PDA

View Full Version : Engine: Valve springs



Skybolt
08-02-2013, 07:43 AM
I can't find any specs on the gauge of wire for the R series, Commander six, valve springs. I was wondering if the difference is in the wire gauge or number of coils as I have not had any to compare. I'm guessing a thicker wire and one or so less coils but help would be appreciated. I want to go through some heads I have and check them but if I had the specs it would confirm what I have, or don't have. I don't believe there are any part numbers on the springs but if there is just let me know. Thanks in advance, Len.

DEEPNHOCK
08-02-2013, 09:46 AM
Here's a better way to check valve springs...
A TomC video......
Jeffhttp://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/images/icons/icon6.png
(R series spring)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uaq6XtAbw

(standard spring)
http://youtu.be/quChAq-ZzSg



I can't find any specs on the gauge of wire for the R series, Commander six, valve springs. I was wondering if the difference is in the wire gauge or number of coils as I have not had any to compare. I'm guessing a thicker wire and one or so less coils but help would be appreciated. I want to go through some heads I have and check them but if I had the specs it would confirm what I have, or don't have. I don't believe there are any part numbers on the springs but if there is just let me know. Thanks in advance, Len.

Chicken Hawk
08-02-2013, 09:49 AM
I can't find any specs on the gauge of wire for the R series, Commander six, valve springs. I was wondering if the difference is in the wire gauge or number of coils as I have not had any to compare. I'm guessing a thicker wire and one or so less coils but help would be appreciated. I want to go through some heads I have and check them but if I had the specs it would confirm what I have, or don't have. I don't believe there are any part numbers on the springs but if there is just let me know. Thanks in advance, Len.

I think the 245 six engines are the same as the R engine springs (R 1 and R 2). They have nine coils and the part number is 188645 and the coil diameter is about .165''.

Hope this helps.

Ted

Skybolt
08-02-2013, 10:46 AM
Thanks Ted, that will make it easier to sort through the springs I have. If I find any R series spec springs I can then follow Jeff's comments with checking the spring pressures but I have to find them first.

It was just a thought as I can get a set for a decent price but if I have some I can go that route to match the cam, R1/2. I do have the option of a valve conversion and vs. choose either 1.72 or 1.84 for the intake. I am leaning towards the 1.72 as the head work and such will be easier to match. Any thoughts? The engine is a 259.

Mike Van Veghten
08-02-2013, 11:12 AM
Len -

If you can swing the larger intake valve....it's a much better way to go.
Been prooven by a few of us that the larger intake valves help the power all the way from idle to redline, but as you know, the port/bowl area needs to match the new valve dia. The short turn also needs carefull reshaping after the opening of the bowl area.
Some combustion chamber work should also follow, remove all sharp edges.

Mike

DEEPNHOCK
08-02-2013, 11:38 AM
Found this: On Bob Johnstone's site: http://www.studebaker-info.org/Rseries/r3r4.html

http://www.studebaker-info.org/Rseries/P5.JPG

and

http://www.studebaker-info.org/eng_spec/1959_259spec.txt
(halfway down page)







I can't find any specs on the gauge of wire for the R series, Commander six, valve springs. I was wondering if the difference is in the wire gauge or number of coils as I have not had any to compare. I'm guessing a thicker wire and one or so less coils but help would be appreciated. I want to go through some heads I have and check them but if I had the specs it would confirm what I have, or don't have. I don't believe there are any part numbers on the springs but if there is just let me know. Thanks in advance, Len.

Skybolt
08-02-2013, 02:50 PM
Thanks, Jeff but I have seen that info before and it is helpful but still not exactly what I was after.

Mike, I can get the larger valve for the same price but my porting skills are lacking. I though by using the smaller valve the ports would be more forgiving, ie. I wouldn't have to do as much work to maximize the flow for the valve size. As I have not ported the area below the valve before how do I start? Do I get the seat cut to the size first or after I do the porting for seat safety? Do I leave the guide in place or remove them for access? So many small details that often I either miss when being told about it or just are assumed and don't get touched on.

Mike Van Veghten
08-02-2013, 06:46 PM
Hey Len -

Well...two things, I can show you what to do so you or someone you know can do the work, or I can do it for you.
The larger int. valve is well worth the effort if you are going to keep and drive the car, and have fun doing it. I know all the effort you've put into your Lark and I assume you're going to drive it and would like more thAn 200hp. ...!
You're talking more thAn a stock cam and springs...the head modifications are the next logical step.

As I think I showed you the other day when you stopped by, the cutup head that I have, that is a good way of discribing the port wall modifications.

I'll be home all weekend (save for lunch..), stop by in the afternoon Sat. or Sunday, or one night after work is fine too.

Mike

P.s. - To answer your last question...either way. You can do "most" of the shaping before you open the seat, but doing it either way, you'll still need to do some finish work "after" the seat is enlarged. And as you can imagine, great care is required..!

Skybolt
08-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Later in the week would be the best plan. I'll PM you when.

Dan Timberlake
08-03-2013, 12:11 PM
Interesting oil info near the end of Deepnhock's Bob Johnstone link here -
http://www.studebaker-info.org/Rseries/P5.JPG

They prescribe break-in oil as non-detergent 20 weight MSML for 100 miles
Threafter they call for non-detergent 30 weight MSML

I'm confused how they can mean it.

In the days Before the ML/MM/MS ratings "better" oils were called Heavy Duty or something similar.
http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/item/178/794/723/hYqR.jpg

After adopting ML/MM/MS It was common to show multiple ratings on oil.
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Advertising-Tin-Bank-for-Illini-Motor-Oil-1950s-Illinois-Farm-Supply-Company-/00/s/MTE3NFgxMDAw/z/aXAAAMXQysxR9U6n/$T2eC16RHJH0FG00Ze-O(BR9U6mMIFw~~60_57.JPG

Only ML (the lowest of the ML/MM/MS ratings introduced ~ 1952) could be considered 'non-detergent."
True non-detergent oil would have at best an "ML" rating
MM or MS oil has anti-wear, anti scuff, anti rust and bunch of other cool additives I want, including some level of detergent/dispersant.

By calling for MSML I think they effectively require a Heavy Duty and also high detergent oil.
>>IF<< they had said ML non detergent I would have speculated Maybe they are counting on the STP to provide some of what comes "for free" in oils with better ratings.

Studebaker manuals from the early 50s recommend using MS ("Heavy duty") oils whenever available. And recommend against using ML oils.

DEEPNHOCK
08-03-2013, 06:26 PM
Well..... You could chuck the valve springs altogether:whome::rolleyes:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/deepnhock/DecuirSpringlessValveAcutatora.jpg