Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spare V8 engines

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

  • Spare V8 engines

    OK folks...It is so humid here. I'm so sweaty, I'm about to slide off this recliner. I just came in from cleaning off the number pads on these spare engines I've had for years. The hard part was clearing away enough clutter, avoiding wasp, black widow spiders, and who knows what other critters, to uncover them. One engine, is a 259 pulled from a 1962 Hawk with automatic, that was parted out about twenty years ago. That engine number is V455619. Besides not knowing what its internal problems might be, it has the "ribbed" block casting that was a subject of some negative comments here on the forum some time back. For me, one positive is that it has the Delco window type distributor.

    Next engine was given to me and described as a good running "Truck" 259. However, it has the number 2E2714. I'm not all that familiar with truck specific engine numbers, but this one looks a lot like the number of a 224 engine in a 55 truck chassis I have. This one has the water manifold that looks more like the one on my 60 Lark.

    Last is the engine in the '55 chassis. That number is 2E6785. I'm thinking it is the original engine to the truck. It has the truck specific water manifold.

    Any of you knowledgeable "numbers" folks want to take a stab at these numbers before I go digging out manuals????
    John Clary
    Greer, SC

    SDC member since 1975

  • #2
    Here you go, John.

    http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/V8EngineID.asp

    '60 Lark 259.
    '55 truck.
    '55 truck.

    On the Lark engine... Don't worry about the ribbed castings. StudeRich is the only person I've ever heard of having trouble with those blocks, and even then there wasn't any reason to condemn all of them.
    Last edited by mbstude; 08-07-2015, 11:27 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mbstude View Post
      Here you go, John.

      http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/V8EngineID.asp

      '60 Lark 259.
      '55 truck.
      '55 truck.

      On the Lark engine... Don't worry about the ribbed castings. StudeRich is the only person I've ever heard of having trouble with those blocks, and even then there wasn't any reason to condemn all of them.
      Thanks a bunch Matt. As we know, just because these engines might be sporting a particular number for a displacement...don't mean they still are. However, everybody has told me that I would not be happy with a 224 V8 installed into my '55 Truck. Therefore, I was hoping one of these truck engines would be, at least, a 259. I suppose I'll need to begin wrenching away to open them and evaluate what I have. My hesitation is that, too often, once you open one of these up, they never find their way back to usefulness. Especially, if life circumstances interfere and interrupt the momentum and progress of the project. The 259 Lark engine was set up for an automatic. So, for me to couple it to a three speed O/D...I'll have to change the crank flange bolts. Not a project killer though.

      I have already moved one engine onto the utility trailer that I've modified into an engine "test" stand. I've decided that this is a premature move. I just picked up a heavy duty plain old "Engine Stand" off craigslist this week. I think I'll mount engines on that before moving to the "Test" stand. No use attempting to run one until opening it up and determining what's there. I'm still hoping to stumble across a running one someone has set aside after installing a SBC. (even old guys can still fantasize)
      John Clary
      Greer, SC

      SDC member since 1975

      Comment


      • #4
        Only Stude V8 I ever had a rod bearing failure was in a ribbed block. Had good oil pressure, too.

        JT

        Comment


        • #5
          Quote jclary: "The 259 Lark engine was set up for an automatic. So, for me to couple it to a three speed O/D...I'll have to change the crank flange bolts. Not a project killer though."

          No; it is a LOT bigger deal than that, the Clutch Housing has to be Dial Indicated to the Crank centerline.

          Both of your Truck Engines did start out in life as 1955 224 V8 Truck Engines.


          Side Note:
          FOUR of my OWN Factory Original 1958 to 1960 Ribbed blocks, (3) 259 & 1 289 all with one Bad Rod Bearing under 60,000 Miles is not a coincidence, it's a TREND!
          The '59 was overhauled 3 Times even with a replacement crankshaft and Rods and the condition persisted, until the block was replaced and scrapped, so take your best guess.
          Last edited by StudeRich; 08-07-2015, 12:25 PM.
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner



          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jclary View Post
            However, everybody has told me that I would not be happy with a 224 V8 installed into my '55 Truck. Therefore, I was hoping one of these truck engines would be, at least, a 259.
            John,

            For what it's worth - my '55 E7 pickup has the 224 in it, and I love it. Has plenty of power and revs up quick. Plenty of power to pull that brick down the interstate at 65+ mph in overdrive with plenty of pedal left.

            I've driven plenty of 259s, but not in a pickup with lower gear ratios.
            Paul
            Winston-Salem, NC
            Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
              Quote jclary: "The 259 Lark engine was set up for an automatic. So, for me to couple it to a three speed O/D...I'll have to change the crank flange bolts. Not a project killer though."

              No; it is a LOT bigger deal than that, the Clutch Housing has to be Dial Indicated to the Crank centerline.
              Well...I have the tools, can read and follow directions, and have performed the "dial" task before. So, for me...not a project killer.

              For r1lark...thanks for the encouragement. I am persuadable. I'm still a bit puzzled as to why Studebaker de-stroked their V8 when others were producing big displacement, push rod bending big engines like the cast iron GM348 and similar power plants. I've become familiar with these Studebaker engines and, given the era of their technology, think they are as good as any. The engineering was better than many give credit. I know that there were some room for improvement, the aluminum "filler block" in the front is susceptible to thread stripping, felt seals prone to leak, and the oil pan gasket is "tricky." But, as in other brands, the main culprit seems to be neglect and poor maintenance.
              John Clary
              Greer, SC

              SDC member since 1975

              Comment


              • #8
                I drove a '55 Commander recently with a 224. It wasn't much different than driving a 2 barrel 259. And it was MUCH better than a Champion 6.

