PDA

View Full Version : Hmmm, what's with this R2 cam some have mentioned?



MagikDraggin
05-11-2007, 08:04 PM
Is this something that is readily available and is it something that I could install, or at least have installed, on (in) my 4sp '62 Hawk 289 4bbl motor?

If so, what is required besides the cam itself to effect this change? A little more "aggressive" sound at idle would suit me just fine.

Karl

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/MagikDraggin/Other%20Stuff/IM000986-reduced.jpg?
1962 GT Hawk 4sp

sbca96
05-11-2007, 08:13 PM
Are you refering to the R2 plus?

http://www.fairbornstudebaker.com/index.htm

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: 97 Z28 T-56 6-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves, 'R3' 276 cam, Edelbrock AFB Carb, GM HEI distributor, 8.8mm plug wires

bige
05-11-2007, 08:18 PM
I have Ted's R2.5 cam in my Avanti. I was surprised to hear about the idle lope. My car idles very smoothly not at all like a long duration cam?!

ErnieR

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/avnatiglamour007.jpg

John Kirchhoff
05-11-2007, 09:08 PM
Just remember that a true cam induced "lope" at idle if the result of too much valve overlap, in other words, the intake and exahust valves are both open at the same time. At high rpm's the inertia behind the moving exhaust and intake flow helps clear and fill the cylinder more completely, resulting in more power. However, at low rpm's that desirable high rpm valve overlap lets some of the intake charge go out the exhaust as well as some of the combustion charge, resulting in less power and poorer fuel economy. I believe an R2 cam is rather mild compared to some with a more radical grind, but invariably there's always a give-take situation with engines (as well as most other things in life), in other words, there ain't nuttin' free. A radical cam is going to allow an engine to make more power at a higher rpm than the same engine with a mild cam, but it will also make less power at low rpm than one with a mild cam. The only way to get around that is with the variable cam timing technology these days.

As an example, Japan has restrictions on the engine displacement of domestic motorcycles sold in that country. To overcome the limitted horsepower potential of such a small engine, they have 250cc, 4 cylinder engines that will rev to 20,000-25,000 rpm and make substantial horsepower. Needless to say, this requires camshafts that make a so called radical automobile cam seem as exciting as milk toast. On the down side, idle speed is often 5,000 rpm and they don't make any kind of serious hp until 10,000-15,000 rpm. The powerband on those engines is as narrow as is my wallet. Needless to say, an engine with a power curve as steep as Mt Everest that brings on horsepower like flipping on a light switch is beyond difficult to operate and isn't something you want for stop and go, grocery fetching, in town driving or relaxed cruising.

You often see engines with a radical cam having a higher compression ratio than a mild one. The main reason for that is because the valve overlap lets some of the intake charge escape at low speeds which effectively reduced the compression ratio. So much for "effeciency".

As far as my own tastes go, a hopped up engine with a wild cam would probably be fun...for a bit. But for the going to work, running errands, try to save money on gas, running the speed limit driving I do, the novelty of that loping, high reving, won't pull the hat off your head at idle engine would wear off pretty quickly. If I want that ratty sound, I'll knock a hole in the muffler and pull a spark plug wire off! Ha!

MagikDraggin
05-12-2007, 12:33 AM
quote:Originally posted by John Kirchhoff


As far as my own tastes go, a hopped up engine with a wild cam would probably be fun...for a bit. But for the going to work, running errands, try to save money on gas, running the speed limit driving I do, the novelty of that loping, high reving, won't pull the hat off your head at idle engine would wear off pretty quickly. If I want that ratty sound, I'll knock a hole in the muffler and pull a spark plug wire off! Ha!


That's funny, John, but unfortunately very true. It was just that in the "muffler thread", the comment was made in reference to some sort of R2 cam having quite a "lopey sound". I wasn't really all that concerned with what and where any performance could be found with it...just the sound itself is, shall I say, "attention getting", at a local cruise in.......something that one just wouldn't necessarily expect to hear coming from a Studebaker.

As far as your suggestion of "poking a hole in the muffler and yanking a spark-plug wire off"....nahhhh, I think I'll pass, heh, heh, heh. But that was indeed, funny!

Karl

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/MagikDraggin/Other%20Stuff/IM000986-reduced.jpg?
1962 GT Hawk 4sp

Chad Pead
05-15-2007, 12:45 PM
quote:Originally posted by bige

I have Ted's R2.5 cam in my Avanti. I was surprised to hear about the idle lope. My car idles very smoothly not at all like a long duration cam?!

