Projects "Saving" a Studebaker

Haven't gotten that far. Once I get the engine & trans in place That'll be on the short list.

 

Haven't gotten that far yet... once I get the engine & trans mocked into place that'll be on the short list. Does your Lark have a manual trans?

 

Today I got the refurbished Bat-wing installed, changed the diff fluid and did some more cleaning. I also tossed the gross old seat belts.
I've got the engine & trans mounts ordered and they'll arrive Monday. It will be interesting to see where the engine sits regarding exhaust manifolds...

 

That is some crazy steering linkage on these Larks!

 

I believe I saw a single picture once in hot rod where they were grafting a cavalier roof onto a Stude- it wouldn’t fly here, but it was dramatic. I remember at the time wondering how they would get the side glass to work. Back to the grind …

 

Studebaker used the same basic steering from about '52 till the end of the line. That bell crank causes some clearance issues but works very well especially in the non-power cars.

 

Yeah, there's around 9 points to wear out. But when it's tight & adjusted correctly it steers amazingly well... almost like power steering because of the resulting leverage.

If you look @ the steering arms, starting @ the box, there is a long distance from the box to the rod that connects to the bell crank. Then the distance from there to the bell crank's pivot point. Then the distance from the pivot point to the tie rods. Then another distance @ the other end of the tie rods to the kingpin's center... don't forget the distance from the steering column's hub to the o.d. of the steering wheel... add it all up and you've got a couple feet of leverage, like putting a pipe on a breaker bar. All that, strange as it looks, makes for relatively easy steering for a manual set up. The down side is that there are at least 9 points to wear, not including the king pins/bushings. (And there's a couple pounds of grease zerks all sprinkled around) But, like all technology, it's great... when it works.
P.S.; Yesterday I scored a sweet 7 qt. oil pan, H.V. pump & pick up for the parts staging area.

 

Here's the "Bat Wing" installed:
Today, much to my surprise, the Summit box arrived. (a day early) So my parts pile is growing.

 

Yes my Lark had a muncie , I had to fabricate a bellcrank assembly that bolted to the back of the scattershield in order to use the 59 floor pedals. I think in 61? they went to swing pedals. Better check clearance with the 7qt pan , you may find the steering arms hit the front of the pan. I had that problem with the 327 I installed first and I put the quick ratio steering arms on and it gave me just enough clearance for the 7 qt kick out pan. The downside was steering effort increased dramatically . When I installed the 400 I used a stock 5qt pan and could have reinstalled the stock arms. I have pics of all this if your interested PM me.

 

Hey, Js;
"(And there's a couple pounds of grease zerks all sprinkled around) But, like all technology, it's great... when it works."
Bwaahhahhahaha... ;D .
You're not lying - much. Funny as hell, never heard it put that way. Not far from the truth, either. At least they're there. For those that might not know, the bellcrank spindle greasezerk is well hidden underneath & through the crossmember. No grease = Oh S--t! Usually they're missed, resulting in hard steering. Replacing the bushing w/caged-roller-bearings & the leather seal w/fat-o-rings works really well. Usually I avoid roller bearings if they don't go continually around one way, but they do work very well here. After I did mine on my '64 Lark, I could steer the manual system w/2 fingers, running 205/15 radials. I was happy.
Factory stuff does make for slow(but easy) steering, although the later-model Avanti steering arms work to quicken it nicely. Depending on tire width, at slow speeds, maybe too much effort? Depends on you. If you want to auto-cross - well then, that's another issue... .
I saw the post too late, but you could've hack-sawed off the tips(at an angle) of the oem frame motor mounts for the sbc, it's only a matter of shortening them. But since you got nice 65/66 ones, does look nicer.
Marcus...

 

O.K., so real quick;
I had to drop m' Lady off @ Phoenix airport so she could go get her sister from Chicago. (I do not recommend either of those things, by the way) I figured, as long as I was so close, I'd swing down to Casa Grande to see my ol' buddy "Puppy" and scoop up some parts for the Lark... (It's only an hour out of my way)
Good call, 'cause other than seeing the Pup, I scored an oil pan, pump & pick up. I also glommed onto a couple pulleys, (unfortunately they're chrome, but hey, they'e cheap!) and an alternator. Plus a sub & a couple frosty ones.
So the junk pile is growing!

 

The more parts the better until they crowd you out of the shop like me.

 

My ‘60 Lark VIII hrdtp…..have always had a soft spot for Larks….

