Thread: 340 Cubic Inch V8

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

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>

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.)

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

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. . . .

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.

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

Packard had a 327 in 1948, a 352 in 1955, and for that matter, Chrysler had a 350, one year only, in 1958, and it was only used in Dodge's and Plymouth's, and the Desoto Fireseweep V8. It may be possible that they were used in Dodge trucks, but I've never seen one so equipped.

As for putting 318 ploy heads on an LA series Mopar block, I'd pay to see that one.

List of A series and LA series engine parts interchange:
* Distributor (electronic or standard points style)
* Distributor/oil pump drive gear
* Oil pump
* Oil pan (except 360)
* Fuel pump
* Timing chain and sprocket
* LA 318 ring set
* Hi-torque or standard starter
* Flywheel
* Connecting rods
* Crankshafts (including reground 360)
* Rod bearings
* Main bearings (except 360)
* Valvesprings/retainers/keepers
* Harmonic balancers from internally balanced 273/318/340 engines (may use timing tape where timing marks do not align)
* Timing case cover and matching water pump
* Thermostat housing and thermostat


The heads will NOT interchange, the valve arrangement is different enough you can't even swap cams.

Eric Boyle
Packard Engineering, LTD.
Wichita, Ks.

<---Posts may contain anywhere from 30-100% sarcasm--->

quote: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.

Any documentation on this assertion?

IIRC, the AMC 287"/327" came about because AMC was thoroughly PO'd at Studebaker-Packard. This was because S-P did not live up to their part of the agreement to buy the equivalent dollar volume of AMC=produced parts to equal dollar cost of the engines AMC was buying from S-P. AMC designed their own V8 because they were through with S-P and no cooperation involved I've ever read about.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

quote:Originally posted by Turbopackman



As for putting 318 ploy heads on an LA series Mopar block, I'd pay to see that one.

The heads will NOT interchange, the valve arrangement is different enough you can't even swap cams.

Eric Boyle
Packard Engineering, LTD.
Wichita, Ks.

<---Posts may contain anywhere from 30-100% sarcasm--->

Yep, the valve arrangement is different, and you cannot use a 318 poly cam in a 318 wedge; the cam will physically fit in the block, but the lobes will be in the wrong place.

But THE BLOCK IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, with the same number of head bolts, located in the same place, and you can - and it has been done - swap "LA" wedge heads on an "A" poly block, and vice versa. You then have to use the corresponding intake manifold, cam, pushrods, rockers, pistons and exhaust that go with the heads.

You can believe it or not, I really don't care, but IT HAS BEEN DONE.

Understanding that what became the 318 poly was a Plymouth-designed engine, note that none of the foregoing applies to the Chrysler or Dodge poly engines; there are no wedge heads to fit either, although you can convert a Dodge poly into a Dodge hemi, and a Chrysler poly to a Chrysler hemi. (And you need to be aware that 55 and some 56 Plymouths used Dodge poly engines, as did some 57 De Sotos.)

You may think you know more about Mopar engines than I do, but you don't.

Chrysler 350 engine shared the same bolt pattern for the heads as the Hemi of that vintage. I know because my buddies and I swapped a set of Hemi 354 heads onto a 350 and it made for a high compression Hemi head engine. We put it in a 1962 Dart and terrorized the streets of the San Fernando Valley until the car owner was drafted. He built a 383 for the car after that. Don't know what happened to the Hemi 350.

Dan

quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

quote: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.

Any documentation on this assertion?

Not absolutely sure, here, Jack, but I think Dean was pulling our collective leg in keeping with your "Ford" comment, above

Keoni Dibelka / HiloFoto
In Hawai'i; on Hawai'i; on the Windward Side
If da salt air never chew 'em up bumbye da lava will...

OK, well let's consider - what is the most powerful engine you can make from a 259 V8? An aussie fellow suggested I could get 300HP, different heads (I think), wondered about doing it - would it be streetable and what thirst would it have? In other words, if a standard 259 gets say 17MPG would a 300 HP get that or less like 10-12MPG? Not wanting anything too wild, but it would be nice to be able to say "this is the best that Studebaker did."

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

[quote]quote:Originally posted by black56hawk

Yep, the valve arrangement is different, and you cannot use a 318 poly cam in a 318 wedge; the cam will physically fit in the block, but the lobes will be in the wrong place.