ErnieR

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/avnatiglamour007.jpg

Chad Pead
05-15-2007, 12:47 PM
G'day does anyone know the specs for the R2 or R2+ camshaft as i would like it to get one gound for my Hawk,Thanks
quote:Originally posted by bige

I have Ted's R2.5 cam in my Avanti. I was surprised to hear about the idle lope. My car idles very smoothly not at all like a long duration cam?!

ErnieR

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/avnatiglamour007.jpg

JDP
05-15-2007, 02:09 PM
I'll post the specs if you promise not to steal the grind. it's plenty cheap from our vendors.

JDP/Maryland


63 GT R2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert-63
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

sbca96
05-15-2007, 03:05 PM
Yah .. since they are available from a vendor, you might as well just
order it from them and send back your core (I assume they require a
core). This way you know it was done right. Years ago when I had my
R3 cam regrounded from a stock cam, there wasnt any available. We got
lucky finding a place in LA that still had a master! That was almost
20 years ago now .. doubtful it still exists. I also dont have the
info as to where it was sent off to. We had 4 done. I would venture
to say that you will spend as much having it done, as buying it ready.

Tom

casey
05-15-2007, 04:56 PM
I can't resist replying to this one.

First, your GT is friggin gorgeous. I can say 'friggin', right?

Second, when I was getting the 289 rebuilt for my GT I sent the heads and cam to guy in California to 'hi-perf' every thing. At the time I didn't really know a lot about cams, and this guy talked me into an R3 cam. Well, it was a big, big mistake. When I finally got it all back together it just ran terrible at idle. I suppose it would have been a monster at 4000 RPM, but sitting at a light it was just embarrassing. And even if you don't mind the rough idle it causes vacum problems for power brakes and the auto trans.

So I ended up replacing the cam. And this is what I want to tell you- replacing the cam on a fully assembled car is akin to doing a heart transplant. You have to get down into the middle of everything. In my case, it set my project back TWO years- because I created all sorts of complications for myself, like chipping up the nice new paint in my engine compartment, busting an adjuster on one of the rocker stands, etc., etc. That was two years worth of cruising I could have been doing when gas was $1.59 a gallon.

So think twice and cut once.

63LarkingAround
05-15-2007, 05:30 PM
JDP, I would be interested in the specs for the R2 cam. I would be happy to purchase from a vendor, however being in Australia, postage with cores etc mean it is more practical to have one ground locally.

Cheers
Lyndon

63 Lark Cruiser

1956 Hawk
05-15-2007, 07:15 PM
Karl, to answer your original question. When changing the cam you have to have the lifters resurfaced, also if you are planning to rev the engine much over 5000rpm you should use the R2 valve springs. Of course to change the cam itself, you have to either pull the engine or the radiator. Also the waterjacket, vibration damper, timing cover, intake manifold, and valley cover have to be removed to get to the cam and lifters.
Remember that the R2 horsepower peak is around 5200rpm. My R2 pulls hard from 3000 to 5000rpm. However it will idle down to 500rpm. It just depends on what you want to do with the car.
David

sbca96
05-15-2007, 08:43 PM
I am going to assume you had an R3 288 duration cam, I had mine ground
to 276 duration specs and had no noticable lope at all. It ran smooth
as glass and had oodles of power. Strange reading you had that much
trouble with yours - unless it was the 288. I didnt have any power
accessories though, but ran a TH700R4 trans and 3:31 axle.

I wasnt sure on the cost of shipping to and from Aussieland, I guess
it might make more sense to grind one there, if you can find a place
that will do it. There is a project that has been started on Racing
Studebakers forum to have a company in Australia make a run of custom
cams, I am going say roller cams, but dont remember the specifics.

Tom


quote:Originally posted by casey
At the time I didn't really know a lot about cams, and this guy talked me into an R3 cam. Well, it was a big, big mistake. When I finally got it all back together it just ran terrible at idle. I suppose it would have been a monster at 4000 RPM, but sitting at a light it was just embarrassing. And even if you don't mind the rough idle it causes vacum problems for power brakes and the auto trans.

JDP
05-15-2007, 08:50 PM
Just shipped a fan and fan clutch to Australia for $52, a cam would be cheaper.

