History Of The Studebaker Skybolt 6 Engine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Learn about the history and legacy of the Studebaker SkyBolt 6 engine in this detailed and informative video. This powerful and innovative engine was used in a variety of Studebaker vehicles and played a key role in the company's success. From its development and design to its performance and features, this video covers all the details of the SkyBolt 6 engine. Whether you're a Studebaker enthusiast or just interested in the history of automotive technology, this video has something for everyone.
#Studebaker #SkyBolt6 #Engine #History #automotive
Alright everybody, I’ll just go ahead and address it here in the comments section. This is my first ever crack at a video. I did this mainly as an experiment a year ago, to see if anyone would even watch videos on Studebaker. Well now with 50k views, it seems I got my answer. I never expected to get the audience that I did. And this has gone way more viral than one would have expected. Even to my own standards that video needs some work. And I’m planning on maybe a much better part 2. Yes, there are a few mistakes, and a few things I would definitely change. But there is some decent Information in here not covered anywhere else on TH-cam. In the last year I have grown my Studebaker library, and I’m now using legit editing software. I guess keep that in mind before obliterating the comment section. I see everything you write ✍️😂. Cheers!
Good job
Good video. I'm a fan of both Studebaker and Packard. Please fact-check a bit more & revise (if you haven't already done so in a later version which I haven't seen): Studebaker did NOT buy Packard. It was the other way around and intended to be part of a merger than ultimately would have joined Studebaker, Packard, Nash and Hudson. Voila! American Motors. The brain behind that planned move was George Mason at Nash. Mason chain smoked cigars, got pneumonia & died suddenly just as Nash had acquired Hudson and Nance at Packerd had acquired Studebaker. (1954) Mason's successor, George Romney (Mitt's father) had other ideas and torpedoed the completion of the merger. Packard audited Studebaker AFTER they bought them and discovered Studebaker had no idea what their true costs were - and their break-even was some 100,000 units a year more than their current production level. There's a lot more to it, but that's the thumbnail version.
What about the tendency of the valve seats to crack when driven hard?
In the early fifties Studebaker teamed with Porsche to develop a new car (Studebaker code Z-87, Porsche code 542) with a 3-liter V6. Air-cooled and liquid-cooled prototypes were built, with the liquid-cooled engine being a better performer all-round. Then along came John DeLorean who didn't like the quality of the prototypes (problems that could have been corrected easily before production, but when the grand union of Studebaker-Packard with Nash-Hudson (AMC) fell through, the funds just wren't there.
Packard's acquisition of Studebaker did prove to be a bad move, as Packard accountants had overlooked some issues in the Studebaker books that showed the break-even point for Studebaker to be almost twice as many cars as had been discussed during the negotiations.
The phrase _ashen-faced_ has been used to describe the Packard auditors' faces after reviewing the figures.
AMC bought Packard 320 and 352 V8s and Ultramatic transmssions, and other components from Studebaker-Packard, but S-P didn't buy as many body stampings as had been agreed. Before World War Two Packard had contracted with Briggs to build their bodies, and when Chrysler bought Briggs in 1954, Packard had to scramble to re-commission their body works.
Packard had the great new _Torsion Level Ride_ suspension and the new _Twin Traction_ differential, but upgrades to the Ultramatic transmission proved to be troublesome in the warranty department.
Bigger companies have survived such problems, but the four American independents that would have combined to make a true Big Fourth car company couldn't.
My uncle had a '56 Studebaker, with a Packard V8 engine. It was a badass ride.
My mother was a case worker for the "Children's Aid Society" and every few years she got a new Studebaker. In 1959 it was a Lark with a six cylender flathead with "three on the tree" and in 1962 it was replaced with the overhead valve six with an Automatic Transmission which eliminated any advantage of the increased power from the skybolt head. Also the flat head proved to have been the more reliable powerplant. It was due to be replaced '64/'65 but when Studebaker announced that they were going to use Chevrolet engines my father said "IF I am going to get a car with Chev engine it might as well be a Chev." No doubt this was a decision of many Studebaker loyalists and the final naii in the Studebaker coffin.
We started getting Chryslers when our local Studebaker dealer became a Plymouth dealer.
LOL LOL !! UNTIL NOW I WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT STUDEBAKER WAS PLANNING TO USE THE CHEVY 6!!
@@rossbryan6102 Studebaker stopped making cars in South Bend in 1963 but kept making them in their Canadian plant at Hamilton Ontario. The Hamilton plant did not have an engine foundry. So they bought engines from Columbus McKinnon, a Canadian firm that made engines for Chevrolet. So the last 2 years of Studebakers had Chevrolet six and V8 engines. The Avanti continued on for many years, also with Chevrolet engines.
The "Chevybakers" were actually powered by Chevy-designed engines built by McKinnon, which also built some Canadian Pontiac engines.
