Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studebaker V8 vs Chevy valve trains

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

  • Studebaker V8 vs Chevy valve trains

    There's a discussion going on over in Stove-Huggers about a SBC V8 with a soft camshaft. The remark was made that folks always replace the timing sprockets and chain when installing one of the [frequently-needed] camshafts in those 60s and 70s SBC engines.

    It brought to mind a letter Cousin George Krem and I received from Studebaker President Roy Bender, dated November 27, 1964. Therein, he assured us the the new-for-1965 "Studebaker 283" V8 may be expected to have "longer life expectancy" due to having a sprocket and chain "timing gear arrangement" [as opposed to the Studebaker V8's timing gears, we assume].

    We chuckled and marveled upon receiving that letter, wondering just how "dumb" he thought we were to entertain such a remark. Here it is in its entirety:



    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.

  • #2
    Had to put my boots on!
    sigpic
    Claude Chmielewski
    Studeski
    http://www.studeski.com
    Fillmore, Wisconsin
    47 M-16 Truck
    53 2R5
    60 Lark VIII Convertible
    60 5E7 Champ pickup
    62 GT Hawk 4 speed
    63 Lark
    63 GT Hawk R2 4 speed
    64 Commander Wagonaire
    64 Daytona Convertible
    50 Champion Regal (parts car)
    36 Dictator
    36 Dictator in pieces

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by studeski View Post
      Had to put my boots on!
      You said it, Claude; not me!

      (But don't think I wasn't thinking it....) 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


      • #4
        To: Bob Palma,-----Well, basically He's a salesman trying to sell a product....What else could He really have said? (but that business about a timing chain being better than timing gears really was quite a laugh!)

        Comment


        • #5
          Studebaker President Roy Bender was as good as his word. Several days after I received Roy's letter, Regional Sales Manager Glenn Finney did contact me to arrange a test drive of the "new" 1965 Studebaker V8. Some time in December, 1964, Glenn showed up with a new '65 V8/automatic 2-door sedan for me to drive. Having driven many 289 V8 Studebakers, I wasn't impressed with the lack of low-end torque, but I didn't tell him that. I appreciated the effort made by Studebaker to reach out to a customer and do their best with the company in a difficult situation.

          At that time, I had just ordered the factory-built R3 engine which Bob and I installed in the Plain Brown Wrapper...we installed it about one month after the letter from Roy Bender arrived. I had owned the Wrapper for just four months, and it still had its original 289 engine; we had added an R2 camshaft, dual exhausts, viscous drive fan, the chrome dress-up kit, and a supercharger. Sort of a low compression (8.5) R2.

          George
          george krem

          Comment


          • #6
            We had a lifter seize up in our 65 283 powered wagonaire in the winter of '79. It bent a push rod and he bought our new minister's old '70 Oldsmobile to replace it. My dad was running Sears motor oil at the time, probably remanufactured stuff. He switched to Quaker State after that.
            So if it had been a Stude motor with solid lifters that wouldn't have happened. But if it hadn't bent that push rod it would've been driven into the ground so I guess it's good that it happened.

            Comment


            • #7
              The SBC has proven itself many times over to be a very durable long lasting power plant. In all honesty it was probably in Studebaker's best interest to use it given the circumstances at the time. HOWEVER..... When I would ask my Grandpa about why Studebaker went out of business his reply until his last day was, "Because they put that damn Chivvy engine in them and no one would buy them anymore!" We all know that is not correct, however alot of fiercely loyal Studebaker people have/had that opinion.
              Last edited by Kurt; 10-11-2012, 07:01 PM.
              1962 Champ

              51 Commander 4 door

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bordeaux Daytona View Post
                We had a lifter seize up in our 65 283 powered wagonaire in the winter of '79. It bent a push rod and he bought our new minister's old '70 Oldsmobile to replace it. My dad was running Sears motor oil at the time, probably remanufactured stuff. He switched to Quaker State after that.
                So if it had been a Stude motor with solid lifters that wouldn't have happened. But if it hadn't bent that push rod it would've been driven into the ground so I guess it's good that it happened.
                Please tell me/us...how having a lifter seize in the bore would bend a pushrod ? It would in fact destroy the cam..!
                And two, how would having solid lifters lived thru a lifter seisure over an hyd. lifter ?

                Now...if the internal piston seized in the lifter...all it would have done...is acted like a solid lifter...again not hurting anything but making some noise because of misadjustment..?

                I do agree with the second hand oil comments though..!

                Mike

                Comment


                • #9
                  The lifter didn't seize up in the bore it must have locked up inside. I guess I worded it wrong. Maybe the valve kissed the piston. I don't know , we never had the head off. I finally got a lifter and pushrod in 1987 and got it running again. It ran great until some rust in the gas tank blocked up the carb. When we got the gas tank down we noticed the hole in the rear frame and it's been sitting since then. I've acquired a parts car and hope to do a frame swap someday.
                  Last edited by Bordeaux Daytona; 10-11-2012, 12:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Good to be back reading the forum after a two or three year hiatus, even let my SDC membership lapse for the last year or two, just renewed it, different handle, and can't remember the old one. I have been busy in other areas, including my business, and that excuse will have to stand.
                    Some comments on the SBC:
                    I spent 1965 and part of "66 working for a Chev dealer (as a shop helper), I don't remember cam issues, but collapsed lifters were a common replacement item, usually by the time the engine reached 30000 miles. Considering the long life one can expect from today's lifters, I would surmise that the detergent oils of the day were still very much in their infancy, and just did not have the lubrication qualities needed for lifters to operate reliably. It should be noted however, that the Oldsmobiles and Caddies that were sold through that same dealer did not seem to have the lifter problems associated with the Chev six and eight engines. So perhaps part of the problem was metalurgy related, as the Olds and Caddy engines were somewhat newer designs.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think I have ever seen an engine manufacturer the didn't have a (flat tappet) cam problem at one time or another.....
                      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


                      • #12
                        Many years ago I bent some pushrods while trying to start a Stude I found in a blown down shed. It turned over but some of the valves had seized and so bent the some of the pushrods. I was too anxious to see it run. I learned my lesson and now pull the valve covers and check the valve movement. No other instance of bent pushrods that I have heard of or known about over the past 31 years of Studebaker ownership. I have bent a valve when a custom valve spring failed. The spring broke into three pieces. Len.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          the mid 60s pontiacs were what I remember going bad . they had the plastic on the cam gear and we always saw abunch of them come in when cold weather hit. We also had some where chain would stretch far enough to drop off the bottom of crank gear.
                          Randy Wilkin
                          1946 M5 Streetrod
                          Hillsboro,Ohio 45133

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Apparently the stude v8 had problems with cams form time to time too. My dad worked at the factory and bought a new 51 commander with stick and overdrive. The cam lobes wore down and the factory supplied new cam plus valve springs. Dad told me he had them not install the new springs on the theory that they would be worn a bit and not push so hard on the cam. That car stayed in the family until about 1963 when the front suspension partially collapsed. i think dad sold it for $50 to a young man with ideas about replacing the front end and taking it to the drag strip!
                            Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X