283 vs 289!! (longest VS thread?)
[:0][:0][:0][:0]
0
-
Here's another I found while googling the previous:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is coming down the alley in a black and yellow Ford,
With one hand on the throttle and the other on the bottle of
Good old Thunderbird.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Here's another I found while googling the previous:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is coming down the alley in a black and yellow Ford,
With one hand on the throttle and the other on the bottle of
Good old Thunderbird.
Doug
"Hand on the throttle"???? That sure hearkens back to the golden olden days (aughts & teens for your youngsters).0 -
As a kid, I remember my Dad having a locking hand-throttle installed on a '54 Lincoln we had. He would brag that he could set it for any speed, and if he hit the brakes it would disengage.
That would have been a while ago.
Doug0 -
My pop had a '55 Studebaker with a pretty mean V-8 in it.I can't remember exact CID but, i know it could be heard for well over a mile, when he made the turn from the highway onto our road.
I think it had a 2-speed rear axel as well.Their was a handle,under the dash, that could be pulled in hi gear.Then u just lifted your foot and mashed the throttle again and it gave U an "overdrive" gear for the highway.
That was a cool car.
Pop had rewired the entire car, using aviation shielded toggle switches..0 -
Here is a good website discussing Studebaker engines:
http://billstudepage.homestead.com/files/engine.htm
And here is an excerpt about their V-8s:
Studebaker V-Eight. An overhead valve engine introduced in 1951 replacing the Commander Six in automotive use. Originally displacing 232 cubic inches, it was progressively enlarged to 259 and then to 289 cubic inches. Early 1955 Commanders used a reduced displacement 224 cubic inch version which was also available in trucks in 1955-56. Dual exhausts and both two and four barrel carburetors were available depending upon the year and model of vehicle. For 1957 and 1958, Golden Hawks used the 289 version with a supercharger installed. 1957 Packard Clippers also used the supercharged 289. Horsepower ranges from 120 for the early version to 275 for the supercharged Hawks. Relatively heavy for its displacement, it is a strong and reasonably powerful engine with good parts availability. It was built in large numbers and used extensively in both cars and trucks. While it does well with an automatic transmission, it is great fun with stick and overdrive. I like this engine, having owned a Lark with a 259 and stick with overdrive, a Silver Hawk with a 289 and straight stick, and a GT Hawk with a 289 and four-speed stick. My experience is that most any Studebaker equipped with this engine is going to feel front end heavy.
Doug0 -
Pop had a '55 Hard Top with stick & OD. 
Uploaded with ImageShack.us0 -
Cool car, but the 289 Studey is NOT to be confused with the 289 Ford !!
Only weighs about twicet as much.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Cool car, but the 289 Studey is NOT to be confused with the 289 Ford !!
Only weighs about twicet as much.
Doug
Well Doug,, ,it wasn't EXACTLY ment to be a "Pony Car" or a drag rig.
It was just a '55 that Pop Juiced up and drove back n forth to Newcastle Del. when he was working at McGuire AFB.I just remember running to the end of the lane to catch pop,so i could steer it home..I would imagine the entire care weighed 3-4 times what a Falcon did.
It sounded awesome and had NO TOP END.In OD, as long as u held it floored, it'd keep going faster...I suppose it'd have to top-out somewhere but, i never saw it..0 -
A 289 way before Fix Or Repair Daily thought of it.
Butch0 -
I wonder if the borexstroke were the same ??
Doug0 -
Studebaker 289 3-9/16 bore 3-5/8 stroke
Ford 289 4.005 bore 2.87 stroke0 -
Probably not. The 289 (Ford) was a 2.87 inch stroke X 4 inch bore which made for some HIGH reves before you reached critical piston speed. Most of the older V-8's (50's) were much longer stroke and narrower bore. More torque at the low end, but very short in the RPM area.[;)] 0 -
Anyone remember the 4X4 Chevy small blocks ??
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Probably not. The 289 (Ford) was a 2.87 inch stroke X 4 inch bore which made for some HIGH reves before you reached critical piston speed. Most of the older V-8's (50's) were much longer stroke and narrower bore. More torque at the low end, but very short in the RPM area.[;)]
Since Torque and HP are equal at 5250 RPM, and torque is higher than HP below 5250, it's very difficult to make HP, which is dependent on RPM, with a standard push rod v8 production engine. The laws of Physics must be obeyed.0 -
Not on SBCs.
Torque stops at 3500, and horsepressure starts at 6500.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Not on SBCs.
Torque stops at 3500, and horsepressure starts at 6500.
Doug
That's just mean... true, but still mean!0 -
quote:Originally posted by butchlambert
A 289 way before Fix Or Repair Daily thought of it.
Butch
AMEN bro.!! It just barked and PULLED...HARD!
Pops "Baker" got pulled of the line a lot, never tailed tho...0 -
In the mid-'60s I had an interesting unmodified Mustang Fastback.
