Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 466

Thread: My Street Version Port Injection for the '55

  1. #41
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    It says A/R 60 on this turbo. I really want low end power and I don't care about sacrificing the top end. These little champs need it at the low end. I want to use a turbo that is pretty common, too, so anybody can put together a system like mine (if it works well enough) with cheap parts. Know of one that might be the right size that is more common in junkyards? Hey, I have a digital dash out of an 88 Cougar. Is that the type you're looking for?

  2. #42
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Oh no, thats alright about the dash, this is something extra diyautotune is selling. Ya hook it up to the computer and it spits out all information like boost, temp, AF ratio, etc. I'm still aways off from that stage yet, heck, I don't even have an interior to put this stuff into yet!![)] Basically the stuff that goes to the laptop screen can be read from this little screen.

    Regarding your turbo, I'd be tempted to give that one a shot, because the A/R or trim size was similar to the T04E(if its the one I'm thinking of). Usually, the common turbo that is usually used for builds such as these from AMC to Zimmerman is the T3, followed by the T04E. The T3 is a pretty widely used turbo for stock and modified cars, and like Baskin Robbins, can come in many different flavors, trim sizes, and A/R ratios. To really get specific, this turbo can be found in Grand Nationals, Turbocoupes, 80's Chrysler products(check the K car section), early 80's Pontiac Firebirds ,late 80's Mustangs, Merkurs, Cougars, and a host of others. My AirResearch is a T3 from a early 80's Pontiac Firebird with an A/R that says its 42, so its probably smaller by a couple of sizes than yours.

  3. #43
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    Sound like this one would probably give me lag. If you're running a 42 for only half of a 289 (right?), and I'm sure you are looking fror high end for sure, then maybe I should be looking for like a 35(?) or something? Are the in and out bolt patterns the same for all T3's?

  4. #44
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Yeah, it will be used for half of the 289. Technically two td05's would be much more suitable as they came off of a vehicle that was 2.0L, but I looked into it and it is pretty close to the T3. I do have some ideas to balance the turbos out on both sides, but I would like to try it before I toss it [)]. Keep in mind too, the T3's were also used on the Chicken Hawk(excluding the extensive work done underneath though ) as well, so I shouldn't be too much worse off.

    Edit:
    To answer the question, not every T3 is built equally. The AirResearch T3 that was used on the Pontiac had a three point bolt pattern, so there will need to be similar bolt pattern on the flange.

    This may help answer the question a little better about T3's all being the same, this was a high performance T3:

    http://www.mjmturbos.com/T3-63-60.htm

    This is a T3 for an SVO Ford
    http://www.mjmturbos.com/SVOTB0322.htm

    As you can see, the application can call for a different bolt pattern.
    The best way I can put it is, like the Paxtons that were clocked for each application, the bolt patterns are arranged for the most ideal application for the vehicle they are being used for. Now its not like every different car has a completely different bolt pattern. But the bolt pattern coincides with design of the exhaust manifold, design of the exhaust system, placement of parts under the hood, etc.

  5. #45
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    Those numbers .63 A/R 60 trim and 60 comp-do those mean that those turbos are the same flow as mine that says A/R 60? (Expect many more stupid questions to follow)

  6. #46
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    You mean when they say 60 trim or 60 series?

    Those indicate the A/R ratio and the type of internal exhaust turbine/compressor turbine they are running. Remember the turbos come in a number of variations, the trim indicates the sub category for that turbo. For instance mine, if it were a Garrett, would be a T3 40 series turbo since the A/R is .42. A T3 60 series would also be a T3, but it would have an intake and exhaust impellers with a .60-.69 A/R ratio. So if yours is a T3 with a .63 A/R, it would be a T3 60 series turbo.

    If yours says T3 on the front of the turbo and the A/R is .63, it should spool about the same as the one that says the A/R is 60 yes. Yours will be a little( slower to spool as its ever so slightly larger, but that shouldn't readily be noticeable unless you're going to the strip with it There are some finer details here, such as things that can make it a high performance turbo, but for simplicity sake, I'll say roughly they both flow similarly.

    I'll do my best to answer the stupid questions, and hope I don't spit out too many stupid answers [)].......

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  7. #47
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    I got those decimal numbers from the pic links you posted. Mine just says A/R 60 and "ROTO-MASTER". See, I'm looking for low end throttle response, another reason I think port injection is the way to go- to help eliminate any low end lag.

