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

McKinnon V-8

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

  • McKinnon V-8

    Is there any difference between a GM 283 used by Studebaker in '65 and '66 from a Chevrolet 283?

    Also, I am considering a more modern overdrive automatic for a '65 V-8 Cruiser. What would you guys suggest and why? Are any modifications needed to install such a tranny?

    Thanks for the help,
    Joe Roberts
    Joe Roberts
    '61 R1 Champ
    '65 Cruiser
    Eastern North Carolina Chapter

  • #2
    Quite a bit of modification is required, because of the very LARGE size of the Converter Housing part of the THM cases. You need to cut out just the center portion of the crossmember that supports the door posts and cowl, basically the entire front of body. If you can fabricate a dip-down crossmember to replace it, the body may still hang together.

    It certainly is not impossible. It does bolt right up. Many people had done it, and many ways. Some frames may not last too long, depending on just how many horses you plan to put in there! It would be relatively simple otherwise, just driveline, throttle or vacuum lines (linkages), shifter rods and quadrant adjustment, modification or replacement etc.

    StudeRich
    Studebakers Northwest
    Ferndale, WA
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner

    Comment


    • #3
      As I understand it, there are a few differences between the Studebaker 283 and the Chevrolet 283. The Studebaker version is the Canadian built truck engine, with heavier duty components and a different oil slinger. There are some other differences as well, but I don't remember them right now. As far as dimensionally, they are the same and the mounts are the same as well. None of these differences should matter if you are considering an engine swap.

      Comment


      • #4
        Joe; I guess it all depends on what your goal is. Most of those '65-'66's have excellent Cruising gears already 3.07 & all late '65-'66 have the flanged axle, and the Studebaker Flight-O-Matic is every bit as dependable and in my opinion, more so than any THM O.D., their dependability as a general rule is terrible! So what is to be gained?

        StudeRich
        Studebakers Northwest
        Ferndale, WA
        StudeRich
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner

        Comment


        • #5
          There was a pretty good discussion of this previously.

          See http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com...?TOPIC_ID=2624


          [img=left]http://www.studegarage.com/images/gary_ash_m5_sm.jpg[/img=left] Gary Ash
          Dartmouth, Mass.
          '48 M5
          '65 Wagonaire Commander
          '63 Wagonaire Standard
          web site at http://www.studegarage.com
          Gary Ash
          Dartmouth, Mass.

          '32 Indy car replica (in progress)
          ’41 Commander Land Cruiser
          '48 M5
          '65 Wagonaire Commander
          '63 Wagonaire Standard
          web site at http://www.studegarage.com

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

            ...the Studebaker Flight-O-Matic is every bit as dependable and in my opinion, more so than any THM O.D., their dependability as a general rule is terrible! So what is to be gained?

            StudeRich
            I wouldn't say that. I'd actually go with a 4L60 and either a set of 3.31's or 3.54's. This will give the car some grunt off the line and still have the OD for reasonable mileage. You can also use the 700R4 or 200-4R. If these car take the abuse behind Camaros and Grand Nationals, I'm sure they'll hold up behind that little 283.

            If you're handy with programing, you can also use a 4L60E. It's electronically controlled, and there are a few aftermarket controllers so that you won't need the GM ECU. If you go this route, make sure to get the wiring with it.

            Mine came with a four speed and I'm looking at a T-5.

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Tom - Valrico, FL

            1964 Studebaker Daytona

            Tom - Bradenton, FL

            1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
            1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

            Comment


            • #7
              Bob, just looking at a driveability issue, the mileage will be better than using the FOM and RPM's lower while cruising (no pun intended) the interstates. I'm not harping on the durability of the FOM at all. But you'll find the mileage will be better using a 4L60 than an FOM. I wasn't looking at this as a race issue (it's a Cruiser!). I promise, I will not play the race card in this conversation.

              The FOM requires no modifications. With a 4L60 (or other transmissions), you'll need to fabricate the trans mount and possibly a crossmember. The driveshaft may need to be modified or replaced. It may be necessary to take a big hammer to the trans tunnel.

              If the car is a nice survivor, I personally would leave it alone. I don't think the cost to modify the car will be offset by the fuel savings. But that wasn't the question that was asked.

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Tom - Valrico, FL

              1964 Studebaker Daytona

              Tom - Bradenton, FL

              1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
              1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

              Comment


              • #8
                Tom, we've had this discussion before. I can only defer to Mr. Harbit's experience with the Flight-o-matics in the Chicken Hawk. If I remember right, he never DID destroy one (the SAME one!) in 12 years of racing it, but on the advice of "experts", was convinced that with the dual turbo evolution of the CH, he'd HAVE to go to a "beefier" TH tranny.
                What was it - TWO? - that he thrashed before he got one to hang together. And the first ones, I'm pretty sure, (Ted?) weren't just local tranny shop standard issue.
                Sometimes the "experts" are "expert" only with regards to what they're familiar with.[B)] After all, there's LOTSA "experts" that would SCOFF at the thought of a Studebaker engine being competitive. Thing is - I can personally testify that their "expertise" seems a bit hollow as one after another 400 and something, cubic inch contender knuckles under to a paltry 304... or 289 even![:0][:I] Heh - without a huffer even![]
                Of course, that's why there's not a flush of Studes being raced - 'cause they ain't good fer nuthin'. That and the fact that the "industry" and the rags that thrive off them, are too busy sellin' that bad-ass, bow tie stuff to "rodders" that need easy "insert Tab A into Slot B" creativity out of a box.[^]

                Miscreant adrift in
                the BerStuda Triangle


                1957 Transtar 1/2ton
                1960 Larkvertible V8
                1958 Provincial wagon
                1953 Commander coupe

                No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I hear the 200R4's are the best behind a V-8, AFTER you spend about $1000.00 to $2000.00 to beef them up to work right!

