Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was 259 or 289 The Better Engine?

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

  • Engine: Was 259 or 289 The Better Engine?

    Which was the better version of the engine? I have a 259 now with a 4BBL carbuerettor and wondered what benefits/deficiencies would arise if it was converted to a 289?

    I imagine most will say keep the 259 which is fine, one always wonders about things :-)~
    John Clements
    Christchurch, New Zealand

  • #2
    John,
    As a drag and Bonneville racer my person opinion is the 259 is under appreciated. The 259 crank is stronger than the 289. The shorter stroke allows the engine to rev quicker and easier. The only advantage to the 289 is torque. The longer stroke will produce more torque. Torque moves weight. So if you are putting the engine in a truck the 289 might work better. I have a 289 in my camper truck that weighs just under 6000 lbs GVW. This year in the Bonneville Avanti I used a 259. It rev'd easy and actually pulled up out of the high rear gears easier than the 289 we used last year. So if you ask me I would run the 259. The other advantage is gas mileage. The 259 will do better in most cases. Now you have my opinion.
    Dan

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Dan, all that makes perfect sense, and now the engine is running well, I'll keep her as a 259.
      John Clements
      Christchurch, New Zealand

      Comment


      • #4
        wondered what benefits/deficiencies would arise if it was converted to a 289?
        1. How often to you have your 259" at full throttle and wish there were more?

        2. 11.5% greater displacement = about that much more horsepower, torque and top gear acceleration.

        3. 11.5% more displacement = about the same fuel economy around town, but about 10% lower on the highway from greater pumping and friction losses.

        4. The 259" is slightly smoother running.

        The shorter stroke allows the engine to rev quicker and easier.
        C'mon Dan, I just can't agree with this statement as it applies to the stock engines. This myth keeps coming up, but it's just flat wrong. By that logic, the ultra-short-stroke 224" V8 should be the fastest Studebaker V8 ever built; it's the smoothest, but the slowest. The 224" or 259" only revs quicker and easier than a 289" in neutral. Reving quickly and easily while pulling a car is a function of developed horsepower, torque and gearing. With less horsepower, less torque and the same gearing, the 224" and the 259" pull to revs more slowly and less easily than does a 289".

        Bottom line, no real world downside to converting. Very little real world upside to converting. Having said this, when building a fresh engine, I always ask how the car will be driven. If the owner likes to put his foot in it regularly, I always recommend going with a 289" crank and boring to 299". It's like forty free horsepower.

        jack vines
        PackardV8

        Comment


        • #5
          You can't beat cubic inches.....

          But....
          The engine you have 'in hand' is always the 'best' engine
          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


          • #6
            So Jack
            How much overbore is required to get 299 cubic inches?
            I guess I could do my own math but I bet you have this answer in your head.
            What is .060 over in cubic inches??
            Brian
            Brian Woods
            woodysrods@shaw.ca
            1946 M Series (Shop Truck)

            Comment


            • #7
              Yep... .060" overbore....

              Originally posted by woodysrods View Post
              So Jack
              How much overbore is required to get 299 cubic inches?
              I guess I could do my own math but I bet you have this answer in your head.
              What is .060 over in cubic inches??
              Brian
              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


              • #8
                OK... if you bore it out .060 and get 299 cubic inches what do you need to do to get the other inch and have 300?
                Jeff DeWitt
                http://carolinastudes.net

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JeffDeWitt View Post
                  OK... if you bore it out .060 and get 299 cubic inches what do you need to do to get the other inch and have 300?
                  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


                  • #10
                    When I put answers like that on a math test I'd get in trouble for not showing my work!
                    Dave Nevin
                    Corvallis, OR
                    1953 Champion Deluxe Coupe
                    Stud-e-venture blog

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How did you get the extra 0.005 inches in the stroke to give you a square engine?
                      Gary L.
                      Wappinger, NY

                      SDC member since 1968
                      Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://www.doverusa.com/engine-math.htm

                        I dunno...
                        I just punched the numbers into the boxes and hit calculate, then manually typed the numbers into the forum post..
                        I probably mixed it up. The stroke figure I typed in was an error.
                        It (the stroke) should have remained the same.
                        If you had done the math, you would have seen that it was just an entry error.
                        It's been a long week.
                        You go do the math and answer the question....



                        Originally posted by studegary View Post
                        How did you get the extra 0.005 inches in the stroke to give you a square engine?
                        Last edited by DEEPNHOCK; 12-11-2011, 12:24 PM.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by studegary View Post
                          How did you get the extra 0.005 inches in the stroke to give you a square engine?
                          Have the crank ground to get the 3.630" stroke.
                          My question is, how much will the .005 raise the compression ratio? 1/4 of a point maybe?
                          Jerry Forrester
                          Forrester's Chrome
                          Douglasville, Georgia

                          See all of Buttercup's pictures at https://imgur.com/a/tBjGzTk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ask StudeGary

                            Originally posted by Jerry Forrester View Post
                            My question is, how much will the .005 raise the compression ratio? 1/4 of a point maybe?
                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK View Post
                              Nice on-line tool; thanks for the link!
                              Dave Nevin
                              Corvallis, OR
                              1953 Champion Deluxe Coupe
                              Stud-e-venture blog

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X