Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by Steve203 On 2014/11/20 16:53:50

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......!

Indeed. Nance was making the decisions in South Bend, and everything that went wrong in South Bend impacted E Grand.

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

This brings us back to the original excuse for the S-P merger in the first place. In his book about AMC, Foster says plainly what my own consideration of the issue has led me to conclude. From the book: "...merging Studebaker and Packard together would cause problems, because the two lines were so dissimilar, building them on one body shell and in one factory would be difficult" We have all seen that tidy matrix showing how Packards, Clippers and Studebakers would all be built off the same platform, but can you imagine a Champ 6 pulling anything remotely near the size of a Clipper? The entire idea that Packards and Studebakers could be built off the same platform was delusional.

It would have been possible to break Champion off as a stand alone low priced brand, with 6 and V8 options, then build the Commander and President as retrimmed Clippers, but then you're back to the cost of two separate platforms, with higher level model production diverted to E Grand, which puts South Bend even farther below it's break even production rate, and even fewer units over which to amortize the development and tooling costs for the low price platform.

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.

It is counter-intuitive that an 8 would be more economical than a 6. In those days there were no independent fuel economy tests like we have now. The road tests of the time gave fuel consumption at steady state cruise, which would favor the smaller engine due to lower pumping losses. An early 55 Commander with the 224/automatic delivered 23mpg @ 30 and 17.6 @ 60 while a 54 Champ delivered 30.3 @ 30 and 24.9 in OD at 60.

But, a 224 Champ would not be competing in the market with a 186, but with Ford, Chevy and Plymouth models whose 6s displaced the same or slightly more than the Studie V8, and, in spite of the Studie V8's heft, a 56 Commander V8 weighed 3140lbs, while the entry level 6s from the big three weighed 3127 to 3195.

It would have been interesting to have an independent body, like AAA or NASCAR, run a trial of entry level big three sixes vs a 224 Champ, over a real world mix of city, suburban and freeway driving, over 200 miles or more, and compare fuel consumption. With the engines of similar displacement, pulling cars of similar weight, the result might enable Studebaker to advertise "V8 power, with the same fuel economy as other company's 6s" The 224's mileage would only need to be in the pack for that claim to be valid, and Plymouth was still using a flathead.

And, you have to wonder how many people still liked their Champ after they tried merging into heavy traffic on one of those spanky new freeways. A head to head test between a 224/auto 55 Commander and 186/stick 55 Champ had the Commander romping to 60 in 16.7sec vs the Champ taking 19.92. The 259 peeled about 3 seconds off of the 224's time.

Shortly, SDC Forum participants promise to supply the six dimensions.

Thanks for working that issue. I was going by head length as I figured the fan/accessory drives and bellhousing would be about the same, regardless of the length of the engine. No matter, as I measured the 308 in the Hudson museum in Ypsilanti both head only and from back of head to front of fan (fan and accessory drives added 6"). Add 4 or 5" for the bellhousing and I will be in the ballpark. By the way, I also measured the head of a 359 in a 54 Packard at a show last summer 32.25" vs 30" for the 308, so in a Packard/Hudson merger, the Reinhart body would easily accept a 308 as the basis for a next generation Hornet.