Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obsessed with Sixes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine: Obsessed with Sixes

    From time to time I have weighed in offering my limited knowledge about OHV six Studebaker engines. As many of you may recall the reason I have an OHV six in my 49 2R is one of the previous owners had chosen to install that engine. I believe it was Frank Drumheller that had identified the replacement engine being from a 62/63 Lark. At one time Bill Cathcart was the guru for all things Studebaker six cylinder in nature. Bill has retired and living a life of easy goingness. My question concerns how much you can bore out one of these OHV blocks to operate as a daily driver? What is the significance of using the crank of the 185 into the 170 block. How much port work will be allowed on the head and can you install significantly larger valves with proper preparation in order to avoid the premature cracking that is so often prevalent with an OHV cylinder head? Is there much advantage to installing roller rocker arms? Due to the small exhaust ports would there be any advantage in using exhaust headers to increase the exhaust size and flow and would it be necessary to bridge/block the Siamese exhaust ports of 3 and 4 to improve the performance. This exhaust port divider is designed to separate the siamese ports (3 & 4) to create equal exhaust flow. I have a GM throttle body injection system and of course it would be ideal if it was possible to have the head drilled for individual injectors though room is limited. Perhaps a new intake manifold could be designed to accommodate this?
    Of course like Barlow Soper who was the Turning Wheels modified editor the inherent characteristics and design of the Studebaker engines prevents you from obtaining the performances of a modern engine. According to Barlow this is why he finally installed a Chevy into his Avanti-he wanted more performance and he could not achieve that from a Studebaker engine. I would be interested to here comments from Dwayne Grindinger, Jim Pepper and Ted Harbit.

  • #2
    Of course like Barlow Soper who was the Turning Wheels modified editor the inherent characteristics and design of the Studebaker engines prevents you from obtaining the performances of a modern engine. According to Barlow this is why he finally installed a Chevy into his Avanti-he wanted more performance and he could not achieve that from a Studebaker engine.
    First, I know and love Barlow, but all enthusiasts, myself included, stretch the bounds of reason to rationalize a justification for doing the next project. Barlow's Jim Lange-built Studebaker V8 was making nearly 500 horsepower. All Barlow, or any of us has to say is, "I've gotten bored with my 500-horse Studebaker V8 and want to try something new." Somehow, that's just hard to do, so we rationalize. I've got a great explanation as to why I spent three years and thousands of dollars building a C-cab with a Packard V8. Wanna hear it?

    What is the significance of using the crank of the 185 into the 170 block.
    Maybe eight to ten more horsepower.

    Is there much advantage to installing roller rocker arms?
    Zero, Zip, Nada, as a straight interchange. If you can find someone to engineer the mounting of higher ratio rockers, say 1.65 or 1.7, then there would be a horsepower increase up in the RPM range where the long stroke 185" crank would fly out of the block.

    If someone held a gun to my head and said, "Build OHV Champion horsepower or die", I'd look for the latest production head and adapt a turbocharger to it. A turbocharger can be sized to make boost and horsepower at lower RPMs. All the other incremental changes you mention would be very slight improvements which if they have any effect are at the high end of the RPM range. Your build, your money, your decision.

    jack vines
    Last edited by PackardV8; 08-05-2013, 12:12 PM.
    PackardV8

    Comment


    • #3
      You can give the intake valves a 30 degree back-cut, this has an effect similar to using higher lift ratio rockers and it doesn't cost much. It could add a couple of horsepower, but don't back-cut the exhaust valves, it will cause them to run hotter.

      Joe
      sigpic

      1962 Daytona
      1964 Cruiser
      And a few others

      Comment


      • #4
        Speaking frankly those who have that engine will marvel that you got 20 maybe even 30 more HP out of it. The rest will think you are crazy. If that doesn't bother you and the time and funds are there then by all means enjoy yourself.

        I have a 63 Rambler American with a "similar to Studebaker" 196 engine. I too researched making more power for that gutless wonder with 3-1/8" bores and a 4-1/4" stroke. In the end I concluded that a modern 4.0 out of a Jeep would be a better use of my time and money (not that I've done it yet). And that regardless of the fact I'd have to slightly modify the firewall and radiator cradle. But, yes, I understand your intrigue to do the unusual.

        Tom
        '64 Lark Type, powered by '85 Corvette L-98 (carburetor), 700R4, - CASO to the Max.

        Comment


        • #5
          I know many would call it blasphemy...but does anyone know of someone installing one of the light weight peppy metric V6's in...say a 40's or 50's Studebaker...or any other American make car of the era? For the power to weight ratio, and the numbers that should be available, it's a wonder they're not every where.
          John Clary
          Greer, SC

          SDC member since 1975

          Comment


          • #6
            An interesting point. I typically see the American V-6's in the British sports cars of the 60's. I've also seen a very clean installation of a V-6 Mopar (injection and all) in a mid 60's Dart.

            My guess would be that when you get to swapping the engine one typically moves to more power (meaning V-8). Also a lot of the V-6's engines came in FWD cars. So, there may not be a readily available transmission for RWD. If you want a RWD V-6 it is probably coming out of a truck. That said I see a number of the Supercharged V-6 Bonniville's when I go each month to Pick A Part. Intriguing!

            Also for consideration, Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota made a fair number of inline 6's that mate up to their 5 speed transmissions. Typically they were in the 150 HP range.

            Tom
            Last edited by wittsend; 08-05-2013, 09:46 PM.
            '64 Lark Type, powered by '85 Corvette L-98 (carburetor), 700R4, - CASO to the Max.