Back when I took driver training in Jan-Feb of 1963, the cars they trained us on were Ford Falcons, Plymouth Valiants and Studebaker Larks. Learning to drive on ice and snow with those front engined rear wheel drive cars was quite an adventure.
Easy peasy.
Very enjoyable video, and a trip down memory lane. My grandfather had a '56 or '57 Packard Clipper that was supercharged, remarkable for a showroom passenger car. My dad bought a 1959 Lark station wagon with the 6-cylinder motor and a rear-facing third seat. The rear window could be left open while driving ... nobody knew about the low air pressure area and the inflow of exhaust fumes that bathed anyone seated in back. I rode a three-day trip from Pittsburgh PA to Cocoa FL back there, with the window open as soon as we reached the sunny southern states. I learned to drive on my auntie's 3-on-the-tree red Lark 6-cyl convertible (she was pretty sporty for the day!)
Studebaker was originally a wheeled carriage company and made Lincoln's presidential carriage. I grew up in South Bend the old plant used to sit decaying away slowly over decades losing panes of glass along the way, you could drive by and see the actual racks hanging from the chain driven overhead rails they used to move the panels, frames and shells along the assembly lines.
THIS IS A REAL SURPRISE TO ME, AS I NEVER HEARD OF THIS OHV 6!!
IN 1962 I WORKED AS AN AUTO MECHANIC FOR A FEW MONTHS AT FRONTIER MOTORS AS A NEW CAR PREPARATION MECHANIC!
FRONTIER WAS ALSO KANSAS CITYS FIRST MERCEDES BENZ
DEALERSHIP AS M-B WAS
USING STUDEBAKER- PACKARD
AS A ENTRY IN TO THE USA
CAR MARKET!
I DID WORK ON BOTH THE MERCEDES AND STUDEBAKER LARKS, BUT NEVER SAW A 6 CYLINDER, ONLY THE V-8!!
THE STUDIE HAWK WITH THE 4 SPEED STICK WAS A VERY FUN CAR!
IF I HAD THE MONEY THEN I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ONE!
I WAS HOWEVER, AN OLDSMOBILE
GUY, FIRSTMOST!
IN 1964 I WENT INTO THE RAILROAD AND IN 1967 BOUGHT MY FIRST NEW CAR, A DELTA 88 FASTBACK COUPE , WITH A 425 AND 3 SPEED STICKSHIFT!!
Good video! The automotive industry was FORCED to go from L Head "flat head","valves in block" design to OHV "overhead valve design", "valves in head" cylinder heads for better highway performance, fuel economy and more efficient engine cooling. Higher compression ratios, larger intake valves and bigger camshaft lobes work better with OHV due to better cooling, also OHV transfers fuel vapor and hot exhaust gas MUCH faster! Thank you! Dave...
Rambler used their flathead in entry-level cars through 1965, and they ran rings around base-equipped Falcons in both performance and MPG.
Studebaker did not establish the "small car market." Long before Studebaker cut their 53 body and chassis down to make the Lark, many others had gone before. At the time, the Lark was introduced, Rambler which was also not the first small car, was showing the way.
The Lark was a smart move and, as they approached the end of auto manufacture, Studebaker was able to do some very clever things to keep their products visible in the market. Packard's purchase of the financially troubled Studebaker and the adamant resistance of James Nance to deal forthrightly with American Motors was the real boat anchor here.
But the Rambler and the Lark were the first and second TRULY SUCCESSFUL small cars, as they were stylish well equipped cars, rather than mere motorized buckboards.
@@michaelbenardo5695 What are these "motorized buckboards" of which you speak?
@@michaelbenardo5695 I agree that they were successful when some others (Willys Aero and Hudson Jet) were not. Studebaker's President had written a letter to George Romney offering to buy AMC's OHV light six in 1956 and offering to sell V-8s to AMC in return. That might have worked had AMC had an OHV light six earlier and had AMC not just developed their own V-8. Sad to say, but some of the independents awakened to reality a day late and a dollar short.
The Lark was a hit when introduced. The Rambler had taken a different path having initially appeared in 1950 as a cabriolet roll top convertible. Equipped with leather trimmed seats and assorted other niceties, it was expensive. AMC's leadership recognized that the Korean conflict was keeping the supply of materials in short supply. They also factored in the need for a car that would sell at the highest possible price given the supply issues and would offer a body style not available in the large Nashes. That last factor was decisive in the next two introductions: a station wagon and a hardtop coupe. I think the price of the Ramblers was part of their initial success : a person could drive one without the neighbors suspecting that they had just lost their job. It was small, but not austere.
The Lark benefitted, too, in my opinion from a pent up desire by Studebaker buyers to have a car that signaled that the crepe hangers of the newsrooms were wrong and that the company would survive. Studebaker owners were happy to see this, apparently, fresh product. It looked fresh anyway.
In the end, Studebaker did survive just not as a car maker. Neither Studebaker nor AMC ever went bankrupt (Studie did have some close scrutiny by bankers in the 30s historians dispute whether it was a receivership or a bankruptcy). AMC was sold to Chrysler after the assassination of Renault Chairman Georges Besse in Paris by Left Wing terrorists - an illustration of the downside of dealing with a company run by a government.