JDP/Maryland


63 GT R2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert-63
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

63LarkingAround
05-15-2007, 11:19 PM
No worries, I'll have to check out the shipping, the exchange rate is improving for us over here!

Also I've been trying to access the racing studebakers forum, but I keep getting "you are banned" from this forum?????

Lyndon

41 Frank
05-15-2007, 11:32 PM
The racing studebaker website is experiencing server problems and new software is being installed it stated earlier today, should be up and running in a few hours.This was related to me by the webmaster Sonny by e-mail.


quote:Originally posted by 63LarkingAround

No worries, I'll have to check out the shipping, the exchange rate is improving for us over here!

Also I've been trying to access the racing studebakers forum, but I keep getting "you are banned" from this forum?????

Lyndon

PackardV8
05-16-2007, 01:06 AM
Greetings, 63larkingaround,

The Racing Studebakers website has been having so much trouble with spammers that Sonny has banned all non-US traffic. If you want to get on board, send him a private e-mail with your ISP number and he can open it just for your use. I was in eastern Europe for two weeks and he handled it for me.

However, you'll have to give him a few days. The site just had a massive crash and lost all the past few months of posts. He is re-loading from a backup now.

thnx, jv.

PackardV8

sbca96
05-16-2007, 03:27 AM
Wow .. it was MONTHS of posts?? I read the email as days or weeks.
Thats a bummer[B)]. There was a lot of good stuff there.[V][V]

Tom

Chad Pead
05-16-2007, 11:58 AM
Thanks mate that would be great.
quote:Originally posted by JDP

I'll post the specs if you promise not to steal the grind. it's plenty cheap from our vendors.

JDP/Maryland


63 GT R2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert-63
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

Chicken Hawk
05-17-2007, 09:03 AM
The original R 1 and R 2 cam has about 224 degrees duration @ .050" with advertised or running duration of 260 degrees. The lobe lift is .2833" with gross valve lift of .425". Centerline installation is about 110 degrees. Lash is .024" hot.

The R 2+ has about 229 degrees duration @ .050" and about 268 running. The lobe lift is .298" with gross valve lift of .447". You also gain some lift as the lash is set tighter (can be set as low as .010" but suggest starting at about .020" and if too much lifter noise, tighten a couple thousandths at a time until quiet enough to suit you. Most find .020" satisfactory. The .020" will give a little more idle vacuum.

Be sure to have your lifters resurfaced or use new lifters so the lifters and cam can break in together. Phil Harris at Fairborn Studebaker can supply the cam and new or resurfaced lifters. Don't make the mistake of having your lifters ground flat. They have to have a slight crown to facilitate rotating.

Phil also has R 2+ springs if you want. These are a little stronger than the stock R 2 (which he also has).

Ted


quote:Originally posted by Chad Pead

G'day does anyone know the specs for the R2 or R2+ camshaft as i would like it to get one gound for my Hawk,Thanks
quote:Originally posted by bige

I have Ted's R2.5 cam in my Avanti. I was surprised to hear about the idle lope. My car idles very smoothly not at all like a long duration cam?!

ErnieR

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/avnatiglamour007.jpg

sbca96
05-17-2007, 01:44 PM
Thanks for chiming in here Ted. Since I have experience with an R3
regrind (276 running duration?) can you elaborate on how the R2 plus
cam compares to the R3 mild cam? I really liked the response, idle,
and MPG that I got with the Hawk, I am very tempted to just order
another one, but this R2 plus has got me curious as to how my ported
heads with large 1.92 intake valves would work with it. I dont want
to be disappointed, but I also dont want to get left out of something
that could improve on what I have already done. Its hard to switch
when I know I had a good combo.

I dont even recall what the R3 mild specs were other than "276". Can
you also post the profile for a refresher?

Tom


quote:Originally posted by Chicken Hawk

The original R 1 and R 2 cam has ....
Ted

studelover
05-18-2007, 08:18 PM
I just ordered the r2+ cam myself and was wondering what to do with the heads to help the cam along. My motor just got out of the hot tank and I need to now plot a course for the head rebuilding. My original goal was 300 horse power however now I see that may be impossible because there is another factor, gas. I would like to burn midgrade so I must be careful with flat top verse cupped pistons and the compression ratio. I have been giving it alot of thought and 275 my be a more realistic number and because the hawk is so light it my work out alright anyway.

Studebakers forever!