            Comment


            • #7
              Our little flathead six pulled 234 hp on the dyno and went over 130 mph on the salt. That took a lot of work, a custom steel head (and you don't want to know what that cost) and a turbo-charger. Prior to the new head we cracked two stock ones. And to get a block that didn't crack (because we cracked one of them, twice) we got an NOS block from SASCO. If you want to get some oomph out of a 6 I think about the last thing you want to do is over-bore it -- it makes them fragile. Turbo or supercharging is the only way to go. If you want a few extra ponies without spending over $3000, talk to Dave Molnar and have him build you a nice intake and exhaust.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wittsend View Post
                Also for consideration, Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota made a fair number of inline 6's that mate up to their 5 speed transmissions. Typically they were in the 150 HP range.

                Tom
                One really neat I6 that gets overlooked is the 290hp dohc that GM installed in the TrailBlazer...be cool to see that in any Stude. cheers, junior.
                sigpic
                1954 C5 Hamilton car.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by junior View Post
                  One really neat I6 that gets overlooked is the 290hp dohc that GM installed in the TrailBlazer...be cool to see that in any Stude. cheers, junior.
                  Ive thought of this very engine many times!
                  Own one my self, quiet with accelerator guts and seem to run trouble free.
                  Time will tell but these 4.2L may be in the haul of fame with Jeeps 4.0 ?

                  Now where's my tape measure the 2r5 needs 4x4 and a new I6!!
                  61 Lark

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 4961Studebaker View Post
                    Ive thought of this very engine many times!
                    Own one my self, quiet with accelerator guts and seem to run trouble free.
                    Time will tell but these 4.2L may be in the haul of fame with Jeeps 4.0 ?

                    Now where's my tape measure the 2r5 needs 4x4 and a new I6!!
                    The AMC 4 liter gets my vote every time for one of the best engines ever - certainly one of the top 1 or 2 inline 6's. I had one in a Comanchee. I sure wish it was in this Patriot I have now.
                    Neil

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have always thought that the best looking Studebaker 6 project was Dave Strand's. I copied a photo that had been posted some years ago. Where is the car now?

                      Also, here's a photo of Dave Molnar's M5 truck with the intake and exhaust manifolds that Bob Waitz referred to above.

                      Honorable mention goes to Ford Stoecker's 1937 Studebaker with the humpback truck body and GM 302 cu in in-line 6 with crossflow head. Ford and some friends are scheduled to drive from Missouri to New Bruswick and Nova Scotia in September for a tour. I don't have a photo of his truck and engine - it was at Colorado Springs a few weeks back.



                      Last edited by garyash; 08-06-2013, 07:41 AM.
                      Gary Ash
                      Dartmouth, Mass.

                      '32 Indy car replica (in progress)
                      ’41 Commander Land Cruiser
                      '48 M5
                      '65 Wagonaire Commander
                      '63 Wagonaire Standard
                      web site at http://www.studegarage.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thinking about Jack Vine's comments on adding a turbocharger to a Champ OHV 6, I modeled it on my old Dyno 2000 software. Here's a graph showing a stock OHV 6 versus one with some mods:
                        1. Stock inlet valve (1.593 dia) but exhaust valve increased from 1.406 to 1.431 dia. Assumes some port work. Increasing inlet valve o.d. didn't add hp.
                        2. Stock 8:1 compression
                        3. Small turbocharger (Garrett T5142-3, 350 cfm). This may be a very old model, but I had a data file for it. I limited boost to only 5 psi, but using 10 psi didn't help a lot. I also tried a 400 cfm turbo and larger carb, saw only a small improvement. A little turbo is probably all that is needed.
                        4. 350 cfm 2-barrel carb
                        5. Cam with stock 0.359 lift but some timing changes. Adding lift didn't change the results.
                        6. Good exhaust manifold and pipes

                        RESULTS: Horsepower goes from about 120 hp at 4500 rpm to 195 hp at 5000 rpm. There is theoretically more at higher rpm, but it will blow up at some point with the 4" stroke.
                        Torque goes from 165 to about 215 over a fair rpm range.

                        So, Jack's prediction is a good one. As I recall, Bill Cathcart put a turbo on his old green Lark with Champ flathead, got lots of hp before it blew up eventually.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Champ6-OHV_turbo_vs_stock_GSA080613.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	143.8 KB
ID:	1683158
                        Gary Ash
                        Dartmouth, Mass.

                        '32 Indy car replica (in progress)
                        ’41 Commander Land Cruiser
                        '48 M5
                        '65 Wagonaire Commander
                        '63 Wagonaire Standard
                        web site at http://www.studegarage.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It has been said, it takes lots of time and money on one of these to get more power. The above looks like a lot of dollars per HP.

                          I'd say build it up for strength, and do not bore it. Put it on the bottle. You may not get every ounce of HP like Gary's build but it will make plenty of power and still be fun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 007 View Post
                            I would be interested to here comments from Dwayne Grindinger, Jim Pepper and Ted Harbit.
                            It looks like the OP is not interested in hearing from us peasants. We need to be quiet and hear what the recognized gurus have to say

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am not able to offer anything on the 6 cylinders, but I have had several conversations and email exchanges with Barlow about his engine swap. I can relay what he shared with me about his reason for doing the swap. He went to a lot of work on that 500 hp Studebaker motor, but it was a real beast and he said he just did not enjoy driving it. He chose a later model GM EFI motor that won't have as much peak power, but still will have over 400 hp and will be infinitely more driveable. It also has a much flatter torque curve. It is an all aluminum motor so it will shave about 200 pounds off the front of his Avanti.
                              Pat Dilling
                              Olivehurst, CA
                              Custom '53 Starlight aka STU COOL


                              LS1 Engine Swap Journal: http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/jour...ournalid=33611

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X