Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by 58L8134 On 2014/11/20 13:34:11

Hi Steve203

For anyone wondering why we're discussing Studebaker in detail, this is the baggage that came dragging along when the buyout was inked in 1954. As if Packard didn't already have enough......!

Yes, the 245 ci six began in the Rockne, developed into a torquey, workhorse which negated the advantages touted for the new V8. The 232 ci V8 produced 190 lb/ft @2000 rpm whereas the 245 ci Six cranked 205 lb/ft @ 1200 rpm, small wonder truck customers loved them. Stude policy was the Champion six was the standard truck engine even in ton and ton-and-a-half and even larger trucks. Most operators didn't want to flog a heavily-loaded truck over hill and dale with an anemic 138 lb/ft @ 2400 rpm. If they did, they were either flatlanders or swore while the con rods exited the block.

As preface to what happened in 1951, they began a two-tier product program with the 1939 Champion introduction. Champions could be characterized as a 9/10 full-sized car, aimed directly at the low-priced three, promoted for its long-term ecomony of operation. As such, the Champion was a unique development that shared nothing with its line-mates. The Commanders Six were sized and priced to compete with the upper range low-priced three/low range medium priced cars. Presidents were an eight cylinder extensions of Commanders taking on that segment of medium-priced offerings.

All that changed after the war with the new 1947 body, Commanders became an extension of the Champion i.e. narrow and light albeit longer with frontal styling to differentiate. The President wasn't revived as it had accounted for an average of only 8% annual sales.

".............. it looks like all the Commander amounted to was a Champ with the V8."

Somehow management, for all their conservatism, recognized an ohv V8 was required to compete, whipped up the '51 which was about the last time they proactively met a market challenge. Since the main emphasis had been on the Champion's smaller, lighter approach and the new engine fit nicely in the same engine bay, Commanders got rationalized as a Champion with a V8. Trouble was, Commanders had been established as an upmarket offering, larger-sized and priced commensurately. The idea of paying $200 more for a "V8 Champion" when one could get a Ford V8 over a six for about $70 difference wasn't making their cars attractively priced. To say the Commander had a price premium problem in place by the time Nance held sway is an understatement.

"....... would read that change in pricing policy as a reaction to customer resistance to how underpowered the Champ was, by minimizing the additional cost of getting significant power under the hood.
So, why not just drop the 6 entirely? Put the 224 V8 in the Champ and have the advertising highlight "the only low priced car with the power of a modern OHV V8 standard""

An interesting solution, though one can bet the dealers would howl and customers exit in droves. Common knowledge in those days held that a six cylinder was always more economical than a V8. Over half of their sales were sixes, deleting it would have been playing with fire. Ford/Chevy/Plymouth dealers, all at last with a choice of six or V8, would have had a field day reminding the public that Studebaker, that 'champion' of economy, dropped the very engine synonymous with it. For 1955, Pontiac, DeSoto and Chrysler could get away with replacing their sixes with V8 engines. Stude was stuck with their "little engine than barely could" that they'd hung onto too long.... for which no appropriately sized and powered replacement was readily available.

Shortly, SDC Forum participants promise to supply the six dimensions. I ask for the overall from fan to bellhousing which is the length that would have to be accommodated.

Steve