What was the horsepower of a 331?

[nick8086]

What was the horsepower of the 331 cadillac engine?

 

and

 

Does any one have a picture of a 331 Cadillac engine.with a McCulloch super supercharger on it?

Edited April 3, 2017 by nick8086 (see edit history)

[F&J]

Carnut.com has "specs" for each decade of US cars, pics too.

 

This is from their "50's" decade of Cadillac, look on that site at their "1940" listing for the first 331 in 1949.

I have colored in red to show:  7.5 is the compression ratio column;  160 is the HP. and lastly the 292 is Torque.  As you can see, there were huge changes by the end of the last 331....

 

The Cad as well as early Olds Rockets were referred to as "Kettering" engines (designer's name), and both were known for brute low end torque and increased power in each new year.

 

 

1950	13,755	V8	50-60S	130	4136/4136	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	24-30	18436572	"A"	-6
	8,603	V8	50-61	122	3822/3829	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	24-30	18436572	"A"	-6
	26,772	V8	50-62	126	3993/4316	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	24-30	18436572	"A"	-6
	1,262	Fleetwood V8	50-75	146 3/4	4555/4586	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	24-30	18436572	"A"	-6
1951	18,631	V8	51-60S	130	4136/4136	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
	4,700	V8	51-61	122	3827/3829	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
	81,844	V8	51-62	126	3993/4316	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
	5,165	Fleetwood V8	51-75	147	4555/4586	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	160 @ 3800	292 @ 2200	35	AC 46-5	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
1952	16,110	V8	60S	130	4258/4258	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	190 @ 4000	322 @ 2400	35	AC 48	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
	70,255	V8	62	126	4151/4419	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	190 @ 4000	322 @ 2400	35	AC 48	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
	3,894	Fleetwood V8	75	146 3/4	4699/4734	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	7.5	190 @ 4000	322 @ 2400	35	AC 48	.035	.013	28-34	18436572	"A"	-6
1953	20,000	V8	60S	130	4337/4337	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	210 @ 4150	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	84,914	V8	62	126	4189/4476	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	210 @ 4150	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	4,205	Fleetwood V8	75	146 3/4	4801/4853	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	210 @ 4150	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
1954	16,200	V8	60	133	4490/4490	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	230 @ 4400	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	75,195	V8	62	129	4330/4809	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	230 @ 4400	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	3,135	Fleetwood V8	75	149 3/4	5031/5093	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	8.25	230 @ 4400	330 @ 2700	35	AC 46-5	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
1955	18,300	V8	60	133	4545/4545	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	9.1	250 @ 4600	345 @ 2800	35	AC 44	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	114,636	V8	62	129	4364/4631	8.00x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	9.1	250 @ 4600	345 @ 2800	35	AC 44	.035	.016	26-33	18436572	"A"	-12
	3,950	Eldorado	62	129	4809/4809	8.20x15	5 x 5	In Head	3 13/16 x 3 5/8	331	9.1	270 @ 4800

[Rusty_OToole]

On first introduction 1949 Cadillac was 160HP with a 2 barrel carb and 7.5:1 compression. Later editions were over 200HP. Highest was 270HP 1955 Eldorado with 9:1 compression and 2 - 4 barrels.

 

Are you thinking of McCulloch superchargers?

[nick8086]

Are you thinking of McCulloch superchargers?  Yes..

 

I just want to see a 331 that looks like the hawk in 57..

 

I found an old race sheet. Ray Sinatra Had one in a Kaiser darrin.

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by nick8086 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

They did offer a kit for the Cadillac. Search for McCulloch or VS57 and Cadillac, you might turn up something.

[nick8086]

This is the only thing I found on line..

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by nick8086 (see edit history)

[F&J]

Look at the difference in valve cover bolts on those two pics.

 

The first pic posted shows the "very early 49" with center studs.  The 2nd pic shows what most people recognize as a Cadillac valve cover, with bolts at the gasket edges like a Chevy SBC.

 

.

[CarlLaFong]

The first engine is a Stude

[F&J]

2 hours ago, CarlLaFong said:

The first engine is a Stude

 

Thanks for clearing that up.  I thought the early 49 Cad had just 2 bolts through the center of the cover, and I should have questioned the 4 like were used on some Studebakers.  Was there a different year Stude V8 with 2 bolts?  I thought Tommy on hamb said something like that, or maybe he was using some aftermarket covers from a different make on his Stude engine.

[Rusty_OToole]

The first pic shows a Studebaker which was copied off the Cadillac. So, just erase 'Sweepstakes' and write in 'Cadillac' and you have a good idea what one looks like.

 

Later Studebakers had 2 bolt valve covers.

