On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:59:11 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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.
When I worked on the farm in the sixties we had a '49 Stude pickup -
the little one - 1/4 ton - possibly half. It would haul 2 ton of feed
like a champ. Replaced it with a '61 Chevy 1/2 ton and it could not
get out of second gear with a ton on it.
> 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.
>
Yes, the M series were a VERY strong engine - particularly the 5MGE
and the Turbo variant (5mgt?)
>nate
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