  8. #48
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    We seem to be narrowing that mystery turbo you have there. I looked up Rotomaster, which is under Garrett(like AirResearch), and I came up with this:

    http://www.ctsturbo.com/products/Rot...0_1-88-31.html

    I got some more information on the turbo, it might be a T3 or T4 that is a 60 series turbo. This is the compressor map:

    http://www.not2fast.com/turbo/maps/t3-60.gif

    According to the same numbers as before the turbo should work at around 60 percent of its efficiency at 5000 rpm. With this map just imagine a larger outer island past the 65 percent mark. You will have a point at 5000 rpm at 10 lbs of boost right underneath the number where it says 121,900.


  9. #49
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    I've looked at all of the graphs you've presented, but I just don't get it. I see the spot you're talking about, but I don't understand what it means. You mention 10 pounds of boost--is that the number to work with no matter what your compression ratio is? I don't know how to read the graph to find out if this thing will do anything off idle say like at 1200 rpm. I'm not really trying to make power over 4,000 rpm.

  10. #50
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    For turbochargers the compressor maps are important as they are working off of exhaust gases, they aren't driven by a belt(well most of them anyway ). The compressor maps are used to tell if the turbo is too small, or too large for the application. Now comes the fun part; to determine if a turbo will work I had to use a couple of mathematical equations to determine the points on the graph. The points that come from the answers in the mathematical equations will read like the X and Y coordinates on a graph. The equations are:

    CFM=(Liter displacement of the engine X RPM X Volumetric Efficiency X Pr)/5660
    {X axis}

    Volumetric Efficiency for an average number will be 85 as this is what occurs at redline. Thats why I chose 5000 rpm as that allows me to use 85 percent. I think if you use say 2500, just cut the Volumetric Efficiency in half, or use 42 percent. Thats also why I used 10 lbs or 14 lbs as the turbo should be at full tilt by 5000 rpm. I chose these numbers as usually when we work with the Paxtons, we're not working with much more than 7-10 lbs of boost, so I'm just "going with what I know, lol" These numbers can be changed by adjusting the turbocharger, usually by adjusting the wastegate in and out. You don't have to use 10 lbs, the number is not fixed by any means. Heck, with modern cars, some guys with the imports will dial it into the 15-20 lb range or more, but this is being done on modern equipment that governs some of this with a computer. I think for most of us though, anything past 14 lbs and one can risk losing pistons, that is unless your last name is Harbit [}].

    Anyway here is the equation for pressure ratio, this should spit out a single digit number that shows on the Y axis.

    Pr=(14.7 + Boost PSI)/14.7
    {Y axis)
    Pr is the Pressure Ratio, that should spit out a single digit number. CFM is the cubic feet per minute. Sometimes this is lbs/min which is determined by the equation:

    Lb/min=CFM/14.7
    {X axis)

  11. #51
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Update:

    Another piece to the puzzle arrived today. This is a generic type of fuel regulator I got off of Ebay. It's adjustable from 0-140 psi, which is great because the injectors call for something in the 30 psi range. It's a unit that doesn't mount to the rails, rather it can be mounted anywhere. I'll probably stick this on the firewall though.



    It comes with hose, barbs, clamps, bracket for firewall mounting, and a gauge. It does not have a return fitting and I'll explain why;

    The regulator can mount in a couple of places, either to the line returning to the tank, or at a union to a line returning to the tank. The reason why it has to be mounted inline to the tank is the fuel to the injectors must be equal at all of the injectors, so the "restriction, is put in a place where the fuel will backup into both rails, or pressurize the line back to the pump.
    Now, there are two ways to run lines to the injectors, I can run them like a loop, which would be easier, or I can branch them out. I'll probably run them around like a loop, it will save some brass fittings and alot fewer leaks [)]





    The regulator is constructed in a similar fashion to the Holley regulator I have on the Lark. There's an In, Out, but no Return. There's also a boost reference line in the top of the regulator for forced induction, and it has a gauge. The regulator is adjusted by turning the nut on the top of the regulator and locking it into place.





    The rules here should be similar to how I have the electric fuel pump and regulator setup on the Lark with the Carter carburetor, except there won't be a split return port involved from the regulator. All I have to do is run the line from the rails to the In port, and line to the Out port, hookup the boost reference line from the turbos, adjust the pressure to the factory spec on the injectors and it should be set. I probably will not use a Holley Blue fuel pump as it can only put out 14 lbs or so, so that may be a future item I will pickup. Short of the fuel lines, almost all of the components are here, except a fuel pump and some filters.



