Engine: V8 Valve Conversion

[Buzzard]

I can't find this info in "search" so sorry if this is (most likely) a repeat. What is the best valve conversion used these days to improve performance and enhance an R1 or R2+ camshaft in a Studebaker V8?
Back in the day (early 70's) I heavily modified some heads and I used Ford 406 Intakes. I can't recall what the exhaust size was but the intake and exhaust valves very nearly touched. I'm looking to squeeze the most out of a .040 or larger overbore in a 289 for my GT.
Thanks for any advise.
Bill

[sals54]

The last one I did was some time ago, but I used the Chevy valve conversion. I still have the heads. 1.88 intakes 1.5 exhausts, Manley Pro Flo valves with undercut stems. Heads were cut .125 in. R2+cam. It was good fun. Not much compared to todays offerings, but a good driver back then.

[StudeRich]

I don't see any reason to "reinvent the wheel" when the majority of the successful racers running R1 and R2's are just using stock Studebaker R3 Intake Valves and Intake & Head Porting with a Performance Cam.

I consider the rest just experimental "attempts" at better performance, all with a down side, usually other major mods and unnecessary expense to make the wrong Valves work.

[sals54]

Rich... Attempts??? Seriously? We've been out here making real power gains with the wrong valves and wrong other parts for many decades. You can stick to the grossly overpriced R3 cr*p all you want. A set of Chevy valves with dual springs will cost less than any single piece of an R3. And allow higher RPMs and make more power than the antiquated R3 technology. Have you ever even tried turbos on a Stude engine? They are not R3, but will make far more power.
All the successful racers you're talking about run in the stock class. Ask Ted Harbit about the use of Chevy valves, or turbos. Yeah, he's the guy who ran into the 10's using the wrong valves and the wrong kind of turbo. Or do you think he could have made more HP with a Paxton. He tried, and could never match the output of twin turbos vs the antique Paxtons. I guess his "attempts" at better performance didn't work out very well at all, eh? Get your head out of the sand.

[doofus]

Easy Sals54, you will drop a valve! to each his own. i like turbo's and oversized valves stuck in the past i guess.still lots of fun tho. Doofus

[r1lark]

I don't see any reason to "reinvent the wheel" when the majority of the successful racers running R1 and R2's are just using stock Studebaker R3 Intake Valves and Intake & Head Porting with a Performance Cam.

I consider the rest just experimental "attempts" at better performance, all with a down side, usually other major mods and unnecessary expense to make the wrong Valves work.

Careful, your "unless it's stock Studebaker it ain't no good" bias is showing Rich. The performance world marches on, and there have been a lot of new parts and techniques developed since 1964.

Buzzard, drop in on Sonny's Studebaker Racing Forum, and also give Phil Harris a call at Fairborn Studebaker, for some good hi-performance info.

[Bud]

The use of Chevy valves in Studebaker V8 heads makes a big improvement in the flow rate of the heads which makes for more power. There is some machine work involved such as milling down the rocker shaft stands and shortening the push rods as the Chevy valve stems are shorter. The engine in my Avanti was done years ago by Corbin Walters at Jet City Studebaker and he used larger valves with dual valve springs. I think the engine with the Corbin Walters mods runs better than an R2 engine with the Paxton supercharger. Bud

[TWChamp]

I like to keep things the way Studebaker built them, but how are the valves and stronger springs holding up to the modern oil with reduced scuffing additives?

Or are you guys using roller cams?

[Mike Van Veghten]

Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen...it DOESN'T matter what the valve WAS intended for..!
As long as the stem diameter works, the stem length, and the head diameter works...it DOESN'T matter..!

Yes the standard Stude R3 valve works just fine in the intake. Without a lot of unnecessary work will you will not find anything that works any better, if at all. Putting these other brand valves in with the required shortening, lengthen, etc. THEN...to get the most out of the system, you NEED to make sure your pushrods are the correct length for the system you've created. If this isn't done correctly, you'll loose valve lift and some duration.
No need to do anything to the exhaust, it's already too large.

And remember, big diameter valves do little for performance if the correct things aren't done to the ports AND...the combustion chamber. Most forget the combustion chamber, but it's JUST as important to be finished correctly as the porting. The "porting"...does not stop at the valve.

I have a set of heads on my 54 wagon that I cut down the valve diameter...(!) to 1.800" diameter..! Why, so there will be less shrouding in the combustion chamber by the near wall. A 1.90" valve WILL be choked by a large % because of the combustion chamber wall. So...a lot of work for nothing.
Also with the "big" valves, you cannot properly reshape the bowl area to take advantage of the big valve...at least not with a set of heads that will live more than a coupla passes on the drag strip on one pass at Bonneville.
As for my 1.800" valve heads, they flow 198CFM (4 ports) on a certified Superflow 600 bench.

