PDA

View Full Version : 2x4 intake manifold



64challenger
06-16-2005, 01:12 PM
Do any of the vendors make a 2x4 intake manifold for Stude 289? I was just curious more so than wanting one. The R-4 set up has always interested me.

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

N8N
06-16-2005, 02:11 PM
Dave Thibeault does, but I imagine a single 4-barrel, or else a 2x2 or 3x2 would be more than enough carb for even a "warm" 289; I'm guessing even the smallest 4bbl carbs you could find would be overkill.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

64challenger
06-16-2005, 02:22 PM
Thats what i think too Nate. Sooo many people make that mistake of too much cam & carb. I was just curious if they were available.

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

Swifster
06-16-2005, 02:32 PM
I still learning a lot about Studes, so pardon me asking. With the R4 being a 2X4 set up, was this over carbed, or did the more radical cam make up for this? I realize there were very few of these made, but wasn't there an additional 40 to 50 HP with this set up from an R1? Just asking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Sterling Heights, MI

Ancient Chinese Proverb: "Injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown!"

1964 Studebaker Daytona - Laguna Blue, Original 4-Spd. Car, Power Steering, Disc Brakes, Bucket Seats, Tinted Glass, Climatizer Ventilation System, AM Radio (136,989 Miles)

Dan White
06-16-2005, 03:02 PM
I have an aluminum medium rise Detroit Racing 2 X 4 that was converted to Stude use from a Cad manifold. It uses the old small bore 4 bbls from the fifties. So there are ones out there that probably could be converted to for a Studes that would not over carb the engine.

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

64challenger
06-16-2005, 03:03 PM
Hi Tom, The r4 had about 40 more horses than the r1 The r2 and r3 were both more powerful than the r4. The 304.5 was ok performance wise with the r4 package but some carb problems existed but wasnt severely over carbed.

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

64challenger
06-16-2005, 03:13 PM
I've always thought Studebaker was expecting the R4 to be hotter than it turned out to be since no car company tries to go backwards "in series" Ex: GTO Ram Air Ram Air IV etc. it got hotter with each #! So did Stude until the R4 which went backwards. Still a really cool set up though!

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

Dan White
06-16-2005, 04:59 PM
I thought the power went R1, R2, R4, R3? The R4 was brought out specifically for non-blown drag race purposes? I am not sure where I read this, it has been some time ago. Obviously the R3 and R4 numbers should have been swapped.

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

64challenger
06-16-2005, 05:25 PM
Dan You may very well be right.I do know for sure that the R3 hp ratings were already out when the magazines started road testing the R4 but that doesnt neccesarily mean anything.

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

DEEPNHOCK
06-16-2005, 08:40 PM
Well, The R4 made most of it's HP at a pretty high RPM, and it had special heads to go with that manifold.
You could get a Tbolt manifold and put dual 450cfm AFB's on it and keep the secondaries closed and it would drive all right on the street, but the cost would be nutty...
Jeff[8D]





quote:Originally posted by N8N

Dave Thibeault does, but I imagine a single 4-barrel, or else a 2x2 or 3x2 would be more than enough carb for even a "warm" 289; I'm guessing even the smallest 4bbl carbs you could find would be overkill.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

studegary
06-16-2005, 09:07 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Dan White

I thought the power went R1, R2, R4, R3?


Not quite.
R1 240 HP
R2 289 HP
R3 335 HP
R4 280 HP

64challenger
06-16-2005, 09:53 PM
Those are the exact hp ratings i show as well Gary. Which gets me back to my point that i believe they thought the R-4 was going to be hotter than it was. I bet they were surprised when it didnt put out at least R-2 power. Oh well back to the drawing board hmm i mean super charger!

My Studes:
1.1947 Commander 14A-C3
2.1948 Champion 2 door sedan
3.1950 Champion 2 door sedan
4.1959 Lark 2 door post
5.1964 Stude challenger 2 door

Dan White
06-17-2005, 07:48 AM
Somewhere in one of my books or magazines I remember that there was some controversy concerning the R4 HP/torque ratings. Apparently Studebaker would not provide the NHRA certain info for it to be classified for whatever division an R4 Lark would race in, it would therefore be forced to race in an open unlimited category. Anyone else remember this?

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

Dick Steinkamp
06-17-2005, 09:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by N8N

Dave Thibeault does, but I imagine a single 4-barrel, or else a 2x2 or 3x2 would be more than enough carb for even a "warm" 289; I'm guessing even the smallest 4bbl carbs you could find would be overkill.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel


The'd have to be tiny, but factory dual quad Chevrolet 283's ran pretty good, so it must be doable. I doubt if there would be any performance gain over a properly spec'd and set up single 4 barrel, but it sure would look neat! [:p]

-Dick-

studegary
06-17-2005, 02:12 PM
In the beginning of R series engine production, Studebaker did not release horsepower figures. I believe that it was about November 1963 (in 1964 production) before Studebaker released the horsepower figures that I posted earlier in this thread.

Joeybaloney
03-20-2006, 10:45 PM
Are there any modern companies that make a dual quand intake for a Stude v8? I had heard that Cadillac intakes might work with the Stude intake pattern.