Chrysler was later liquidated in bankruptcy and the corpse handed over to FIAT. GM was also liquidated and a new company was created with the rights to certain of the liquidated company's assets.
I wish we had the Rambler and the Studebaker as choices today. Alas, we don't.
Had a '62 lark several years ago. 2 cracked heads before I finally got a good casting. Then it spun a bearing. SBC fixed all those problems cheap & at once. Also had a '47 p/u with the 170 FH. No problems with it at all.
That really hurt Studebaker's reputation. They should have stuck with the flathead 6 and offered the 232 V8 as an option. People who wanted 6s, even as late as the 70s, didn't care much about doing burnouts.
The Skybolt was engineered from the Champion flathead 6. It had a reputation for head troubles.
In 65-6, Studebaker used GM McKinnon engines, 6 & 8; pretty much Chevy 250 6 and 283 V8.
During the wind down of Packard in Detroit, the President of Studebaker wrote to Romney at AMC asking to negotiate the purchase of the Rambler's OHV six (1956). Romney wanted to sell the engines to Studebaker but lacked the capacity to build them in sufficient numbers for AMC's own needs as well as Studebakers. Harold Churchill offered Romney V-8s but AMC already had one of their own ready to go by that point.
Imagine how different things might have been had the independent manufacturers talked to one another about such joint ventures much earlier!
@@edarcuri182 Actually, Studebaker bought the McKinnon 194 six, very much like the Chevy II six for 1965, adding the McKinnon 230 engine for 1966.
The Skybolt was underdeveloped when it was introduced, with the most serious problem being cracked valve seats. Studebaker might have solved the problem, and for al the issues, the Skybolt acquitted itself well in its class in the same speed trial event at Bonneville where the Avanti set 29 speed records.
Didn't they fix the issues with that head?
There were a surprising number of Larks around when I was a little kid in the 60s. I thought they kinda cool in a quirky kinda way. It's a shame they weren't successful 👍☺
They were pretty popular, with most being V8s.
The narrator indicated that they were very successful and put the company in the black.
@@rcpmac He is correct. Sales were great, until that Skybolt 6. It truly harmed Studebaker. They should have temporarily withdrawn it in favor of the old L-head, and fixed the Skybolt.
An interesting video, particularly as I'm from the UK. Perhaps this is why this plays like a 'part one'? Also it would massively benefit from the narrator reading through his notes a few times prior to final recording, that is if I may make a slight criticism).
Studes high point was the '63 Avanti. Concept was far ahead of anything the big three had. Yes, it had problems with body structure and fit, as fiberglass requires careful design. The Avanti with the 304 cu.in. R3 V8 captured many salt flat speed records, and still looks like a quite modern 2-door sport coupe, to this day. (My opinion)
Check out a'63 Ford Falcon with a 260 cubic inch V8 and there may be a competitive result.
@@dehoedisc7247 An estimation the Ford falcon would accelerate 0-60 mph in 9.6 sec. Road & Track, tested an auto-equipped Studebaker Avanti R3 in 1963 and recorded a zero to 60 mph time of 5.5 seconds.
@@joemcgarry1106 Nonsense, the Falcon is lighter and the 260 could wind up quicker than the 304. Your 0-60 time for a 260 is not accurate.
@@dehoedisc7247 Studebaker Avanti was the fastest production car available in 1963. The Falcon could not get out of its own way
@@joemcgarry1106 hahahahahaha
When the new OHV V8s came out in the early fifties a lot of experts thought the six cylinder engines would be dropped completely. That is why they did not develop new sixes. Studebaker made V8s as small as 224 cu in.
But in the recession of 1957 - 58 six cylinder sales saw a revival and so they took another look at the concept. Plymouth and Dodge kept their old flathead six until 1959 and brought out the slant six in 1960. Rambler offered a flathead six until 1964. So Studebaker was not too far off the mark when they brought out a new OHV six for 1961.
Porsche designed an OHV V6 for Studebaker but they rejected it.
You are correct. I will point out, however, that Ramblers were equipped with OHV sixes (as were the last of the Nash Statesman models) in 1956 and the L head dropped. The Rambler L head was resuscitated with the resurrection of the older Rambler which was named American and aimed at the imports. At the time (I was a kid) I thought Romney was losing it. He wasn't. Introduced late in the 58 model year, he sold about 50,000 of those cars!
@@edarcuri182 At the time the Rambler American was selling against some of the larger imports like Volvo, Austin, and Vauxhall. But the Rambler was a six cylinder car while most of the imports were 4s, it sold for the same money or less, and had the advantage of a strong dealership network. They were a favorite of economy minded motorists for years.
