As you will recall, the first modern US OHV V8 was the Cadillac 331-ci for 1949. This was followed by the Oldsmobile Rocket 303-ci, also in 1949. The Studebaker 232-ci came in the 1951 model year. While there were many similarities in basic design, there were many significant engineering features that set Studebaker apart. The unique Studebaker features included: * Direct spur-gear driven camshaft. * Externally serviceable oil pressure relief valve. * Mechanical valve lifters. These featured highly innovative, self-locking adjusting screws. The crankshaft thrust loads were carried on the front main bearings rather than the rear bearings (as was the case with the two GM engines). As Corbin Walters noted, "This allowed the press fit crankshaft timing gear to secure a front thrust washer and shim pack, facilitating easy adjustment of crankshaft end play." * A unique modular water pump design mounted in a sperate distribution manifold, allowing the pump to be changed without removing coolant hoses. * Head bolt bosses are located in the outer walls of the block to minimize cylinder distortion. * When it was introduced, the Studebaker V8 produced more horsepower per cubic inch than any other engine with the exception of Chrysler's 331 Hemi (also released in 1951). There are many other unique design features and I would recommend the curious read Corbin Walters article in Turning Wheels. This brings us back to the original issue - did Studebaker steal the Caddy design? You all may find it interesting to note that some Studebaker engineers (John Poulos, are you reading this?) called the new Studebaker V8 the "Caliper V8," implying its design was directly transferred from the Cadillac. However, as Studebaker engineer Jack Smith made clear in his talk at the Dearborn meet, this "was true for some details, but the two engines had many differences." In other words, the Studebaker V8 was not a clone. So, I think it is fair to say that Studebaker did not steal the Cadillac V8. It is equally fair to say the Cadillac engine greatly infleunced the Studebaker team. They took what they felt was good and went their own direction as they felt appropriate. In the end, they developed an engine that was a Studebaker. It is important, as I think John Poulos was attempting to say, that we recognize the heritage of the Studebaker V8. At the same time, it is equally important we recognize the skill of the Studebaker engineering team, led by Gene Hardig, that developed the Stude powerplant. But keep in mind the development of the Studebaker V8 began before they had a Caddy or Olds engine to look at. Basic decisions made by Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Studebaker were made before a modern US OHV V8 came on the market. The first Studebaker prototype V8s were running in Studebaker's dynamometer facility no later than early 1950. The first engines had a 3 1/8-inch bore and a 3 1/4-inch stroke with a 199-ci displacement. Displacement was increased when testing found torque and horsepower fell below engineering goals. Thus, the decision to increase bore by a quarter of an inch, resulting in the 232-ci displacement. Leighzer ==================== The Studebaker v-8 was designed in the late 40's bu E.J. Hardig, T.A. Scherger and S.W. Sparrow. Not by Ed Cole or any other G.M. Engineers. The reason for the small displacement for the Stude V-8 is that when they were designed, very high octane gasoline was promised to be readily available in time for the planned release date. The engine was designed to be stout enough for 12-14:1 compression ratios. Even overhead cams and hemispherical combustion chambers were considered. When it was learned the refinerys would not come through to the general public with the good stuff, as promised right after the war, then it was too late to change the design. When the engineers were testing rod configurations and piston pin arrangements they ran the engine 100 hours @ 5000 rpm under full load. You should also remember that Studebaker was comcerned with economy and fuel mileage long before it was fashonable to do so. The original 232 had a 3 3/8 bore and a 3 1/4 in stroke which is a bore stroke raito of slightly less than one. In general, decreasing the bore/stroke ratio tends to increase the legnth of an engine while decreasing its height, and, in the case of a v-type engine its width. Smaller bores tend to have less ring friction and the short stroke, less piston travel, both things being good for longevity and economy. Studebaker engines will last and handle a lot of punishment if regularly maintained. I have owned at least four with over 350,000 miles and no major overhauls needed on any of them. I do not baby my Studes. I like performance and I drive accordingly, lots of 5000+ rpm shifts and second gear rubber!!!! I tend to twist off axle shafts and break transmissions but never blew up a Properly built Studebaker v-8. A good history of the development of the Studebaker v-8 was reprinted from the Society of Automotive Engineers in the August issue of Hot Rod in 1952 when the engine was only a year or so old. Thanks for letting me vent but when people compare the Studebaker 289 v-8 to the Ford v-8 (developed many years later), I feel I have to set the record straight. Studebaker