that far you may as well go with one of the later intake manifolds also. The 232 is a real good engine, but so is the 259. In fact, all the V8 engines based on that block were good engines. You would need to buy the newer heads, I don't think you could modify the 232 heads to do much.

        Comment


        • #5
          Whacker: I never claimed to be bright, I did get that backwards. I wrote it down correctly on a note pad, but read it backwards when I posed my question...I pound nails for a living, there is a reason for that.

          Rosco: Thanks for the clarification and education. I was actually kidding in the other thread when I asked for your motor. I am very interested in a donor motor though. I so badly want to keep this truck as Stude as possible and since it is already converted to a Stude V8, I would like to keep it that way. I am still trying to get this motor running, just got my new starter this evening now I just need to fit it, but having a known running motor would be VERY nice. Especially a higher HP motor...I am a racer afterall, even if it is only motocross racing I still love my HP.
          PM me if you are serious about hauling it off, I love a road trip. If I could only figure out how to get it strapped on the back of my BMW R1100RT street bike, nice ride up to Central Ca right now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Do I hear someone say "road trip??" My little Ford Ranger should handle the load of a Stude. Call me.
            59 Lark wagon, now V-8, H.D. auto!
            60 Lark convertible V-8 auto
            61 Champ 1/2 ton 4 speed
            62 Champ 3/4 ton 5 speed o/drive
            62 Champ 3/4 ton auto
            62 Daytona convertible V-8 4 speed & 62 Cruiser, auto.
            63 G.T. Hawk R-2,4 speed
            63 Avanti (2) R-1 auto
            64 Zip Van
            66 Daytona Sport Sedan(327)V-8 4 speed
            66 Cruiser V-8 auto

            Comment


            • #7
              It would be worth the drive up just to see the Stude table saw/ rolling shop.

              Comment


              • #8
                Everyone says there's no replacement for displacement and the super & turbo charged Stude V8s keep proving them wrong.

                The only real difference between the 224, 259, and 289 is the crank and the pistons. They use the same rods with different wrist pin heights on the piston. You can put the later heads on a 232 block. We did it with our Bonneville car. Heck, we went 138 mph with only 182 cubic inches. If your 232 is in good shape, just do some minor hop-up work to it, but if it is time for a rebuild I don't think there's a better way to go than to build up a mildly hopped up 259 if only because the 259 crank is much cheaper!

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you decide to build a 259, you can use your 232 crank if it isn't bent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BobWaitz View Post
                    Everyone says there's no replacement for displacement and the super & turbo charged Stude V8s keep proving them wrong.

                    The only real difference between the 224, 259, and 289 is the crank and the pistons. They use the same rods with different wrist pin heights on the piston. You can put the later heads on a 232 block. We did it with our Bonneville car. Heck, we went 138 mph with only 182 cubic inches. If your 232 is in good shape, just do some minor hop-up work to it, but if it is time for a rebuild I don't think there's a better way to go than to build up a mildly hopped up 259 if only because the 259 crank is much cheaper!
                    In theory though a turbo or supercharger incrases power by adding more air into the same size cylinder. So while the engine itself does not increase in displacement, the cubic inches amount of fuel and air to be compressed is definately increased, so my viewpoint is that a compressor of any sort DOES add displaecment. So I stand by my "no replacement for Displacement" title. This has been a topic discussed on other forum before and there are arguments for and against wheter a compressor ACTUALLY adds displacement or not, but it in "effect" does in my humble opinion.

                    A motor simply put is a pump. Fuel mix in, compress it, power out. The bigger the pump the more the volumn the more the power. A motor being a pump of "x" size IS increased in size if you ADD another pump to it. Seems simple to me. A compressor, i.e. turbo or supercharger, IS bolt on cubic inches.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X