cadillac/studebaker V8 similarities?

things like rockers and intakes apparently interchange between early cad OHV engines and the studie V8. what other parts fit, and what kind of deal did studebaker have with general motors that made this so? i always wondered what the relationship was.

 

I read that one of the engineers that was involved with the development of the Cadillac OHV V8 defected to Studebaker in '49, and apparently took some of his ideas with him. The external dimensions and overall weight are so close that it made the Studillac (331 Cadillac powered Studebaker) a real natural.

 

They do NOT interchange. They are similar in some ways, but not the same.

I have adapted quite a few Cad manifolds for friends some years ago, but it took some filing, some grinding, and some drilling and re-threading. (Older Cad engines that do NOT use the intake manifold to cover the lifter valley)

The Cad engine was longer, so no matter how much you m***aged the intake p***ages and ports, the flow still had to do a bit of a zig zag on the way to all 4 front and rear end-cylinders. That could exaggerate the normal "end-cylinder leanout" that you normally get when you have a far away port or too many bends.
This happens in ANY engine, except for the one-carb-for-each-cylinder engines such as a motorcycle engine.

So the normal V8 tendency for the center cylinders (3,5,4,6) to get a straighter, shorter fuel pathway and a full rich charge, while the "outside corner" cylinders (1,2,7,8) with the longer pathway get a slightly slower leaner fuel charge, is now exaggerated with the longer Cad manifold.
No matter how much you grind to move the Stude ports over as far as possible, and how far you grind the Cad end-p***ages to meet them, the fuel/air flow still has to overshoot somewhat, and then turn back to head toward the intake valve.

Even if you grind thru into air, and grind thru into water, the p***age still isn't quite straight enough. The normal tendency of a V8 to have 4 slightly rich center cylinders, and 4 slightly lean corner cylinders is increased with a Cad manifold on a Stude.

They can look very cool though.

The performance "improvements" were debatable, but you could get 2 carb and 3 carb manifolds for a cool look.

If you want to be really fast, use something else. If you want to look cool, a Cad manifold can work.

When we went racing, we used a homemade "ram" style manifold. It worked much much MUCH better than any other manifold we have tried.

The Cad engine influenced other engine makers, but none I know of were actual copies.




Homemade "ram" intake, ported heads, oversize Chevy valves, re-bent Jeep headers, home-built HEI ignition, T-10 4 speed, Oldsmobile ****tershield, Studebaker R-1 Cam, Chevy clutch, and ladder bars.

The old saying "there's no subs***ute for cubic inches" is wrong.
Cubic inches is a poor subs***ute for good AIRFLOW.

 

Studebaker thanked GM for the use of the Cad/Olds design in an SAE paper.

 

Don't think so.

 

Found this on the web--written by Leighzer--from the old newsgroup:


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.

 

I once saw a Stude race car with what I was told a BB MoPar manifold. I think they were using spacers. Didn't really look at it. Somebody might want to check out how close they are.

 

On a distantly related note:

I remember reading a "conspiracy theory" that Chryslers 340 was really a Studebaker design that was being worked on before they went belly up. Supposedly, Stude's facility where it was being developed was sold to Ma Mopar. Sure would like to find that article again- it was an interesting theory, anyways.

 

318/340/360 intake with wedge adapter plates.
Works decent.
Not too many choices for Stude's when it comes to intakes.
Stock cast iron (2 and 4 barrel (WCFB mostly, but one AFB version).
Repop aluminum low rise dual plane 4 barrel
Offy 4bbl (small runners as it was designed for thhe early 223 cid V8)
Dual quad (OE has bigger runners requiring rare R3/R4 heads)
Repop dual quad (can use regular heads)
Repop dual deuce intake
Repop triple deuce intake.
And soon a new repop Bulldog intake.
I have built a few intakes up for guys.
Some pic's are ****tered around at:
http://rides.webshots.com/album/560763356VAkvTd
Jeff

 

Studebaker sold Chrysler all the foundry equipment in 1964/1965 when they shut down production in South Bend, Indiana. Chrysler stripped out and shipped all the equipment elsewhere, leaving an empty foundry building.
It is possible that Chrysler may have had Studebaker cast some product for them before they shut it down and sold it to them.
But Studebaker did not design anything for Chrysler.
Shoot, they didn't change their own design(s) for a decade
That's the only connection to Chrysler that I know of.
Jeff