@@mrdanforth3744 I agree. Rambler was able to advertise a low price which must have convinced some import intenders to consider the advantages of room, an actual heater, the performance of the six, and other factors. Some of the imports had bad reputations and others were new and not established: NSU, etc. The American was introduced before the wave of Japanese imports came. That probably helped too.
The profile of the Avanti was the inspiration for the profile of the Mustang and everything that followed from that. And A LOT followed from that.
True, the big three had the cash reserves for development. But many wanted something from an independent. And Rambler had a better 6, the 258 outclassed the 170 by the time the Studebaker factory shut down.
The AMC 258 was first used in 1971. You must mean the 232, all are same engine family as the Jeep 4.0, better than the Studebaker and I think better than Ford, GM and Chrysler inline sixes because the series lasted into the 2000s.
@@timothykeith1367 I stand corrected. I rode in a 1966 ambassador and the owner told me it had the 258, but in all likelihood it was the 232.
@@timothykeith1367 ~ The 258 was a stroked 232. The 232 stroke was 3.5in & the 258 was 3.9in. Same bore of 3.5in.
Roger ~ The AMC 258 2-bbl-carb was the best engine bar none!
@@rogertycholiz2218
The 199, 232 and 258 all had 3.750 bore. Same note center distance as the Ford Windsor and Cleveland. Only .020" less than the Chevy Small Block. A cross flow head can be done.
Ever resourceful Studebaker, using a flathead block for an OHV engine. I believe they were also still utilizing kingpins instead of ball joints. Rambler was also slow to bring on an OHV six, but it was a fresh sheet of paper. Rambler also sourced from other engine manufacturers, such a their small block 287 made by Continental, which was a good motor. Studebaker would have done well to outsource an engine if their engineering department didn't have the funds or resources, but their budget must have been truly scorched earth.
I have a '74 Datsun pickup that has kingpins
The AMC 250/287/327 were an in- house design. Rumors that their engine was based on Kaiser's stillborn V8 project are probably unfounded.
The first Rambler OHV 6 was not a fresh sheet, it was based on the existing flathead 6. I always thought the 287 V8 as an enlarged version of the 250 cube V8, which was a small-bore version of the 327 Nash engine.
@@Gothamauto it was designed and engineered by the same person hence the urban myth
Nash later AMC was building OHV sixes in the 30s
SS Cars, the pre-WW2 forerunner of Jaguar, converted Standard Motors side valve straight sixes to OHV by making a custom cylinder head.
Actually, the Skybolt 6 was really just one half of a Packard Twin Six of the Early 1940's! The twelve cylinder Packard Twin Six was THAT advanced! Packard Twin Sixes were so advanced and popular, Franklin Roosevelt insisted on ALWAYS riding in Packard's as Presidential limousines during his terms as President. The Skybolt was "hotrodded" by performance guys up to about 140 HP in more or less stock displacement with mostly head work and raising compression ratio. I'm an ol' fart that worked at a service station on early '50's BIG Nash's with 135-150 HP straight 8's-all torque not much HP. And Pontiac Super Chieftains with straight 8's and Hydro-Matics! And Buicks with Dyna-Flos! You could FEEL some of those cars coming!!!
The Packard V12 was a flathead, and 1939 was it's last yeaar.
Studebaker developed the Champion six which was later modified to make the Skybolt in 1937-'38, sixteen years before Packard bought Studebaker.
The Champion engine complete with transmission (at 455 pounds) weighed about half what a Packard Eight weighed, let alone a Twelve.
Packard built sixes in the thirties, up 'til about 1947, used in the 110 and 115 models, later called Packard Sixes, and in some post-war purpose-built Taxis, but the Packard Six displacement was half the size of the Twelves.
By the way, look up the pictures of the funeral coach and limousines used at Henry Ford's send-off.
I think if they'd tried to put him into the LaSalle the mortuary had available that Henry would have gotten out and walked.
Packards were literally the car you'd want if you wouldn't be seen dead in a Cadillac.
More Studebaker content please
Packard engines were legendary. They were SO good
that the |US Navy spec'd The Packard 1A-2500 V-12
liquid-cooled aircraft engine.
!
Packard was known world-wide as the Master Engine Builder.
I don't think that engine was an aircraft engine. They made a series of marine engines at the time. I think the 2500 was the largest.
Incredible. They took the flathead 6 and gave it an ohv head. Only studebaker seems capable of doing such things. Personally, i like the flatheads- those lazy old engines had real reliability.
I also like the flatheads, and they were just fine for many of the low priced buyers, but the automotive press ranted about stuff like that, which they still pretty much do. We all don't want to do burnouts. The air cooled VW wasn't perfect, it burned valves and had anemic performance, but it continued in production for years after flatheads were dead.
Ford, international, Chrysler, Hudson, packard , rambler, also had flathead engines
Dave ~ I also am a supporter of flatheads. No rocker arms, no pushrods & cam chains. The 1950's Ford V8 flatheads were bullitproof.
@@rogertycholiz2218 Agreed - a flathead valvetrsin is the most efficient - light and direct acting.
