Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Identifying what I think is a 1964 289

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

  • Skip Lackie
    replied
    Yes, it came from a 1963 model car. The engine numbering system changed for 1964-model cars, including those with engines built in calendar year 1963.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by Skip Lackie View Post
    Gary is correct. It's a very late 63 289.
    Thanks, Skip. I would like to clarify this. The engine is from late 1963 model year production, not manufactured in late calendar year 1963 for 1964 production. Or, in other words, the engine came from a 1963 model Lark or Hawk.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skip Lackie
    replied
    Gary is correct. It's a very late 63 289.

    Leave a comment:


  • rusty65
    replied
    Originally posted by rusty65 View Post
    @Dwight and Gary thanks,I'll have to do some more looking.
    After further review,the number seems to be P101667.

    Leave a comment:


  • rusty65
    replied
    @Dwight and Gary thanks,I'll have to do some more looking.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight FitzSimons
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • rusty65
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessie J.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • swvalcon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessie J.
    replied
    Anyone running a naturally aspirated 308 that can post a shot for us of their low 11 second et time slips?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessie J.
    replied
    ....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.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    My guess is, it would be a reference to 312 Cu. Inches, which IS possible with some serious Boring!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X