Engine: Why is rebuilding a Champion so expensive? There's nothing to them.

[PackardV8]

We have six Champions scattered around the shop just now, from which two rebuilds may emerge; which illustrate why doing it correctly is expensive.

The first is a 185" which someone rebuilt and it ran well for a while, but always overheated. The disgusted owner pulled the engine and put in a Chevy. We were asked to postmortem to determine why his bargain rebuild wasn't. The teardown found #5 intake valve seat cracked all the way across into and down the cylinder wall. A supposition is his 'rebuilder' didn't magnaflux the block and rebuilt it without seeing the small crack, which grew into the large crack. The half-day of shop time did salvage the 185" crank, rods and heads at a considerable cost in labor.

Another customer brought in two core 170"s with the idea we could at least make one good one. The first was found to have already been bored .060" oversize, so that block was unusable for a rebuilt. The second was a really dirty and greasy teardown. Another half-day labor to disassemble and wash and mag found cracks in #2 and #3 exhaust seats. That's more labor the customer isn't going to like paying for.

A 170" I'd bought in a box was brought out, cleaned and fortunately magged without finding a crack in the valve seats. When we ran it through the shot blaster, we found #1 and #6 had sat full of water, which froze and cracked both cylinders. Two sleeves @ $33 each, plus $50 each to install. That's $166 extra versus chasing down, stripping and cleaning who knows how many more to find a sound block.

Finding a usable 185" block required a trip halfway across the state, two more tear-downs, cleaning and magging, because the first had worn lifter bores.

We washed two crankshafts and sent them to be reground.

When we know the finished crank undersizes, parts can then be ordered.

So yes, once cleaned, sound cores and new parts are on the bench, rebuilding a Champion is quick and easy. Sometimes, just getting to that point is the most difficult and expensive part of the process.

jack vines

[t walgamuth]

Thanks Jack! It is not so easy to get parts for as compared to a chebby either is it?

[rockne10]

All things being equal, still cheaper than rebuilding an engine from a vehicle with a VIN beginning with S, W or Z (Britain, Germany or Italy).

[PackardV8]

Thanks Jack! It is not so easy to get parts for as compared to a chebby either is it?

A complete kit for a SBC 350" is $275. The rebuild kit for the Champion doesn't have new connecting rods and is $1750 from SI.

jack vines

[StudeRich]

However, if you were to ignore all of Jack's situation with bad Cores, and assume you are lucky enough to have a good Magged Block, then the ANSWER to that original question: "why is a Champion Six SO expensive to rebuild" becomes:

Because the Power, Desirability, Simplicity, Size, or Value of the six has NOTHING to do with Today's high cost of Manufacturing, Warehousing and Selling the Newly Mfg'd, VERY LIMITED Production Parts! Ala the Approx. $1750.00 + Parts Cost!

THAT would be why many people prefer the few Hundred more to Rebuild a Stude. V8, or the Cheap Chev. Engine Rebuild with the Dirt Cheap Engine procurement cost. To improve their "Fun Factor"!

[swvalcon]

Jack I remember back about 1993 maybe when TRW sold out of the engine parts business I bought close out Chev master kits for just under $100. I bought as many as I had room to stack in the corner of the shop

[Lark Hunter]

I've just learned something in the last week or so... never knew that the flathead was prone to cracking... valve seats, block, anything. Always thought that was the sole territory of OHV 6 heads. Is this mainly a symptom of not maintaining proper valve clearance, overheating, pushing the engine too hard, or was it an engineering flaw that manifests itself no matter how the engine is used or maintained?

Am well aware of the lifter bore wear thing, which is a head scratcher to me. Have never really heard of another engine that regularly does this. Has anybody figured out exactly why this happens to so many Champion 6's?

Is it possible to get reliable service out of a Champion engine over the long haul, and not be greeted with anything but normal wear and tear at rebuild time? I thought these could usually be bored past .060"?

And finally, do any of these weaknesses apply to the bigger Commander 6? Pretty much everything I've heard about those is good, and with anvil-like reliability. And it's an almost decade older design

[StudeRich]

I am sure others will come up with all kinds of well thought out reasone why these engines have "Sometimes" failed for various reasons.

But, my opinion is: it's the RPM, not so much the Design!

The 170's, 185's and especially the 223/245 Sixes just can NOT take sustained over 3000-3500 RPM running without overheating and cracking something, that goes for Flatheads and OHV Sixes of course.

And the reason for that has been mentioned today on other posts, it's the change in the Roads, and the way we now drive on them that requires MORE speed!

That and the fact that they were NOT geared for such high speeds. A good example is the "Standard" Axle Ratio on a 170 OHV Stude. Car with a "Direct Drive Transmission" was 3.73, and some would have been ordered with a 4.10 (I had a '61 Wagon).
THIS is just WAY Too many RPMS at over 55 MPH for these engines to handle.

Here is an example of what I am trying to say here:
I am guessing many a U.S. Post Office Mail delivery person or Mechanic rushing a Zip Van to the shop on the Interstate for repairs or to the "Yard" at 65 to 75 were the cause of all the Factory claims for Blown Engines many had 4.27 Ratio Model 44 TT Axles!