Nash and Rambler did the same thing with the small 195 6 cylinder.
If Studebaker would have gone ahead with the Porsche designed 542 /Z-87, they may have survived longer. Or at least built some awesome cars!
I have one of these motors. I am going to use in a 1975 CJ 5
There were a number of Nash Metro's in my home-town, usually Turquoise and White or Yellow and White. My Uncle had a Lark as they were made in South Bend. Like the Conestoga Wagons😁.
Cool post. Thanks!
I had a 63 lark straight six and regularly took 6 cyl Camaros off the line until low end of 2nd gear.
Miss my 63 cruiser 289 four barrel and 4.10 twin traction
My dad bought a ‘64 Daytona sedan in the fall of ‘64, and could’ve bought a ‘65 with a GM six but wanted a Studebaker engine. Oh boy, not a good choice. While it may have the best Studebaker six, it couldn’t hold a candle to the GM six. We called it the gutless wonder, and had no end of troubles with the auto choke on the Carter carb.
All that these 6 bangers were missing was the crossflow cylinder head style which the V8's of every Detroit OEM already have had for a while.
Never understood why each and every USA car maker from that period never took advantage of what was already developed and ripe for the picking.
But w/e, the modern GM Atlas 4200 and the Ford Barra carried on proudly the Inline Six flag for a while before getting axed.
One important reason that inline engines rarely used crossflow heads is it helps drivability, especially cold weather drivability, to have a hot spot underneath the carburetor. This is very easily done if the carb and exhaust manifold are on the same side of the engine, not so easily done when they are on opposite sides.
@@21stcenturyfossil7 I'm so glad modern EFI exists ! Your point it's very valid, tho. Specially on carbureted apps.
My families 59 Lark came with a flathead six making all of about 80hp. When that engine gave up in the 70's, my dad put the 258 V-8 in it, which kicked things up to about 190hp. Pretty respectable even today, considering the car only weighs about 2600lbs! I'm about halfway done building and resto-modding it to be daily driven. Since it was originally a six-cylinder car, I choose the actual best straight six made for its new heart.....a 2JZ Toyota. No need for a turbo, 220HP is plenty and it will run forever and get great gas milage!
Sad that you are doing that. There is nothing wrong with the Studebaker V8 that would stop you from driving it every day.
@@michaelbenardo5695
Nothing sad about it.
The engine wasn't original to the car anyways, had not ran in many, many years and it's been long gone since about 1993. This is a project i started in high school and am just now getting back to finishing since my kids are grown and moved out. There are plenty of stock, original Larks out there, I've meet owners of 4 just in my area. I'm doing what I feel will make my car unique and enjoyable (4-wheel power discs, R&P steering, EFI, 5-speed, modern electrical, ect)
@@84gssteve I'll agree to disagree.
@@michaelbenardo5695
Thats fine, art is subjective, and resto-mods are always about personal preference.
If this car were anywhere near original, I'd be more inclined to keep it all there...... but it hasn't been all there in nearly 50 years. When done, it will be driven daily and bring many smiles to my family members, who ARE original to this car as my grandpa bought it new in 59.
Sadly, to remain competitive, Studebaker resorted to making everything cheap. I remember the wheel bearings on a Lark being the size of roller-skate bearings.
If I remember correctly there was a cigarette named Lark.
No, in the 1950s American motors corporation pioneered the small car market starting with the Nash rambler but also the two-seater known as the metropolitan!!
The Skybolt was not a great engine. With the small bore of the Champion L head block, valve size and spacing was compromised. The heads tended to crack between the valves. Burnt exhaust valves was also a problem.
I've heard of the stove bolt six, but never a sky bolt six.
Seems like the Studabaker engine described is an improved version of the little flat-head, not the overhead-valve six which followed. Missleading !
I’m trying to trans swap my wife’s lark from 3 on the tree to an auto and advice or knowledge of what auto trans to be on the hunt for ? Hers is the 2.8l
I don’t know how true this is, but I once read that Studebaker spent 10 years trying to develop that engine. The combustion chambers in that little 169 flathead were simply too small for OHV. Others ( Continental 226 and Rambler / Nash 196 ) did the same thing - but there was room enough to do it.
Late to the party, but there are a few errors in your description of the Studebaker-Packard merger.
Studebaker did NOT "absorb" Packard. Packard BOUGHT Studebaker in 1954. It was one of the worts business deals in history.
Studebaker was at that time drowning in debt and was not doing well. Packard had plenty of capital, but Packard management was not aware of how badly Studebaker was in debt. They knew there was debt, but not the extent of it.
The main reason for the merger was that Packard wanted to add a lower cost entry level car to their lineup. At that time, Packard was basically a luxury car and an expensive one at that. They had even tried spinning off Clipper as a seperate make and a lower cost car. So, when the opportunity came up to acquire Studebaker, Packard jumped on it.
