Announcement

Collapse

Get more Tips, Specs and Technical Data!

Did you know... this Forum is a service of the Studebaker Drivers Club? For more technical tips, specifications, history and tech data, visit the Tech Tips page at the SDC Homepage: www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tips.asp
See more
See less

Max displacement for Stude V8??

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

  • Engine: Max displacement for Stude V8??

    I don't know if this has been covered, as most Studebaker performance engine ideas have been. Many V8s that came out in the '50s were modified through the 70s through boring and stroking the orginal design, e.g. Pontiac's V8 started as a 287 and finished up as a 455 (factory, bigger by after market mods). So what could Studebaker have pushed their block to? We all know of the 340 cu in. engine in development when Studebaker halted US production, but I am assuming the max displacement could have been quite bit more?
    Dan White
    64 R1 GT
    64 R2 GT
    58 C Cab
    57 Broadmoor (Marvin)

  • #2
    The story I heard is that there were two engineering choices/paths/philosophies in the late forties; design for increased bore and stroke in the future, or design for increased compression ratio in the future.

    Studebaker designed for increased compression in later models, but the super gasoline that was talked about never appeared.

    The other guys either designed for increased displacement, or had the money for second generation designs a few years later.
    RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

    17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
    10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
    10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
    4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
    5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
    56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
    60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

    Comment


    • #3
      The SBC can go to 427" and the Studebaker V8 is larger internally and externally. Taking the bore out to 4.125" would require relocating the head bolt holes and a new cylinder head design, but physically it could be done.

      Practically, without major core and machinery line rework, 340" to 360" would be about it.

      jack vines
      PackardV8

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RadioRoy View Post
        The story I heard is that there were two engineering choices/paths/philosophies in the late forties; design for increased bore and stroke in the future, or design for increased compression ratio in the future.

        Studebaker designed for increased compression in later models, but the super gasoline that was talked about never appeared.

        The other guys either designed for increased displacement, or had the money for second generation designs a few years later.
        The engines which were first-generation OHV8 design contemporaries of the Studebaker and their maximum production displacement:
        Cadillac - 390"
        Oldsmobile - 394"
        Chrysler - 392"

        See a pattern there?

        jack vines
        PackardV8

        Comment


        • #5
          I always wondered why they didn't use the packard V8 after they joined up. It would have matched some of the other car companys for cubes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tsenecal View Post
            I always wondered why they didn't use the packard V8 after they joined up. It would have matched some of the other car companys for cubes.
            As a minimum, it would have entailed relocating the entire Packard engine manufacturing line to South Bend. They were different starting from the initial block castings.
            Gary L.
            Wappinger, NY

            SDC member since 1968
            Studebaker enthusiast much longer

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
              The SBC can go to 427" and the Studebaker V8 is larger internally and externally. Taking the bore out to 4.125" would require relocating the head bolt holes and a new cylinder head design, but physically it could be done.

              Practically, without major core and machinery line rework, 340" to 360" would be about it.

              jack vines
              Jack, I've heard this talked about before. That the head bolts would have to be relocated. But would all the head bolts need to be moved? Ford 289s only have 4 bolts surrounding each of thier cylinders. Might it be possible to lose one of the head bolts per cylinder and still "get away" with it? Just wild guessing here. Personally, I've always been a fan of power added fun. Especially turbos. Dial in the amount of fun you want, or how much engine you want to grenade, and let it rip.
              But why would it not be possible to move a bolt or two and lose one per piston and see what happens? The larger cubic inches would not need the added compression and copper head gaskets could make up for the sealing.
              I've always been intrigued by the engineering of these sorts of engine tweaking fantasies, but never participated (other than head porting, head milling and turbos).
              Best answered by the expert...
              sals54

              Comment


              • #8
                Oh boy...

                This is in fact NOT possible..!
                As proven by one of the guys on the Racing Site years ago. As I recall his blocks bore went to "about" 4.00" then water was struck! Last I heard, water and combustion do not play well together.

                You say put iron or steel liners in. Cool, here we go. Again BIG problem. This gentleman went about this task to its inevitable end and had liners installed in all eight cylinders. I recall mentioning that this would NOT work, and went thru a long explanation as to why. I was told that I was...full of it, as many of todays (and then) engines the deck and the cylinders were not connected. I explained that too. Still I was wrong..!

                Well wouldn't ya know it, but little by little we quit hearing about this big inch Stude engine...until it went away altogether..!

                You CANNOT...bore the cylinders into water, large enough to accept sleeves as the bottom of the block and the top of the block will no longer be connected..! Welding wont work, "tight/press" fits "might" work for about "one trip" at Bonneville or two passes at the drag strip.

