Engine: Will R1 cylinder heads fit on smaller Studebaker V-8s?

[Mark L]

Will the cylinder heads from a R1 289 fit on a 232, 224, or 259 Studebaker V-8? Will they bolt straight up, do any modifications need to be done, or will they not work at all?

[Mike Van Veghten]

Best of my knowledge, the 224 and 232 had a 3.38" diameter bore. This leaves about a .18" bore difference, divided x 2 = .09" difference.
The 3.56" (259 / 289) bore overhung the 53 up Stude cylinder head. Now add another .09"...that's a lot of overhang.

So...with the post 53 heads work on a 224, 232 ? Yes, but not very well. There is normally an overhang in most engines, but it's the other way around. The bore is "larger" than the combustion chamber. Some of this... overhang is a good thing. BUT NOT where the chamber is larger than the cylinder.

Compression ratio will be messed up, there will be a LOT of unburnt fuel (because of the backward overhang), the engine power as I see it will be somewhat down to the point of kinda ugly !

Will the engine run...yes.
Is this swap a good idea...no, it's not.

Mike

[64studeavanti]

IIRC, the 224 has the same bore as 259, 289. The crankshaft is the difference. So, the heads should work on any 55 or later V8.

[64studeavanti]

FWIW, R1 heads are the same as regular 259, 289 heads of the same vintage. The difference is in the exhaust valves and valve springs.

[PackardV8]

FWIW, I've installed '55-up heads, with matching intake and exhaust manifolds, on '51-'54 232"s with no problems. Unless one also uses the R1 cam and valve springs and regularly winds to higher RPM, there's little advantage in the later heads.

jack vines

[StudeRich]

Just to clarify; the "232" Engines were used in 1951 to 1954 Cars & in some heavier than 3/4 Ton 1954 Trucks, the "224" V8's (3 9/16" Bore) were used in Early '55 Cars, and '55 & '56 Trucks.

The "259" was used in Late '55 to '64 V8 Cars, and '57 to '64 Trucks, the "289" was used in some 1956 to 1964 Cars and Trucks either as Standard for the Model, or an Option.

IMO, I don't think the Rare "Exceptions" need to be part of a "most case" discussion.

So the best plan, is to get the proper Block Assy. to match the 1557571 casting Heads, OR Bore the 232 out, and replace the Pistons, Crank and Camshaft.

The Timing Cover, Fuel Pump and Cam Lobe change would be an option.

[PackardV8]

Just to clarify; the "232" Engines were used in 1951 to 1954 Cars & in some heavier than 3/4 Ton 1954 Trucks, the "224" V8's (3 9/16" Bore) were used in Early '55 Cars, and '55 & '56 Trucks.

The "259" was used in Late '55 to '64 V8 Cars, and '57 to '64 Trucks, the "289" was used in some 1956 to 1964 Cars and Trucks either as Standard for the Model, or an Option.

IMO, I don't think the Rare "Exceptions" need to be part of a "most case" discussion.

So the best plan, is to get the proper Block Assy. to match the 1557571 casting Heads, OR Bore the 232 out, and replace the Pistons, Crank and Camshaft.

The Timing Cover, Fuel Pump and Cam Lobe change would be an option.

Rich knows well the 259" was used in some '55 and '56 big trucks and that the 232" crankshaft is the same as that in the 259", so wouldn't have to be changed. Boring the 232" to 259" is possible and has been done, since oversize 232" pistons are NLA. However, since 259" core engines are still thick on the ground, it's bad science to start with a 232" to make a 259".

jack vines

[BobWaitz]

I believe Jack is correct on all counts. The big difference in the 224/259/289 is the crank and pistons. They all have the same bore. We used a 232 block with the later heads on our Bonneville 182 cid race engine (232 block with a destroked 224 crank). Unless you have a specific reason to shoot for a particular displacement, starting with a 259 block is the way to go.