One of the things that started the downfall was that many of the high end office people from the Studebaker side ended up having the majority control of the company. The Studebaker people managed to run the company into the ground when they finally ran out of Packard's money.
Studebaker did NOT absorb Packard! Packard Bought Studebaker. Get your facts correct. other than that your post is very good. B
And Packard allowed Studebaker to have their name showing first. It should have been Packard/Studebaker.
I feel like you’ve gotta own a 30s Packard or something
Well actually Studebaker hoodwinked Packards management and actually DID absorb Packard at least as far as money is concerned..
If you want the REAL
Story you must read the book on the " merger" read it some where around 35+ years ago. Probably published on the 50s.
But prepare cuz it was around 600 pages as I recall. Packard was actually in worse shape in early 50s than Studebaker was in 61-64. Unbelievable.
But Packard had cash and holdings that they brought to the table. Studebaker was basically broke.
Stude got the money and top billing. Packard got a casket.
Can't remember the book title exactly but google etc will
Find it. You've gotta be an automotive history fan to read it through.
Enlarged intake valves are often consistent with hot cams. With valve stagger, you don't get something for nothing. I find this motor review useful but distinctly incomplete.
Studebaker did not absorb Packard. It was the other way around. Packard was the parent company.
Not 100% true, but most efficiencies are cylinder head related. Too often MFG's use the simplest foundry processes available to save production costs. But that misses the fact that you have to be able sell products. Making peppy "happy" engines is one way to capture public attention. Put a strong engine (of any size) in a stiff light weight uni-body car and you have a package that will sell 😊
The '61 Lark with an ohv six that my father bought could no go over 100 to 125 miles without having to stop to add another quart of oil. Otherwise, it was a good car.
Some people replaced that OHV 6 with the older flathead 6. At least it was a reliable long-lasting engine.
the Lark with their chevy 327 cleaned up in the parkng lot glyncanna.
Studebaker never used the 327 Chevy.
Both Packard and Studebaker basically lied to each other about the state of their financials.
This thing was designed in the 1960s. Nobody used metric measurements back then. How about revising to Freedom Units that were common then. Chuck the millimeter crap out.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN! I can't stand how some are trying to force us to use the measurements of the losers. WE won the war, NOT THEM!
All the spark plugs had metric threads!
@@21stcenturyfossil7 True, but for the most part, we are not a metric country. WE won the war, not Japan, not Germany, not Italy, nor
any other metric country .
@@angelitavaldellon7600 I don't know the relevance of who won the war but I believe much/most of our ww2 artillery, such as the 155mm howitzer were derived from licensed French designs. The 37mm gun was based on a German design. Not to mention that Germany took more causalities on the Eastern Front than the totals of all causalities in Norway, North Africa, the Balkans and France, Basically, the Soviets killed more German soldiers than all the rest of the world.
I'm unsure as to why you are showing a '63 Cruiser as it came only with a 289 V8.
Since you pointed it out. The Skybolt 6 utilized several components & manufacturing processes from the 289 V8 production. Anyways, I’ll change the title and thumbnail to a more appropriate title.
When I was a kid in50s if you saw a lot of smoke was either a fire or a steady breaker stude .🙄. Had a 51 V8 commander conv w 55 259passmaster engine 3 speed on floor w od also 53 coupe w 289
I would always hear about Stude oil burners, but seldom saw one blowing smoke. At least not the V8 cars.
I have a great fondness for Studebaker, their history is fascinating and heartbreaking, but they did not pioneer the small car market. Nash, and later, American Motors did.
The Lark, a fine little car, miraculously crafted from Studebaker's larger cars. was a direct response to the highly successful Rambler, as were the big three compact offerings, that were designed like the Rambler and not in response to imports, like they said they were.
Although there were small cars before the Rambler, the Nash Rambler was a great success. It sold well because it was classy and a quality automobile. It was brought out as a second line to Nash's big cars in 1950.
George Romney who eventually became head of American Motors was offered the position of head of Packard by James Alvan Macauley, but turned it down because he thought he needed to be educated on the very complicated auto business more than than what he would get at Packard whose executives were old and would retire soon.
Mason, who was a very smart auto man, with a strong executive staff at Nash Kelvinator, offered to train Romney over a period of 6 years. The idea being that Romney would potentially replace Mason after he retired. Romney took that offer even though Packard offered him substantially more money and a guaranteed presidency position within a 2-year time period.
Packard and Nash never merged because James Nance, a former Hotpoint executive and current Packard president, demanded to head American Motors, even though he had no former auto experience. Mason could not accept that knowing what would be demanded of that position. So the merger never happened. Packard went with Studebaker and Nance, as president, ran Studebaker-Packard Corp. Nance pushed big cars that would compete directly with the big three. They were very nearly dead as an automaker by 1958 and Nance was gone by this time.
