Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by 58L8134 On 2014/11/19 14:02:38

Hi Steve203

Sincerity was the first casualty, disingenuous behavior ruled the day between the principals.

Studebaker was in sore need of a larger six-cylinder as their Champion models gained weight and performance expectations evolved. It was a corner they'd painted themselves into. Many have wondered yet why South Bend didn't follow-up their new '51 OHV V8 with a new OHV six cylinder for 1952. While they still had the old Commander 245 cid six in production for their trucks, for some reason, they didn't make it optional in place of the anemic 170 ci. For 1955, they stroked that 1939 engine to 185.6 ci in an effort to keep pace but whatever was gained wasn't nearly enough. Apparently, the block only had so much 'meat', couldn't be bored larger.

Operationally, the engine worked just fine as 185.6 ci but was kept only through 1958 as such. As a 30 years SDC member, I can't recall reading any complaints of specific failings it had in the Turning Wheels mechanical advice column. Ironically, in preparation for the '59 Lark, management allowed another major reworking. It was de-stroke and received a number of internal redesigns which expended a good deal of engineering talent and scarce funds only to end up with essentially what they'd had in 1954! Worst yet, even with the Lark's reduced weight, performance was just so-so but fuel economy, likely the reason the rework was undertaken, was very disappointing to buyers. It was such a problem that the factory ginned-up a contraption designed to feed the engine one gallon of gas which dealers could use to determine how poorly the customer's car was performing....or perhaps show them it wasn't as bad as it seemed. To further rub salt in the wound, a 259 ci V8 Lark got gas mileage, when equipped with stick and overdrive better than the six! Small wonder that many who bought a '59 Lark six for economy turned to other makes at trade-in time.

And, for all they spent creating an engine less up to the job of providing acceptable fuel economy and preformance, it was still an outmoded L-head! Which they then turned around and converted to an ohv, the 1961 Skybolt Six, which indeed did have field service problems from cracking valve seats through the remainder of its production ending with the 1964 model. If you see a late Lark for sale that's in nice shape but cheap.....check the cylinder count. If it's a ohv six and overheats, run away!

Sorry for getting ahead of the period being discussed but it seems to apply. To the questions at hand, even if Kenosha feared they couldn't produce all the six cylinder engines they needed for themselves as well as South Bend, the response ignores the fact that South Bend could have produced the AMC engine for themselves as part of the swap agreement. If Romney really did anticipate that major increase in Rambler sales, having a second production source as back-up engine supplier, it would have been ideal.

"If Nance and Romney really wanted to solve the 6 problem, there was an easy solution: The '55-56 Kenosha built Hudsons still used Hudson engines, rather than Nash, the 308 in the Hornet, and the 202 that Hudson had developed for the Jet, in the Wasp.
It would have simplified AMC production to use the 196 in the Wasp and make the 202 for Studebaker, or sell the 202 tooling to Studie."

Selling the Jet engine tooling to S-P would have been the ideal solution for everyone. For AMC, it would unloaded a newer but essentially outmoded tooling for which it would shortly have no use. For S-P, it would get a newer yet still outmoded tooling to enlarge and update to ohv.....about what it had except as a 1951-53 development instead of 1937-39. Hmm, maybe not that much of an advantage for S-P, but a stopgap solution just the same.

The missed opportunity represented by failing to sell Studebaker V8 engines to AMC has to be one of the major examples. Contrasting its first season, 1951, when V8 sales totaled 124,329; by 1954, only 30,504 Commanders sold. Although V8 sales rebounded for 1955 to 83,453, almost one-third of the South Bend V8 engine production capacity was underutilized. AMC certainly had use for those engines in Nash Statesman and Hudson Wasp for 1955-56 along with the Packard engines. If only S-P and AMC had both pushed the idea. Even as the Rambler began to take hold in the market, how preferable would it have been for S-P to run their engine production facility at capacity supplying Kenosha rather than getting nothing while carrying the costly excess overhead. Clearly, the benefits that could have accrued to both were completely lost in the long-distance battle of egos between Nance and Romney.

Steve