v-8 Forged high carbon steel crankshaft (such a high quality of steel as to be able to be nitrided) A chrankshaft of as high a quality steel for a Ford would be close to TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS! Studebaker v-8: Gear driven cam, no chain to wear out after 60,000 miles like the "competition". Studebaker v-8: 18 head bolts (6 around each cylinder), competition 10. Which would you like to put a blower on? bezhawk@yahoo.com Mar 2002 ++++++++++ The Studebaker V8 design is very very close to the early Cadillac OHV V8 of about 48 or 49. The Cad was also a low, squat block with a gear driven cam off the crankshaft. The early Cad V8 was THE ROD ENGINE when I was growing up (at least in Chicago) until the SBC came along in 55. The Cad was also very heavy, like the Stude. I have read that the Stude guys designed their V8 using the Cadillac as their prototype. ken matson Feb 02 ------------------ The '49-59 Cadillac V8 is essentially the same size outside as the Studebaker. Nither could be considered low or squat designs. They are both old style, long-rod engines which are several inches wider and taller, as well as heavier, than the 283" Chev and 289" Fords. The Cad began at 331" and eventually grew to 429" The Studebaker had almost that much growth potential, but Studebaker never bothered to change the block casting cores to allow a larger bore. There is plenty of room for 4" and larger bores. The early Cad intake manifolds, both stock and hot rod, will bolt directly to the Studebaker with the slotting of a couple of bolt holes. The Cad ports are larger, so the Stude needs a lot of grinding to make it really work efficiently. Jack Vines Feb 02 ------------------------- I once worked with a power plant design engineer whose first job out of college was at Studebaker. I don't recall how the subject came up but,one day at lunch he said that when he was at Studebaker they actually went to another city (away from South Bend) and bought a Cadillac, pulled the engine and took it to the Stude plant. They blue printed it and then reduced all the dimensions by some percent and that became the Stude V8. I don't believe this fellow had any association with the hobby or Stude, nor did I at that time, and I believe he was sincere. Jack Usher Feb 2002 ---------------------------- I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with Ed Reynolds senior, yes Ed Renoylds, Jr. of Studebaker International. Ed Renoylds was the Vice President of Engineering. Ed told me that Studebaker was in the middle of R & D of a new engine that would replace the Avanti engine line up. They would be approximately 340 cubic inch thin wall cast engines. Ed told me that they had cast 2 experimental blocks, one of the blocks had been machined and the other was still unmachined when the South Bend plant shut down. Ed told me that the 2,340 blocks were ordered destroyed, along with a number of other prototype projects, Ed told me that the machined 340 block disappeared. Since that time I have talked to a number of Studebaker Officanatos who claim to have seen this block, the stories have varied from the block on display in a private collection to a complete 340 engine. One thing I am fairly sure of is that there were 2 blocks only because of all the similar stories and credibility of the main source. I find it hard to believe though that someone had the ability and resources to manufacture a crank & camshaft (let alone) rods, pistons, pan, timing gear cover etc. possibly heads, etc. I find it curious that Studebaker was R&D -ing a thin wall 340 cubic inch engine and when Studebaker stopped automotive production leased their brand new engine foundry to Chrysler who a few years later had a 340 Doug Crall (mar 02) ---------------------------- Very Very Interesting!! So was the Eng based on the Stude block or was it entirely a new casting? If based on the Stude block, was it just a larger bore or was it stroked? Speaking of a stroker, has anyone successfully done one? Finished with the wifes Avanti Eng and rearing to go on my GT greg --------------- I was told they just messed with the sand casting a bit, and lost about 8 out 10 blocks just trying to get a bigger bore. I think they intended to spend the big bucks to do it right, but the end was near. -------------- I had the opportunity to talk to E.T. Reynolds a number of times and he also told me about the 343 V8. He said that it was made from the standard pattern equipment and that the larger bores were created by modifying the bore side of the water jacket cores. E.T. Reynolds also told me that there were 6 blocks cast, but 4 were scrapped as bad castings. I was also told by a machineist at a local speed shop (they did sublet work for Engineering) that he bored a numbe r of 343 blocks. Possibly as many as 25 of them. As to Chrysler, they never used Studebakers foundry. Cummins Diesel used the foundry from '64 or'65 untill about '69 or'70. R2Andy Mar 2002) ------------ Greetings, Andy, This is the kind of thing which drives Studebaker historians nuts. E.T. Reynolds says there were 6 blocks cast and two survived. Speed Shop Machinist says he bored 25 blocks. Who do you believe here? By the way, probably a 343" Studebaker would have had a 3 7/8" = 3.875" bore, 