Remember, these had a H.D. Water Cooled Oiling System and a Low Gear Start DIRECT Drive Flight-O-Matic Trans.

[PackardV8]

I've just learned something in the last week or so... never knew that the flathead was prone to cracking... valve seats, block, anything. Always thought that was the sole territory of OHV 6 heads. Is this mainly a symptom of not maintaining proper valve clearance, overheating, pushing the engine too hard, or was it an engineering flaw that manifests itself no matter how the engine is used or maintained?

The Champion is a tiny engine designed for a 2200# car and 50 MPH highways. Within that envelope, it was reasonably reliable.

Am well aware of the lifter bore wear thing, which is a head scratcher to me. Have never really heard of another engine that regularly does this. Has anybody figured out exactly why this happens to so many Champion 6's?

No one's quite certain what lack in the design caused the lifter bore wear.

Is it possible to get reliable service out of a Champion engine over the long haul, and not be greeted with anything but normal wear and tear at rebuild time?

Yes. I've come to believe the Studebaker Foundry did a poor job of getting all the casting sand out of the blocks and heads. Every one we open is full of mud. Where else would that come from? Not all owners were filling the radiator with ditch water.

Start with an internally clean block, line hone the main bores, square deck the block and head, new valve guides, hard valve seats and possibly valve stem seals. Then, drive it with some sensibility, change the oil per the Shop Manual and it should last forever.

I thought these could usually be bored past .060"?

Yes, but since there are no readily available pistons past .060", few want to pay for custom forgings.

And finally, do any of these weaknesses apply to the bigger Commander 6? Pretty much everything I've heard about those is good, and with anvil-like reliability. And it's an almost decade older design

Yes, all the weakness apply to old flatheads. Try running a Commander fast enough to keep up with today's highway speeds and it will not like that at all.

jack vines

[Lark Hunter]

Thank you, Jack, for that detailed answer. The parts cost vs the ubiquitous Chevy V8 alone goes a long way toward explaining the price difference for a completed engine. I too have questioned why Studebaker tended to use the little flathead as the default engine for vehicles like trucks... especially the higher GVW ones. Seems that the 245 should have enough oomph to handle an OD that would allow you to cruise pretty close to prevailing traffic speeds, at least on level ground?

StudeRich - Living with a straight three speed behind a 170 would be rough these days. I have driven a car that was howling in protest at 60mph, so 50-55 it was... which was too slow for my taste. If you were to put a tall enough final drive to keep up with traffic, you'd be stuck with a long 1st gear, and that huge cavern between 2nd and 3rd that would make highway passing impossible. Overdrive is pretty swell, allowing you to have a deeper 1st gear, and have a happier ratio for cruising. Wouldn't do anything for the dearth of power, which is one of the reasons I made sure to get a V8 Lark.

[Jeffry Cassel]

I am redoing a Corvair now--just for something different--a poor mans Porsche. A lot of the parts are a lot cheaper than Studebaker. I've been careful to avoid Chinese (even tho we are their newest colony, we can still sometimes avoid their crap) But parts are still expensive and, if you need to ship something, the shipping charges can often run more than the value of the part. You might be able to buy a kit for a cbc for $300 but if you wanted to keep the car or were conscientious about your work I am pretty sure you wouldn't want it. Supply and demand; a 350 Chev is a good motor, it is popular with rodders, it was made by the millions. A Studebaker 6---not so much. I've never seen a flathead Chevvy--was there ever such a critter?

[PackardV8]

I am redoing a Corvair now--just for something different--a poor mans Porsche.

I always enjoyed driving Corvairs, especially the last with IRS. The engine design is right up there with the Champion in being locked into too-small, too-restricted breathing. As you know, making more power is expensive.

I've never seen a flathead Chevvy--was there ever such a critter?

Not that that I've ever seen. Even the very early failed attempts were OHV.

jack vines

[Skip Lackie]

The very earliest 1913-14 Chevies were L-head or T-head. They switched to OHV in 1914-15.

[Jessie J.]

The world's oldest running Chevrolet is in the Alfred P. Sloan Museum just a few miles from me.

https://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-oldest-running-chevrolet-5795774

1913 299 cu. in. T-head (flathead) 6, followed by cheaper commercially profitable valve in head 4s

[jclary]

I think you guys have hit the biggest culprit. High sustained speeds. Not only did it affect Studebaker flathead engines, but Chrysler products, Hudsons, and not just the 6 cylinder engines. Flathead straight eights like our early '50s Pontiacs were prone to valve & valve seat issues. I just don't think those huge chunks of cast iron had the cooling capacities and water flow characteristics worked out for long runs of interstate speeds. I think hot spots form in these engines and cause havoc sometimes undetected by the placement of the heat sensor for the temp gauge.

After basic training, my Air Force Tech schooling was in Illinois. During a holiday weekend, I hitchhiked home to South Carolina and drove my flathead 49 Plymouth back to Illinois. Burnt a valve on the trip. Got it fixed. When I graduated from that tech school, I drove the car back to South Carolina. Burnt another valve. Got it fixed. Sold it to my sister and her husband to use as a family car. Although they eventually wore it out, I don't think it ever burned another valve because they only drove it locally and no long trips.