Interesting Email From Excalibur

[StudeMichael]

I recently wrote Excalibur asking if they had any basket case Series One Roadsters. I explained the car having a drive train was not important because I plan on putting an R3 Avanti engine in it. This was the rather interesting reply I received:

You do realize t hat a no door car even a basket is about $35k? We have one the 14th car we built. FYI the 327 corvette engine in these cars is far ligter and faster than the R2 or R3 that was the 2nd reason we used a 327 GM rather than the 289 R2 from Studebaker. We have increased the HP on one we restored a few years ago by a lot just buy changing a few things in the engine (rockers etc) that car will smoke the Cobras. We have a client and friend that we take care of his cobras he has a BB and a SB and that early Excal will take them both.The protype with the R2 engine is fast but not fast enough to beat the 327 in the production cars.

1957 Packard Clipper
1958 Golden Hawk
1963 Daytona Convertible
1963 R2 Daytona
1963 R2 GT Hawk
1963 R1 Wagonaire
1963 R4 Avanti
1964 Champ
1966 Cruiser

[Swifster]

They are probably right about the engine. Only a real fan of the Excaliber would be hunting for an early car for the price of a roller to be $35K. But they are a lot more pleasing to the eye.

I'm sure that a SBC adds to the handling. On a lite car like that, and R3 would be fast but very nose heavy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2125.60)

[studegary]

I must be out of touch with this market. The last that I knew, driveable early Excalibers were about $15K with good ones about $20K, but that isn't from the factory.

Based on their $35K basket condition price, I wonder what they want for the '90 Avanti.

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

[JBOYLE]

When you first mentioned your idea, I predicted that a car wouldn't come cheap.
Thirty-five K is about what I expected based on the (admittedly few) early cars I've seen advertised.
Series Is are collectable in their own right, were [u]never</u> really cheap, and fairly rare.

I still love your idea though.
It's a worthwhile project, but like many worthwhile projects, not a cheap one.

63 Avanti R1 2788
1914 Stutz Bearcat
(George Barris replica)

Washington State

[StudeMichael]

I find it really hard to believe that an unblown Chevrolet similar in size to the 289 would perform better than an R3 Avanti engine that made the 1963 Avanti go 172 mph! The engine was placed closer to the middle on the early Excalibburs which should give it about a 60/40 weight distibution.

1957 Packard Clipper
1958 Golden Hawk
1963 Daytona Convertible
1963 R2 Daytona
1963 R2 GT Hawk
1963 R1 Wagonaire
1963 R4 Avanti
1964 Champ
1966 Cruiser

[Dick Steinkamp]

quote:Originally posted by StudeMichael

I find it really hard to believe that an unblown Chevrolet similar in size to the 289 would perform better than an R3 Avanti engine

An R3 Avanti made 335 HP by most sources. A 1965 Chevy FI 327 made 375 HP. 600-800 HP out of a streetable non blown SBC is not uncommon. 600-800 HP out of a Studebaker engine is next to unheard of.

Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

[IMG][/IMG]

[Allan Songer]

We all love the Studebaker V8 and there are PLENTY of reasons to be enamoured of it, but let's face it--if you want horsepower, there's no cheaper or BETTER way than with the small block Chevrolet.

400 horses out of a Stude V8 is INSANELY expensive and difficult, but you can get that from a small block Chevy by hunting and pecking through a JEGS or Summit catalog for probably half the money or less.

What am I putting in my '56 Champion? An R1 Studebaker that I have about FOUR GRAND into and I'll be lucky to be putting out 300 horsepower at the crank.

[JDP]

Take a decent used 289, and install two junk yard turbos and have well over 400 hp for under $1000 if you DIY. Ted started out about that basic, but now makes well over 600 HP BTW, the 335 HP is way under rated, the Plain Brown Wrapper puts more then that at the rear wheels.

JDP/Maryland
Please vote for Sid (64GT)in the NYT contest.

http://collectiblecars.nytimes.com/Contest/

[BobPalma]

Right On, JDP! See "On The Dyno" Page 9, November 2004 Turning Wheels. Also Pages 22-24 July 2003 Turning Wheels. BP

[Allan Songer]

quote:Originally posted by JDP

Take a decent used 289, and install two junk yard turbos and have well over 400 hp for under $1000 if you DIY. Ted started out about that basic, but now makes well over 600 HP BTW, the 335 HP is way under rated, the Plain Brown Wrapper puts more then that at the rear wheels.

JDP/Maryland
Please vote for Sid (64GT)in the NYT contest.

http://collectiblecars.nytimes.com/Contest/

Take a junk yard Chevy 350 , install two junk yard turbos and have well over 500 horsepower for under $1000.

The math works the same way.

The only reason to choose a Studebaker V8 for a strictly high performance application is primarily emotional. Not that there's anything wrong with that--I stand guilty as charged.

[Jessie J.]

Speaking of Ted, in all the years I attended the PSMCDs at Mid Michigan Motoplex, I don't recall ever seeing The Stude Tomato or Plain Brown Wrapper ever losing out to any stock 327 powered Chevy? He usually even put the hurt on the big blocks, Anyone else remember Ted losing to a stock 327?
Anyway even if it did happen occasionally, those R engines have proven they are no slouches. Ought to provide plenty of performance, sure they are expensive to build if you don't have the rare parts, but if you already own a complete R engine assembly, then it really ought not be much more expensive to rebuild than any other similar year offbrand.

[Warren Webb]

The idea of installing an R-3 engine is a good one in the sense that Mr. Stevens used the Stude R-2 engine on the first one. Perhaps by using an aluminum aftermarket water manifold, intake & possibly the heads, the weight penalty of the Stude wouldn't be quite so bad & if the engines are set back as the previous blog stated, then the distribution would be much better than your average Avanti.

60 Lark convertible
61 Champ
62 Daytona convertible
63 G.T. R-2,4 speed
63 Avanti (2)
66 Daytona Sport Sedan

[Dick Steinkamp]

I think we can pick out a Stude motor or two that makes big HP...just as we can pick out SBC's like the one in the Champion Speed Shop dragster that runs 5's [:0].

Stude motors are cool. I love them. But if you want HP (at a realistic cost), there is no substitute for the small block Chevy...either stock or built. There IS a reason it has been the motor of choice for hot rods for over 50 years. This is NOTHING against a Stude motor and it is way cooler than a SBC...just not as much HP possible out of that early Stude design.

Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

[IMG][/IMG]

[Allan Songer]

quote:Originally posted by Jessie J.

Speaking of Ted, in all the years I attended the PSMCDs at Mid Michigan Motoplex, I don't recall ever seeing The Stude Tomato or Plain Brown Wrapper ever losing out to any stock 327 powered Chevy? He usually even put the hurt on the big blocks, Anyone else remember Ted losing to a stock 327?
Anyway even if it did happen occasionally, those R engines have proven they are no slouches. Ought to provide plenty of performance, sure they are expensive to build if you don't have the rare parts, but if you already own a complete R engine assembly, then it really ought not be much more expensive to rebuild than any other similar year offbrand.

Yeah, but aren't we talking about starting with a roller here. I suppose if you had an R3 ready to go, there would be absolutely NO reason NOT to use it. However, if you are starting from scratch, it would cost you about 5 times as much to build up an R3 when compared with a Chevy putting out a similar amount of power.

[Jessie J.]

Money ain't everything. -unless ya ain't got any (me)
Nobody is going to beat the bottom line on SBC parts, the only engine made that you can overhaul for $99.95
(Owner of 3 SBC powered vehicles, and 5 Stude V-8s)