Pictures of heads I did 18 years ago. Opinions?

[Allan Songer]

I did these heads for my wife's 1961 289 4 speed Hawk that is long gone. I was reading/subscribing to Dick Dotson's newsletter and did the job based on his information and several letters back and forth (WAAAY before the internet!).

I ran the heads for about 40K miles and then pulled them when I sold the car because I had countless hours in them and didn't want to "give" them away. I have to say they made a big seat-of-the-pants difference in the Hawk, but looking at them years later I see that I was pretty lazy in making them look good! I remember Dotson telling me not to go crazy making everything smooth and perfect and it sure looks like I took his advice to heart BIG TIME!! I used Manley Chevy intake valves cut down to 1.82 and stock exhaust valves (I was poor in those days!).

Are these worth using on my R1 for the '56 Champion? Should I "clean them up" first? I was thinking of using R3 valves and going back to stock valve stem height.

Thanks for any and all imput!

(cross posted on the Racing Studebakers forum)

[sbca96]

I cant see the pictures here at work, but I had a set done about the
same amount of time ago, and I used Ferrea SST valves, 2.02 cut down
to 1.94. They were "extended Chevy" for use in NASCAR, which were the
same length as Stude. I have no idea if they are still available, but
one would assume they are (they still do NASCAR right?).

I will check out the pictures later tonight when I am home.

Tom

'63 Avanti, zinc plated drilled & slotted 03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, soon: TKO 5-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves, 'R3' 276 cam, Edelbrock AFB Carb, GM HEI distributor, 8.8mm plug wires

[StudeRich]

Allan; it looks like some intake port matching is required, if you can straighten them up at bit without going to wide and causing a leak.

Those look a lot like my heads that were done in 1963, lots of Valve shrouding removed and kind of "old school" now I guess. I see pics more recently and the latest Tech seems to be NOT removing all of the Valve shrouding. Maybe Jeff (DEEPNHOCK), who has done them more recently, OR SOMEONE will "chime in".

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

[Mike Van Veghten]

Rich -

Two things "required" to make a Stude head work..
1. Redirection of flow
2. Unshrouding of port AND combustion chamber.

Mike

[sbca96]

Looks like you had a good start there. There is a LOT to be gained
from just mild porting of Studebaker heads. They are a good example
of a good design unfinished. If you want to pay the piper (like I did
around the same time you did those) drop them off to an old timer and
let him finish what you started. I have an easy $2000-3000 into the
heads on my Hawk engine. Very time consuming and costly, but the best
money spent on a Stude. Better than a Paxton.

Tom

[Mike Van Veghten]

Gee Sir Tom...are you calling me old....or are you going around me...HINTING...I don't know what I'm doing in the lower level porting world?

Better than a Paxton..........now I know your heads are top-o-the line...world class NASCAR heads!

You make me laugh...thanks.

Mike

[sbca96]

No Mike, I dont think your old, you have a lot of growing up to do. I
realize you feel all my posts are about you, but quite frankly they're
not. I'm pretty sure based on your pictures, your heads are leaps and
bounds better than the ones I had made years ago. I was simply pointing
out that its pointless to slap a Paxton on a Stude engine without any
porting being done. There is more to gain by finishing what Stude had
started, which will pay off two fold when and if a Paxton is used.

It seems the chip on your shoulder dwarfs mine.

Tom

quote:Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten

Gee Sir Tom...are you calling me old....or are you going around me...HINTING...I don't know what I'm doing in the lower level porting world?

Better than a Paxton..........now I know your heads are top-o-the line...world class NASCAR heads!

You make me laugh...thanks.

Mike

[wally]

Oh, I just love these Porting Wars. I have ported some heads, but developed an opinion that the best approach for the average joe is not to actually increase the overall size of the port. Quite the contrary. Limit your effort to cleaning up the area underneath the valve seat, & blend it in so it has no sharp ledges from the factory machining process, and to scribe and port-match the intake manifold and head, goig no further than 3/4 of an inch into the port. IOW, going over-the-top and hogging out the ports is not recommended, at all. Don't be concerned with polishing, either. Removing material from the chamber to unshroud valves is more complex matter. It must be done after the valve seats are reground, respective valves installed and then the heads should be CC'd to ascertain that you have removed an equal amount of material from each chamber. S'why this part is tricky, and takes patience and time. Because, if they are all the same, you can run max timing advance, by virtue of equal compression on each cyl. Pretty critical, really. Use a slow, variable-speed 1/4 electric drill, not a die grinder, for the very best results.

"You Can't Have Everything--Where Would You Put It?" ---comedian Steven Wright

[sals54]

Back in the day I also did a set of heads Dick Datson's way and the effect was astounding. I milled .125 off the surface, did the chevy valve conversion with 1.88/1.5. Avanti cam, and did the porting much like the heads you show. The difference was great. I had so much fun with that 259. It would get rubber in 1st and 2nd and if I really had it going, I would occasionally get 3rd as well. Good work.