Where are the R 4 Grenades and some other R info

[Chicken Hawk]

I had never heard about the R 4 engines being "grenade" engines and reading on this forum about rods thrown through the side of
the block, being such "dogs", etc. I never owned one and only drove one back in the mid '60's. One person (don't recall who and I'm not ragging on anyone particular here) said to ask a noted Stude guy about how bad they were about blowing up, etc.

So, I did. This person had no idea where these stories came from. His comment was they must not have been too bad as they ran at Bonneville setting records and ran from three to five mile wide open. I also talked to two other noted Stude R guys that had not heard anything about this either.

I'm not saying none blew up but I need more proof than someone saying they did. Might have come from a few of the "rag on the Studebaker every chance I get" people. I know it's entirely possible one (or more) did but . . .

As for the new 350 crate engines putting out more hp than R engines just doesn't cut it. All you have to do is go to the PSMCDR and see the actual run side by side comparisons. And I'm not referring to just the Wrapper or Tomato. Here are some hp figures put out by the PSMCDR officials using ET, Speed, and weight to figure REAR wheel hp:

Steve Doerschlag's R 1 HP 246 ET 14.46 @ 95.98 (Steve is new to these races and is running TWO cars and will get better every year)

Richard Poe's R 1 HP 247 ET 14.49 @ 95.48 (Richard has had traction and axle problems and should be noted he has turned 13.8? @ 98.??) and I'm not sure if he's ever lost a shootout race! His last year there he was set to get into the 13's but broke an axle.

Chuck Kern's R 2 Avanti HP 295 ET 13.97 @ 101.32

Allen Anderson's R 2 Hawk HP 250 ET 14.76 @ 93.96 (Allen's Hawk weighs over 3800 pounds)

Peter Sant's R 2 Avanti HP 319 ET 13.92 @ 102.26 (Peter's car is really heavy (around 3800+ with driver) as he has AC, extra insulation, etc.

Rich Meadow's R 4 HP 235 ET 14.61 @ 96.13 (with NO traction devises to stop wheel hop. Wonder the rear end stayed in and it didn't blow).

Steve Doerschlag's R 3 Commander HP 302 ET 13.48 @ 102 (This was with the supercharger boost going to zero in third gear, slipping internally)

Tomato R 2 Passed volunteer certification TWICE HP 373 ET 13.09 @ 110.26 (In 2011 it was rated at 408 HP and 113.2 mph due to a strong tail wind on one run which I realize was bogus. A tail wind really helps the Lark as a head wind really hurts it). Due to this the car was picked as one to be "Heavy Teched" in 2012. Passed this also.

Interesting side story. In 2004 there seemed to be some talk that the Studebakers were NOT stock so we volunteered that year to go through the certification process. The quickest it had turned up to that time was 13.4? The day after being certified it turned 13.30 so that stopped the talk for awhile.

Tomato Clone R 3 (also certified!) HP 393 ET 12.68 @ 112.1 (First time on the strip)

Wrapper HP 378 ET 12.66 @ 114.03 It was on a rear wheel dyno several years before this and recorded 365 hp.

I might also mention we have to run 70 series tires as 60's were not available in '63/'64 so the cars able to run 60 series have a definite advantage on 60' times.

The most HP I could find on the 350" engines was 353 (Yenko) and the next best was (Z-28) 319. Rest were well below these.

As for the two fours on the R 4, i realize the extra does not add much to the HP but to say it is so horrible I don't think it is. I ran two R 2 carbs on the 51 for years as I figured they would feed each cylinder better than one four and also figured it would blubber, bog, etc. but it did not.

I experimented on how much gas it used by running along about 40 mph and shut the electric pump off (no mechanical pump) and see how far it would run before running out of gas. The two fours would go almost twice the distance as one four did. I know ithis is not very scientific but think it shows the over carbed theory may be just that to some extent, just a theory.

I also remember Phil Harris and Malcolm Berry had a 289 with two barrel 450 cfm Holley on the dyno once and decided to put on a bigger Edelbrock 600 cfm that made it over carbed for this engine. They found it made MORE HP than it did with the Holley and the formula for this engine said it needed a 375 cfm carb. The dyno operator was surprised that it actually made MORE hp.

Sorry this is so long but I'm all ready to leave for Martin, Michigan, tomorrow for the FAST/FactoryStock race and nothing to do so thought I would research some of this. We may lose every race at Michigan but I'll have a ball just giving them a Stude to run.

