top 20 V8 engines of all time…

Since Hot Rod left Studebacker this is what I dug up on Google, too much to copy all of, click the link to read it all--That Jack Vines guy is on Speedtalk and he owns-runs a engine shop and was around in the 1960's building engines, so he knows a few things...this is good stuff here

http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/studenghist.txt




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.

Leighzer

====================
The Studebaker v-8 was designed in the late 40's bu E.J. Hardig,
T.A. Scherger and S.W. Sparrow. Not by Ed Cole or any other G.M.
Engineers.
The reason for the small displacement for the Stude V-8 is that when
they were designed, very high octane gasoline was promised to be
readily available in time for the planned release date.

The engine was designed to be stout enough for 12-14:1 compression
ratios.

Even overhead cams and hemispherical combustion chambers were
considered.

When it was learned the refinerys would not come through to the
general public with the good stuff, as promised right after the war,
then it was too late to change the design.

When the engineers were testing rod configurations and piston pin
arrangements they ran the engine 100 hours @ 5000 rpm under full
load.

You should also remember that Studebaker was comcerned with economy
and fuel mileage long before it was fashonable to do so.
The original 232 had a 3 3/8 bore and a 3 1/4 in stroke which is a
bore stroke raito of slightly less than one.
In general, decreasing the bore/stroke ratio tends to increase the
legnth of an engine while decreasing its height, and, in the case of
a v-type engine its width.
Smaller bores tend to have less ring friction and the short stroke,
less piston travel, both things being good for longevity and economy.
Studebaker engines will last and handle a lot of punishment if
regularly maintained. I have owned at least four with over 350,000
miles and no major overhauls needed on any of them. I do not baby my
Studes. I like performance and I drive accordingly, lots of 5000+
rpm shifts and second gear rubber!!!! I tend to twist off axle
shafts and break transmissions but never blew up a Properly built
Studebaker v-8.
A good history of the development of the Studebaker v-8 was
reprinted from the Society of Automotive Engineers in the August
issue of Hot Rod in 1952 when the engine was only a year or so old.
Thanks for letting me vent but when people compare the Studebaker
289 v-8 to the Ford v-8 (developed many years later), I feel I have
to set the record straight.

Studebaker v-8
Forged high carbon steel crankshaft
(such a high quality of steel as to be able to be nitrided)

A chrankshaft of as high a quality steel for a Ford would be close
to TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Studebaker v-8: Gear driven cam, no chain to wear out after 60,000
miles like the "competition".

Studebaker v-8: 18 head bolts (6 around each cylinder), competition
10. Which would you like to put a blower on?

[email protected] Mar 2002

++++++++++

The Studebaker V8 design is very very close to the early Cadillac OHV
V8 of about 48 or 49. The Cad was also a low, squat block with a
gear driven cam off the crankshaft. The early Cad V8 was THE ROD
ENGINE when I was growing up (at least in Chicago) until the SBC came
along in 55. The Cad was also very heavy, like the Stude. I have
read that the Stude guys designed their V8 using the Cadillac as
their prototype.
ken matson Feb 02
------------------
The '49-59 Cadillac V8 is essentially the same size outside as the
Studebaker. Nither could be considered low or squat designs. They are both
old style, long-rod engines which are several inches wider and taller, as
well as heavier, than the 283" Chev and 289" Fords. The Cad began at 331"
and eventually grew to 429" The Studebaker had almost that much growth
potential, but Studebaker never bothered to change the block casting cores
to allow a larger bore. There is plenty of room for 4" and larger bores.

The early Cad intake manifolds, both stock and hot rod, will bolt directly
to the Studebaker with the slotting of a couple of bolt holes. The Cad
ports are larger, so the Stude needs a lot of grinding to make it really
work efficiently.
Jack Vines Feb 02
-------------------------

I once worked with a power plant design engineer whose first job out of
college was at Studebaker. I don't recall how the subject came up but,one
day at lunch he said that when he was at Studebaker they actually went to
another city (away from South Bend) and bought a Cadillac, pulled the engine
and took it to the Stude plant. They blue printed it and then reduced all
the dimensions by some percent and that became the Stude V8.
I don't believe this fellow had any association with the hobby or Stude, nor
did I at that time, and I believe he was sincere.
Jack Usher Feb 2002
----------------------------

I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with Ed Reynolds senior, yes Ed
Renoylds, Jr. of Studebaker International. Ed Renoylds was the Vice
President of Engineering. Ed told me that Studebaker was in the middle of R &
D of a new engine that would replace the Avanti engine line up. They would
be approximately 340 cubic inch thin wall cast engines. Ed told me that they
had cast 2 experimental blocks, one of the blocks had been machined and the
other was still unmachined when the South Bend plant shut down. Ed told me
that the 2,340 blocks were ordered destroyed, along with a number of other
prototype projects, Ed told me that the machined 340 block disappeared.

Since that time I have talked to a number of Studebaker Officanatos who claim
to have seen this block, the stories have varied from the block on display in
a private collection to a complete 340 engine. One thing I am fairly sure of
is that there were 2 blocks only because of all the similar stories and
credibility of the main source. I find it hard to believe though that someone
had the ability and resources to manufacture a crank & camshaft (let alone)
rods, pistons, pan, timing gear cover etc. possibly heads, etc.

I find it curious that Studebaker was R&D -ing a thin wall 340 cubic inch
engine and when Studebaker stopped automotive production leased their brand
new engine foundry to Chrysler who a few years later had a 340

Doug Crall (mar 02)

----------------------------
Very Very Interesting!! So was the Eng based on the
Stude block or was it entirely a new casting? If based
on the Stude block, was it just a larger bore or was
it stroked? Speaking of a stroker, has anyone
successfully done one?
Finished with the wifes Avanti Eng and rearing to go
on my GT
greg
---------------
I was told they just messed with the sand casting a bit, and lost about 8 out
10 blocks just trying to get a bigger bore. I think they intended to spend
the big bucks to do it right, but the end was near.

http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/studenghist.txt