Roller Rockers

[345 DeSoto]

" I'd love it if someone would come up with reliable hydraulic lifters though."

Hydraulic lifter cam lobes are ground quite different than solid lifer lobes. Hydraulic lifters are quite easily found, which could be used in the 289 engines.

[wittsend]

The phrase, “Who would have thought the answer had so many questions” seems to apply here. Typically (on a street engine) a higher ratio rocker was used as a easy way of increasing the amount of air/fuel into the engine without having to replace the cam/lifters. And in most cases it was probably a ”you get what you paid for” result. The solutions to Studebaker specific issues presented here seem cost prohibitive to the gained result.

I also function is a Ford (Lima) 2.3 engine world. There is a Volvo 2.3 cylinder head that some have adapted to the Ford engine. But by the time one welds on an extension to the head, machines that and the bolt holes, modifies the water passages, gathers an odd mixture of crank/cam pulleys, belts and tensioners it begs the question of why not just install the whole Volvo engine? For the man with the resources, skills etc. these types of alterations are a noble pursuit in intrigue. For the less capable masses - less so.

It would be interesting to know if the 1.5 ratio and a higher lift cam is any less stress than a stock (lesser lift cam) and a 1.7 ratio rocker (obtaining an equal lift). At the cam I’m thinking likely the same. At the rocker fulcrum - possibly not.

[PackardV8]

My thoughts are more along the lines of maintaining 1.5 regrind lifts but using 1.7's to move center lines.

Agree. If there is a demonstrable advantage in changing the LCA, using a higher ratio rocker could maintain the lift when lobe material is lost.
________________

Yes, RR does not change valve timing when measured at .050" lobe lift. With 1.5 RR, you have .075" valve lift at .050" LL.

Using .075" valve lift as the new timing measurement, a 1.7 RR corresponds to a .044 LL which occurs sooner and later from the 0.050" LL points. This is an increase in real duration at the valve.

In a technical discussion, correct terminology does matter. One more time, increasing the rocker ratio does not change the duration or the timing of the open and close. It does increase the rate of change of the valve events and the net lift and thus increases the area under the lift curve. They still occur within the same open/close duration, but yes, the .050" (and .200") point is reached sooner. If one chooses to measure duration at those lift points, there would be change.

It's similar to the differences quoted for solid lifter versus hydraulic lifter cams. It requires comparing the area under the lift curves, as the duration numbers are not directly comparable.

jack vines

[gordr]

Seems to me there is only so much that can be done with stock Studebaker heads. I'd like to see someone come out with overhead camshaft heads, in either 2-valve or 4-valve configuration. With modern CNC mills now available, it ought to be possible to make built-up heads from billet aluminum, with combustion chamber and half the water jacket milled out of one slab, and cam carrier and valve guides in the top slab.

[PackardV8]

Seems to me there is only so much that can be done with stock Studebaker heads. I'd like to see someone come out with overhead camshaft heads, in either 2-valve or 4-valve configuration. With modern CNC mills now available, it ought to be possible to make built-up heads from billet aluminum, with combustion chamber and half the water jacket milled out of one slab, and cam carrier and valve guides in the top slab.

Agree, Gord, there is only so much which can be done with Studebaker heads and cam cores. It's just not possible to make enough flow or a cam profile which will be competitive with 21st century engines with aftermarket support.

The dream of DOHC heads is as old as the Stude V8 block. You are no doubt familiar with the '53 Indy project.



And yes, it's just time and money. J. C. Agajanian paid the equivalent of $2,131,053.37 to get the above designed and built. He never followed through with testing or production; figure that much more again to bring it to market. How many would we have to sell to recoup the $4,000,000 investment?

GM is debuting a new aluminum 4.2 liter DOHC V8; they'll probably be available for less than $20,000.

jack vines

[tomhoo]

Forgot about the lash. It affects lift and duration more than Rratio.

[Noxnabaker]

I remember a thread last winter about MoPar hydraulic roller lifters might being possible for Studebaker V8, it was the time when I cleaned mine from a "new" 318.
But that might not be an interesting input here & now?

[PackardV8]

I remember a thread last winter about MoPar hydraulic roller lifters might being possible for Studebaker V8, it was the time when I cleaned mine from a "new" 318.
But that might not be an interesting input here & now?

Yes, Mopar lifters fit the bores. The expensive part is in the retainers which keep them from rotating, the custom length pushrods and that the Stude cam core doesn't have enough meat on it to accept a roller grind.

jack vines

[345 DeSoto]

"Stude cam core doesn't have enough meat on it to accept a roller grind"

Weld and Regrind? The only limiting factor would be the cam bearing bore diameters. I got my Mopar 318 LA hydraulics from Lunati. The anti rotators are integral to the design. Only extra parts needed were pushrods from Smith Brothers, and Cam from Donny Johanson. This photo is of the 291 Blown DeSoto in the car in my Avatar.
Since the Stude 289 isn't a "High Winder" I'd go for an "RV" type, low end, high torque grind...

[StudeRich]

Are you kidding? A small bore Hemi Desoto in a MERCEDES????? Or is it a Rolls?

[lschuc]

Something to think (hard) about.

Interesting note - I e-mailed the guys in Australia twice about building a 1.5, or even a 1.6 ratio rocker arm. No return e-mail either time.

Mike

I too have emailed the Austrailia company several time seeking more information an details, but never received a return emailer either. Maybe they only built one set and gave up?

[GrumpyOne]

For most Studes, other than possibly racing applications, I see no added benefit. I'd love it if someone would come up with reliable hydraulic lifters though. I recall there was a cam & hydraulic lifter kit available, a couple of decades ago, by Lionel Stone. But I heard there were serious problems with that kit. Would love to say good by to valve adjustments, that always seem to come about waay to soon.

Most of the problems with stuff from Lionel Stone was Lionel Stone. Less than honest to begin with, items poorly engineered and sourced and even original stuff misrepresented.

I learned my lesson back around 2000...

[345 DeSoto]

STUDERICH - OMG!!! Wrong Avatar! The one on THIS sight is my Rolls. THIS Avatar is from another Web Sight I frequent...the engine I'm talking about with the Roller lifters...

[tomhoo]

Not a Hi Winder???? I rode in John Erb's R3 without the supercharger and it pulled like a banshee to 7800 and would have gone much further but he had to shift due to valve float and ring flutter issues. And I think that R3 NA would have beaten my R2 Super Lark in its best street racing trim which was 13.7/103 - enough to beat every street car that showed up at the local hot spot.

Much stronger top end than any of the SBC's that I knew of - it revved higher than Z28's and more torque than 350's.

That ride is what set me on the path to get an R3.

[OzRog]

Hi guys. I called Yellaterra about 10 years ago inquiring about that type of roller rocker set up for the Studebaker. There was 2 reasons for calling them. 1, was that they are local to me. And the second reason was that they made a Chrysler shaft mounted roller rocker set up. I gather they modified the Chrysler units they make. The engineer I talked to years ago said it should be a simple case of money. Rog.