    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  12. #52
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    There seems to be some more confusion about what engine is going to what car. This is the engine I have that I'm using, its in "animated suspension" under a tarp with some rags in the ports and oil in the cylinders on an engine stand outside at the moment. It's a regular 63 289.....



    The other engine in the signature was stripped, which was a seized 259. The 289 is receiving the heads and, FI , and turbo stuff. The 259 was completely disassembled and moved into storage. The engine has an auto bellhousing and Flightomatic torque converter, which will be switched out for the 55's T86 bellhousing and trans from the 259. This trans also has a Foxcraft black ball and shifter, which I want to reuse as well. This is the car it's going towards:



    As you can see, it's a museum piece, nor the R2 in the Lark(although I have the bare block from the other one still), just an ol fashioned engine thats getting some "enhancements" ......

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  13. #53
    Commander Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Wa, USA
    Posts
    90
    Hello John, My name is Jason Taub and I am new to the forum but not to Studes, I am an ASE tech of 30plus years and a small shop owner. I have worked on this very project (in my mind) for many years. The one stubling block has been the fact that 14.7:1 fuel ratio is too lean for the Stude V8. For better driveability it demands a richer mixture and the O2 will see above 4.5v and the computor will try to lean the mixture. If you "tune" the computor to run richer the O2 sensor will have an early failure. My conclusion has been to go with a system that uses no O2 sensor. Any sugestions would be welcome.

    Jason Taub
    Squaw Valley Ca.(not the ski resort)

  14. #54
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    According to the Megasquirt guys, you can run without an oxygen sensor for NA applications. For forced induction it's highly recommended though to use an oxygen sensor. Since I'm using a compressor I'm gonna err on the side of caution here for the time being. Removing an oxygen sensor before I find out it doesn't need it is kinda like removing a limb [)]. Now, I don't know the how or why, other than its needed because it has to sense the change that came from upstream(I think its when the boost kicks on and the parameters change). In the case of driveability they use Megatune, and what the person needs to do is make minor tweaks to the Bins until satisfactory driveability is achieved. For everyone else, the Bins are what are on the laptop that behave like the idle mixture screws on the carburetor. If it destroyed the oxygen sensor, but the car is still plenty driveable, I'd probably keep the sensor out. See if you can finely tune it without the sensor in place, and if its to your liking, go that route. I think the other thing they mention is EGO correction, which basically gives authority to the oxygen sensor and megasquirt to make corrections based on what the oxygen sensor sees. If you have a rich misfire, it will see a lean condition from the unburnt oxygen and attempt to correct it through the injectors by providing an even richer mixture, basically a runaway condition. They just say if you don't know about set the correction very low(like around 5 percent) or leave it off.

    They also mention that the narrow and wideband sensors operate in two different fashions. Narrow band decreases voltage as the AFR increases, and wideband increases voltage as the AFR increases. In the case of the wideband they set it for 2.5 volts for 14.7 and .045 volts for 14.7. But if the Studebaker engine doesn't like 14.7 for a wideband you can set it down to 2.08 volts for best power, which is 12.5 volts which is for best power, and apparently unknown for a narrow band, since its really down in gravel.

    From the laptop, thats also one of the nice things with the system is apparently you can set the voltage on the oxygen sensor where stoichometry is at, where the best power is at, its not completely automated.

    Edit:
    I think one of the bigger reasons for using an oxygen sensor is being able to provide an output to the AF meter for Megatune and Megasquirt. They said you can go without one, but you won't know what the AFR looks like, which could make plotting a VE table for Megasquirt to do its thing somewhat more difficult(I'm presuming here).

  15. #55
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Update:
    Connectors, Connectors, Connectors.....well just one

    I am working on gathering all of the connectors for this project. This one is the Throttle Position Sensor connector. I have some advice for all who pick up the parts from the junkyard, if you're getting the throttle body and the injectors, it will serve you well to get the connectors. This is for the Ford throttle body, which will be wildly different from the GM throttle body, which will be different from the Toyota throttle body.....well you get the idea. Mine doesn't have connectors for any of the parts, so these will come from Napa or Ebay. This connector is for the throttle body. It is a three pin connector with the number Echlin EC271. The connectors are not standard for the makes and models of cars, which means each make has their own configuration of connector, as well as each application for the connector has its own configuration. However, these will probably be bypassed with using wire splices, so a weatherpack kit may not be necessary.

