Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

maximum bore size for a 289

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

  • maximum bore size for a 289

    I have a complete 63 R1 long block that has rust damage from I guess rain water getting into it from an uncovered intake manifold. The cylinder walls are rusty above where the pistons are at rest. My plan is to do a performance build on it and I want to bore the bejesus out of it for maximum cubic inches. Is 304.5 as much as I can go without overheating concerns or is that even too much? Are there any ready made big bore pistons avaliable or is this a custom made piston only situation? I don't care about saving any wall thickness for a future rebuild since this is a spare motor. Are there head gaskets avaliable with a larger bore size? Oh,since my log on handle is stroker70,I should ask if anyone has done a stroked 289 in a semi low bucks way. (offset grind the crank,differnt rods,pistons with relocated pin heights ect.)

    Chris

  • #2
    Chris -
    You should find a shop that can check your cylinders with a sonic thickness checker. ONLY that can tell you how far "that particuler block" can be bored. As with any other brand block...core shift can and does screw with an otherwise good block.

    Many cannot be bored that far because of number 6 and 8 (in my experience) are too thin.

    Again...take it to a shop...ask them the sonic check it. You..in my opinion...don't want to go any thinner than .150" or so on the thrust (outer) side. Unless it's a racer only and you can fill the lower portion of the block with "Rock Block" to stiffen it up.

    Your second question...yes. A guy over on the Studebaker Racing site has a bored AND stroked Stude...330 inches.

    Just remember...you must feed all those inches. Quality head porting, valve grind and a good intake manifold is required if you want to make much in the way of horse power.

    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Some blocks will bore to take Ford six cylinder pistons for 330 cu.in's or so. Forget the stroker crank unless you're Bill Gates. I recall seeing a kit back in the 60's for $800, and that's big bucks today.

      JDP/Maryland
      63 R2 SuperHawk (Caesar)
      spent to date $54664,75
      64 R2 GT (Sid)
      spent to date $62,439.30
      63 Lark 2 door
      52 Starliner
      51 Commander
      39 Coupe express
      39 Coupe express (rod)

      JDP Maryland

      Comment


      • #4
        Chris,
        There's quite a detailed thread about stroker Stude V8's over at Sonny's racing Studebaker's website..








        Deep-N-Hock Acres
        Brooklet, Georgia
        DEEPNHOCK at Gmail.com
        '37 Coupe Express
        '37 Coupe Express Trailer (project)
        '61 Hawk (project: Ist Gen Owner - project)
        Mysterious Project Z
        http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

        HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

        Jeff


        Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



        Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, there are .060, .080os(289) and .093(304 std, actually) pistons in stock at the Studebaker Vendors we know and trust, and they will not discourage you from using them in your 289. What does that tell You? Typically, engine blocks of the 1950's had sufficiently thick cylinder walls to allow for such large oversizes. I've had a 1955 265 Chevy bored .125os, to make it 283 c.i.! As others have previously stated, core shift at the foundry or severe rust pitting from the water jacket side may cause a problem in a few cases, but generally not. Now, on the other hand--a couple of engines I'm familiar with that were designed a decade or so later really require that you keep overbores to a minimum & strictly for reconditioning purposes--NOT to gain displacement. My 500 Cadillac and 455 buick each were rebuilt with .020os pistons in accordance with expert advice, in orer to reduce the possibility of overheating and other problems on these so-called thin-wall blocks. I've heard numerous times that the same is true for the "small-block" 289-302 Ford engines. It is one reason these engines are relatively light for their displacement, compared to the Studebaker V8--less metal.

          "You Can't Have Everything--Where Would You Put It?" ---comedian Steven Wright

          Comment


          • #6
            Carefull Wally...by your statements...you've apparently not seen a thin Stude block!
            Go back and reread my post...6 and 8 can get thin on full flow blocks.

            That's one of the big reasons the Granatelli's checked all their blocks.

            Mike

            Comment


            • #7
              weeeell, not to quibble, but if you would re-read my previous post, it was in reference to 1950's engines vs later blocks. Those "full flow" blocks you refer to were a redesign, used for the late-1962, 1963 and 1964 model engines. Even at that, I'd have my doubts that a relatively low-volume producer like Studebaker would use yet another casting for their larger-bore 304 engine. But it is just conjecture on my part. It would be interesting to hear from someone who was a factory engineer at the time. But, the consensus of this thread, which I do agree with--is that overbores are not usually a good way to gain cubic inches--longer-stroke crankshafts(or changing up to a bigger engine altogether) probably are best.

              "You Can't Have Everything--Where Would You Put It?" ---comedian Steven Wright

              Comment


              • #8
                Wow, 330 cubes would be a nice jump in torque I bet, but it sounds like the stroker crank is a one off affair and not a shelf item. I inquired at a local {Riverside CA) performance machine shop a year or two ago about sonic testing a V8 block and he wanted $100.00 That seemed high to me for what is involved in doing it,but maybe im wrong. I do understand that the power comes from free breathing and I plan on doing the big valve and port work ect, but I have been reading studebaker posts long enough to know that the small cylinder bores will hinder the effects of the big valves and I want to address that by going big on the pistons.

