On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:17:49 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>yeah, I can't decide if I'm really a Studebaker or MoPar guy at heart.
>The Stude has unbelievable block strength but the MoPars have more
>revvability. I guess I'd really rather have everything - rigidity,
>revs, and lots of sweet, sweet boost :)
>
>I currently have a '55 Stude with an Avanti engine simply because Stude
>prices haven't gone completely nuts like hi-po MoPar prices, although if
>a nice A-body with a 340 and a stick****ft came my way I wouldn't kick it
>out of my driveway for leaking oil. I still haven't gotten any forced
>induction yet, but all I'd need to do a quick upgrade would be the
>blower, brackets, pulleys, and heads from an R-2 Avanti.
>
>Studebaker engines are easy, there were only three basic designs from
>the 30's on :) Commander (nee Rockne) six, the smaller Champion six
>(flathead and OHV) and the OHV V-8.
>
>nate
Was the Marshal/ R1 / R2 289 the same block as the Commander 224 and
232?
And what about the 283?
Was the 194 six the same as either the Lark/Hawk 170 inch six or the
245 inch Commander? I know the Lark engine was an OHV conversion of
the earlier flathead of the same displacement..
I thought the V8 before 1954 was a Stude design, and after 1955 or so
was a larger Packard developed engine. (not the 352 / 374)
I actually like the AMC V8, myself.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
