Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

FWIW, the only Packard V8 iron casting I can document which moved to the Studebaker foundry is the standard shift bell housing. I have seen bell housings with much later casting dates than 7/30/56. I'll go through the warehouse and see what is the latest date I can find.

Since there are so many more Caribbean 2x4 intakes extant than Caribbeans produced, I've always wondered if Studebaker continued to produce them also.

jack vines

Standard shift bellhousings after July 56. Very peculiar.
Any explanations for that??? What about the Stokes Marine engine casting dates????? Possibly the stick bellhousing was used with the Stokes Marine engines????

What year was Studebakers last 1 ton or larger truck????

Gee, I just gave away my copy of "Turning Wheels" which had a feature on this. Don't recall the specifics but it was well into the 50s and perhaps later, and diesel power was either used exclusively, or at least offered. I'll see if I can retrieve the mag.

PS, 1-ton Studebaker trucks at least as late as 1963, according to the SDC website. Some fine pictures there as well. Depending on the era, some used the "large" six (245 cubic inch), various of the Studebaker V8s, or diesel power.

studebakerparts.com/studebakerparts/store/s/agora.cgi?cart_id=&page=trucks.html

Quote: 1964. Why?

Also, I should clarify I have no certain knowledge the Packard V8 standard shift bell housing castings came out of the Studebaker foundry. Studebaker had a large and capable foundry which was in operation through 1963. However, it is always possible the Packard V8 bell housing was jobbed out.

jack vines

Strictly speculation on my part that the Packard V8, or any abundant overruns of the V8, would have been at some time sheduled/considered for somekind, ANY kind, of heavy truck use. OF course it didn't happen.

Late stick bellhousings, abundant overrun of engines, and other oddities surrounding the v8 engines seems to present at least mediocre evidence that passenger car use was not an exclusive plan for the V8.

Prior to early 60's here in the US there were but a very few diesel engines in actual operation in any industry. Many hiway tractors were still running gasoline and the truck version of the 235 Chevy 6. Moreover, there was even still alot of steam powered locomotives in operation up thru as late as 57 or 58. MY POINT is that Diesel was still in it's infancy relative to wide use in the US.

So the Packard V8 would have been an excellent adaptation to heavy trucks if even for only just 2 or 3 short years. I'm suprised that companies like Harvester or Mack or White didn't try to pick up on the Packard V8 tooling for their truck production.

One thing is for sure, the Packard V8 would have been an optimal truck engine, even if only for a short 2 to 4 years after 1956.

I suppose one other speculation to consider is how long after 1956 did Stokes offer the Packard V8 ????

THe Bellhousings produced after JUly of 1956 points to some plan or intention to use the V8. Whether Studebaker or some outside contract firm produced the bellhousings is somewhat irrelevant. THe fact that they exist seems to present at least some evidence or intention that the V8 would have continued on past the end of passenger car production.

PackardV8, are you perhaps missing the point that S-P intended to use the Packard V8 in the originally planned 57 and 58 Packards before the decision not to go forward with them and default to the Studebaker models, which has been dated to August 1956?

PackardV8 wrote: Quote:

Keith, I have no idea how you could possibly justify this statement.

A Packard V-8 is WAY oversquare (bore much larger than stroke, i.e., 4.125 bore & 3.500 stroke). This is good for a high performance automobile engine, but is backwards for a truck engine which needs an undersquare design to maximize torque via relatively long stroke.

Also, the main webbing thickness of the V-8 block is way too thin to stand up to hundreds of thousands of miles of high torque use.

There are other issues too, but that's enough to disqualify the Packard V-8 as an attractive foundation for a truck engine.

Craig

A lot of car engines were adapted for truck use by all the major car companies. No reason the Packard could not have been used in Studebaker trucks.

However if this use was contemplated the bellhousings would have been larger than for a car. All the truck engines I know of, have much larger flywheels and clutches than cars.

As for why they made so many engines, 2X4 intakes etc. it's a matter of supply and demand. They created the supply, but the demand got lost.

In other words if they knew in advance how few cars they were going to sell in 1955, 56, 57 and 58 they might not have bothered making anything. Since they didn't know, they planned for sales volume that never materialized.