Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West Coast R3 builder?

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

  • Alan
    replied
    Dave, It depends on how you will use it. For putting around town and a stop light fun or two. The 500 is better and the one I use for Drag Racing. The 600 has closer gears and is good if you are going to race it on a long track with a lot of turns or have an engine that puts out more than 500 ft/lbs of torque. For the whimpy Stude you will be better off with the lower first gear of the 500.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stunt
    replied
    Bez, you're right, cases are the same. I was under the impression that the 600 was a 6-speed transmission, and bigger, but it's just a gearing difference, and the 600 gearing does seem better. Though I wish there was an O/D gear available that was more like .70. But nonetheless, seems like a pretty good way to go. Do you remember offhand which O/D ratio you guys chose for the customer's car with the 3.92 rear end? I'm assuming the .64 rather than the .82. What engine was in there, and did you drive it at freeway speeds?

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Avanti
    replied
    Originally posted by SN-60 View Post
    Just remember this folks...If the engine in question did not originate at Studebaker/Paxton as an R3 or R4 engine....THEN IT ISN'T ONE!!!......I don't know, perhaps the engine in question is ten times more powerful than a Granatelli R3 or R4....however..... IT'S NOT THE REAL DEAL....AND NEVER WILL BE!

    It's too bad for all Stude fans that Studebaker folded before more of those engines were produced.......SN-60
    I fully agree with the last statement. Even worse we missed out on the larger displacement engines for which the heads were designed! One more year and we would have had many larger displacement engines with the "R3" heads.

    Now if those real R3 engines from Paxton didn't have R3 rods are they the real deal? Quite a few sold as R3 engines didn't have R3 rods. Or if the heads were not ported were they real R3's? The drawings clearly state they are to be ported. Many sold by Paxton were not and therefore those heads do not conform to the drawings.

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Avanti
    replied
    Originally posted by drrotor View Post
    Speaking of the Northwest, you might also consider giving a call to Pacific Auto Machine in Renton, Wa. 425-226-0930 Talk to Garry. They have been building Studebaker engines for many many years. They do all my machine work. Their ad appears in our local SDC chapter newsletter every month. I also have my cams ground at Delta Camshaft in Tacoma 800-562-5500 They have all the cam profiles for racing and performance Studes, and have helped with the builds of several famous Bonneville Salt Studebakers. These are proven local vendors with high reputations.
    What famous Bonneville Studebakers? Just curious.

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    In such a discussion, it might be instructive to recall the famous red '63 Avanti which ran 171 and change at Bonneville had no R3 parts on it. The engine was a Granatelli-shop-built 299" with every part modified production or aftermarket.

    jack vines

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    Originally posted by 11SecAvanti View Post
    Didn't the early B series engines have modified standard heads? And bored to make 299 cubes? And running changes were made later with better heads and intake. Thus B stamping of the blocks (120+) gives the clearest classification of early and later R-3 engines. Early 63 and later 63 Avanti's had "running changes" and so did the R-3 engines.
    That's true!...At least some of the early 'A' series 299 CI Studebaker R3 engines, such as the one in 1963 Avanti 63R-1025, used 'Granatelli reworked' R2 cylinder heads.

    Leave a comment:


  • 11SecAvanti
    replied
    Didn't the early B series engines have modified standard heads? And bored to make 299 cubes? And running changes were made later with better heads and intake. Thus B stamping of the blocks (120+) gives the clearest classification of early and later R-3 engines. Early 63 and later 63 Avanti's had "running changes" and so did the R-3 engines.