                Chris

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten

                  Carefull Wally...by your statements...you've apparently not seen a thin Stude block!
                  Go back and reread my post...6 and 8 can get thin on full flow blocks.

                  That's one of the big reasons the Granatelli's checked all their blocks.

                  Mike
                  This has me wondering, since the 1960s I have heard that the Granatelli's "checked all their blocks", and it is my understanding that R-3 and R-4 engines were assembled out in California and then shipped back to South Bend for installation by Studebaker.
                  So my questions are;
                  How many blocks would Studebaker have needed to ship out there to provide enough usable cores? in other words just how high was the actual rejection rate?
                  What methods did the Granatelli's use back then to "check" those blocks? And what became of all the "rejects"? With the then dirt cheap and easy availability of Stude engine blocks, it doesn't seem to make sense that they would have been shipping them back?
                  Back then I was able to buy complete and good running Studebaker V-8 automobiles for $50 to $200.
                  The other thing that I have wondered about the 304, is was it engineered or intended to be a "disposable" engine? That is, was there no allowance at all made for future rebuilds? Were over-sized R-3 and R-4 replacement pistons factory available?
                  Presently owning 4 Studebaker Full-Flow V-8s, and living only 5 miles from my local Drag Strip, these questions are not entirely only curiosity.

                  I do recall a magazine article from around the time of Studebaker's demise that stated that the Studebaker V-8s basic engine design & architecture theoretically would have permitted expansion to beyond 400 cu.in.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wally wrote -
                    But, the consensus of this thread, which I do agree with--is that overbores are not usually a good way to gain cubic inches--longer-stroke crankshafts(or changing up to a bigger engine altogether) probably are best.

                    You apparently don't follow much in the ways of performance by that statement.
                    It's a pretty well known fact that the best way to high horsepower...from automobile engines to motorcycle engines (internal combustion in general) is as large a bore as possible..
                    Now...this fits the best with the "unblown" crowd, but also fits well with a supercharged engine.

                    In a word..."unshrouding" of the intake charge is the key.

                    Mike

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FWIW, I've never seen any problems going to the R3 .093" oversize. As Mike says, anything larger on a full-flow block should only be
                      undertaken after a sonic test.

                      Another FWIW, IIRC, Ted Harbit has bored early blocks .125" with no problems and one or two were raced at .1875" overbore with superchargers.

                      A welded stroker crankshaft for a Studebaker is nothing but plain old-school hotrodding. The outside of the throws are built up with weld and the inside is offset-ground to lengthen the stroke 1/8" to 1/4". It works, but it costs $1500 to do it correctly as it requires professional welding, grinding, heat-treating and custom pistons. It also brings up two problems:

                      1. At 3.625" the 289" Studebaker is already relatively long stroke. It requires an R-series or aftermarket front damper to handle high RPMs.
                      2. At 305", and normally aspirated, the Stude heads and intake are pretty much maxed out. More inches will increase mid-range torque, but won't increase top end horsepower proportionately.

                      For my money, I'd go with 305", best-science ported heads and intake manifold and a supercharger.

                      thnx, jv.

                      PackardV8
                      PackardV8

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And Ted has raced long and hard with a sleeve in the engine as well . So stay in the realm of normalcy sizewise and be happy .
                        Bill H
                        Daytona Beach
                        SDC member since 1970
                        Owner of The Skeeter Hawk .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm hoping that someone will attempt an answer to the question as to what the Granatellis did in the way of checking the blocks. I'd be a little surprised to learn that 40 some years ago there was a reliable way of determining wall thickness. I'd be more inclined to think, and this is only a guess, that the factory had experience to suggest that one of their block patterns or core patterns had a greater reliability record as regards core shift and that pattern was used for the 304.5 units shipped to California. Or something as simple as taking more time and care in assembling the cores and mold to reduce subsequent core shift. Just a guess.

                          wagone

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Here's my attempt.
                            They grabbed a hundred base machined blocks from Studebaker.
                            They bored them to the max de-jour.
                            They built them up and ran the snot out of them.
                            They tossed the ones that blew up (and noted the bore dimensions).
                            They kept the ones that didn't blow and bore'd them more until they did blow up.
                            Repeat as necessary.
                            Only brag on the the blocks that worked.
                            What was a hundred block castings to Studebaker anyways?
                            An opinion...
                            Jeff[8D]



                            quote:Originally posted by wagone

                            I'm hoping that someone will attempt an answer to the question as to what the Granatellis did in the way of checking the blocks. I'd be a little surprised to learn that 40 some years ago there was a reliable way of determining wall thickness. I'd be more inclined to think, and this is only a guess, that the factory had experience to suggest that one of their block patterns or core patterns had a greater reliability record as regards core shift and that pattern was used for the 304.5 units shipped to California. Or something as simple as taking more time and care in assembling the cores and mold to reduce subsequent core shift. Just a guess.

                            wagone
                            HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                            Jeff


                            Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                            Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Could be D-in-H......The sad thing is we'll never know. Way too bad that no one took it upon themselves to write up a history of those times and what the Granatellis actually contributed. To me, some of that (actually, all) would have made fascinating reading. If we could just pull the right chain perhaps someone out there could yet write it. Oh, well, such is life.

                              wagone

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X