[CarlLaFong]

I believe the myth, that the Stude V-8 was a copy of the Cadillac design, has been pretty well debunked

[Rusty_OToole]

Yes and no. The Studebaker is smaller than the Cad, different bore and stroke, has gear driven cam vs chain driven, solid lifters vs hydraulic and other differences. But in later years Studebaker engineers admitted they took a good look at the Cadillac before they sat down at the drawing board, and even consulted with Cadillac engineers on some engineering questions. So, they are completely different engines, but do share a similar design philosophy. I don't see anything wrong with that. The Cadillac was one of the finest engines in the world at the time and they could do a lot worse than to copy it.

[topcat12]

port match intake for 3 to 5 free hp,,,never saw factory heads that some easy porting  did not help  ,,,331 head especially

[Buffalowed Bill]

On 4/3/2017 at 6:15 PM, CarlLaFong said:

I believe the myth, that the Stude V-8 was a copy of the Cadillac design, has been pretty well debunked

 Not trying to beat a dead horse, but debunked by whom? I've been a Stude guy since I started driving in 1961. Sometimes I think that I have learned a great deal, other times I'm humbled by what I don't know. One thing that I do know is if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a relative. The similarities, alone, tells me something about the Cadillac/Studebaker relationship. 

 

I had a good friend, since deceased, who worked in the technical writing area in Studebaker in the late 40's and early 50's. In the center of his work area was a 1949 Cadillac engine. My friend said that throughout the workday engineers would, come and go, taking measurements, and generally using the engine as a reference. From the moment that the Stude came out, with their V8 in 1951, the relationship was obvious. 

 

There were many differences in the two engines, as would be expected from a manufacturer focused on fuel economy, but the similarities are unmistakable. There has always been the unsubstantiated rumor, that GM threatened a lawsuit, that was settled out of court. I doubt that Cadillac would want to do much more then make a point, about something that most thought was obvious. After all, Cad had nothing to fear from Studebaker. In the final analysis both engines proved to be successful, with both surviving well into the 60's.

[Rusty_OToole]

A lawsuit based on what? A general similarity of appearance? Unless Studebaker infringed some patents (highly doubtful) there were no grounds. Cadillac published full specs and details of the Cadillac design in SAE papers once the engine was released for sale. Have also heard Studebaker engineers had discussions with Cadillac engineers on certain issues. As you say Cad had nothing to fear from Studebaker, they were selling to completely different market segments.

 

GM was under pressure at the time from the government, who felt they were too powerful and wanted to split them up under the anti monopoly laws. It was in GM's interest to keep Studebaker and the other independents in business/

[nzcarnerd]

I have had nothing to do with either engine but having read the previous comments, how did Studebaker get it so wrong, if they copied the Cadillac? The Cadillac started at 331 cid and was able to be expanded to 390. I do know the Cadillac engine received a major redesign for 1963, which enabled it to be expanded further. In comparison, I read that the Studebaker engine was not able to be expanded over 289 cid from the original 239. And it was a relatively heavy engine.  One reason why some Studes had Cadillac engines fitted?

[Rusty_OToole]

I wouldn't say they got it wrong. They built it for 15 years and earned a reputation for power, strength, reliability and economy. The Stude started 99 cu in smaller than the Cadillac and ended 101 cu in smaller. So not a big difference.

 

To go bigger they would have needed to redesign the engine completely. It would have been possible to build a larger more modern engine on the original machine tools but the cost of a new design with new molds and patterns was out of their reach. Studebaker sales peaked in the early fifties and after that they were fighting for survival every year.

 

Cadillac engines were fitted by hot rodders. The Studillac was built by Bill Frick from 1953 to 1955, in 1956 Studebaker offered a Golden Hawk powered by a Packard V8 that was bigger and more powerful than the Cadillac. They followed that up with a supercharged 289 that had the same horsepower as the 352 Packard. So no more need for engine swaps unless you were building an out and out race car.

[Bleach]

On 4/3/2017 at 5:13 AM, F&J said:

Look at the difference in valve cover bolts on those two pics.

 

The first pic posted shows the "very early 49" with center studs.  The 2nd pic shows what most people recognize as a Cadillac valve cover, with bolts at the gasket edges like a Chevy SBC.

 

.

 

 

Here's an early center stud 331 Cadillac. I've yet to see one in a Cadillac where one belongs.

[28 Chrysler]

I was told by a GM guy  that the Chrysler 331 Hemi block was a copy of the Caddy 331. Some stories are based on little facts.

[padgett]

Just an aside but horsepower is a very bad comparison point, torque is much better. Don't forget the Robert E. Lee beat the Natchez with 15 hp @ 44 rpm.

 

Torque is much more important particularly comparing engines that peaked at 4000 rpm and under compared to today's 6,500 and 7,000 redlines @ 90% of the torque peak.

 

Just as an example, my 3.6 V6 Jeep has the same rated peak hp as a '74 Trans Am Super Duty or a '68 Z-28.

