340 Cubic Inch V8

[avantilover]

Finally received March TW today and loved the 2 Interviews. On page 8 (Johnston Interview), Harold mentions E.T. Reynolds planning a 340 CID V8 for 1966 had things worked out OK.

Does any information survive on that engine design? Would be interesting to see one built - were any plans made/saved or was it just a thought but nothing concrete?

Well done to Bob and Nels.

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
Lockleys South Australia

[okc63avanti]

quote:Originally posted by avantilover

Finally received March TW today and loved the 2 Interviews. On page 8 (Johnston Interview), Harold mentions E.T. Reynolds planning a 340 CID V8 for 1966 had things worked out OK.

Does any information survive on that engine design? Would be interesting to see one built - were any plans made/saved or was it just a thought but nothing concrete?

Well done to Bob and Nels.

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
Lockleys South Australia

John, I haven't received my March TW yet but the Studebaker 340 CID V8 is legendary for generating discussion. The story goes that several blocks were actually cast by the engineering department and when the South Bend plant closed down these blocks disappeared. Some claim Mopar used the block to design their 340 CID V8. Others on this forum and the Monday night chats have claimed to have seen one of these blocks. Surely the Stude 340 V8 is something right out of the pages of a script for an "X FILES" show. Maybe aliens abducted the engine to use it as a design back on their home planet. [)]

Since the statue of limitations has surely run out on any theft, would someone who is in possession of one of these Stude 340 CID V8 please allow for photography and for a future article in TW. All of us Studebaker fans would love to see this story of intrigue and mystery finally solved. [8D][?]

John


63R-2386 under restoration & modification

[DEEPNHOCK]

Nothing remotely similar between the 340's...or their design.
But it was true that Chrysler bought the foundry production line equipment.
So they surely must have taken the casting molds and some raw blocks to study for building new molds.
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by okc63avanti
<snip>
Some claim Mopar used the block to design their 340 CID V8.
<snip>

http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

[63larkr1]

Andy Beckman told me several years ago that the drawings for this engine are still in at the SDC museum.
Richard

[PackardV8]

FWIW, the standard 289" V8 stroke of 3.625" x a larger 3.875" bore is 342".

That's actually a pretty timid bore increase. The physically smaller Chevy V8 already had a 4.00" larger bore than that by 1962. If one really wanted to get excited about possibilities, there is plenty of room inside the Studebaker block for recored and siamesed cylinder bores as large as 4.1875" and a 3.75" stroke, for 413".



PackardV8

[JDP]

The experimental bigger bore blocks were made by just messing with the casting cores. I know a few were made because I actaully had a chance to buy one in early 64 from a Studebaker engineer. I know one or more survived, but don't know where they are.


JDP/Maryland

[Maynard]

I'm with DEEPNHOCK on the 340 design. The Chrysler 340 was the natural progression of the Mopar small-block series;273, 318, 340, 360, produced by different combinations of bore and stroke on the same basic block. The 273 was introduced in the 1964 model year, which was in showrooms in late 1963, so the timeline doesn't fit for that idea.

[PackardV8]

What you are also forgetting is the 289" was a Ford engine anyway, so it couldn't have also been a Mopar.

thnx ,jack vines

PackardV8

[avantilover]

Thanks Guys, maybe someone with the necessary skills could build one? Wonder how it would go with a Turbocharger and intercooler?

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
Lockleys South Australia

[JDP]

quote:Originally posted by avantilover

Thanks Guys, maybe someone with the necessary skills could build one? Wonder how it would go with a Turbocharger and intercooler?

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
Lockleys South Australia

The engineer I knew had twin Paxtons on one installed in his C cab truck. Someone else from South Bend might recall the truck.

JDP/Maryland

[black56hawk]

quote:Originally posted by Maynard

I'm with DEEPNHOCK on the 340 design. The Chrysler 340 was the natural progression of the Mopar small-block series;273, 318, 340, 360, produced by different combinations of bore and stroke on the same basic block. The 273 was introduced in the 1964 model year, which was in showrooms in late 1963, so the timeline doesn't fit for that idea.

Goes back farther than that; the 273 was basically a 318 poly with a smaller bore and wedge heads. The 318 poly evolved from the 1956 Plymouth 277 poly. It's a little known fact that you can convert a 318 wedge to a 318 poly and vice versa just by swapping heads, intake and cam/pushrods/rockers. Or build a 340 poly same way.

Beyond that, the Studebaker V-8 and the Mopar small block have a different bore center-to-center distance. The Studebaker is actually larger - 4.50" vs. 4.46". The Studebaker bore spacing is also larger than a small block Chevy (4.40). Which means at least two things:

1. The Studebaker V-8 actually had more cubic inch potential than either the small block Mopar or the small-block Chevy. Lack of money, not any other inadequacy, is the reason the mass-produced Studebaker V-8 topped out a 289 cubes.

2. Because its bore spacing is larger, the Studebaker block, crank, cam, and heads are all longer than a 340 Mopar (or a SB Chevy). So the 340 Mopar could not possibly have been based in any way whatever on the Studebaker 340. (And this is not even to consider the water pump/front cover configuration is completely different; cam-to-crank distance is different; block deck height is different; bellhousings are not interchangeable; intake manifold acts as the engine top cover on the Mopar, but not the Stude; etc. etc.)

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

What you are also forgetting is the 289" was a Ford engine anyway, so it couldn't have also been a Mopar.

Ford DID have a 383, a few years before Chrysler.

Craig

[black56hawk]

quote:Originally posted by 8E45E

quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

What you are also forgetting is the 289" was a Ford engine anyway, so it couldn't have also been a Mopar.

Ford DID have a 383, a few years before Chrysler.

Craig

Also a 361.

Plus, Rambler had a 327 a few years before Chevy. . . .

[Dean McHenry]

And the 327 AMC Rambler engine brings you full circle back to Studebaker as it was designed as a joint venture during the short period of time that AMC used Packard v8"s in their cars. No wonder they were so smooth and quiet.

[kurtruk]

And Dodge trucks (55-56) and Plymouths (55) had a 259.

KURTRUK
(read it backwards)




Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong. -A. Lincoln