DEEPNHOCK
03-21-2006, 04:50 AM
Lionel Stone makes a reproduction aluminum R4 dual quad intake manifold for a Stude engine.
Several vendors will make you a set of adapters to use that you can modify a Mopar 318/340 dual quad intake to achieve this.
An early 331" Caddy dyal quad intake can be modified to bolt onto a Stude engine, but the port alignment is not very good and port work on both the head and intake will be needed to get the most out of it.
The Caddy intake will need adapters on the top to run a more modern AFB carb on it.
So, right now, your choices are (A) Stone Clone R4 intake, (b) adapters and a Mopar intake, (c) a modified Caddy Intake, or (d) Find an original R4 intake $$$)
Jeff[8D]




quote:Originally posted by Joeybaloney

Are there any modern companies that make a dual quand intake for a Stude v8? I had heard that Cadillac intakes might work with the Stude intake pattern.

Laemmle
03-21-2006, 03:03 PM
Looking at the Paxton "white papers" I have, and additional supporting papers...R-1 was in the "neighborhood" of 240 bhp, the R-2 290 bhp, the R-3 335 bhp, and finally the R-4 280 bhp. Realize that Studebaker like the "big three" were very aware of the "prying eyes" of the insurance industry...and under-reported HP claims for abvious reasons....it is well established that for engines to reach the performance level they did HP had to be greater than published...indeed Joe Granatelli stated that R-3 engines put out in excess of 400 bhp[:p].....this is true....Nelson Bove had his R-3 dynoed...375+ hp ...at the REAR WHEELS!...not at the FLYWHEEL! One can then assume that the 280 bhp that was published for the R-4 is not true.. If any R-4 owners out there would care to subject their cars to modern dy-nos then the question would be settled forever. That would not be too likely...I have only seen one Avanti to have replaced the factory installed block with an R-4 and that was many years ago....maybe Jon Myer knows where that car is today[?]

11SecAvanti
03-21-2006, 08:38 PM
Here is a dyno engine program analysis based on R-4 specs. Cam is 288 duration with open race headers and R-4 head cfm flow data.

RPM HP Torque
1500 80 281
2000 119 312
2500 154 323
3000 181 317
3500 223 334
4000 260 341
4500 295 344
5000 319 335
5500 330 316
6000 328 287
6500 312 252
7000 292 219

Start and Stage Your Studebakers

64Avanti
03-21-2006, 11:42 PM
Jeff,

I think you know this but the Stone manifolds are made from the original tooling. The problem is usually with the quality of the machine work and sometimes the castings. I don't think there are too many R4 manifolds out there, If I recall correctly we only built about 10. These were all modified to fit standard heads.

David L

DEEPNHOCK
03-22-2006, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update.
I always thought his were just cloned.
So Stone's are from the original molds and forms?
I've seen them loose (T-Bolt always has one on his table) and I've seen one on an Avanti (Stone repro). I thought the aftermarket dual quad world of Stude was bigger than 10 units;)
Jeff[8D]



quote:Originally posted by 64Avanti

Jeff,

I think you know this but the Stone manifolds are made from the original tooling. The problem is usually with the quality of the machine work and sometimes the castings. I don't think there are too many R4 manifolds out there, If I recall correctly we only built about 10. These were all modified to fit standard heads.

David L

N8N
03-22-2006, 09:09 AM
Dave Thibeault told me that the aluminum R4 manifold was made from the original tooling. I do not know if that holds true for the single 4bbl manifold or not. Which prompts the question, if you can use the original tooling to produce a viable aluminum manifold, why was the original cast in iron?

The R4 manifold has some funky looking passages in it; but apparently it works.

I am guessing that the single 4bbl manifold is cloned, otherwise why would the exhaust crossover not have been included (less material required, less weight, and not a lot of extra work to include it) but I may be mistaken.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Jessie J.
03-22-2006, 12:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by 64challenger

I've always thought Studebaker was expecting the R4 to be hotter than it turned out to be since no car company tries to go backwards "in series" Ex: GTO Ram Air Ram Air IV etc. it got hotter with each #! So did Stude until the R4 which went backwards. Still a really cool set up though!
I recall reading many years ago that the R-4 was introduced as an "engineering short-cut" to address Avanti buyers demands for air-conditioning, which was not available with the R-2 and R-3 packages, (look under the hood of an R-3, WHERE would you find the space?) forcing customers to choose between power and performance, or the comfort of air conditioning. Not an easy sell in hot or humid areas of the country.

Laemmle
03-22-2006, 04:35 PM
Jessie,

Back in the day....late 60's and early 70's while I lived in the greater Miami Florida area the local Studebaker dealer (actually service shop)was Trojan Service Center located at 5ll NW. 79th Street and owned by one Richard H. Dahl ...Dick, was one of the greatest wrench spinners I have ever seen....he in fact set up several local Miami Avantis that were R-2s. The owners demanded he do something about putting A/C in...I saw one such car...crude yes...the power steering pump was moved and the compressor was run from the area of the battery on one drive belt...it did work..and the owners were not interested in concours looks...today folks like Peter Sant in Canada have done the same thing...albeit in a custom non crude manner..point is, it was done and...as they say..need is the mother of invention.
I alway envied 'Vette owners who had great HP and the comfort of A/C[:p]

64Avanti
03-22-2006, 10:29 PM
The R3 manifolds that Paxton made, we made and Stone has made are from the original tooling and made from aluminum. This tooling should never have been sold to him but that is a story I won't go into because it is an over 30 year old story.

Does someone have a picture of the Stone produced R3 intake without the heat riser cross-over? The tooling had the cross-over so what the heck ...

I have one R3 intake in cast iron and I Think Alan may have one. Does anyone else know of any iron R3 manifolds. My drawings call for aluminum.

David L

Alan
03-23-2006, 01:06 PM
Dave, The one I have now is aluminum and it has the exh. crossover. The only iron R3 manifold I had was on a car I sold to a guy in 70 when tricky Dicky called me up.