                The ONLY...way this will work is like todays 500 inch, "billet" Hemi blocks that are used in Nitro Funny car and Top Fuel engines, high powered motorcycle engines and probably others that I'm not aware of...is to have LONG head studs that screw into bosses at the bottom of the block to hold the block together when the heads are bolted on..!
                The bottom of the Stude block is very thin. Not nearly enough material to screw long head studs into.

                So...unless anyone has a nose that can be "wiggled" and some magic conjured, or someone with a ton-o money to build a modern block...it ain't gonna happen.

                .060" = 3.622 bore dia. sure, .090" = 3.682 bore dia. MAYBE, .125" = 3.687 bore dia. not likely in most blocks, anything more...where are you getting your drugs?

                Mike

                P.s. - And for the power that most would "like" to make, five or six studs are a must. No one with any sense would built a monster like this and use only four studs around each cylinder to seal the heads to the block. Just asking for problems.
                Last edited by Mike Van Veghten; 06-15-2019, 10:48 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm running a engine bored to 3.750 for 320 ci.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Richard Poe is running (running) a naturally aspirated high compression 343 cid Stude engine right now.
                    Digger Dave Molnar has a naturally aspirated 334 cid Stude engine.
                    Crank stroke and bore size are the only major displacement difference

                    (opinion)
                    As to 'why' Studebaker did not upsize their engine?
                    They made a massive investment (for them) on the automated engine machining center when they came out with their V8. They 'did' make as many displacement changes as possible while staying within that machines capability.
                    The machine tied their hands from beginning to end. They were locked in from the foundry molds to the final assembly. The only way they could go bigger is to build a whole new large bore assembly production machine, and add the entire before and after process. That was never going to happen considering the board of directors decisions.
                    But, On the bright side. Those decisions also brought the purchase of Paxton, and the addition of the Granatelli's to the mix. "If" a large bore engine had come along (say, the Packard engine line), then all we would have seen is a larger displacement engine...all stock...all dull.. all heavy..
                    My opinion is the Paxton purchase brought more marketing excitement, some performance power options, and helped the 'image' of Studebaker.


                    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


                    • #11
                      I cant wait for the next Engine Masters Challenge. a 341 inch Stude was entered but ign failed. some big HP numbers were given by Old engine designs 318 Poly, 272 "Y" block for instance but like Sals54, turbo's are great power adders. While still a working stiff i spent hours boring a junk Stude block to water, a 64 block. 7 cylinders were pronounced good, 8th hit water at .090 and would have been sleeved but health couldn't stand the strain. early retirement and the loss of the use of all that lovely machine shop equipment turned me to turbo's. oh well that big inch stuff will have to wait! Luck Doofus

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by doofus View Post
                        I cant wait for the next Engine Masters Challenge. a 341 inch Stude was entered but ign failed. <snip>
                        It is happening.
                        The new rules package for the Hot Rod Magazine Engine Masters Challenge "Old Iron Class" limit the displacement to .065" max overbore from a factory OE displacement. No stroker cranks. The "Studebaker Power" team entry this year is going to be a .060" overbore of a 304cid displacement. Naturally aspirated, single carb.


                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
                          Oh boy...

                          This is in fact NOT possible..!
                          As proven by one of the guys on the Racing Site years ago. As I recall his blocks bore went to "about" 4.00" then water was struck! Last I heard, water and combustion do not play well together.
                          Mike

                          P.s. - And for the power that most would "like" to make, five or six studs are a must. No one with any sense would built a monster like this and use only four studs around each cylinder to seal the heads to the block. Just asking for problems.
                          Mike... this is why I ask the questions. I don't know all that was done to achieve some of the bigger cubes the guys are running. And I know that for some, this is beating a dead horse... having been investigated to the nth degree. I'm one of those on the outside, looking in when it comes to the machining/engineering side of things.
                          My skills are limited in this area, but my curiosity is not.
                          I remember a time back in the Dick Datson days when it was said that anything over 320" was not possible for a Stude V8. Someone obviously figured it out.
                          sals54

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You can go the other way, too. Our engine (also built by Digger Dave) is 182 cubic inches. It's a 232 block slightly bored with a 224 crank destroked from 2-13/16 to 2-1/2.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK View Post
                              The "Studebaker Power" team entry this year is going to be a .060" overbore of a 304cid displacement. Jeff
                              Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain
                              When the 289" is bored .060", the displacement is 298.885". That was how the prototype R3s were created.

                              The production R3s were overbored .093" for 304.5", so, if we're beginning with a 3.656" bore +.060", we're up to 3.716" bore for 314.5".

                              That will require sonic testing. Many full-flow blocks won't take that much overbore.

                              jack vines
                              Last edited by PackardV8; 06-16-2019, 09:27 AM.
                              PackardV8

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X