Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Identifying what I think is a 1964 289

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

  • Engine: Identifying what I think is a 1964 289

    Is a Studebaker V8 with engine number PJ518 a 1964 289? As I understand the numbering convention, P=289, I don't know what the J means and I think 518=May 18th. Can someone confirm or explain my misunderstanding(s)? Thanks Howard
    Howard - Los Angeles chapter SDC
    '53 Commander Starliner (Finally running and driving, but still in process)
    '56 Golden Hawk (3 speed/overdrive, Power steering - Running, but not yet driving)
    '62 GT Hawk (4 speed, A/C, Power steering - running and DRIVING!)

  • #2
    Everything you wanted to know about engine numbers..

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

    I think yours is 289 made on (J)September 5th.

    Too bad it was not PJ312.

    Comment


    • #3
      Something's wrong here. An engine number PJ518 would have been a 289 (the P), built in September (the J), in 1965 (the 5), and on the 18th day. That is, a 289 V8 assembled on Sept. 18, 1965. But Studebaker didn't build engines after 1964. Are you sure that isn't a "3" (instead of a 5)?
      -Dwight

      Comment


      • #4
        My mistake (old eyes). It IS PJ318.
        Sebastian, I am missing something; what would have made PJ312 'better"?
        Last edited by brngarage; 07-02-2019, 08:20 AM.
        Howard - Los Angeles chapter SDC
        '53 Commander Starliner (Finally running and driving, but still in process)
        '56 Golden Hawk (3 speed/overdrive, Power steering - Running, but not yet driving)
        '62 GT Hawk (4 speed, A/C, Power steering - running and DRIVING!)

        Comment


        • #5
          My guess is, it would be a reference to 312 Cu. Inches, which IS possible with some serious Boring!
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

          Comment


          • #6
            ....or with a 3.92 stroke, preserving cylinder wall integrity. Or perhaps only bore .030 over to 3.5925" and stroke the crank .225 to 3.85", while retaining short-block integrity that will endure thousands of 6000+ RPM runs.
            Would it work? Richard Poe (63larkr1) running a 4.00' stroker has turned 11.2 sec. quarter mile times. Reportedly a stroked crankshaft was employed by Granatelli in the "R-3" Avanti R1025, and even with reported 7,000 rpm shifts, it is still holding together as they assembled it 57 years latter. To me that beats the hell out of boring a block till it has tissue thin walls and is turned into a chunk of scrap iron in a single season.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jessie J. View Post
              ....or with a 3.92 stroke, preserving cylinder wall integrity. Or perhaps only bore .030 over to 3.5925" and stroke the crank .225 to 3.85", while retaining short-block integrity that will endure thousands of 6000+ RPM runs.
              Would it work? Richard Poe (63larkr1) running a 4.00' stroker has turned 11.2 sec. quarter mile times. Reportedly a stroked crankshaft was employed by Granatelli in the "R-3" Avanti R1025, and even with reported 7,000 rpm shifts, it is still holding together as they assembled it 57 years latter. To me that beats the hell out of boring a block till it has tissue thin walls and is turned into a chunk of scrap iron in a single season.
              As described 3.5625"x 4" = 319". Other's costs and results may differ if there's a brother-in-law in the welded stroker business, but here's most recent welded stroker crank I had done (which, BTW, took more than a year there and back.):
              Crankshaft welded, offset-ground, polished, straightened, nitrided, balanced - $2,000
              Custom forged stroker pistons - $1,000
              Round-trip shipping - $175

              The most recent 308"; 3.68" X 3.625" cost $250 more than a typical precision rebuild.

              jack vines
              PackardV8

              Comment


              • #8
                A lot of extra money for a few cubic inches that you will never feel on the street if you ask me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Anyone running a naturally aspirated 308 that can post a shot for us of their low 11 second et time slips?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wouldn't count on that happening. To turn low 11's even in a 2800 lb car you need about 500 hp. Only way is a 308 in a stripped lark with about a 150 hp bottle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Point was, additional cubic inches in a Studebaker V-8 DO work, and can in combination with other normal performance modifications, contribute significantly to acceleration performance over smaller displacement builds. Richard Poe turns low 11 second quarter mile ETs with his naturally aspirated 344 inch Studebaker Lark.
                      A full on performance build up on ANY displacement Studebaker V-8 is costly. $10,000 is the figure often mentioned. At that level $3k for a stroker kit is not all that much more, and it really doesn't rise by that full amount above a 308, because that 308 is also going require forged pistons, and the best rods and crank preparation available, so the only major additional cost would be the 4" stroke crank at around 2k. Richard reports that it drops right into place in the stock Stude block with no clearance grinding required.
                      And why not? Many of the Ford and Mopar racers have twice that amount tied up in their engine builds. It seems that the old mentality is thoroughly entrenched;
                      "A Studebaker is not worth spending serious money on." Not everyone is going to settle for that opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        While we're on the subject of engine numbers (at least we were) I have what is supposed to be a 289 from a '64 Hawk.The number I have on mine (and yes,I looked at the right location)is PIOI66. I'm guessing the I is supposed to be the number one, but I'm not certain.I looked at the chart but I must be missing something. FWIW the oil filter is located at the LH bottom of the engine.Thanks in advance for any help!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I assume you mean PI0I66. That is, a zero rather than an O (oh). However, that engine number is not of the form of a '64 engine. The P means 289 all right, but for a '64 engine the first letter to the right of the P should be a letter (not I)--like J, K, etc. That second letter is the month of assembly of the engine. If you're interested I can help with ID'ing the block (or heads, etc) casting number. It is behind the distributor, down just in front of the bellhousing.
                          -Dwight

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rusty65 View Post
                            While we're on the subject of engine numbers (at least we were) I have what is supposed to be a 289 from a '64 Hawk.The number I have on mine (and yes,I looked at the right location)is PIOI66. I'm guessing the I is supposed to be the number one, but I'm not certain.I looked at the chart but I must be missing something. FWIW the oil filter is located at the LH bottom of the engine.Thanks in advance for any help!
                            I am guessing that you are missing one digit in the P10166 number. If so, it would be a 1963 Lark/Hawk 289 cid V8.
                            Gary L.
                            Wappinger, NY

                            SDC member since 1968
                            Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              @Dwight and Gary thanks,I'll have to do some more looking.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X