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. (Side Note: The other desired Rod Engine of the period was the Olds OHV, a much heavier and tougher unit than the SBC) Both the 55 265ci OHV SBC and Ford's OHV Y block, introduced in 53, are taller engines and use a chain driven cam from the crank. If anything, GM may have copied the 53 Ford when they designed the 265ci 1955 Chevy small block. Ken Matson Feb 2002 -------------- 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. One local rod builder is using an aluminum Offenhauser Cad blower manifold to mount a 4-71 GMC supercharger on the Studebaker engine in his '32 Stude Opera Coupe street rod. thnx, Jack Vines feb 2002 ------------ ((((((Jack, Your absolutely right. Low or squat was a poor choice of words on my part. In early 1957, I helped a close high school friend (and block neighbor) put a Cad engine in his 53 Lowey (Starlight?) 2dr. We painted the engine correct Stude colors. It looked like the Stude V8. This sucker would really burn tires! To get more weight on the rear wheels, we welded into the trunk, just behind the rear seat, two four foot sections of heavy duty mainline railroad track (His dad worked for the Illinois Central RR and helped us get the track.) We then sort of made a cover to go over the track from trunkliner material. A casual looker would not see the track. For a year and a half we ran this sleeper against Chevys, Fords and Merc's (mostly 47 thru 56 cars). I don't recall that we ever lost a drag to them. They also did not believe that they were beaten by a what --- Studebaker? Olds was a different story. Lost several times until we put on three duces, ported and shaved the heads and added backyard fabricated headers into Smithy (sp) glass packs. (Probably some other stuff also that I don't remember) By this time (early 59) word had passed that our Stude was not a "real" Studebaker but a Studelac. It was now becoming hard to "get a drag for $" against the Chevys and Fords. Boy it was fun though while it lasted. :>)))))))))) 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 -------