Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Yeller wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 4:01 pm
Those are very cool!!!! I love old iron so glad to see it shown off
I have always though they were cool even as a kid. Never thought I would actually own one. This one basically fell into my lap. I guess it was meant to be. Thanks!
Herk wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 5:46 pm
So that's a late 1950-1951, only the last run had the pointed hood and fenders. If you haven't done so already, be sure to check out https://www.oldwillysforum.com/forum/index.php
That is what I thought, but the title says 1949. Knowing my luck with oddities it probably is a late 49 or possible that someone changed the nose clip at some point.
I just looked up the serial number. It is number 43 of the 1950 model run. so yes late 49 early 50 makes sense.
VJ Jeepster Serial Number Information.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
This one was originally a 4cyl, but it has a Studebaker flat head six in it now. Not sure at this point which way I plan to go with it. Have to see if the motor runs good on not.
Soft top is in good shape on this one. We could not find the side skirts though. So I will have to order some in for it.
Looks like it would be a fun car for summer. Neato.
What engine did it have originally, the F134? The Studebakers were a popular swap back in the day (50s? early 60s?) when they were plentiful. Before my time; I recall Studebaker used the T-90 in their passenger cars, which I presume explains their popularity as a replacement for the L134 and F134. I've seen a few of them. Six cylinders are kinda long for a replacement though, and usually they require firewall surgery which could be neat or hackery.
If this one is a tidy swap, I'd keep it. It's interesting and though not correct, period-typical. Good engine, and it would be a substantial upgrade over either of the 134s. Good 134s are not that plentiful today, and many have block cracks that need expensive repairs.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.
tgreese wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 3:19 pm
Looks like it would be a fun car for summer. Neato.
What engine did it have originally, the F134? The Studebakers were a popular swap back in the day (50s? early 60s?) when they were plentiful. Before my time; I recall Studebaker used the T-90 in their passenger cars, which I presume explains their popularity as a replacement for the L134 and F134. I've seen a few of them. Six cylinders are kinda long for a replacement though, and usually they require firewall surgery which could be neat or hackery.
If this one is a tidy swap, I'd keep it. It's interesting and though not correct, period-typical. Good engine, and it would be a substantial upgrade over either of the 134s. Good 134s are not that plentiful today, and many have block cracks that need expensive repairs.
Originally it was a 4cyl vehicle going by the serial number. #00043 off the assembly line for '50 but is titled as a '49. I believe it should have been the L head by then, but not totally sure.
I have heard that it was a very popular swap in the '50-'60's for the 4 cylinder CJ's and probably the pickups and wagons too. The Studebaker 170ci is not too much bigger than the 134 but added about 20hp and more torque. I thought this was a 170, but now I believe it is a 245 by where the starter is located. The 245 produced 98-109hp and 220ft pounds of torque. Sounds like they were built like a tank and were used in the bigger trucks during the 50's.
ghcoe wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 4:32 pm...
The Studebaker 170ci is not too much bigger than the 134 but added about 20hp and more torque. I thought this was a 170, but now I believe it is a 245 by where the starter is located. The 245 produced 98-109hp and 220ft pounds of torque. Sounds like they were built like a tank and were used in the bigger trucks during the 50's.
Cool. Don't know much about the various Studebakers; seems the 245 would give you an added 40 hp over the ca 60 hp of the 134.
For a CJ, 20 hp added is a significant upgrade. Maybe less of an issue for the more aerodynamic (?) VJ, but still a big boost over what they came with. The 134 CJs totally poop out at highway speed, and are spinning near the peak allowable RPM for the 134. 60 hp would be plenty in a VW bug, but the blunt frontal area of the CJ makes a lot of drag. Gear change can't help much; they are comfortable at boulevard speed, but not much above. Might be ok for your VJ, if that's how you plan to use it.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.