2018 Engine Masters Challenge - Studebaker V8 Engine Project

[DEEPNHOCK]

It is a reality.......................A small group of dedicated Studebaker enthusiasts will be helping Digger Dave Molnar prepare a Studebaker V8 engine to compete in the 'Vintage Class' at the 2018 Engine Masters Challenge.
More details will be posted on this thread, and regular updates will be posted.
Small steps at first, but it should be a fun, and very visible project in the Studebaker world.

[Mike Van Veghten]

Very cool, wish I lived closer, I could get in the way..!

Mike

[DEEPNHOCK]

Actually, there will be all sorts of opportunities in the coming months.
There are some parts that will be needed, and sponsors will be sought out.
Taking baby steps right now to get off on the right foot.
If anybody has any questions, PM me...or ask here!

Very cool, wish I lived closer, I could get in the way..!

Mike

[Buzzard]

Cool Beans! (Sorry Bob).
Awaiting with baited breath...
Bill

[junior]

cool X 10...this is going to be awesome...best wishes to the team! cheers, Junior

[BobWaitz]

Digger knows which end of a wrench to hold, that's for sure. This oughta be good.

[Buzzard]

Does anyone have any info as to N/A or blown (if so how) bored to Richard's CID or R4 configuration or perhaps one of Jeff's intakes? Any info is appreciated. Damn, I wished I lived closer.
Bill

[DEEPNHOCK]

Here are the 2017 'Vintage Class' rules....

http://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2017/03/EMC2017VintageClass32117.pdf

Does anyone have any info as to N/A or blown (if so how) bored to Richard's CID or R4 configuration or perhaps one of Jeff's intakes? Any info is appreciated. Damn, I wished I lived closer.
Bill

[DEEPNHOCK]

The current trajectory has Digger building a bored and stroked Stude V8 right at 340 cid.
DEEPNHOCK Racing CNC heads (from Digger Dave's NEW OE cores), DEEPNHOCK intake, Evans Machine 4 bolt main caps, Jon Kammer modified oil pan.
Digger has a cam setup and a cam drive..
Am working on some rocker arm ideas (Jesel)..
Lots to work toward...

Does anyone have any info as to N/A or blown (if so how) bored to Richard's CID or R4 configuration or perhaps one of Jeff's intakes? Any info is appreciated. Damn, I wished I lived closer.
Bill

[54stude]

Interesting rules, but because this is normalized for displacement, would you not be better off entering a 259 stroke motor? Big bore, shorter stroke.

[DEEPNHOCK]

That's an interesting question. Who has data for this?
I suppose one could run all the numbers given for all the performance engines out there using their formula and see which one gives the best result.

(copy)To compensate for the different engine displacements, the average corrected torquequotient for 3 dyno pulls and the average corrected horsepower quotient for 3 dynopulls are added together. Corrected horsepower quotient may be adjusted by rulescommittee for less than 8 cylinder entrants.The sum of the average corrected torque quotient and the average correctedhorsepower quotient are multiplied by 1000 and then divided by the claimed cubicinch displacement of the engine. This will yield a quotient number to be used forscoring for engine dyno results. Final quotient numbers are recorded to one decimalplace on scoring form.9Rounding of numbers will be utilizing standard rounding:Example 2232.96 = 2233.0Claiming a cubic inch less than actual calculated cubic inch as stated in theENGINE-displacement section of these rules, shall result in disqualification. Claiminga cubic inch 5 or more cubic inches greater than actual calculations shall result indisqualification.
Any displacement allowed.
(copy)
301 - DISPLACEMENT
Unlimited displacement. Cubic inch is calculated by bore x bore x stroke x 6.2832.
Bore is measured at top of cylinder where ring wear is not evident. Bore and stroke
are measured to the third decimal place, i.e. 0.001. Cubic inches are calculated to
one (1) decimal place i.e. 350.0. Any part of a cubic inch is rounded up to the next
highest inch (i.e. 301.2 = 302) for the purpose of claimed cubic inch of engine as
used in scoring. The cubic inch used in scoring will be a whole number; no decimal
part will be used.

Interesting rules, but because this is normalized for displacement, would you not be better off entering a 259 stroke motor? Big bore, shorter stroke.

[PackardV8]

Interesting rules, but because this is normalized for displacement, would you not be better off entering a 259 stroke motor? Big bore, shorter stroke.

[COLOR=#000080][B]That's an interesting question. Who has data for this?
I suppose one could run all the numbers given for all the performance engines out there using their formula and see which one gives the best result.

Yes, no, maybe. There are factors at work which change things:

1. Yes, since the Studebaker V8 heads are inherently limited in their possible flow, smaller displacement engines can produce greater horsepower per cubic inch, but only if allowed to rev higher; however not allowed in the EMC.

2. No, the EMC scoring algorithm seems to contain some inherent biases against smaller engines. Over the years, too many of the highest scoring Brand X entries were 400" with long stroke, short rod, small bore. Those larger or smaller did not seem to score as well.

3. Maybe, it could be given the 6300 RPM upper limit, the longer stroke engines may have some advantages not immediately obvious to conventional thinking.

jack vines

[Commander Eddie]

I am not familiar with this competition. Can someone give a brief explanation of what this is?

[DEEPNHOCK]

Thanks, Jack. Having just gone through some of this this last year with some of your Packard parts, it is a process that will take some time to figure out.
That's why it is the 2018 Engine Masters Challenge we are prepping for.
Who knows? Maybe if enough interest si ginned up, there might be more than one Stude engine entered.
We'll see.

Yes, no, maybe. There are factors at work which change things:

1. Yes, since the Studebaker V8 heads are inherently limited in their possible flow, smaller displacement engines can produce greater horsepower per cubic inch, but only if allowed to rev higher; however not allowed in the EMC.

2. No, the EMC scoring algorithm seems to contain some inherent biases against smaller engines. Over the years, too many of the highest scoring Brand X entries were 400" with long stroke, long rod, small bore. Those larger or smaller did not seem to score as well.

3. Maybe, it could be given the 6300 RPM upper limit, the longer stroke engines may have some advantages not immediately obvious to conventional thinking.

jack vines

[54stude]

Yes, no, maybe. There are factors at work which change things:

1. Yes, since the Studebaker V8 heads are inherently limited in their possible flow, smaller displacement engines can produce greater horsepower per cubic inch, but only if allowed to rev higher; however not allowed in the EMC.

2. No, the EMC scoring algorithm seems to contain some inherent biases against smaller engines. Over the years, too many of the highest scoring Brand X entries were 400" with long stroke, long rod, small bore. Those larger or smaller did not seem to score as well.

3. Maybe, it could be given the 6300 RPM upper limit, the longer stroke engines may have some advantages not immediately obvious to conventional thinking.

jack vines

Or. It could just be that these large displacement engines have large bores, which unshroud the valves, and increase airflow and volumetric efficiency, that allows them to take advantage of high compression, and a cam tailored to the rpm range that is measured in the contest sweet
Spot for rpm. I am sure tricks like low drag rings to reduce drag, and clearancing the top of the bores to improve airflow around the valves are commonly done.