It had been on the dealer's lot, unsold for better than a year. The color was a medium metallic blue, which Chevrolet called "Sebring Blue" on their cars.
It was set-up like a '65 Mustang GT - dual gauge cluster on the steering column, dual exhausts through the rear valence. Dual fog lamps in the grill.
But the engine was what was curious - set up exactly like the 271HP 289,it had a Holly four barrel on a high-rise aluminum manifold, screw in rocker arm studs and a solid lifter cam. A four speed. And other stuff.
It even had the gold Hi-Po flags on the front fenders, but they said 260 instead of 289.
Because it was an unsold prior model year, I got it for a song, and it was a pretty stout runner.
I moved on to other bigger, faster, cars with larger back seats - a critical consideration in my yout.
What's funny is that I have never seen that engine listed in any repair manual, car book, shop manual, or anywhere else.
It is indeed a "Mystery Engine" to me, and I wish I had it now.
Has anyone ever heard of this engine ??
Thank you.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Probably not. The 289 (Ford) was a 2.87 inch stroke X 4 inch bore which made for some HIGH reves before you reached critical piston speed. Most of the older V-8's (50's) were much longer stroke and narrower bore. More torque at the low end, but very short in the RPM area.[;)]
Since Torque and HP are equal at 5250 RPM, and torque is higher than HP below 5250, it's very difficult to make HP, which is dependent on RPM, with a standard push rod v8 production engine. The laws of Physics must be obeyed.
And your point is????[?] Critical piston speed has nothing to do with 'push rods' only the 'connecting rods and pistons'.[?]0 -
I read about that 260 on the internet.... oh wait..... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Probably not. The 289 (Ford) was a 2.87 inch stroke X 4 inch bore which made for some HIGH reves before you reached critical piston speed. Most of the older V-8's (50's) were much longer stroke and narrower bore. More torque at the low end, but very short in the RPM area.[;)]
Since Torque and HP are equal at 5250 RPM, and torque is higher than HP below 5250, it's very difficult to make HP, which is dependent on RPM, with a standard push rod v8 production engine. The laws of Physics must be obeyed.
And your point is????[?] Critical piston speed has nothing to do with 'push rods' only the 'connecting rods and pistons'.[?]
Isn't piston speed also dependent on RPM? What you seemed to have missed is that "push rod" is used as a classification of engine and there was no mention of any relation between the part, push rod, and piston speed.
It's a rare push rod engine that can turn 9 grand. The point is that anything under 5250 rpm deals with torque and over 5250 starts to deal with HP greater then torque.
Pistons for high RPM engines are vastly different then pistons for low RPM applications, but of course you knew that.
HP = (Torque x rpm) / 52500 -
So, I guess that means that you fell for the socialist/liberal/revisionist doctrine hook, line, and sinker ??
Doug0 -
Colt Super,
I heard of the 260 in a Mustang, but can't say for certain if it was a HYPO.
You should have got a Mustang with the fold down back seat like I did...[;)]
Trinity +++0 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
Colt Super,
I heard of the 260 in a Mustang, but can't say for certain if it was a HYPO.
You should have got a Mustang with the fold down back seat like I did...[;)]
Trinity +++
That's the one I did get - a Fastback.
As far as I know, all of them had the fold-down seat - but it didn't leave much room for waving legs !!
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
So, I guess that means that you fell for the socialist/liberal/revisionist doctrine hook, line, and sinker ??
Doug
Almost everything I know about engines I learned from the "Little Red Book".
My reference library has such timeless works as; Building a Mighty Mouse Motor by Mao, The Mildoon Mastodon by Marxx, Speed Tuning the SBC by Stalin, Kinetic Energy and Dissipation Rate Spectra of High- and Low-Swirl Internal Combustion Engines by Kalashnikov, and my all time favorite, The Racing Motorcycle - A Technical Reference for Engineers Vol 1 & 2 by Castro.0 -
I KNEW IT !!
Get thee hence, devil-Man.
Doug0 -
0 -
quote:283 vs 289!!
Neither one really. Those things barely ave a 3" stroke. The frigin pistons barely move! You arent even starting to make any torque until you get to a 4" stroke, and a 5"or 6"is best. But if I had to choose one of those it would be the blue oval, of course.[^][^]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:283 vs 289!!
Neither one really. Thosethings barely ave a 3" stroke. The frigin pistons barely move! You arent even starting to make any torque until you get to a 4" stroke, and a 5"or 6"is best. But if I had to choose one of those it would be the blue oval, of course.[^][^]
It has come forth to my attention that folks don't really have a clue (in general) about the function of torque in the scheme if things.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:283 vs 289!!
Neither one really. Thosethings barely ave a 3" stroke. The frigin pistons barely move! You arent even starting to make any torque until you get to a 4" stroke, and a 5"or 6"is best. But if I had to choose one of those it would be the blue oval, of course.[^][^]
It has come forth to my attention that folks don't really have a clue (in general) about the function of torque in the scheme if things.
Doug
True statement IMO Doug.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
161 comments