5/16" over the stock bore, assuming a stock 3 5/8" stroke. This would have been easy to do. Chevy 265" began with a 3.75" bore and ended up with the 400" at 4.125" or 3/8" larger. thnx, jv. -------- I only saw two myself, but I thought there were more. The worst part was they were for sale for around $300 as I recall, big bucks for a bare block in 1964. JP mar 02 -------- --------------------- The only '57 Packards were a few prototypes and clay models - 'The Cormorant' monthly newsletter had an article on them a few months ago; along with mention of the upgraded motor to, I believe, about 410". For that matter I seem to recall reading that a few upgraded motors like that were released late in '56 for marine service.randee May 2002 -------------- The 232 had itsy-bitsy valves and ports. Other'n that it was an OK unit. The manifolds are smaller too. So if you was to drop a later V8 where a two-three-two had been, you'd wanna swap the manifolds as well. The earlier ones also had a 2-piece distributor / oil drive setup. You could lift the dist. out without pulling the drive gear and oil pump shaft out too. BTW, the first year or so - the serial# was back by the distributor. Might fool someone who didn't know that into thinking it was a replacement block. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ October 2002 I was talking to friend last night who is well known as being very knowledgeable in Stude-land. This was told to my friend by a former Stude engineer. When the South Bend plant closed in '63 and Studebaker engineers were looking for a suitable brand-x engine to replace the soon to be unavailable Stude powerplant. The first engine they chose to try was the small Ford V-8. (I would assume, the 260 anf 289.) Because of the placement of the distributor, it would not fit without difficult modifications to the car. They tried Chrysler engines and about every other engine they could find, and only as a last resort, had to go to the engine that they would ever have wanted to use... a Chebby engine.. It seems that these guys had a particular distaste for Chebrolet in particular and GM in ...ahem.. general. DSNOW@FUSE.NET (DAN SNOW) ----------- Strange that Studebaker engineers as a group would select the SBC as the last resort. Even by '63 it was perhaps the most proven, most modern, V8; produced in the most numbers of any production engine; powering Corvettes to 2 ton trucks; the engine of choice for racers of all types; relatively inexpensive; light weight; and widely accepted by the buying public. Also strange that they could only fit the SBC where that big Stude V8 used to be. I've seen Chrysler Hemis in Larks, I can't understand why Studebaker engineers couldn't fit a SB Ford or Chrysler in one. The SB Ford distributor is in the front of the motor and wouldn't have any impact on the fit of the motor in the chassis (unlike the Stude or the Chevy where the distributor is in the back of the motor). Engineers generally make decisions based on facts not emotion. My guess is that those Stude engineers were a lot smarter than your friend gives them credit for. "Dick Steinkamp" ------------- The choice was cost driven.All 3 V8 lines were proven and durable,but the clincher was price.Even using the McKinnon added approx $200 to the price in an era when that was a lot of money.Biggest problem with the 283 in a Stude is trying to fit headers.The small volume of projected Hamilton sales didn't justify the costs of keeping the Stude engine plant open....purely an economic decision James ++++++++++++++ From the account I have read by E.T. Reynolds in Car Classics Magazine, the 283, 260, and 273 were tried from GM, Ford and Chrysler. According to his account, he stated "only the 283 fit the engine compartment perfectly". I'm assuming we're talking NO modifications, body or chassis. The only modification I've noted is with the Chevrolet 6-cylinders is the panel and rad support are modifed for the longer length of the inline engine. He also stated "old dame fortune made her appearace when it came to adapting the Borg Warner transmissions to the Chevrolet engines." The story reports Checker started using GM engines in place of the Continental engines while retaining B-W transmissions, and the adapter "was quickly made available to Studebaker." Studebaker has used components from GM-owned suppliers such as Saginaw and Delco, so also obtaining engines from GM would make sense. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ July 2003 BTW, whatever you have heard about R3s, again, the guys who know can prove by production orders nine R3 Avanti were sold and delivered by the factory. Agreed, probably a hundred clones of varying degrees of fidelity have been built by dealers and owners. Paxton Products had about twentyfive completed R3 engines, which they sold out the door. They had parts for several more, again which they sold piecemeal for the next ten years. Studebaker had a couple of hundred R2 engines left over, which a stockholder slid out the back door and sold in the Pacific Northwest as boat engines! I heard third-hand of a guy on Whidbey Island who took a couple in trade for Dungeness crabs and used them in his crab boats for years. thnx, jv. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++