Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finally Settled: Timing Chain vs. Gears

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

  • Bordeaux Daytona
    replied
    Originally posted by Mark57 View Post
    Hmmm... you "hi performance" guys. I see that no one has mentioned the fact they switched from Studebaker 6's with timing gears to McKinnon 6's with ... timing gears!! (I wonder which was better?)
    Ok, you answered the question before I asked it
    A friend's dad had a 68 4dr Impala that got into an accident. It was a six cylinder and the fiber timing gear got broken. So they had timing gears on the six cylinder chevy(McKinnon) engine after all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark57
    replied
    What about sixes??

    Hmmm... you "hi performance" guys. I see that no one has mentioned the fact they switched from Studebaker 6's with timing gears to McKinnon 6's with ... timing gears!! (I wonder which was better?)

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by wagonairedriver View Post
    Well, they had two v-8s before. Wouldn't it have been fun if they offered something like the 396 or 409 as an option for the Daytona?
    I believe that a 327 was considered.
    Also, a four barrel and dual exhaust power package was considered.

    Leave a comment:


  • wagonairedriver
    replied
    another option.

    Well, they had two v-8s before. Wouldn't it have been fun if they offered something like the 396 or 409 as an option for the Daytona?
    Last edited by wagonairedriver; 05-14-2013, 12:38 PM. Reason: spelling

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post
    I have experienced broken timing gears, on customers cars, but only loose timing chains that caused poor running, not failure.
    I realize I have to take your word for the accuracy of that statement, Gary, but I have never seen a no-run failure on a timing gear engine, Studebaker or otherwise.

    OTOH, I have experienced many personal and customer failures of timing chains that resulted in a no-run that required a tow, not the least of which was my own 1971 Barracuda convertible only 4 months ago! BP

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    In the 259 / 283 / 289 discussion, the answer was probably that the 259 was considered to be Studebaker's base V8, and the 283 McKinnon engine was to become the base V8, so he wanted to compare base V8 now with base V8 to be. BP

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
    "OUR" new engine????!!?? WHO did were they trying to kid??!?

    Craig
    The answer to your second question, Craig, is potential customers! BP

    Leave a comment:


  • 8E45E
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post
    Once you buy something, it is yours ("our").

    EDIT: He didn't state or imply that they designed or built the new engine.
    And it might have been 'new' to Studebaker, but the design was already ten years old by the 1965 model year. So hardly a 'new' engine at all!!

    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
    "OUR" new engine????!!?? WHO did were they trying to kid??!?

    Craig
    Once you buy something, it is yours ("our").

    EDIT: He didn't state or imply that they designed or built the new engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by BobPalma View Post
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Plymouth engine had sprocket & gear. That was explained as being superior because, "The camshaft drive load is distributed over many teeth on both the drive and driven gears, whereas the [allegedly inferior] timing gear arrangement distributes the load over just a couple teeth at a time."

    By George, I hadn't considered that! You learn something new every day. BP
    I think that you meant to say: sprockets & chain, not "sprocket & gear".

    I have experienced broken timing gears, on customers cars, but only loose timing chains that caused poor running, not failure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gunslinger
    replied
    Maybe the differences he wanted to accentuate were more apparent between the 259 Stude and 283 McKinnon engine? To use figures from the 289 might not be as dramatic or even not even support his contention in the letter.

    Leave a comment:


  • evilhawk
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy R. View Post
    I wonder why he only cited the 259 for comparison, and not the 289?
    I was wondering about this myself

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott
    replied
    If Studebaker had even made the smallest effort to have slightly different looking valve covers than standard Chevy 283s they could have said it was "our" engine with at least a smidgen of truth. But as it was, it must have made Studebaker owners feel like the corporation thought they were all idiots. I can fully understand why a lot of them were turned off with the new motors, since it was clear 1) they were Chevy motors and 2) Studebaker Corp. was trying to act like they weren't.

    Leave a comment:


  • r1lark
    replied
    Well, it's obvious that even Studebaker was well versed in propagana in 1964! (Or should we use the term 'corporate BS'? )

    Leave a comment:


  • avantilover
    replied
    Craig, I guess by "our" he meant the engine chosen to replace the Studebaker unit, not that it was a Studebaker unit. I presume you are just stirring.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X