    Anyway, this connector was picked up at Napa. The connector has a plastic hood around the outside, which prevented it from connecting to the sensor. Sensing my own money was in mortal danger, I looked at the inside of the connector. The format was the same, it just had this extra plastic hood around it, so I took some wire snips and carefully removed the hood away. Once that was done I tried it again; slid right in. So I stuck the rubber seal and the wire clip on the rear back on, and here we go .





    In an editorial reply, I really wish they either;

    Did what the PC's did and went with one standard connector format for each device.

    Made screw terminals or individual connectors on the TPS so all I have to do is hookup some wire and be finished with it.

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  16. #56
    Commander Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Wa, USA
    Posts
    90
    Thanks for the info, EFI is the way to go the increased fuel mileage alone justifys it. I'm sure Studebaker would have been the first American car to have it on a mass scale as did Mercedes, V.W. and Volvo.If they would have survived until the early 70's gas crisis they would have been in a good position to rival Honda, Toyota and Datsun.

    Jason Taub
    Squaw Valley Ca.

  17. #57
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Yep, I got this vision when you said that:

    The Economy Mobilgas Run of 2009, featuring Studebaker's multiport injected, V6 with E-VarioValve cam drive, and overdrive 6 speed!!

    The fun part is yet to come, as I hope I have all of the mechanical ducks in a row and I didn't fudge anything yet on the mechanical parts, lol.

    I think Alan Shephard put it best in this manner when he said;

    Dear Lord don't let me ***** this up [)]

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  18. #58
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    I'm still trying to figure out how to somehow clamp the aluminum bungs to the runners on the 185. I'm thinking of some type of band like an adjustable hose clamp. Also, I guess I'll have to have the injectors pointing straight down instead of toward the flow. All of this because I want to use the stock manifold. I need to bring it in to have it resurfaced and I'd like to have it ceramic coated, but I need to get the surface where the bungs go on finished first. The manifold is very thin in those spots, not leaving much thickness for alignment or straightening out the top. Anybody got any ideas on some type of clamping arrangement? Maybe have the injector bungs all connected in a flat plate and clamp the plate across the top of the intake.

  19. #59
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    This may be a case where precision is extremely key. Measure out the size of the bung, and make a dimple dead center in the top of the runner. You may need to step the drill bit size up incrementally until you reach the size of the bung(or file the hole out very carefully). Once this is done ease the bung in until the bung completely fills out the hole. I'd advise may lightly tapping the bung in(watching you don't mar the edges), and welding or epoxying the bung in place with some heavy reinforcement around the outside of the bung. The injectors should just slide down along their Viton seals along the slick surface of the bung. Knowing the manifold I wouldn't go hog wild with securing the bung, or you'll find the bung in place but at the bottom of the runner [)]. What you will have is a 90 degree projected pipe sort of arrangement, since the injector will be inserted into a cast iron pipe, via another pipe, the bung.

    Of course another method involves getting those newfangled injectors that plug right into the cylinder head(like what was recently on some of GM's vehicles), since the 185 is a flathead, but there's some big bucks there.

    Edit:
    I looked at a 170 manifold I had split from a couple years back. There's a couple other solutions. One would be to drill for a single right under where the carb mounts. Of course that may not appeal to you as it's one port injector and the throttle body above it. The other would be of course, throttle body, which may also be equally as appealing since its TBI and not port injection. That would require just an adapter to the manifold, with probably a GM type of throttle body, like what may come from the Cavaliers.
    They said it would be fun, they never said it would be easy!! [)]

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  20. #60
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Las Cruces,N.M. , USA.
    Posts
    441
    Buddymander - I came across a very in-depth article on the slantsix forum where the guy was using gm parts for his efi system. It might be worth a look.If the bungs are aluminum you might get by with sizing the holes for an interference fit and then dipping the bungs in Liquid Nitrogen and installing them quickly.

  21. #61
    President Member r1lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
    Posts
    3,759
    Blog Entries
    36
    quote:Originally posted by lark55

    Buddymander - I came across a very in-depth article on the slantsix forum where the guy was using gm parts for his efi system. It might be worth a look.If the bungs are aluminum you might get by with sizing the holes for an interference fit and then dipping the bungs in Liquid Nitrogen and installing them quickly.
    Lark, can you provide a link?