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]65572[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]65573[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]65574[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]65575[/ATTACH]It DID, AND DOES IN FACT HAVE R3 HEADS. I never said it did not YOU DID. ......(yes you warrant 5 frowny faces)
    That's GREAT!...It DOES have the correct heads!!....so what are you talking about?? (non-factory parts)...
    Last edited by SN-60; 07-17-2017, 06:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	- Restor'9 engine copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	22.8 KB
ID:	1715563Click image for larger version

Name:	- Restor'10 engine.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	93.7 KB
ID:	1715564Click image for larger version

Name:	r3 engine 2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	102.2 KB
ID:	1715565Click image for larger version

Name:	R3 Enigine side view.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	104.5 KB
ID:	1715566
    Originally posted by SN-60 View Post
    If it doesn't have the rare R3 heads on it then that fact would need to be pointed out if that Avanti is ever resold....If it DID HAVE the correct heads, then there would be no 'Stories'.....Agreed?

    PS...It pleases me that you now seem to understand that there are 'REAL DEAL' R3-4 Studebaker engines out there!
    It DID, AND DOES IN FACT HAVE R3 HEADS. I never said it did not YOU DID. ......(yes you warrant 5 frowny faces)
    Last edited by bezhawk; 07-13-2017, 03:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
    Perhaps my choice of word "real deal" is poor. What I meant is each engine was not just an assembly line product. Each one was had built, and even the cc's of the combuston chambers was stamped on the center exhaust port. The engines were meant for racing, and racing only, even though they were quite streetable. They were not sold with a warranty. IF, and that is a big if future production had continued, then changes would have been implemented to run them down regular production tooling. You can't claim that hand built is good profit making practice. Ed loves to claim that the work I did on a B numbered Paxton built R3 is no longer an R3 because the factory parts were not used in bringing it back to life. I take strong exception to that, and so would anyone that owned it.
    If it doesn't have the rare R3 heads on it then that fact would need to be pointed out if that Avanti is ever resold....If it DID HAVE the correct heads, then there would be no 'Stories'.....Agreed?

    PS...It pleases me that you now seem to understand that there are 'REAL DEAL' R3-4 Studebaker engines out there!

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Perhaps my choice of word "real deal" is poor. What I meant is each engine was not just an assembly line product. Each one was had built, and even the cc's of the combuston chambers was stamped on the center exhaust port. The engines were meant for racing, and racing only, even though they were quite streetable. They were not sold with a warranty. IF, and that is a big if future production had continued, then changes would have been implemented to run them down regular production tooling. You can't claim that hand built is good profit making practice. Ed loves to claim that the work I did on a B numbered Paxton built R3 is no longer an R3 because the factory parts were not used in bringing it back to life. I take strong exception to that, and so would anyone that owned it.
    You might want to ask a little more insistent while claiming some famous R3s running at the pure stocks are in fact stock. Smoky Yunick had a saying, and it is 100% true. I am not so stupid as to take on a legend as people have their minds made up, no matter what is true.
    Last edited by bezhawk; 07-13-2017, 03:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    I think that as time goes on more 'car' people will realize the importance of original Studebaker R3 and R4 engines....REAL ones of course!

    It's troubling when some auto restorers confuse the issue by making the statement "There are no REAL DEAL R3 engines"!!

    Clones. tributes, etc., with 'normal' Studebaker cast iron cylinder heads subjected to major surgery are fine if you wish to go that route......but PLEASE do not call these modified Studebaker V8's 'R3 engines'!

    Folks 'in the know' who own or have owned R3 and or R4 engines would REALLY APPRECIATE IT if you stop 'diluting the brand' by referring to these highly modified creations as R3 or R4 Studebaker engines!...SN-60
    Last edited by SN-60; 07-17-2017, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • R3studee
    replied
    A couple of quick thoughts with all due respect.....

    The statement that there are no "real deal" R-3s is ridiculous as I have owned a half a dozen, and make no mistake they were all quite real. These engines were hand built with exactly the same parts except for a cam option. Sure, some were balanced better or had casting differences, but these engines are all factory pieces hand built in the racing arm of the company - PAXTON products. I equate this division to Chrysler Pacifica or Fords SVO - Special Vehicle Operations, where engines are custom built for racing far away from any assembly line.