Ray

 

The studebaker steering linkage, from 1951 onward is a duplicate in form and function to that used on all Chevrolet passenger cars beginning in 1949 through 1954 and all Corvettes from 1953 through 1962 models. From the steering box, pitman arm, drag link, bellcrank and tie rods, they are the same design as the GM stuff. I feel pretty certain they differ in specific dimensions, of course, but at a glance they are alike.

I am not defending the design, GM or Studebaker. I am merely surprised by the ‘car guys’ we all are that the similarity has apparently gone unnoticed based on the comments referring to it as weird, unusual, etc.

My comment here is NOT a criticism of anyone’s comment or opinion. I am actually just surprised, and a bit amused, by the oversight.

Carry on!

Ray (Resident Curmudgeon)

 

Well, I know I definitely learned something. I have probably owned a half dozen or more GM cars of those years. But, I suppose I have never had to work on the steering linkage on any of them. Thanks for the info! I learn something every day.

 

That is interesting. I've never owned a '49-'54 Chevy or any Corvettes. I've ridden in a few but you can't see the steering from the passenger seat.

 

Packard, and I'm pretty sure Studebaker used that goofy power steering assist ram that was also shared by many General Motors products and some Ford products.

Sorry for the sidebar, you may continue with the regularly scheduled program

 

some nice patina on that red, white, and blue one... flathead 6s?

 

As for Studebaker, my ‘56 Studebaker Sky Hawk has factory power steering. It is an integral power steering ‘box’, a cumbersome chunk of iron. I believe it is a Ross unit. It mounts on the frame rail in place of the manual steering box. As it happens, it is the same box that Chevrolet used in the early/mid ‘50s…..’54 for sure and possibly ‘53. I have compared both units and they appear identical but for the ‘clocking’ of the upper bolt on section of the box.

I have examined a later Studebaker chassis (exact year unknown) and it was fitted with ram assist P/S like you show above, even though the rest of the steering linkage was generally the same as all other Studebakers from ‘51 onward. The odd thing, I thought, was the placement of the ram acting on the center bellcrank. As I recall, the bellcrank had an additional ‘arm’ on it, facing forward and to which the ram was attached. The ram was ahead of the bellcrank, horizontally mounted with the fixed end attach to a frame bracket on the left side. Or some such.

None of this matters much…..details and trivia are just stuck in my head. Oh well!

Ray

 

My wife's Lark has the above pictured ram assist steering. I think it is set up as @Hnstray describes, but it is a leaky mess, so my immediate plan was to scrap it and just put manual steering in the car.

 

Both of these came with V8s. The black one has a supercharged 289. Not easy to get all of that under the hood with no bumps. It is 4" shorter in front than the Coupes/Hawks. It has been apart for a long time. With the power steering it steers almost too easy. As said before this bell crank system provides a lot of leverage. The big steering wheels helped too.

 

The '55-'58 Studes with PS have the GM Saginaw box; one of best power steering units ever. Also, one of the largest, heaviest and most expensive ever.

The '59-'66 Studebakers used the same Bendix/Eaton linkage assist as did GM, Ford and Mopar. Many of the rebuild parts for the pump, valve and ram are interchangeable. The PS cars usually got a quicker ratio steering box than the manual steering cars.

jack vines

 

I parted out a '53 Belair with power steering. The box looked like a manual box with a power unit added to it. VERY large.

 

Another reason why I'm sticking with manual steering!

 

I made a bit of progress... The engine mounts lined up well. For grins I plopped an old pro stock tunnel ram on there. Ha-ha, looks pretty cool. So any way, next I'll figure out a trans cross member, pulleys, blah blah....

 

I scrounged around through the endless junk pile & came up with a water pump and brackets to mount the alternator.
In the interest of having a solid home for the trans mount, I began building a cross member for it.

Baby steps... but moving forward nun the less.
I have to move the whole mess forward in the shop 'cause I can't quite reach with the welder... UGH!!!

 

extension cord

 

Well, whaduyuh know... my Summit box arrived a day early!

Does parts arriving count as progress?

I think so... and these headers are, in fact, going to afford the clearance I'll be needing for the exhaust vs. steering situation! That's a win. The car is moved forward and the trans cross-member can continue...

 

@Jack vines I have found a pic on the web of the p/s unit used on ‘53/‘54 Chevrolet, which is the same OEM unit used on my ‘56 Studebaker, other than the ‘clocking’ of the upper housing. Is this the unit you referenced in you above post? I’ll have to inspect mine again as to mfg name on the unit, which I did a few years ago. Memory may be fading, but if I had to bet, I don’t think it is a Saginaw unit. Perhaps it is. Probably doesn’t matter in the long run…

Ray[/USER]