Then there is using "modern" valves. That is the valves with .312" dia. stems. I've got three sets of heads I'm doing this modification to. This allows more fuel/air around the valve head, that's normally taken up by the larger .343" dia.

To Buzzard -

Yes the old R3 swap along with proper porting still works just fine.
It's a LOT of work to get the big gains that require more cam, more intake manifold flow, a good exhaust system, etc.

Mike

[PackardV8]

What is the best valve conversion used these days to improve performance and enhance an R1 or R2+ camshaft in a Studebaker V8? . . . I'm looking to squeeze the most out of a .040 or larger overbore in a 289 for my GT.

JMHO, but for the past few years, I've been doing conversions using the GM LS 8mm stem valves and beehive springs. This provides three major improvements to consider:

1. Better design valve and the 8mm stem diameter results in an R3-size 1.875" intake valve while weighting the same as the rather small 1.65" stock valve. The replacement R3 valves available today are quite a bit heavier.

2. The Studebaker valve spring is a 1930s design. By current technology and performance thinking, it is too tall, too small diameter and wound loosely. The result is valve float at a relatively low RPM. The LS beehive springs usually enable another 500 RPMs with the same cam.

3. The LS beehive retainer is small diameter and much lighter weight than the OEM Stude. Again, less weight equals better valve control.

Yes, the conversion requires shortening the rocker shaft pedestals and shorter pushrods. Since any performance head work requires new guides, changing to 8mm doesn't add to the cost. I always use positive valve stem seals and hard exhaust seats as well.

And remember, big diameter valves do little for performance if the correct things aren't done to the ports AND...the combustion chamber. Most forget the combustion chamber, but it's JUST as important to be finished correctly as the porting.

As Mike points out, at a minimum, larger intake valves then need a good three-angle valve seat and pocket porting.

Bottom line - define your goals and your budget. With cleaning, shot blasting, milling, all new valves, springs, guides, seals, seats and rocker arm work, whether choosing repop R3 components or the LS components, a professional head upgrade is usually about $1000.

jack vines

[spokejr]

I'll weigh in, not as an authority but as a newby student still learning.

Mike has taken a lot of time to demonstrate what does and doesn't work and it's all pretty rational if you sit and think it over, close your eyes and imagine how the gasses want to flow. "Porting doesn't end at the valve seat." according to Mike and it sure makes sense.

Where I am coming from is motorcycle oriented with a touch of auto. Therefore I understand how ignorant mechanics (like me) can ruin good parts in a hurry. I have witnessed a lot of sins and committed a few myself.

Sal, the engine I am working on now is the one you sold me. The intakes had been up graded to R3 at some time. Since all 16 valves are in great shape, I only replaced the guides and had a machinist install seats on the 7 exhausts that still had not been changed out. I went this route to manage the work load by keeping it simple. I am using this engine to learn on. Therefore, I'll stick with stock valve train, springs, spring dampers etc. The ports and chambers will be the big focus and not skimping on things like reusing wrist pin lock bolts. I say this because the engine that came in my car was rebuilt by a shop down in Oceanside in the 70's and I bet my loose #8 wrist pin is due to a used bolt being overtighted. What I learn here will transfer to that engine. Long story short though, if the valves edge is shrouded by 1/8" or more of iron, a skinny valve stem won't help.

For a lot of us, keeping the upgrades straightforeward and simple keeps the program moving forward. On the next one, if the valves are R1's, I'll go the route of slightly smaller intakes at 1.8" instead of the R3 since the valve seat will not have been opened up and hopefully the porting will be a little cleaner. Later tech valve springs, sure. Different rods to resolve the bolt issue, perhaps but then I may never finish that one as mission creep starts to slow down the process.

I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go,

Ken

[sals54]

Ken and others... I was addressing the "attempts" comment. That's all. I take it as a slap in the face of the work of Harbit, Covington, Sherer, Vines and the many others making Studebakers faster today. Ignorance of current facts is a funny thing when clouded by a rose colored view of the glory days of the past.

[SN-60]

I'll bet good old Rich wishes he never opened this thread!! (That's OK Rich, to each his own)

[StudeRich]

Sorry, I was talking about STOCK Studebaker Racing like Ted and Richard have done at the Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags, it sounds like you are trying to get into the likes of Ted's MAX H.P. efforts on his former Chicken Hawk '51.

It is WAY more impressive to me, what can be done to improve the performance of a Stock Studebaker, that can actually be enjoyed on the street as well.

[doofus]

I still will enjoy the sound of my Turbo Studes, Rock On Dude's Doofus