    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The NEW Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

  22. #62
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,428
    Liquid Nitrogen is not for the CASO. And you have to be very careful, one small drop on the skin and you have a blister the size of a quarter. That and you have to put the manifold in an oven to heat up to at least 350-400 degrees. Just buy the screw in ones.

  23. #63
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Las Cruces,N.M. , USA.
    Posts
    441
    r1lark - I found the article at www.slantsix.org/.It is quite long.

    Allan - Your are right it would be easier to use the screw in type. I work around that stuff frequently and should have realized the problems it may cause for someone who hasn't used it.

  24. #64
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA, USA.
    Posts
    7,393
    Hi, Jason,
    Am not quite sure I understand this statement. Could you give us some explanation why
    quote:The one stubling block has been the fact that 14.7:1 fuel ratio is too lean for the Stude V8.
    In fact, on a BrandX with a similar combustion chamber and displacement, I saw it run on light load cruise as lean as 17:1 and 50-degrees ignition advance. The computer was programmed to add fuel and subtract ignition advance when as load increased, the throttle opened and vacuum dropped.

    IMHO, the Stude V8 has a relatively efficient combustion chamber. If the EFI is coupled with wide-band O2 sensor, a crank-triggered ignition and all three are programmed by someone who knows how, there is no reason of which I am aware a Stude V8 won't be happy and economical at 14.7 AFR.

    It's not easy, not inexpensive, but when the right computer, EFI, ignition and sensors are added, it doesn't matter what name is on the rocker covers - the results will be very much the same.

    In a project a few years back, some GM apprentice techs took an original 1955 Chevrolet 265" V8 and bolted on all the 21st century computer EFI and ignition. No real surprise; that fifty-five-year-old long block met all current emissions requirements, made more power and had better economy. If all the EFI/ignition conversion is done correctly, the Stude V8 will behave much the same way.

    thnx, jack vines

    PackardV8

  25. #65
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    I tried that slant six link but to no avail. The slant six is a twelve port head, I believe, so individual injectors makes more sense. I'm beginning to think your TBI idea might be more applicable on the 185.

  26. #66
    President Member r1lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
    Posts
    3,759
    Blog Entries
    36
    Buddy,

    I think this is the article that Lark55 was referencing: http://www.slantsix.org/articles/dib...conversion.htm

    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The NEW Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

  27. #67
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    That's a very interesting article. I like the part about using a stock distributor, but I don't fully understand it.

  28. #68
    President Member r1lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
    Posts
    3,759
    Blog Entries
    36
    Have done quite a bit of reading on the MegaSquirt systems over the last week or so, spurred by this thread.

    The MegaSquirtII is quite impressive, especially it's ability to control the engine timing (vacuum advance and centrifigual advance). I also noted that the MegaSquirt will trigger off of the Chrysler VR-type distributor sensor which should be an easy retrofit into the Prestolite distributors. Plus, eliminating the advance weights and locking the centrifigual advance mechanism removes the most troublesome area of the Prestolite. Pretty neat stuff. Another impressive thing is the ability to use a wide range of components (from junkyard to high buck) to fit your specific application and budget.

    For those of you who have an interest in MegaSquirt, there is a LOT of info out there. Besides the MegaSquirt website, another good informational site is DIYAutoTune (http://www.diyautotune.com/index.html). Lots of good info, literally days of reading here.

    Thanks John for starting this thread!! It has certainly been an eye-opener for me.

    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The NEW Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

  29. #69
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Trochu, Alberta , Canada.
    Posts
    5,056
    I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest, too. This is something I'd like to try myself one day.

    Buddy, if you are thinking about putting EFI on a 185, why even bother with attempting to put injector bungs into a stock manifold? The stock intake manifold is a compromise, designed to let one single-venturi carb feed all 3 branches, but runner lengths are nowhere near equal. That's why dual-carb or 3-carb setups were so popular back in the day.

    Why not cut some steel flanges, and then use an exhaust-shop tube bender to make 3 equal-length tubes, say 12 to 16 inches long, meeting in a common collector where you can mount the throttle body? The process would be exactly like making headers, and for exactly the same reason, to take advantage of the inertia of the moving air column to improve volumetric efficiency. What's a common feature of many modern fuel-injected cars, even the lowliest grocery-getters? Long, equal-length intake runners, that's what. EFI makes it easy to achieve this ideal, which was difficult to do with carburetors.

    Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

  30. #70
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    2,120
    Man, I've been on that diyautotune site and I feel like a teenager with a new video game. You're right, gordr. I think the optimum distance from butterfly to valve is fifteen inches. There's a lot of tradeoff, but I can never get to the best type of system because of the shared intake ports. I'm trying to decide where to draw the line. I initially thought making an intake manifold was the way I would go, but I'm wondering just how inefficient the system would be using the stock intake and TBI. As long as it uses a turbo to get the compression up and an oxygen sensor to monitor fuel, the rest is secondary.

  31. #71
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,428
    Ross Machine Racing has injector bungs for $4.50 each. No minimum.

  32. #72
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    I have removed from visiting over the last 4 days over Christmas, no satellite, 4 channel television, no high speed internet, and no idea what happened on the outside world [)], but it was all good, even if I was turning blue . I am impressed with the response, it was nothing really. I have been trying to get going on this type of setup probably since 2004 when I learned about it from the import guys I knew [}]!! This is a big arena to do this sort of work over there, usually though it was removing a factory computer, and plugging this in instead, or piggybacking an existing system.
    Anyway, I would suggest also to thread the bungs if possible. If done properly you can probably get a better seal than either weld or epoxy. I also agree for the 185, practically speaking, it would come down to the Greg Meyer approach, which is build a whole new manifold, or, find a TBI and use that. I'd have to admit, there are some designs, where to use multiport, requires some real pondering, thinkin, or engineerin as the manifold wasn't originally designed for modern equipment. I think Achem put it best when he said the simplest solution is usually the best one. This might be one of those solutions. Plus, you will still retain the ability to tune the engine for fuel injection, the only difference being how it is delivered.
    For now I'm looking at keeping the stock distributor. With a crank sensor and coil modules, the distributor innards can be removed, so you would have just the distributor driving the oil pump. But for now to get things really going, I need to retain the distributor as a simple electrical switch to get the engine running. One item at a time....

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  33. #73
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Update:
    More connectors(and for a real ebay bargain too ).....



    The port injectors that I'm using are an older style type of injector. These are fairly common in older vehicles that used port injection, particularly the Ford's. The connectors are known as the Bosch EV1 connectors, which are just a two pronged, clip on affair, with a molded plug. Ordinarily I've seen these at NAPA and Ebay for 5-8 dollars a plug, I got them for just 2 dollars a plug(Excellent!!). Since I have 8 injectors, I needed 8 corresponding connectors(and pigtails). These will tie into the harness that goes to the Megasquirt computer. Since they are just a switch, there shouldn't be any polarity problems, so I should just be able to pick a pigtail for power, and a pigtail for ground. LOL, the way these are color coded(all white wire insulation), I don't think they were meant to be polarized.



    That should cover all of the proprietary connectors(aside from the one on the brain and relay box), unless I pick up a weather pack kit. On to the bigger and better, and the fancy stuff. [}]



    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  34. #74
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Subsection: Backstory on the Heads

    First, I apologize if I went over our fine expert's heads on this little project. It was something of a learning experience to say the least, and I am a real self motivator with an "all or nothing" philosophy. [)]

    I decided to put up a little post on the heads, because with the talk of fuel economy, the other little modifications may have an affect on particular fuel economy. It has always been in the back of my mind that, like building PC's, if I wanted to build an engine, I may as well get as much of it completed while everything is apart. It is so much trouble to assemble this stuff, only to wanna have to take all apart again because I would like something added in. Prior to the fuel injection stuff, I wanted to get all of the stuff in the head cleared before tackling anything else. So here's what I did with both heads. I will concentrate on one head because the other head is a carbon copy procedure. The business for the heads took at least 4 weeks or more, because I would do the work on and off when I was ready to go. I also did each combustion chamber in the exact same fashion, with a predetermined set of guidelines of what I wanted to see for each chamber. I also didn't do anything like stop in the middle of a chamber or anything of that sort, once I started, I didn't quit until the work was complete, or I'd forget what I did to the head. Believe it or not, it was done with a Dremel with AC power, and alot of patience. The Dremel didn't do too bad, but the metal(which was pretty soft) was quite capable of making short work of the bits or the grinding stones if I really pressed into it. If I pushed too hard the plastic holding the stone would heat up, melt, and the grinding stone would separate. This also warranted buying some real blister packs for this work, in case I needed them.
    Anyway, here's our, ahem, turkey, or head. A message though about this work........
    [WARNING: THIS WILL GET VERY VERY DIRTY, FILTHY, AND DUSTY. IF YOU DO NOT WANT SILICOSIS, DO WEAR A MASK AND GOGGLES!!]