But THE BLOCK IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, with the same number of head bolts, located in the same place, and you can - and it has been done - swap "LA" wedge heads on an "A" poly block, and vice versa. You then have to use the corresponding intake manifold, cam, pushrods, rockers, pistons and exhaust that go with the heads.

You can believe it or not, I really don't care, but IT HAS BEEN DONE.

Understanding that what became the 318 poly was a Plymouth-designed engine, note that none of the foregoing applies to the Chrysler or Dodge poly engines; there are no wedge heads to fit either, although you can convert a Dodge poly into a Dodge hemi, and a Chrysler poly to a Chrysler hemi. (And you need to be aware that 55 and some 56 Plymouths used Dodge poly engines, as did some 57 De Sotos.)

You may think you know more about Mopar engines than I do, but you don't.

Weeelll, didn't mean to step on any toes there, but from what I've seen on A engines and LA engines the heads looked like the last thing that would interchange. I know about the poly to Hemi interchange, that's common knowledge, at least to me.
As for "You can believe it or not, I really don't care, but IT HAS BEEN DONE."
Pics or this engine doesn't exist.

Eric Boyle
Packard Engineering, LTD.
Wichita, Ks.

<---Posts may contain anywhere from 30-100% sarcasm--->

Turbo, we're already way off topic, so I won't belabor this. I'll just pose two questions:

1. Why do the pushrods of an LA (i.e., wedge) small block Mopar come out of the lifters at such an odd angle?

2. Why do the lower head bolts of an LA small block Mopar impinge on the exhaust ports, giving them such a funny shape?

How about not getting into a Mopar tiff when the topic is about Studebakers? Mopars can be debated repectfully in the Stove Huggers forum. Thank you.

BShaw, Webmaster
webmaster@studebakerdriversclub.com
Woodbury, Minnesota

I just want the owner of the Stude 340 block to post pictures....

John


63R-2386 under restoration & modification

I'd love to see a 340 block too.I've heard of 360 and 380 experimental blocks from different folks over the years,but have my doubts about the latter two.
There is a guy in Australia who has an engine taken out to 342.
Out of interest,the Ford Cleveland with a 4 inch bore and a 3 inch stroke makes the 302,a 3 and a half in stroke makes the 351 and a 4 inch stroke gets past the 400 mark,so the possibilities for the Stude block are interesting.
Was Nimesh Solanki still thinking of casting an alloy Stude block????

A.C.Moisley

Nemesh has used sleeves to get to a 4.00 bore..




Bob Johnstone
www.studebaker-info.org

64 GT Hawk
55 President State Sedan
70 Avanti (R3)

Has Nimesh's 4" bore engine actually run yet?

FWIW, I have been involved in two similar but unsuccessful efforts. The first was in 1962 when we tried to bore a Ford flathead to 3.5" using sleeves. The sleeves were welded in by the best cast iron welder in the county, but it still leaked. Just too much stress.

We didn't learn anything, because we then bored a 283" SBC to 4.125" and installed sleeves. Without the cylinders tying the deck to the main bores, the block was so weak, every time the engine was raced hard it flexed enough to leak all the water into the oil pan.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

Here's a thought...

If our archivist Andy Beckman says the drawing for the 340 are in the archives... This would be a good topic for his Turning Wheels column, I'll wager that to some the 340 (or larger) Studebaker V8 is an urban legend.

and...

Since the drawings exist, and probably economies of scale come in here, anyone with deep pockets up to making a few???


Jeff T.

"I'm getting nowhere as fast as I can"
The Replacements.

Regarding the leakage issue.... I may be showing a great deal of ignorance here, but would it be possible to use some sort of sealer inside the water jackets? Perhaps our new modern technology would have in its stores some sort of sealer that would be impermeable to heat, yet flexible enough to maintain its sealing integrity throughout the block????

Wild thought number 2 is.... what about using some sort of lubricant which could double as a coolant???? Something like a 0 viscosity synthetic??? Then it wouldn't matter if one leaked into the other??? If used just for racing, a remote cooler of sorts could be used between runs or when not in the heat of the battle.

sals54

Many custom-built drag-race-only engines don't run coolant in the block.

thnx, jack vines



PackardV8

Jeff, just how deep would those pockets have to be? Wouldn't you have to commission a casting? That sounds pretty deep, but I admit I'm ignorant of the larger process.

sals, you're a wild thinker. That's good. Wild thinkers solve problems.