    These weren't even offered until the final hour of the companies history, and if the company survived a couple more years there would be many, many more built than the 120 or that made it out the door (yes, I am including the R4 in these numbers which are rumored to account for 6 to 14 engines and I actually have one as well). The R4 is an R3 with taller pistons, a different induction system and of course no little orange huffer....all else including the cam is the same.

    I am by no means trying to chime in and join the piss pot, but as an owner of multiple "B" engines, I am offended by any statement demeaning these ground breaking and ultra reliable motors or their authenticity. Funny, how you never hear an actual owner of these motors knocking them.......

    That being said, I wonder how anyone could question their reliability and performance when they ran 178.5 MPH at Bonneville making them the WORLDS fastest production vehicles and blasting 29 records in the process. Hell, the R5 hit 199 MPH in horrible conditions. DO NOT forget the fact that these were not only high speed record breakers, but they set MAJOR endurance records too if you research them. Its been a while, but to my recollection these cars set records for endurance as they were run ALL OUT and almost nonstop for something like 8 hours with ZERO failure.......check it out its all true. Years ahead of their time and operating on a shoestring budget, their accomplishments were almost miraculous.

    Another fact......George Krems R3 challenger is a BONE STOCK and CERTIFIED engine, shattering the pavement as it rips through the quarter mile in the mid 12s (faster than anything but a select few like the legendary HEMI Cuda). So fast in fact, that the brand X guys pushed Ted for an engine tear down and when it passed, they said the blower was modified. Ted just so happened to have an extra and said go ahead and test the one I'm running......I believe it came through at 4lbs boost.

    Don't get me wrong, modern pistons are OBVIOUSLY better as many other parts such as connecting rods, rod bolts, etc. But that by no means in hell suggest the old parts were subpar, especially for their time. The whole friggin engine was forged for goodness sake........find me any brand X that could boast that in 1963! I will aslo agree with BEZHAWK that it is much better to retro fit a blown engine or block that is missing parts, than to let it drift into obscurity. Part R3 or R3 modified by necessity is good for history as another survives from the limited list, but I would never "BUILD" a modified R3 if the parts were all there, nor would I blast its endurance integrity, as I wouldn't have to due to the fact that these monsters will satisfy 99.9% of the muscle car enthusiasts.

    I have taken my motor to 8000 RPM multiple times, going sideways in my Avanti at 30 MPH and have NEVER had a problem. Ted will tell you he put over 2000 runs down the quarter mile at FULL THROTTLE in the Chicken Hawk over 30 years and only went through 2 engines (the third was a blown remote oil line failure I believe). Most of these runs had twin turbochargers to boot, and he will attest the whole bottom end of the engine was BONE STOCK.

    Again, this forum is great and most all of the guys on here are too. I am normally a lurker, but get so tired of every newfound expert tell it like it is, when the bonafied racers, historians and owners sit back and have to chuckle.

    By the way, as to the oil modifications that are argued didn't exist, no one yet has mentioned that B series engines had smaller oil passages in the block than all other Stude V8s to restrict the flow of oil and keep more oil in the bottom end of that oversized, windaged trayed, oil pan.

    In closing;

    Clones are great!

    Tributes are great!

    Retro mods are great!

    But the "HOLY GRAIL" R3s are the GREATEST! If nothing else, they are certainly the "REAL DEAL"! Built by OUR special vehicle operations team, installed in FACTORY race cars......They are OUR hemi motors, OUR finest hour, OUR Legacy.
    Last edited by R3studee; 07-13-2017, 01:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    I put it in an Avanti, so with that tight tunnel I'd think a Hawk would have more room. Do a google search, I believe the 500, and 600 are the same case, and the difference is the shafts and gearing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stunt
    replied
    Good info, thanks Bezhawk and Jack.

    I've read people saying that the TKO 600 is larger than a T-10 and may require some cutting to fit in a Hawk. Did you find that to be the case, Bez?
    And do you know if you can you get different ratios for the rest of the gears, too, not just O/D?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X