Romney, took over the new American Motors (Hudson and Nash merger) after Mason died suddenly and later toured the country to sell public the idea of a small car. From his beginning at Nash he thought the Rambler was the future of automobiles. He bet the company on that belief by dispensing with the big Nash and Hudson altogether, and using what little money was left after the big three price war, to completely restyle and update the Rambler. He realized that people bought cars not only for practical transportation, but that they also wanted to take pride in their purchase. The Ramblers were well equipped and stylish. In addition, they could potentially outflank the big three as they had nothing comparable. The resulting sales success saved AMC from certain death. Romney was right about the future of automobiles, as well.
If interested, read Patrick Foster's history of American Motors and his biography of George Romney.
That is all correct, especially about how the Rambler was a stylish well equipped car, not a bare-bones stripper, but it would have been nice if the 58 Rambler Ambassador had have been badged as a NASH Ambassador instead.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Yeah, that makes sense. I wish at some earlier point, they could have given the Ambassador (one of my favorite AM cars, btw) a markedly different and classier body style than the rest of the line. The Ambassador was really a medium quality tier car that was priced as a popular price tier car.
@@dansmusic5749 That's what they couldn't afford to do - give it a different body, but I think if it said Nash on it instead of Rambler, it would have sold better and, with the Nash name, could have been priced a little higher for better profit.
@@michaelbenardo5695 No, they didn't have the money, at first. Your idea is a good one.
Studebaker's biggest mistake was to not move the entire US6 line to the Balkans. Those eastern Euros loved those things. They would still be in production today. 😉
American gas prices have always been to low this stifled efficiency innovation.
Studebaker didn't absorb Packard, Packard bough Studebaker, foolishly unaware of how much money Studebaker was bleeding. The company was called "Studebaker-Packard Corporation" until about 1962. Studebaker did not pioneer the small car market with the Lark, the Aero Willys, Kaiser's Henry J, and Nash's very successful Rambler (1950) came first. Worthy to note that Nash converted their old flathead to OHV in 1956 and had less reliability issues and better performance with it than Stude had with their later Skybolt 6. Period tests by magazines found that the V8 Lark actually got better MPG than the six.
Actually Studebaker
DID pioneer the quality small car market. The others named INCLUDING rambler etc, were just tin cans on wheels. Ever own or ride in a Henry j.??
Our family had one..every rain or puddle encountered soaked dad's feet and
Finally he had enough. Bought a new 53 Stude coupe. Besides the beauty compared to the dumpy
J, it was like going from a old Chev to a caddy. J looked like warmed over 39-40s era. Stude Coupe was
3 decades ahead of anything the big 3 offered for DECADES.
Buying public?.not the brightest bulbs on the holiday tree.
The part about the V8
Vs the six?.that was often true. The Lark should NEVER been offered in six mode.
259 with even the automatic converted back to the 56 first gear start and a higher rear ratio would have upped the mileage, performance and the OD even moreso.
Can you imagine a 60
Lark with a first gear start auto and a
2:87 rear?? HP galore and yet great mileage.
Dad and I discussed this issue back in 62-66 era. Even Floyd clymer agreed with us. Testing the 65-66
Sliding roof wagonaire,which then had the chev V8, the only big true negative comment in the article was the stupid second gear start.
I converted my 64 auto 259 to 1st gear start 20 years ago.
Car NOW performs as it SHOULD have from the factory.
Imagine in 63-64 when
TV ads proclaimed the
Stude performance image,also featuring the Avanti power.
The potential buyers test drive a Stude V8 sedan. And... Blah foggy performance.
Hmmmm guess I'll go down the street and try a big 3. And they
DID.
Stude cars were NOT the problem. management that knew virtually
NOTHING about what the public wanted and
Desired is where the bulk of the problems
Originated. Poor management,from even as early as post ww2,
ACTUALLY caused Studes Demise.
Guys like Sherwood and Granatelli....
Decade too late.
Only ones with real vision from post war era was loewy and church. then SE and ANDY. Put the blame where it belongs..
Not the cars
@@vernanderson4358 The Henry J was a cheap car through and through. while the 1950 Nash Rambler came standard with many things that were optional on a Chevy or Ford. Once the Nash Rambler's production numbers were up a couple of years later, that's when they offered a base 2-door sedan. If you read magazines with Nash Rambler road tests from the early 1950s, you'll find that the reviews were extremely positive. If you believe Rambler's were "tin cans on wheels" I'll have to assume you've never owned one. ----- Of course Studebaker had to offer a six. If they had no six, they would have sold even fewer Larks than they did. The problem was that Studebaker's OHV six sucked.
If you can't use our measurement system in America, then move to Europe. That M&M candy system will never be fully excepted here, I don't think.
Different by Production with errors 16s in.
It's a shame that both companies went under. Can't help bet wonder what their cars would be like today.
Would have been nice if Chrysler had merged with Packard as Walter Chrysler intended his company to compete more than it did in the luxury market. I've read that Packard was duped by false financial reports from Studebaker, which had began losing money in 1950. There had been a goal to merge all of the independents in the late '40s but egos of execs got in the way, they all wanted to be the new boss of the venture. Packard might have survived without Studebaker, they needed to make a transition to v8s and automatic transmissions, but just might have been able to adapt. Studebaker had a decent V8 but its development had used up much of the cash of the company.