    It's a set of '55 259 heads with a copper sandwich gasket. They had a mixture of Champion, Sears, and Allstate spark plugs in the head(hey it did the job, lol) Prior to being worked on they were cc'd with a kit I put together from a CD case with a tiny hole drilled near the top, Vasoline, a syringe with 100 cc labelled on it, and a couple of clamps. The injector or syringe was marked off with a Sharpie to separate it into fourths. The heads had to be checked before doing anything, so it was determined that they were 62 cc heads.
    After this was done, I went to work. I laid back the eyebrow, which was determined by stopping at the quench line, as well as gave the shape. I went around the intake and exhaust ports in this manner with the same angle as I laid back the eyebrow. I also laid back the areas around the spark plug hole. Once I was done with that, I then smoothed any rough points on the eyebrow, spark plug hole, and around the ports. I mean I could now run my fingers around the spots in the combustion chamber and not be able to feel and sharp points. Once this was completed I then proceeded to each port,starting with the intake port.



    The first thing I did was get an old gasket and scribe a line around the ports. The material on the inside of the port had to be removed within the line, and it had to be carefully taken off all the way up to the line. I also wanted to be sure that whatever the size of the gasket was, that everything on the inside was a similar size to t

  35. #75
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Still working on it, and I'll continually help other folks (ya know who you are ). We're making great progress here, particularly the six cylinder crowd, and the end results may be groundbreaking among some of us here CASO's .......

    I'm also thinkin of using just the plain ol' MS1. I mean it is still a significant step forward, even if I don't completely use SMD technology? )

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  36. #76
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    4,260
    PB -

    For future reference, you might think of using carbide rotory tools. This is espicially true for reshaping the corners of the ports.
    As stones are used, they wear away and greatly change shape. This means, it's almost impossible to maintain a constant radius thru out the port. And this is important for a good outcome.

    With a carbide cutter, they will last and hold their shape for a long time (many ports), so this way, each of your ports have the same corner radius.

    Mike

  37. #77
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA, USA.
    Posts
    7,393
    Thanks for the photos and the update. Just a thought to share some experiences, as your valves seem typical of most original Studes.
    quote:The valves were very grungy looking when the heads came off. Years of sitting, and petrol produced some valves that resembled the before pictures in the Shell gasoline commercials for the Nitrogen fuel. They were also very well seized into place when the heads came apart. . . . I then cleaned up each of the valves by using some 220 sandpaper, and then I chucked each valve in the drill press, and ran finer grits of sandpaper over the valve until I got a semi mirror finish again from the valves.
    Yes, used valves can be cleaned, re-installed and run as is. Back in the bad old days, we used to do it all the time.

    No, today I wouldn't put it back together without a valve regrind. While the heads are off, even a CASO should really consider having the valves and seats re-ground as a good investment. The improved sealing will produce more horsepower, a smoother idle, improved fuel economy and longer engine life.

    Maybe, check the stem-to-guide clearance. Most used heads also have worn guides. If worn, the guides can be restored by knurling, bronze-wall sleeves or replaced with new.

    Also, check the installed height spring pressure. If you are building a performance engine, the OEM springs are not strong enough to reliably rev past 5000 RPMs. Consider the R1 springs as a minimum.

    Your car, your money, your decision.

    thnx, jack vines

    PackardV8

  38. #78
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Dually noted Mike. This is also something I don't regularly do either. Its also a case where the most reliable air supply I have was a small Badger compressor for airbrushing from where I was working at, so I relied on a robust AC powered Dremel to do the work. Those Dremels will fit a carbide bit, but they are usually a slender spear tipped cutter made for an 1/8 inch diameter chuck.
    I would say for anyone else, and for the future, a Dremel can work, but locate some carbide bits with a bulb on the end, and don't force the Dremel because the housing can overheat and will distort the brushes out of alignment. I would also say, and I know I'm gonna get a "I told you so", but a die grinder with a 3/16? chuck with an assortment of larger diameter bits works very well, as well as having an adequate air supply to do it with.
    And yes, using stones with a Dremel and the plastic "grip" will not only cause the stones to wear down, requiring a change of bits in the middle of cutting a port, the grip can loosen, rendering the bit to nothing more than a metal shaft and a stone that has separated from the shaft.
    I know you and Tom are real experts on the matter. For the moment I did this for a regular street engine, and seeing if I could do it myself(first timer), so I'm not looking for any specific numbers. I am just looking for something that will behave better than a regular set of heads.

