Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

224V8 Studebaker's "OUTLIER"

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

  • 224V8 Studebaker's "OUTLIER"

    In statistics/data gathering, there is a term "outlier" used to describe an anomaly, or observation, not supported or explained by the sum of the data. Usually, it is an indication that an error exist somewhere in the process. But, not always.

    Not wanting to completely DE-rail another member's thread, where the subject is, that his original engine has been replaced, I've decided to create this thread. The reason is, that, for some reason to which I have never heard a definitive explanation...Studebaker, seems to have taken a step "sideways," instead of a forward progression, in engine production when they produced the 224 V8.

    The subject got me to thinking...what other similar "outlier" examples (of engine offerings) are there? My first thought, was the Ford 260V8. The Chevy 265 came to mind, but I don't think it qualifies, due to the fact that it was an introductory V8, much like the Studebaker 232, and things "progressed" from there. The Studebaker 224, and the Ford 260's were short run, and a way-stop, among a trend of "bigger is better," trend.

    Therefore, I thought I would throw the subject of "outlier" engines to the General-Studebaker Specific forum,at large, and see where the discussion leads. Since the focus began with the Studebaker 224, I thought this would be very appropriate to place the discussion here. If there are other engines, by Studebaker, that would fit the description as "outlier"...let us know. However, examples of similar occurrences, among other makes, could be informative as well.
    John Clary
    Greer, SC

    SDC member since 1975

  • #2
    John, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are going for here, but I'll throw out just a few of what I think you are looking for:

    Chevy 262 smallblock
    Oldsmobile 330 V8
    Pontiac 326 V8
    Pontiac 301 V8
    Ford 255 smallblock V8

    Not sure your example of the Ford 260 smallblock fits your outlier category - this was an expansion of the original 221 smallblock but was short-lived because the performance wars were heating up and was subsequently enlarged to the longer lived 289 (Ford, not Studebaker )
    Last edited by r1lark; 06-20-2016, 02:56 PM.
    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Perhaps all of Chey's small blocks should be included. By playing with bore sizes and various strokes there are ups and downs and ups and downs all over the place, especially once smog regulations and mandatory mileage started, no rhyme or reason it seems. Don't know of any other Stude variations--maybe in the flatheads.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ford also did various things with the FE series .

        332 , 352 , 390 , 406 , 427 etc .
        Bill H
        Daytona Beach
        SDC member since 1970
        Owner of The Skeeter Hawk .

        Comment


        • #5
          The Ford 360 FE truck engine comes to mind. It was 390 block, rods, and pistons with a 352 crank. Made no sense or power.
          james r pepper

          Comment


          • #6
            The Stude 224 was a right on engine for me and a few other racers of the 60's. Including Bill Burke. There would have been no every day record holding Studes without it. The engine in EX-2143 had a .040" over full flow block with a 224 crank for 229 inches. My record setting UDRA M Stocker had a 3.625" bore and a 224 crank for 232ci. All other records were set under USAC Standards and Stude payed USAC over $100,000 to over see them. Money that you or I could only dream of back then.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by r1lark View Post
              John, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are going for here, but I'll throw out just a few of what I think you are looking for:

              Chevy 267 smallblock
              Oldsmobile 330 V8
              Pontiac 326 V8
              Pontiac 301 V8
              Ford 255 smallblock V8

              Not sure your example of the Ford 260 smallblock fits your outlier category - this was an expansion of the original 221 smallblock but was short-lived because the performance wars were heating up and was subsequently enlarged to the longer lived 289 (Ford, not Studebaker )
              Well...to demonstrate/admit, there's a lot I "don't" know...I am unfamiliar with the Ford 221 or a 255. My intent was to ferret out those instances of engines offered that could NOT be included as a technical "progression/improvement," over its predecessors.

              Originally posted by karterfred88 View Post
              Perhaps all of Chey's small blocks should be included. By playing with bore sizes and various strokes there are ups and downs and ups and downs all over the place, especially once smog regulations and mandatory mileage started, no rhyme or reason it seems. Don't know of any other Stude variations--maybe in the flatheads.
              For purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure any SBC qualifies. Mainly, because there seems to be a "progression" of offerings. For example, the Chevy 265, like Studebaker, had no full flow oil filter. Oil filters were an option as a by-pass filter, just like Studebaker. I believe the progression, was a full flow filter with the 283 version. For purposes of this discussion, I'd like to avoid the entanglement of goofy "add-on" engineering "quackery" rushed to market in an attempt to comply with vague nefarious legislated regulations.

              Originally posted by jpepper View Post
              The Ford 360 FE truck engine comes to mind. It was 390 block, rods, and pistons with a 352 crank. Made no sense or power.
              This is a great example of what I am seeking in this conversation. If I ever knew of a Ford "360"...I have forgotten. While I'm confessing to shortcomings in my knowledge of "car stuff"...I will also admit that I'm probably full of "urban legend" myths as well. So, even if I appear confident in what I post, I appreciate knowledgeable correction.