 

The drawings for the Studebaker engine components for the 1951 engine all have 1947 drawing dates on them. Therefore they couldn't have copied the Cadillac engine. However I heard from someone who had contact with the Studebaker engineering team that GM, Studebaker and maybe Ford were working together to develop a V8 engine to use in Trucks during WWII. That could explain the close apearance of the Cadillac and Studebaker engines. I have tried to find some information that would verify this but haven't been able to.

 

Ok Just to add to the mire.
Chev stuff like lifters and some timing chains fit the 331 365 390 family of Cad motors, co-incidence?

 

Well they were both GM so why not?

 

I just got a 56 Studebaker 224 V8 engine yesterday. I happened to have a Ford 312 crank sitting nearby so I laid it alongside the Stude crank. It wouldn't be hard to fit the Stude crank in the Ford y-block block or visa-versa. The snout of the y-block is quite a bit longer than the Stude 224 crank, but the bearing layout is nearly identical spacing.

 

In addition to any nose, flange, seal, problems, the Studebaker crank is longer between each pair of bores by about 1/8" (each main is 1/4" too far apart for the block).

In short: when you're done with the block, cap and crank machining you'll wish you never thought of the idea.

 

Allan,

Thanks for this posting. I have a 52 Stude Commander with the 232 V8 and was having a discussion today with a friend in our chapter of the Antique Automobile Club about whether Studebaker "adopted" the Caddie design or did their own. Your posting clears up what I suspected, but did not have the details on.

 

How about volvob36 and studebaker 224 looks are really similar.

 

Volvo made a ohv v8?? Pics please

...and welcome to the hamb

 

Ed Cole was an engineer involved when the Caddy was developed and later Chevrolet Chief Engineer when the SBC was being developed and those projects were only few years apart.......and like the man said..."both are GM..........."

 

The caddy looks more similar to the packard V8 then the studebaker to me and then the packard straight 8 looks very similar to the pontiac straight 8 too.

 

I gather they were originally truck engines. Found the one below that has been set up for marine use.

The image attached is much smaller than the original. Here is a link to the web page where you can find the original (huge) image.

Volvo Penta AQ180 B36B Volvo V8

That is a vintage looking OHV V8 if ever I saw one.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qELuZjYJPVY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qELuZjYJPVY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Oh, and if you were wondering what they put them in, here's an example of one of the vehicles that had them. I gather they were military vehicles or something. They were tall (as you can see in the video), apparently 4WD, and they had 4 doors. Kind of like a cross between a sedan and an SUV.

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/65JQdWvoGSw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

 

They also had the b36 in trucks called volvo "snabbe".
Does anyone have the specs for the studebaker 224 bore stroke journal sizes etc??
wouldnt be suprised if volvo did some copying.

 

Oh i forgot the b36 was first intended for volvo "philip" a four door sedan.
Thanx for the welcomes.

 

do you know this for a fact?
what lifters would work? early sbc?

 

Is your 312 crank forged?
Jeff

 

Put a Cad head near a Packard head and they will stop looking alike. If your talking about 331-390 type Cads. Packard is way bigger.

 

The 199 inch ultra small bore Stude V8 that thankfully never got to production is why the cross section (end elevation) drawing looks so narrow in the bore. They never bothered to fix its dimensions even for the Avanti shop manual, although the pistons and intake got redrawn and the pan pickup was corrected to resemble late style parts.

 

What you say is applicable to 4.38 inch borespacing Ford small blocks, 4.40 inch SBCs, but 4.46 inch Mopar A and LA in particular. They all are an approximate interchange. However Stude put the thrust bearing at the nose unlike any others. You would need Stude rods for their 2 inch journal, but they are way too long at 6.62 inches, though early SBC ones were also 2 inch nominal. The Stude snout is longer than most, and yes it is always a forging. It is as well counterweighted as twisted forgings can be. However, it lacks generous radii fillets, and it was not cored out in the throws like a race part. That work would cost a bundle.