Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here we go again!!!

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

  • sbca96
    replied
    Just agree and tell them that Studebaker actually made the 289 engines FOR Ford.

    Tom

    Leave a comment:


  • okc63avanti
    replied
    From Bob Johnstone's website... a discussion of Studebaker V8 heritage.

    http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/studenghist.txt

    Leave a comment:


  • mausersmth
    replied
    Originally posted by BobPalma View Post
    (Technically, lest any nit-pickers chime in, the Power Hawk was a Commander and the Flight Hawk was a Champion, in the big scheme of things). BP
    Was thinking of picking a few nits, but found no nits to pick!

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    All 1956 Presidents and Sky Hawks had the 289 engine standard equipment, not optional. It wasn't an option in any 1956 Studebaker passenger car; it was either standard equipment (Presidents and Sky Hawks) or not available at all (Commanders, Power Hawks, Champions, and Flight Hawks).

    (Technically, lest any nit-pickers chime in, the Power Hawk was a Commander and the Flight Hawk was a Champion, in the big scheme of things). BP

    Leave a comment:


  • warrlaw1
    replied
    Sounds right to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Bredehoft
    replied
    If I remember right, the Sky Hawk, in '56 had a 289 engine. It certainly would have been at least an option in the President.

    Leave a comment:


  • 55 56 PREZ 4D
    replied
    Wasn't the 289 available in the 1956 President ?

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterHawk
    replied
    Thanks to all for the clarifictions. Now I have the info for the next uninformed critic.

    Leave a comment:


  • warrlaw1
    replied
    You're on the right track, Peterhawk. The 232 was underbored for half a year in 55 to a 224, then bored again to the 259 in 55. In 57 it was stroked to the 289 and then you could get it supercharged! All the same block, as far as I know. The R series came later and you could bore the block to 304.? before water jacket limits required sleeving the cylinders. I'm sure someone will provide more detail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Bredehoft
    replied
    were the earlier sizes machined from the same original forged casting?

    It was a casting, not a forging, only the crank was forged.

    Well, lets put it this way. All the sizes, 232, 224, 259, 289 and 304 were all machined from the same basic casting, first made in 1951 as the 232. Not that the casting wasn't changed, but it is today possible to bore and stroke a 232 to become a 289.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterHawk
    replied
    Originally posted by Warren Webb View Post
    Thats really easy Peter. The Studebaker V-8, although had some things in common in looks with the Cadillac, was mostly different, such as solid vs. hydraulic lifters ect. The Caddy came out in 1949, Studebaker in 1951 & the Ford V-8 in 1954, although it had nothing in common with the engine Ford later came out with that was the supposed engine Studebaker used, the small block 289 in late 1963 (64 model year). By that time the Studebaker 289 had been in production for 7 years (1957 model year). I would ask then when was the last time you saw a Ford 289 with the distributor in the back?
    Warren, I like the distributor info and I'll use it as a retort. I still would like to know the evolution of the Stude 289. I know its predecessor was the 259 but what came before the 259 and were the earlier sizes machined from the same original forged casting?

    Leave a comment:


  • shifter4
    replied
    There are many other coincidental engine sizes as well.
    Look at all of the 350's , Chevy,Olds , Pontiac , Buick , Chrysler.
    327 , AMC , Chevy , Packard
    307 Chevy , Olds
    260 Ford , Olds
    And many more. I've challenged a couple of loud mouths to interchange any major part of 289 Ford to Stude for $500 , and they fade.
    BTW the first Ford OHV V8 was the 239 which was the first in the Y block series that became the 272 , 292 , 312 etc . It was not an evolution
    of the Flathead.
    Last edited by shifter4; 06-29-2011, 05:10 AM. Reason: omission

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren Webb
    replied
    Thats really easy Peter. The Studebaker V-8, although had some things in common in looks with the Cadillac, was mostly different, such as solid vs. hydraulic lifters ect. The Caddy came out in 1949, Studebaker in 1951 & the Ford V-8 in 1954, although it had nothing in common with the engine Ford later came out with that was the supposed engine Studebaker used, the small block 289 in late 1963 (64 model year). By that time the Studebaker 289 had been in production for 7 years (1957 model year). I would ask then when was the last time you saw a Ford 289 with the distributor in the back?

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterHawk
    replied
    Bumped to restate the request: Can anybody define the evolution of the OHV Studebaker engines?

    Leave a comment:


  • Orestudeguy
    replied
    I was talking about the 289 ci engine, not the first V/8's...
    Most of the conversation's I have heard from people is that they are referring to the 289 Ford engine, not the first V/8

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X