              To add to jpepper's example, how 'bout the Chevy 348? My (faulty) memory is that it was a truck engine re-assigned to passenger cars. I also recall it getting a reputation, and thus, nicknamed, the "PUSH-ROD BENDER." In fact, it might be an "outlier" to the "outlier," since it might be the first "Big Block" Chevy V8. If so, it could be an "introductory" offering and their big blocks progressed from there. But, regarding the 348, I really don't know if it was their first big block engine.
              John Clary
              Greer, SC

              SDC member since 1975

              Comment


              • #8
                jpepper, the 360 may have not made sense or power, but at least it got horrible gas mileage, ha !

                jclary, the 221 was the 1st edition of the "thinwall" V-8 introduced in 62 as "the Fairlane V-8". Two barrel only, and the cubic inch size was done to celebrate the 1st ever Ford, the 221 c i flathead ! Shelby used this engine as the test fit in the earliest Cobras while waiting for the 260s to get to him. I had one in a 4 door 62 Fairlane, the little guy was smooth as silk, and slow as smoke off barnyard cowpiles on a cool morning. Oh, and the 255 Ford was a complete failure in 80 and 81 for the Fox platforms. I don't remember a single piece that would interchange for any kind of improvement possibilities, or else a replacement 302 cost less, but it was a bad move..

                Comment


                • #9
                  I've read that the Studebaker 250.8 cu in. eight was destroked in 1933 to 236 cu. in. I wonder what the reasoning was for that. Also, there was the change in the late 50s from the 185 6 to the 170. What a dumb idea that was.
                  Last edited by Scott; 06-20-2016, 10:45 AM.
                  "Madness...is the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups" - Nietzsche.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't know if the 348 was originally a truck engine. I had a friend who had one in a 58 wagon. BTW, the 348 became the 409 and eventually the 427! So maybe not the anomaly we are looking for.
                    78 Avanti RQB 2792
                    64 Avanti R1 R5408
                    63 Avanti R1 R4551
                    63 Avanti R1 R2281
                    62 GT Hawk V15949
                    56 GH 6032504
                    56 GH 6032588
                    55 Speedster 7160047
                    55 Speedster 7165279

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A Chevrolet 307.

                      What a dog!

                      Craig

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The one thing which makes it difficult to understand coming back with a smaller version when the larger already exist is there's no real manufacturing cost savings or fuel economy improvement; it's just all marketing. Someone asked why Studebaker went back to the 170"? Because the 1960 Ford 144", GM 145" and Mopar 170" compacts had smaller displacement engines and the perception was smaller = better fuel economy. However, when the public discovered those buzzing little anvils were so underpowered, the Big Three immediately increased displacement of their sick sixes to larger than the Stude.

                        Examples of wrong-way thinking:
                        170" Champion instead of 185"
                        224" Studebaker V8 instead of 259"
                        255" SBF instead of 302"
                        262"/307" SBC instead of 350"
                        360" BBF FE-series
                        366" BBC
                        370" BBF 385-series

                        jack vines
                        PackardV8

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          what was the supposed value of a 224? Short stroke?
                          Ron Dame
                          '63 Champ

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jclary View Post
                            In statistics/data gathering, there is a term "outlier" used to describe an anomaly, or observation, not supported or explained by the sum of the data. Usually, it is an indication that an error exist somewhere in the process. But, not always.

                            Not wanting to completely DE-rail another member's thread, where the subject is, that his original engine has been replaced, I've decided to create this thread. The reason is, that, for some reason to which I have never heard a definitive explanation...Studebaker, seems to have taken a step "sideways," instead of a forward progression, in engine production when they produced the 224 V8.

                            The subject got me to thinking...what other similar "outlier" examples (of engine offerings) are there? My first thought, was the Ford 260V8. The Chevy 265 came to mind, but I don't think it qualifies, due to the fact that it was an introductory V8, much like the Studebaker 232, and things "progressed" from there. The Studebaker 224, and the Ford 260's were short run, and a way-stop, among a trend of "bigger is better," trend.

                            Therefore, I thought I would throw the subject of "outlier" engines to the General-Studebaker Specific forum,at large, and see where the discussion leads. Since the focus began with the Studebaker 224, I thought this would be very appropriate to place the discussion here. If there are other engines, by Studebaker, that would fit the description as "outlier"...let us know. However, examples of similar occurrences, among other makes, could be informative as well.

                            I believe it was in Turning Wheels that I read Studebaker bought the design of the 224 from Cadillac whilst they were finishing out the design process for a Studebaker OHV V8 (the 259). Hence, this design doesn't seem to fit your definition, as the motor was produced by Studebaker, though a Cadillac design. Then again, I'm really not a gear-head and these things really aren't very clear to me. The thing I don't understand is why Studebaker discontinued the 245. It was a good motor and people like my Father loved it. The old man never really trusted a V8. Although he sure seemed to love the speed of one...
                            Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
                            K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
                            Ron Smith
                            Where the heck is Fawn Lodge, CA?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by studeclunker View Post

                              I believe it was in Turning Wheels that I read Studebaker bought the design of the 224 from Cadillac whilst they were finishing out the design process for a Studebaker OHV V8 (the 259). Hence, this design doesn't seem to fit your definition, as the motor was produced by Studebaker, though a Cadillac design. Then again, I'm really not a gear-head and these things really aren't very clear to me. The thing I don't understand is why Studebaker discontinued the 245. It was a good motor and people like my Father loved it. The old man never really trusted a V8. Although he sure seemed to love the speed of one...
                              Ron, there was nothing much different between a 259 and a 224 besides the crankshaft and pistons. They are not a different engine design. The 232 was in production for several years before the 224 came out. The 224 and 259 were upgrades of the original 232, especially in the area of the head porting, intake manifold, and exhaust manifolds.

                              I sorta doubt that you saw this in Turning Wheels .
                              Paul
                              Winston-Salem, NC
                              Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X