Ted
=

[junior]

and with that being said....do we have any questions? Didn't think so. Good luck at the FAST races! Cheers, junior.

[DEEPNHOCK]

I don't have a dog in this, but...

One thing I have learned in this world is that you never say never, and you don't take anything Studebaker as gospel.

My point?
One of the comments heard a lot is that the stock Stude rods fail because the pistons weigh so much they pull the rods apart.
Interesting comment, oft heard, but rarely analyzed.
But...
I have a set of Ross forged pistons for 'The Black Car'...
Flat top pistons.
Several people have told me I need dished pistons, or my engine will do a 3 Mile Island thing.
Okay...
So I call the Ross people..
They say that they can put a half dish, full dish, and/or anything between zero and 20cc dish.
Just send them the pistons with a wad of cash (around $220 a set)...
Okay....
But if Ross can hog 20cc out of the top of their flat top piston, doesn't that really mean that their pistons are 20cc worth of aluminum 'heavy'??
When I heard them say that, I immediately thought about milling 20cc worth of weight out of the backside of the piston, just to lighten things up.
Back to the OE Stude R4 stuff.
If the pistons selected for the R4 use that same philosophy, then the real R4 pistons would be heavier than the R2, or R3 pistons.

What say y'all about that kind of sideways thinking?
Just curious, is all....
Jeff

[SN-60]

GOOD FOR YOU TED......Defend Studebakers to the end!!! And GOOD LUCK in Michigan!

[Gunslinger]

I'm no engine expert by any means but it seems that any engine during those years with 12:1 compression would be cranky at best and would be in danger of grenading if not kept in perfect tune at all times. Just the possibility of timing errors could cause severe detonation damage at such compression levels...and solid lifter clatter could mask some of the warning sounds.

Two 4-barrel induction are for all out running, not for idling around town and normal day-to-day driving. I have a '69 Corvette with a 3-2barrel 427 and 11:1 compression and it's quite cranky. The camshaft hits its power band between 4400-7000 rpm's so its not at it's best in normal driving. It needs at least 4000 rpm's to even start breathing...I think an R4 would be much the same. I doubt if Studebaker and the Granatellis had the engineering budget to fine tune the assembly of such engines as Chevrolet did.

[DEEPNHOCK]

Good points, Ted.
Magazine smarts need to be tempered with the fact that magazines are designed to sell advertiser products.
I have set up many engines with 'too big' a carb (according to the forums).
But they ran great....
You, being a teacher, know that it is the basic's that need to be respected, but that sequential experimentation and a flogging of the package will obtain the best results.
BTW.....
I heard about your Ohio exploits from an eyewitness (and some pic's)...
When the going get's tough.. Ted will always offer a gentleman's thoughtful hand!
(as Ol' Dave Lester would say... "Good on ya' Ted!")
Jeff

<snip>
I also remember Phil Harris and Malcolm Berry had a 289 with two barrel 450 cfm Holley on the dyno once and decided to put on a bigger Edelbrock 600 cfm that made it over carbed for this engine. They found it made MORE HP than it did with the Holley and the formula for this engine said it needed a 375 cfm carb.
<snip>
Ted
=

[Chicken Hawk]

First, just a correction on something I missed. Chuck sent me this e-mail: I ONCE RAN
A 13.81 @ 102.8 SO I MAY HAVE HAD 300HP THAT
TIME
CHUCK

On the stock rods, I ran them in the '51 until I went to two turbos. At that time the car was turning 11.50 @ 116+mph. I did polish them and had them shot peened and put in ARP rod bolts.

As for piston weights, Stude listed the R 3 at 16.64 ounces (472 grams) and the R 4 as 19.8/2 ounces (562 grams).

Jeff, be careful about milling the inside of the piston top. I did this on a set of Jahns about 50 years ago and didn't drive it but about a mile until two of them blew a hole where I had lightened them. This was on the little 232".

Ted

[StudeMichael]

My R4 setup would idle smooth at 650 rpm but I did not have the R4 pistions. I ran R3 pistons so I can't speak for the idle on the higher compression set-up.

I'm no engine expert by any means but it seems that any engine during those years with 12:1 compression would be cranky at best and would be in danger of grenading if not kept in perfect tune at all times. Just the possibility of timing errors could cause severe detonation damage at such compression levels...and solid lifter clatter could mask some of the warning sounds.