 

ps a Studillac has always been on my dream list.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by padgett (see edit history)

[Buffalowed Bill]

17 hours ago, nzcarnerd said:

I have had nothing to do with either engine but having read the previous comments, how did Studebaker get it so wrong, if they copied the Cadillac? The Cadillac started at 331 cid and was able to be expanded to 390. I do know the Cadillac engine received a major redesign for 1963, which enabled it to be expanded further. In comparison, I read that the Studebaker engine was not able to be expanded over 289 cid from the original 239. And it was a relatively heavy engine.  One reason why some Studes had Cadillac engines fitted?

 I'll try to tread lightly here. When I tried to make the point, on the SDC forum, that a redesign of the block would have been required, I was taken to task by some claiming more knowledge then I had. A point well taken, I might add. I was told that it would only have entailed changing the block, and that the engineering work had already been done, but that the company dragged it's feet, and failed to carry through. I hate to spread rumors, but here I go doing it again!

 

I'll try to narrate some company attitudes and how it played out in the 40' through the mid 60's. In the 30's Studebaker was part of a dyeing breed, the independent auto makers in the US, and they knew it. The company's successes with the economical Champion, in 1939, made it clear that their survival depended on their economy offerings. I'm sure that they also realized, that they had to modernize to compete. I'm also sure that the successes of Kettering's V8's, at GM, helped them plot their course. Being first in it's competitive market was considered essential. They were first with their OH V8, and it turned out to be a good engine, and the right choice. I don't think that there can be any argument so far.

 

Studebaker made some assumptions when they designed their V8. First that it's displacement had to be limited to that of it's competition, where they knew they would have the advantage, in performance and fuel economy, which they were consistently able to prove. They also assumed that the post war era, would usher in  the availability of gasoline of better quality and higher octane.  The displacement of the original 232cu" V8 (not 239 cu" that was Ford) was designed to take advantage of the higher octane fuel. The engineers felt that the engine would be able to easily handle, compression ratios as high a 13:1, with no design changes. The company felt that the engine would still have a comparative advantage in fuel economy, with no drop in performance. I should add that no manufacturer did a better job of utilizing the Warner overdrive. It might also be argued that their " Studebaker Automatic" trans. which had features like the lock-up torque converter, that made it among  the best in the industry. 

 

I don't think that they got it wrong in 1950, but they didn't anticipate the changing attitudes of the buying public. The American buying public became caught up in the horsepower race, fueled by the Big Three. For a time, I think that, many buyers were, more then, willing to sacrifice fuel economy, for the romance, that power and comfort seemed to offer. Studebaker did redesign the block for 1955 to  incorporate 259cu," in response to it's competition. the engine was not limited to 289cu." A 304cu" performance engine was produced in limited numbers in the 60's. There was also design work done that would have increased the displacement to 320cu">. Rather then lose the economy of the 259/289 they opted for supercharging instead of cubic inches.

 

When evaluating Studebaker's almost seventy years of auto manufacture, I don't think that the question should be how they got it wrong, but rather how did they get it so right?  When three thousand independents had already failed, they must have been doing something right! Phew! sorry got carried away. 

[Rusty_OToole]

When the new generation of OHV engines was introduced practically all of them were smaller in displacement, and much smaller in size and weight, than the engines they replaced. At the time the designers did not believe that cars would grow in size and power as much as they did. The horsepower race took them by surprise and I doubt they foresaw the adding of power robbing accessories like air conditioning, power steering, auto transmissions etc. Up until that time a new engine design was expected to last 15 - 20 years with regular updating and improvements. Some of them were supplemented by new bigger designs after only 3 or 4 years.

[vernludwick@att.net]

Yep, here is my 331 with VS57 McCulloch supercharger....Vern in SLO

[vernludwick@att.net]

Was this what you were looking for ?? It came with a 3 speed LaSalle manual transmission , if you want to ask any questions feel free to call me 805-543-0754 ...Vern Ludwick

[vernludwick@att.net]

Pulled it out, and stuffed it in.  331 and the blower , maybe 185 HP  Just guessing...

[Pfeil]

On 2/27/2018 at 5:15 PM, Rusty_OToole said:

When the new generation of OHV engines was introduced practically all of them were smaller in displacement, and much smaller in size and weight, than the engines they replaced. At the time the designers did not believe that cars would grow in size and power as much as they did. The horsepower race took them by surprise and I doubt they foresaw the adding of power robbing accessories like air conditioning, power steering, auto transmissions etc. Up until that time a new engine design was expected to last 15 - 20 years with regular updating and improvements. Some of them were supplemented by new bigger designs after only 3 or 4 years.

I think Pontiac saw that coming.

[JimKB1MCV]

Everyone knows Studebaker bought their 289 engines from Ford, Right?

It must be true because its on the internet.

I miss F&J's posts.