Chicken Hawk
05-18-2007, 08:31 PM
I really can't compare them as I've never had a real R 3 cam (either one). I do know back in the early 70's, Gordon Williams told me he got better performance out of the R 2 cam than he did either of the R 3's. I'm sure the 288 cam would not be suitable for anything other than something like Bonneville. One thing I have never understood is why they lowered the lift of the R 3 cams (.406") compared to the R 2 cam (.425").

Freddy Freeman had an R 3 and he said the 276 cam was excellent for him and that coinsides with what your experience has been. That's about the extent of my info on the R 3 cams.

I would love to have one to check out for lift, duration, etc. and the only one I know of is in George's PBW and I don't think he'd be very appreciative of me taking it out to check.

You mentioned ordering another one? Where would you get it? Or did you mean having one ground and if so, where would you get the specs?

As far as recommending the R 2+ over the 276, I couldn't do that until it was tried but the way you described your experience with the 276, I would be inclined to stick with what I knew worked well before. If the R 2+ were better, I would think the only way you might be able to tell it is by ET slips but again, I'm just guessing.

Ted


quote:Originally posted by sbca96

Thanks for chiming in here Ted. Since I have experience with an R3
regrind (276 running duration?) can you elaborate on how the R2 plus
cam compares to the R3 mild cam? I really liked the response, idle,
and MPG that I got with the Hawk, I am very tempted to just order
another one, but this R2 plus has got me curious as to how my ported
heads with large 1.92 intake valves would work with it. I dont want
to be disappointed, but I also dont want to get left out of something
that could improve on what I have already done. Its hard to switch
when I know I had a good combo.

I dont even recall what the R3 mild specs were other than "276". Can
you also post the profile for a refresher?

Tom


quote:Originally posted by Chicken Hawk

The original R 1 and R 2 cam has ....
Ted

sbca96
05-18-2007, 08:48 PM
Unfortunately, I dont have any ET numbers, or dyno numbers to go by,
just a seat-of-the-pants gauge. I do know that I had the Hawk up to
125 mph at around 4000 rpm (if memory serves). When I had the speedo
checked for accuracy after the TH700R4 install, it almost came off the
rollers on each shift (the guy doing the test said even a Vette never
did anything like that). I know, not much to go on.

As for getting another R3, I thought that Myer sold a regrind, but if
worst came to worst I could pull the cam from the Hawk 289 and put it
into the Avanti R1. I have been told that as long as I keep all the
lifters with their respective lobes, and do a standard cam break-in,
all should be OK[?].

The specs I think I got from Total Performance, and my engine builder
back then (early 90s) found a place in L.A. that had that master. Its
very unlikely that place is still around, my engine builder left the
business years ago (probably since passed on). I dont plan on running
a supercharger (just like the '60 Hawk), so maybe it wasnt a true "R3"
grind that I had? Obviously the R3 was supercharged. Would a cam for
a supercharged engine run well on a N/A engine? Hmmm. How can I even
check this cam to see what it is? Measure the lift?

Tom

Dick Steinkamp
05-18-2007, 08:59 PM
quote:Originally posted by studelover
I have been giving it alot of thought and 275 my be a more realistic number and because the hawk is so light it my work out alright anyway.


I assume you are talking flywheel HP and not rear wheel HP.

Even then, I think 275 HP is going to be a real stretch without a blower and with a relatively low compression engine on 90 octane gas.

Also, I wouldn't say the Hawk is light...especially with a Stude V8. You are probably looking at 3500 pounds at least.



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

1956 Hawk
05-18-2007, 09:43 PM
Ron Hall's Avanti made over 400HP without the supercharger. Of course that engine had a lot of time, effort and money put into it. 275HP would require some good head porting and a decent cam, but should be doable.
David

Karl
05-18-2007, 10:13 PM
Tom
276 IVO 24 IVC 72
EVO 72 EVC 24

288 IVO 28 IVC 80
EVO 80 EVC 28
valve lift on both .406

63 Twin Supercharged Avanti
64 Avanti R3w/NOS
88LSC Avanti 350 Supercharged w/NOS

John Kirchhoff
05-18-2007, 10:26 PM
Tom was wondering if a cam for a supercharged engine would run well on a naturally aspirated engine. I guess there's two ways to look at it. With forced induction, the intake timing could have less duration and less lift and still get the job done, but to take advantage of the forced induction, you'd want or would need more duration and/or lift. I guess that doesn't really answer his question does it?