Two 4-barrel induction are for all out running, not for idling around town and normal day-to-day driving. I have a '69 Corvette with a 3-2barrel 427 and 11:1 compression and it's quite cranky. The camshaft hits its power band between 4400-7000 rpm's so its not at it's best in normal driving. It needs at least 4000 rpm's to even start breathing...I think an R4 would be much the same. I doubt if Studebaker and the Granatellis had the engineering budget to fine tune the assembly of such engines as Chevrolet did.

[Roscomacaw]

Levitating above the piston weights, bisecting rods, multiple carbs and other details is the CONSISTENT performance of Studes - NORMALLY ASPIRATED NO LESS - against contemporary performance machines (on as level a playing field as one could hope to muster - PSMCD) that bear a third again more cubic inches. And yet there's the ever faithful crowd that swears (to cover them having done so) that you can BUY more power for less money by dropping in a crated bow tie magic token. Refreshingly, Mr. Harbit, Mr. Poe et al, rest my case. And this is why I've - at times - ranted my delusional lines about the unglamourous underpinnings of our Studebakers being EVERY BIT as much a solid part of Studebaker's legacy as was the charm of the sheet metal styling. And yes - go ahead and school me one more time about the closing-intentioned company choosing GM cast iron for their last two years. Just be mindful that your "lesson" reflects as much on thee as it might me.

[shifter4]

Here's pics of two different pistons of mine.

The Flat top is + .160 , and weighs 476.2 grams .

The Pop up is + .125 , and weighs 486.3 grams .

The Pop up is basically a copy of an old Jahns piston that had been run for
a while in New Jersey . i do not have the Jahns weight. I sent one to Ross to copy .
I do not yet have the dome CC's .

[swvalcon]

Compression is not a bad thing. Just means you need to run better gas if you want everything to stay together. I ran a 377 in a vega drag car when my son was younger in the early 90'S. We where well into the 13to1 plus range and had to run 114 in it. Everything was gm in the short block but TRW pistons an roller cam. IT made 520 hp at 6750rpm with a 850 holley. On the tach replay it went more than once into the 8000's and just got tired before it ever blew up. 2800 lbs car with driver and full tank of gas and best was 10.29 at 129 mph.

[BobPalma]

Cool Beans, Ted, and go get 'em in Martin! BP

[bezhawk]

The most often used cam with the R4 was the 288 degree cam. It had no vacuum advance, and was basically a drag or wide open engine.
You can't honestly say 1250 cfm is optimum for a 304.5 cu. in. engine no matter how you love 'em.
Peterson book of engine swapping #2 (published 1968) shoed an Olds into an Avanti that replaced a blown up R4.
At the recent South Bend Bonneville Ron Hall Anniversary gathering Richard Bennet III mentioned several R4 engines he knew of that had bit the dust.
It's on record, buy the DVD.
I didn't make this up.
Ted you are the most respected Studebaker engine guru in existence......are you saying they never could NOT be improved? (of course not) . I'm not trying to spread any rumors about anything......I too have a lifelong admiration with all things Studebaker, and have been enjoying them since I came home from the hospital in a 56 Golden Hawk!
I got my first one at age 11....and I haven't looked back! As for me espousing Chevy above anything Stude ....it's not me and never will be.

[warrlaw1]

Cool beans, indeed. Godspeed and go fast. ....don't encourage me

[SN-60]

The most often used cam with the R4 was the 288 degree cam. It had no vacuum advance, and was basically a drag or wide open engine.
You can't honestly say 1250 cfm is optimum for a 304.5 cu. in. engine no matter how you love 'em.
Peterson book of engine swapping #2 (published 1968) shoed an Olds into an Avanti that replaced a blown up R4.
At the recent South Bend Bonneville Ron Hall Anniversary gathering Richard Bennet III mentioned several R4 engines he knew of that had bit the dust.
It's on record, buy the DVD.
I didn't make this up.
Ted you are the most respected Studebaker engine guru in existence......are you saying they never could NOT be improved? (of course not) . I'm not trying to spread any rumors about anything......I too have a lifelong admiration with all things Studebaker, and have been enjoying them since I came home from the hospital in a 56 Golden Hawk!
I got my first one at age 11....and I haven't looked back! As for me espousing Chevy above anything Stude ....it's not me and never will be.

Don't have the mag here....but I believe that Olds was swapped in for the sake of gaining CUBIC INCHES...don't remember anything about HAVING to do it due to a "BLOWN UP R4". Check the article please!