Jack,
Crazy thought number 3: If used for racing only, and if racing blocks often don't use coolant, then why not fill the over-bored block water passages with epoxy for strength?

sals54

The modern trend for horsepower is to make a V6 have as much or more power than a V8 by turbocharging and direct injecting the gasoline (example, the new Ford Ecotec engines). So rather than change the bore of the Stude V8, how about modifying the heads to accept a fuel injector for each cylinder? I know I'm talking crazy here, but is there an area in the head to add an injector for each cylinder or would this require an entirely new head design? Perhaps the intake valves and intake passageways would need to be downsized to accomplish this?


A wild Red Hawk admiring it's reflection.
In the middle of Minnestudea

I have seen the drawings for one of the larger bore engines. There weren't too many changes but there were some changes like relocating the oil galleries etc. It would cost at least $50K (more likely $100K) for the patterns to make a new block. There would be some tooling for the machining and of course a fair amount of programming for the machining. I would bet that there would be about 10 people ready to buy one at a cost of about 10K each, well maybe not. Without better heads you will not be able to get more power out of the engine, it will just produce more torque at a lower RPM so you will get the power at a lower RPM.




David L

As far as direct injection, an individual can try. There are some things with the Studebaker head that make it difficult to install it though:

Space in the head. When the head was designed, I don't think the engineers envisioned either port injection or direct injection in the head. There is a little(although very little) space down by the spark plugs, but the valves above it take it pretty much all of the room.

Design of the head. The direct injectors are in the combustion chamber. An individual will have to locate space and drill a new hole into the chamber, and the injector cannot interfere with the valvetrain above, and it must be capable of not leaking oil down into chamber, as the heads are being lubricated when the engine is operating. The injectors must also be accessible through the valve covers, so they may need to go through the head and the valve covers as well, either that or have fuel running through the valve covers and have an In and Out at either end.

In this case, this may require some precision machining and alot of pondering, or it really may require a redesign of an old head.

I coulda swore as well that the racing engines don't use coolant because in most cases they are torn down between races. For a 340 I dunno if I'd really wanna do that consistantly after one or two races, because then like the bigtime strip engines, it can get real expensive real quick..

[IMG=left]https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
[IMG=left]https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
[IMG=right]https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
[IMG=right]https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]

The question as to how much money "deep pockets" would be needed to tool up a new block, has been answered by Richard Maskin. Those of you who are drag racing fans will recognize that he is the man behind Dart Machinery, Inc., manufacturer of aftermarket engine blocks and cylinder heads. I believe that he has been quoted as saying that it costs right at $1 million to tool up for a quality low volume cast iron V8 engine block.

Thomas

The obvious solution to dierct injection is something like a hollow spark plug.

Bez Auto Alchemy
573-242-3530

https://auto-alchemy.com
https://bez-auto-alchemy.blogspot.com

quote:Originally posted by sals54

Jack,
Crazy thought number 3: If used for racing only, and if racing blocks often don't use coolant, then why not fill the over-bored block water passages with epoxy for strength?

sals54

They do Sal:

"To add strength, all steam and coolant passages in the deck are tapped and filled with Allen set screws before decking. To gain much needed block rigidity, the water jackets are packed with Childs & Albert block filler. Air bubbles and voids are prevented by tapping the block with a plastic mallet during the filling process. "

JDP Maryland
Disclaimer:
None of the discussions of my Studebakers are a invitation to buy nor a promotion to sell, I'm just sharing the hobby the way I practice it.

The sleeved, big inch Stude project I've seen was filled past the bottoms of the sleeves.

Once upon a long time ago, we ran demo cars with alcohol engines and ran no coolant. Some heats would run 30 minutes or more, but no overheating.


Do any unmachined Stude blocks exist? Seems a lot of things could be done with a virgin casting.


Jim
Often in error, never in doubt

____1966 Avanti II RQA 0088_______________1963 Avanti R2 63R3152____________Rabid Snail Racing