Technical Studibaker intake manifold on a caddillac - how much trouble

So, how much trouble to get a studibaker manifold bolted onto the 49 up caddillac heads.

 

Not to hard

 

Just re read the ***le, I went the other way and put a caddilac onto a Stude so I ***ume the same is true in reverse. I I'll try and remember to get some pictures when I get home. I installed a Caddy 3X2 on my Stude 289 and ran it for several years.

The ports have terrible alignment.
I had to move the outboard bolt holes closer together, Bob Wilson drilled an counterbored mine and went into 3 of the intake runners so I had to braze the holes shut. Going from Stude to Caddy would move them further apart, might run out of casting??
For the right price I might part with my factory 3 X 2 that could be un modified to fit a Cadillac again.
I switched to a Stu-V a couple years ago and it perform almost as good, but looks much better.

This is the Stu-V when I was making the air cleaner, it runs two backdraft Stromberg WW's sideways. Crazy linkage

 

More trouble than it is worth. As others have pointed out, the 2 engines look similar and the manifolds are similar but the Stude is a smaller engine.

You have to modify the manifold to get it to fit, the ports are smaller and don't match the heads meaning it not only looks ghetto, your performance will be worse.

Why not just keep your stock manifold and adjust the carb linkage so the throttle doesn't open all the way?

Or, if you want more performance, buy a Cadillac manifold. fit blk has one that should go cheap as it has been hacked up to fit a Studebaker.

 

This is a stock Cad 2x4 to Studebaker 289. Dropped right on pretty easy. Ports matched good no big problems. Outer mounting bolt holes had to be elongated / opened up to fit. Two 390 cfm Holley's really woke up the Stude
I realize this is not exactly what you are doing but might be helpful. You might want to get a hold of intake gaskets and see how things will lineup first.

 

Will they bolt up...with a little work, yes.
Is it a good idea, no.
Why, the ports do not line up very well. The four inner ports arent "too" bad, the four outer ports arn't very good at all.

While I've not done a Stude to Cad., I have attempted the Cad to Stude swap.
It was a LOT of work for little gain. It was a 2 x 4 manifold, that is VERY difficult to get in the Stude world.
Yes, you can do a half-*** job, and yea, the engine will run. I guess it just depends on your idea of "running...well".

It also seems odd that you want to go this direction. There are MANY more manifolds, that are somewhat better in design for the Cad. engne, than the Stude engine.

 

Years ago, I put a stock Stude. 259" 4-barrel intake on my 232" 2-barrel engine.

pdq67

 

I have pictures of the Stude gasket but can't figure out how to post on my phone.
The tape is the intake amd the silver is a Stude gasket

 

31Vic;
There is a 3/16" length difference 'twixt the Cad & Stude, IIRC. Cad is longer. As mentioned, ****-lousy port alignment(s). Lots of angle grinding inside both the manifold & head ports to get anywhere even remotely close. & that's all it ever will be. To "properly" use the Cad manifold on a Stude, it should be sectioned by 3/16" (& then welded up), so's the ports line up. Stude should be lengthened by 3/16" for Cad usage.
I'm curious: which Stude manifold do you have? Might be interested. .
Marcus...