clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> 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?
yes, with a redesign mid-'62 for a full flow oil filter. The 232 is a
little unique as it uses a different bore size than the 224/259/289 but
it is the same basic block. Heads and manifolds were redesigned with
the intro. of the 224 and 259 for the '55 model year and remained
similar to the end. The R1 (hi-po NA 289) and R2 (hi-po supercharged
289) engines were simply regular 289s with flattop pistons, a more
aggressive cam/springs, larger fuel pump, larger fuel lines with a
return, and more crankcase ventilation for high RPM operation. The 304
(R3/R4) engines had a larger bore yet, but I believe they were the same
casting, just hand selected and overbored. The R3 and R4 had a lot of
unique parts but were never sold in anything resembling decent volume
(double digits, likely.)
> And what about the 283?
That's a McKinnon industrial engine (that is, small block Ch*vy) used
after the South Bend foundry closed down after the '64 model year. Not
made by Studebaker...
> 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..
The 194 was also a McKinnon. The "Champion" six came in 170 or 185ci
displacements, and the 170 OHV engine was simply a conversion of the
earlier flathead.
The 245 (and earlier, smaller related engines) "Commander" sixes are a
whole different family, and actually the oldest design, dating back to
the early 30's Rockne. One of the longest-lived American engines, used
until 1960 in trucks. Nobody remembers it today :) It's actually not
bad; I worked on a '41 Commander once and remember when driving it that
it was very torquey and smooth but as you would expect had no top end
whatsoever. For some reason next to no speed parts were ever made for
this engine, save for the occasional aluminum head. You *can* get dual
carb intakes and split exhausts for the flathead Champions, which I
don't understand...
> 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)
Nope, the 320/352/274 was the only Packard developed V-8, and the Stude
V-8s up to '64 were all evolutions of the '51 232. The '56 Golden Hawk
did use a single 4bbl version of the 352 which is about the only good
thing that came out of the Studebaker-Packard merger (unless you really
hate Packards and consider the death of the Packard nameplate a good
thing...) A decent engine design but it was *enormous* and heavy, and
also had oiling system problems that were never worked out.
>
> I actually like the AMC V8, myself.
>
One of the old-school Stude performance fanatic guys was partial to them
as well. He seemed to think they would hold up to massive boost almost
as well as a Stude but with larger displacement.
Another good engine along those lines is the Toyota straight six used in
the Supra and Cressida.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