    Edit:
    I checked the clearances on the valve guides and the stems. The stems were still quite tight in the guides. The stems(the valves in particular, yeesh) were pretty grungy looking with corrosion and deposits from the old fuel. I don't plan on redlining the car too much, it will probably be driven under 4000 much of the time. What was interesting was once the valves were freed, the springs still retained much of their resiliency. If there is quite a bit of valve float, or if the money allows, I will refresh the springs. I also looked over the seats. The seats were surprisingly pretty clean. When I ported the heads, I didn't even touch them, unless I felt like sending them out to fix something I screwed up. Now the ideal thing to do is to regrind them, lap them, and then assemble them. If the heads aren't performing like they should, I'll take em off and send them in. The sorry thing is there are not many machine shops this direction, save for the machine shop in Lombard, who does machine work on Studebakers. Between that and doing this on a shoestring budget, I am usually left to do my own dirty work, lol [)]. But it keeps me busy until I can find work again.


    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  39. #79
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    As long as were on the subject grinding valves, this is the equipment I used. I can hear the few of you just rolling on the floor right now, it's equipment that was better suited to Model A's and lawnmower engines, but it's a learning experience nonetheless. In the pictures below two of the three items proved to be the best suited for the job:









    The item to the lower left, valve spring compressor. If you're gonna disassemble heads, this has gotta be your first tool in the arsenal. This tool retracts the spring, so the keyways can be exposed and to remove or install the valve. The item in the upper left, valve grinder. By turning the crank, a seat can be ground onto the valve, but it will only put a standard angle on the valve. The item in the lower right, valve grinder for the head. It also has the tools necessary for lapping. When I checked out the head, the seat looked pretty pristine, so I didn't wanna fudge with it. The two grinders of course have been replaced with electric grinders. For mass production work I would use an electric grinder, as these are more suited to a Model A, one time use, or a lawnmower engine, with all due respect.

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


  40. #80
    President Member PlainBrownR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA.
    Posts
    4,473
    Update:

    The Fuel Pump(Important part too )

    Everybody knows to breathe life into an engine, we need a fuel pump. We know about the standby mechanical pumps for the stocker engines. We know about electric fuel pumps that will work in the stock systems. Both of these do pretty well for the carbureted application, as they usually pump from 7-14 psi such as the Holley Blue Pump here:




    Unfortunately, fuel injection is not a controlled dribble, like a faucet, it's a electromagnetically controlled spray, like a fire hose. Therefore, we have another type of pump, the fuel injection pump, which can be found as an inline pump, or that "pain in the rear to get to" pump inside the tank. Originally, I bought the Blue Pump in Morris on the idea that I could use it, until I found out it may not be able to keep up. So I went to Ebay and found a fuel injection pump that will supposedly work. It's an alternative to the Walbro pump and will deliver 45 psi, rather than 14 psi that the Holley pump delivers. It was also a pretty comparable deal. I was looking at another pump that was $59.00 with $11.00 in shipping for a stock pump, or go with this pump for $79.00, no shipping, and it's an alternative replacement for the Walbro pump(or so they say anyway, lol), which is also a good name when it comes to purchasing fuel injection pumps. The alternative brand name $79.00 pump won out, lol.

    That should cover the fuel components, now we need the lines and fittings.....




    Oh, these pumps have an In and an Out. If I get them backwards the pump will not do very much. The pump also needs a filter before the pump to keep the sediment out(which can kill the vanes and geroter in these things pretty quick, ask me how, lol), and a larger filter with a finer micron screen between the pump and injectors to filter the smaller stuff that can plug up the carb or injectors.

    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010531-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/55%20Studebaker%20Commander%20Streetrod%20Project/P1010550-1.jpg[/IMG=left]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
    [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]


Similar Threads

  1. Which Edelbrock vacuum port?
    By valleyguy in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 06:09 PM
  2. '56 2 door wagon in Port Orchard
    By Chris Pile in forum General Studebaker-Specific Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 11:38 PM
  3. Distributor vacuum port
    By johnesmonde in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-25-2006, 08:30 PM
  4. Unabriged Version
    By Mr.Biggs in forum General Studebaker-Specific Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-16-2006, 02:45 PM
  5. Vacuum Port Connections on Edelbrock Carb
    By 60Lark in forum General Studebaker-Specific Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-24-2005, 09:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •