Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Truck Engne number 1R22458

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

  • Truck Engne number 1R22458

    OK, I know that for many of you, discussing 6 cylinder Studebaker engines is about as popular as your next tooth ache, but bare with me. If I am understanding my Truck Shop Manual that covers trucks from 1949 to 1956 (not a reprint), this particular engine is a 1954. It is the last year of the 169.6 (170) engines.

    I got it from a man who removed it from a 1955 truck he and his son were rodding. While looking in the shop manual to identify this engine, I see the column for H.P. is labeled H.P. Rating. Under that rating it list both the 169.6 and the new 185 engines as having the same H.P. rating. Also, if this stuff isn't confusing enough already...the Studebaker manual list the Horse Power Rating at 26! How's that for suppressing your tendency to brag about how powerful your motor is.

    In another vintage book I have (Automotive Encyclopedia) it gives the H.P. of the 169.6 as 85 H.P. @4000RPM and the 185 engine as having 101 H.P. @4000 RPM. The main difference I see in the two engines is an additional 3/8" in the stroke. All other specs seem to stay the same including compression ratio. Seems like a lot of additional H.P. for such a tiny measurement of stroke. These are the kind of things that fascinate number and mathematical challenged minds like mine.
    John Clary
    Greer, SC

    SDC member since 1975

  • #2
    "but bare with me. " Ya know John, I could and would BEAR with you, but I'm just not of a mind to BARE with you. Nothin' personal, mind you. There have been times I've set at this very keyboard without a stitch on. I've felt safe at such times because this aging laptop doesn't have an integral webcam staring at me!

    BTW, I don't mind talking about the sixes. I wish we'd hear MORE about the 226/245 "Commander" engine. There's VERY little mention of these workhorses on these forums. Also, Stude reverted to 169.6 in '59. That flathead configuration persisted (in trucks and cars) thru 1960 - then trucks shared the revamped 169.6 Overhead Valve that debuted in '61.
    Last edited by Roscomacaw; 01-07-2013, 11:32 AM.
    No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Roscomacaw View Post
      "but bare with me. " Ya know John, I could and would BEAR with you, but I'm just not of a mind to BARE with you. Nothin' personal, mind you. There have been times I've set at this very keyboard without a stitch on. I've felt safe at such times because this aging laptop doesn't have an integral webcam staring at me!
      Well, as you can see, language is another of my weak points (among many). And so you'll know...I'm not bare cause I'm wearing suspenders. I have garnered enough wisdom to conclude that attaching suspenders without pants could be very painful.
      John Clary
      Greer, SC

      SDC member since 1975

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah! Suspenders - the cheap alternative to a tummy-tuck & butt lift. Or Viagra for that matter! Butt of course, this has little to do with flathead six engines.
        No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yep, this thread has really gotten off to a rip-roaring start. Proof that Attention Deficit Disorder is not limited to "widdle kids."

          However, I really would like to have some insight and input from some of you guys that really understand these engine specs.
          John Clary
          Greer, SC

          SDC member since 1975

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jclary View Post
            In another vintage book I have (Automotive Encyclopedia) it gives the H.P. of the 169.6 as 85 H.P. @4000RPM and the 185 engine as having 101 H.P. @4000 RPM. The main difference I see in the two engines is an additional 3/8" in the stroke. All other specs seem to stay the same including compression ratio. Seems like a lot of additional H.P. for such a tiny measurement of stroke. These are the kind of things that fascinate number and mathematical challenged minds like mine.

            John, in fairness, when Studebaker went to the 185 c.i. displacement they also raised the compression ratio which helped the HP. When they went back to the 170 c.i. in 1959, but maintained the higher compression, the HP only dropped from 101 to 92. So, in my interpretation, the real difference in that 3/8" of stroke is 9 HP.


            Last edited by Mark57; 01-07-2013, 04:20 PM.
            Mark Hayden
            '66 Commander
            Zone Coordinator
            Pacific Can-Am Zone

            Comment


            • #7
              The stroking in 1955 raised the horsepower from 85 to 92. It went up again over the next couple of years as the compression ratio was raised. As Mark said, I think the max was 101. The same thing happened to the 245, which topped out at 118, as I recall. Some numbers are in chapter 10 here, and in the associated Appendix A.
              http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com...uckHistory.asp

              The 26hp number is taxable horsepower, used at one time in some states and in Europe.to determine registration fees. I can't remember how it is calculated, but it's based on engine bore and stroke and ignores anything else.
              Skip Lackie

              Comment


              • #8
                Click image for larger version

Name:	54 pick up specs.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	100.1 KB
ID:	1678428
                This is side one of the 1954 truck spec sheet. The information re the engine size and H.P. in column one under "ENGINE" is correct. Te 3R5 had the Champ engine whereas the 3R6 had the Commander.
                Richard Quinn
                Editor emeritus: Antique Studebaker Review

                Comment


                • #9
                  I need to make a correction. In my initial post, I said that I was looking in a "Shop" manual. Well, it is not a shop manual, but rather, a "PARTS" manual. The chart I was reading from was mainly intended for identification purposes. The Studebaker "Parts" manual does not address compression specs for the engine and I suspect the horsepower rating being listed as the same was probably a clerical error.

                  The old Automotive Encyclopedia book I have looks to be more of a text book that was intended for use in a automotive mechanics and engineering class and has multiple copyright dates beginning in 1954 with the latest being 1960. Since the 185 engine was new for 1955 it is possible for the 7.5 compression to be a typo because looking at the same engine for 1956, the compression is shown as 7.8 through the 1958 year. However, this book shows the 1959 170 engine to have 8.3 compression and 90 H.P. @4000RPM.

                  I guess all this stuff is important to some folks...I'm always happy when they fire up and run. Even the most humble engine can embarrass you if you misdiagnose a problem...and a speeding ticket if you are inattentive.
                  John Clary
                  Greer, SC

                  SDC member since 1975

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    An engine number that low is probably a 1949-50 engine. 1954 starting engine number was 1R-149001.

                    The taxable horsepower rating began as RAC (Royal Auto Club) rating, later adopted in the US as SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) or NACC (National Automobile Chamber of Commerce) horsepower. It's based on engine bore, reasoning that bigger engines should pay more taxes. This is why old Brit engines had small bores and long strokes. The formula is bore squared, times number of cylinders, divided by 2.5. Work out the math and you'll see why a 170 and a 185 have the same taxable horsepower.
                    I believe the state of Missouri still uses a similar system for licensing.
                    Last edited by Dwain G.; 01-07-2013, 05:47 PM. Reason: added info

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dwain G. View Post
                      An engine number that low is probably a 1949-50 engine. 1954 starting engine number was 1R-149001.
                      Yeah, Dwain. I said that I am number challenged. That the distributor looks like the one in my '48 and the integrated dipstick attached to the oil filler, like the '48...all makes sense. Who knows how many engines came and went before that little '55 truck finally got the Chevy 350?

                      "Back in the day"...to the average Joe...one flat-head was probably as good as any other.

                      Today, I bought a universal temp gauge. I have another pressure gauge I plan to install directly into one of the oil galley plugs on the side of the engine. IF and WHEN I get the engine fired up...I'll check the oil pressure and use a stethoscope to check for bearing noises. If everything checks out, I might just install it and run it some.
                      John Clary
                      Greer, SC

                      SDC member since 1975

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X