@@timothykeith1367 You read correctly. Packard was actually still financially healthy, but image sick, but Studebaker had a terminal disease that killed Packard once and for all. Packard did have an automatic, and in 55, did come with a very powerful V8, but should have released it in 56, as it turned out to be underdeveloped. Also, they upgraded their automatic during 1954 to start in 1st gear when in drive, but for 55, they shrunk the direct-drive clutch for smoother shifting, but that made it slip under full-throttle acceleration. Those two problems destroyed Packard's reputation for total reliability.
Studebaker should not have let Raymond Lowey dictate the size of the cars. If Studebaker had made their Post-war car longer and wider, and kept it's straight 8 after the war, they would have done better. That car was as low as a Step-Down Hudson, but you would never know it, as it's short length and narrowness make it look tall.
Both were done in by stupid management. Not their workers, not their worker's unions, by MANAGEMENT.
Was just settling down with a cup of tea to watch the rest, and it finished - halfway through. No conclusion, no gentle closing down. Just stopped. Right you lot that's it.
My 64 Champion had a sad history of carbon building up on the cylinders, cracking the head and pistons. The dealer repaired it just before I bought the car, then again5 months later after I returned from a trip out west, and finally, it went again by the time I got rid of the car 54 weeks after I'd bought it. Coupled to a rear-end that couldn't handle the power from the engine and you had the least reliable of the 20 cars I've owned over the years. Even worst than my 60 Vauxhall. When it worked, it was a great car. It just didn't always work.
Too bad you didn't replace it with the Champion flathead 6. Much more reliable engine.
@@michaelbenardo5695 The engine wasn't the only issue with that car. But I learned a valuable lesson. Never buy a Friday car from a company that's virtually bankrupt. Still, if I had the money, skill, tools and shop, and a willing spousal person, I'd buy and restore a Champion in a heartbeat. But I'd likely put a V8 in it.
@@allanloiselle7290 They should have offered the small 232 cube version of the V8 as a Champion option, as nobody except old ladies and Chevy and Plymouth buyers wanted 6 cylinder cars after 1953.
@@allanloiselle7290 You would have to replace the trans and the rear end if you put a V8 in it.
@@michaelbenardo5695 As I said, the engine was not the only issue. The rear end couldn't handle the output from that engine, never mind a V8. When I washed it, the paint flaked off under the hose pressure, the dashboard lights didn't work, the heater/defroster hose under the dash wouldn't stay on, and the list continued. It allegedly had only 32,000 miles on it when I bought it in 66, but it was already old and beat up.
The conservative changes they made show why Studebaker continued to falter . The early 60's saw a flood of great new technologies in engine and culture head design. Look at the Packard engine it's improved 1930's thinking.
Any hot rod shop could have shown them how to open those passage ways 40% and why the by 60's standards TINY valves? Yeah, this shows why Studebaker was and remained in a tail spin downwards.......
The Stude V8 was post-war thinking, not 30s thinking, and there was a 304 version with LOTS of power.
The mention of a 3-speed with overdrive transmission is interesting. Actually many manufacturers offered an overdrive transmission and the average American would not buy it, and the option was Very affordable. The average driver ain't too smart and joins a group of dummies who have a herd mentality.
By 1959 or 1960 VW had begun it's rise to offer an economy car to Americans, and Studebaker had absolutely Nothing to compete with That! Then Ford produced the Falcon, Chevrolet produced Corvair and Chevy II, Plymouth produced Valiant.The "Lark" did Not do well compared with those!
Not true. The lark was more than good competition for the
Vw " beastle". our family had a 60 Lark regal V8 3 tree od.
Dad was a salesman and drove it to 100 thous miles..on the road got up to 23/24 mpg. The beastle got around 27 -- IF you and passenger stuck your foot out and you both PEDALLED!
Lark could hold six adults comfortably. The beastle 4 cramped at best.
Then going up long grades beastle was good for a struggling
45 MPH.
The lark V8?. Tie the beastle behind the lark and it would pull the beastle uphill gaining speed.
During college I road chicago to Pennsylvania in a beastle. Horrible ride painful and pathetically underpowered. First and LAST ride in one.
NEVER again.
But 4 years driving our Lark was a real pleasure. Especially at 55 mph when dad would kick er down outa overdrive and suck the air outa a Buick or Chev V8 passing with ease.
No the lark had more to offer than the beastle, and FAR more than the big 3 tin can compacts.
Problem was simple.
Buying public then were not the brightest bulbs on the holiday tree.
*👍супер и привет от тренера по футболу!!!!!-!!!!*
SKYBOAT FOOL
Watched it to learn more about the engine, not hear you blab.
Thanks for watching 👍
Learn to read.
How about you learn not to be a troll?!