                I've also put a lot of miles on a friend's '59 Hawk with the original "ribbed" 259. The owner calls it his "floor sweep" engine (built with nothing but used parts he had lying around). The car has been driven regularly for the last decade and there haven't had any problems at all. Rich, what "condition persisted" after you replaced the crank? Did it spin rod bearings continuously? I just can't wrap my head around 2 years worth of production engines all being bad.

                Two months ago, a chapter member spun a bearing in an old Newman/Altman "crate" 232. I don't think that's a good enough reason to say that all factory replacement 232's are terrible.
                Last edited by mbstude; 08-07-2015, 12:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mbstude View Post
                  I drove a '55 Commander a month or so ago with a 224. It wasn't much different than driving a 2 barrel 259. And it was MUCH better than a Champion 6.

                  I've also put a lot of miles on a friend's '59 Hawk with the original "ribbed" 259. The owner calls it his "floor sweep" engine (built with nothing but used parts he had lying around) and there haven't had any problems at all. Rich, what "condition persisted" after you replaced the crank? Did it spin rod bearings continuously? I just can't wrap my head around 2 years worth of production engines all being bad.

                  Two months ago, a chapter member spun a bearing in an old Newman/Altman "crate" 232. I don't think that's a good enough reason to say that all factory replacement 232's are terrible.
                  Is there a better engine than the Champion 6? Oh yes, I guess my Commander 6 is as good or better. LOL

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mbstude View Post
                    /Cut/Rich, what "condition persisted" after you replaced the crank? Did it spin rod bearings continuously? I just can't wrap my head around 2 years worth of production engines all being bad.
                    No; none spun a Bearing, ALL Engines had ONE Rod Brg. wiped out, that is what continued.

                    No, it is not like ALL production engines during that time were bad, only most, some or ALL of the ones from the Mold with the Ribs.

                    I wish I could remember if it was always the same one and in all Engines, but it happened over 10-20 years and at the time I thought it was normal misuse by former owners, low Oil, all the common stuff.

                    I can not understand it either, maybe if I could have the one '58 President 289 I still have blueprinted and or maybe align bored, the issue would be found with poor cylinder alignment or insufficient Oil flow.
                    Last edited by StudeRich; 08-07-2015, 02:56 PM.
                    StudeRich
                    Second Generation Stude Driver,
                    Proud '54 Starliner Owner



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by r1lark View Post
                      John,

                      For what it's worth - my '55 E7 pickup has the 224 in it, and I love it. Has plenty of power and revs up quick. Plenty of power to pull that brick down the interstate at 65+ mph in overdrive with plenty of pedal left.

                      I've driven plenty of 259s, but not in a pickup with lower gear ratios.
                      Your opinions and results and truck in question may vary. A '55 E7 is the lightest possible truck and with overdrive has the best possible transmission. On the other hand, my '55 E12 with the 224" and 4-speed and 4.10 rear gears was the original buzzing little anvil. It accelerated too slowly to be what I consider fun to drive.

                      jack vines
                      PackardV8

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
                        Your opinions and results and truck in question may vary. A '55 E7 is the lightest possible truck and with overdrive has the best possible transmission...

                        jack vines
                        That's what I'm shooting for Jack. My E-5, upgraded to a V8, should equate to an E-7. Even with the six cylinder, back in 1984, the overdrive allowed me to average around 70mph cruising speed on the way to the international meet in Orlando. That is...once it hit the "flat land." I have other trucks for "Hauling."

                        These days, about the most this truck hauls is the little pedal truck seen here mounted on back. This pic was my daughter driving it on "Drive your Studebaker Day," back in 2009. This afternoon, it made an 8 mile foray to the local peach shed for a bag of fresh peaches.

                        July42009010.jpgNot that I've hung onto the truck for a few years...but, here is the same kid, in the same truck, a little time ago...

                        jen55stude.jpg
                        John Clary
                        Greer, SC

                        SDC member since 1975

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by r1lark View Post
                          John,

                          For what it's worth - my '55 E7 pickup has the 224 in it, and I love it. Has plenty of power and revs up quick. Plenty of power to pull that brick down the interstate at 65+ mph in overdrive with plenty of pedal left.

                          I've driven plenty of 259s, but not in a pickup with lower gear ratios.
                          The original engine in my brothers pickup was a 224. It drove fine, but he pulled it because of an cooling issue and replaced it with a fresh 289.
                          sigpic

                          "In the heart of Arkansas."
                          Searcy, Arkansas
                          1952 Commander 2 door. Really fine 259.
                          1952 2R pickup

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 52-fan View Post
                            The original engine in my brothers pickup was a 224. It drove fine, but he pulled it because of an cooling issue and replaced it with a fresh 289.
                            Opinions may vary on this one, depending on the UNKNOWN Trans. and Rear end types and Ratios, also type/speed of use.
                            StudeRich
                            Second Generation Stude Driver,
                            Proud '54 Starliner Owner



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              .l
                              Originally posted by jclary View Post
                              That's what I'm shooting for Jack. My E-5, upgraded to a V8, should equate to an E-7. Even with the six cylinder, back in 1984, the overdrive allowed me to average around 70mph cruising speed on the way to the international meet in Orlando. That is...once it hit the "flat land." I have other trucks for "Hauling."

                              These days, about the most this truck hauls is the little pedal truck seen here mounted on back. This pic was my daughter driving it on "Drive your Studebaker Day," back in 2009. This afternoon, it made an 8 mile foray to the local peach shed for a bag of fresh peaches.

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]46275[/ATTACH]Not that I've hung onto the truck for a few years...but, here is the same kid, in the same truck, a little time ago...

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]46276[/ATTACH]
                              Good looking family Studebaker!
                              sigpic1957 Packard Clipper Country Sedan

                              "There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer"
                              Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle
                              "I have a great memory for forgetting things" Number 1 son, Lee Chan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X