                  StudeRich
                  Studebakers Northwest
                  Ferndale, WA
                  StudeRich
                  Second Generation Stude Driver,
                  Proud '54 Starliner Owner

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rich, I know you have your opinions about GM parts on a Studebaker, but remember, the 200-4R was the transmission behind the Buick Grand National. It wouldn't need any beefing up to hand a 195 HP 283. Personally I like the 4L60, but that's just me.

                    As to Joe's first question, yes, the Studebaker 283 is the same engine (with the exception of the valve covers) and the Chevy 283.

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tom - Valrico, FL

                    1964 Studebaker Daytona

                    Tom - Bradenton, FL

                    1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
                    1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:Originally posted by Swifster

                      As to Joe's first question, yes, the Studebaker 283 is the same engine (with the exception of the valve covers) and the Chevy 283.
                      There is no difference between the Stude 283 and any other 195 HP 283 that General Motors built. In fact there is a good chance that many (perhaps most) were from the Tonawanda, Flint and Saginaw GM plants and not the St. Catharines (McKinnon) plant. (but we'll probably still call them "McKinnons" and not "Chevys"

                      Actually, even the valve covers were straight out of the GM parts bin. I've seen them on marine and other applications where the Chevrolet script wouldn't be appropriate.


                      Dick Steinkamp
                      Bellingham, WA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp

                        Actually, even the valve covers were straight out of the GM parts bin. I've seen them on marine and other applications where the Chevrolet script wouldn't be appropriate.
                        Don't you just hate Canadian Pontiacs .

                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Tom - Valrico, FL

                        1964 Studebaker Daytona

                        Tom - Bradenton, FL

                        1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
                        1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!

                          But I have to tell ya about my son's 2001? Chev C1500 4X4 with the 4.3 V6 & that trans. We have smoked the whole thing twice and it's on it's way out again. The Trans shop in Sacramento rebuilt it after it crawled into the swap meet at the International meet with only 2nd gear left. He said the 3th gear clutch drum NEVER gets adaquit oil when the converter goes into lockup. He drilled some passages bigger, added clutches everything possible to beef it up the first time, all for nothing. He also said never pull any hills or load in O.D. which we always knew, but also said to give it more gas and unlock the converter when approaching hills. Bah !! what a POS!

                          So you can easily understand my pregidous opinion, because this is NOT the first I have heard of the problems with all GM Overdrives! I'll agree that maybe the best trans. out there is the THM 400, but it's way obsolete now with everyone wanting Overdrive. Funny thing, you NEVER hear of a problem with a FORD AOD! [}]


                          Maybe this is just one of those things you can ask 6 guys if their equipment is good & get positive ans. & 6 more say the opposite ![}]

                          StudeRich
                          Studebakers Northwest
                          Ferndale, WA
                          StudeRich
                          Second Generation Stude Driver,
                          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

                            Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!
                            I've had the opposite experience. I had the non electronic version of the 4L60E (TH700R4) in my '88 Safari with the 4.3 V6...bought new. I sold it with 260,000 miles on it and it still shifted as new. Towed a lot with it also.

                            My '01 Sierra has the 4.3 and the 4L60E. 120,000 miles so far. Tranny works perfectly. I've towed a lot with this rig including many trips up and down I5 over a 4,400' pass with a load, over I90 with an M15, and recently with Scotts Imperial Convertible.

                            If you are towing or have the truck loaded and DON'T push the TOW/HAUL button you will probably burn out the tranny ahead of schedule. That reprograms the tranny for later shifts and keeps it out of OD for all but the most level roads at over 70 MPH.

                            Frank V runs a TH700 in his FAST R2 powered Champion coupe.

                            Sorry about your experience with the tranny, but I don't think it's indicative of everyone's experience.






                            Dick Steinkamp
                            Bellingham, WA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree!
                              I have an '03 Silverado with a V6 something under the hood and an overdive automatic trans
                              (I think it's an automatic..I can't see a third pedal under there)
                              I know nothing about anything under the hood on this pickup, other than the dipsticks.
                              I can tow the yellow pos behind it just fine. Push the tow button and put it in '3' and go... Runs right at 3000 rpm at 73 mph... Likes that rpm (happy range)..
                              Haven't had a single problem with it at all...
                              Jeff[8D]


                              quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp

                              quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

                              Tom I really do not mean to be argumentative about the GM trannies, but when you just said your fav is the 4L60, I just could not let that one go by!
                              I've had the opposite experience. I had the non electronic version of the 4L60E (TH700R4) in my '88 Safari with the 4.3 V6...bought new. I sold it with 260,000 miles on it and it still shifted as new. Towed a lot with it also.
                              My '01 Sierra has the 4.3 and the 4L60E. 120,000 miles so far. Tranny works perfectly. I've towed a lot with this rig including many trips up and down I5 over a 4,400' pass with a load, over I90 with an M15, and recently with Scotts Imperial Convertible.
                              If you are towing or have the truck loaded and DON'T push the TOW/HAUL button you will probably burn out the tranny ahead of schedule. That reprograms the tranny for later shifts and keeps it out of OD for all but the most level roads at over 70 MPH.
                              Frank V runs a TH700 in his FAST R2 powered Champion coupe.
                              Sorry about your experience with the tranny, but I don't think it's indicative of everyone's experience.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X