Flow questions

[VtMike]

At the risk of beating a dead horse into oblivion . . .

I just found an interesting video from 2011 on Youtube and it showed some flow testing of Stude engine parts. The guy who did the test spoke to "Jim" and it said the test was on Jim's Bonneville engine components, including r3 cylinder heads, and the Bonneville intake manifold and carb.

Here is link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijfh1oLcTls

Anyway, as I understood it, they did a test of the r3 heads without the intake attached, and came up with a flow of 212, which sounds about as good as it gets with Stude heads, if I remember the prior flow discussions corrrectly.

The second flow test was with the intake attached and the carb mounted, and the reading they got was 160.

I don't know how to interpret those test results, and would appreciate feedback on that issue.

Looks to me like, in order to take advantage of his r3 heads, Jim needed to find a way to improve the flow of his intake manifold and carb.

I was wondering if that was true of the factory r3 engines? Did the r3 engines use a standard Stude intake manifold? If not, what intake was used on r3 engines?
Did the intake manifold and carb on r3 engines match the capacity of the r3 heads?

This is the first time I have heard of flow tests that combine the cylinder heads and the intake components. Seems like an excellent way to evaluate whether engine components are a good match. Are there other test like this on Stude engines?

What is the best option for an intake manifold if you are building an r3 clone engine . . . which would fit under the hood of an Avanti?

Thanks, Mike

[PackardV8]

Yes, Mike, Jim Lange has for many years been the man on high horsepower turbocharged Studes .

No, flow testing the entire intake system is not new news. Serious racers have long understood it's the total combination which determines the flow capacity of an engine. More than fifty years ago, Smokey Yunick built a flow tester which used a forty horsepower electric motor to drive a GMC 6-71 supercharger as the air mover to pull air through the carb, intake, heads, into the cylinder and out the oil pan.

As you might expect, the Studebaker V8 being exceptionally tall for the tiny displacement, an intake with a sufficiently low profile which will fit under the hood of an Avanti will be a restriction on normally aspirated horsepower. That's why the supercharger.

As to the best R3 intake choice, what is your definition of "clone"? If one wants correct external appearance, there's a few of the old Lionel Stone aluminum intakes still out there. Some fit better than others

More recently, Evans has produced a single plane aluminum intake, the lower profile version supposedly will fit under the Avanti hood.

If one is patient, Jeff Rice will machine off the bottom and weld adapter plates to any of several small block Mopar intakes to fit under the hood.

Just know that there's going to be the tradeoff. If one loves Studebakers for the classically beautiful styling, staying under the hood is a must. If one is determined to have the ultimate Stude V8 horsepower, a high-rise intake protruding through the hood is a must.

jack vines

[RadioRoy]

Yes, Mike, Jim Lange has for many years been the man on high horsepower turbocharged Studes .

Jack, do you mean turbocharged or supercharged?

[PackardV8]

Jack, do you mean turbocharged or supercharged?

Jim Lange has done some supercharged engines , but his Bonneville engines have been turbocharged for the past twenty years. He fabricated custom plumbing and an airbox intake.

jack vines

[VtMike]

Jack - thanks very much for the info. It looked like the intake manifold and cylinder heads on Jim's engine were not well matched, but I am guessing I am missing something. Does the addition of a supercharger or a turbo do something to correct that?

My dream r3 clone engine would resemble the appearance of an original r3, but with fuel injection and electronic ignition and other modern features I could afford. Hoping it would have similar power to the original r3 while retaining decent street manners.

Another question . . . the guys on Hot Rod TV say that there is a world of difference between modern turbo and supercharging and what was available back in the day. I would consider that if it would make a huge difference on the r3 clone. What kind of difference would a modern unit make?

Thanks again, Mike

[PackardV8]

The McCulloch supercharger, which evolved into the Paxton used on the R3, was designed for smaller engines. It runs out of breath at higher RPMs and on engines 300" and larger.

So yes, the current generation of superchargers are designed for big inches. A Studebaker can never get near their limits. As a WAG, with EFI and digital ignition and a modern intercooled supercharger one might expect 25% more power than a stock R3.

But then, they won't look like a Paxton and thus not like an R3.

FWIW, I've got a custom aluminum plate mounting plate which bolts to the front of the block and accepts a Novi supercharger. I've been saving it for a high-horsepower Stude build which hasn't happened thus far.

jack vines

[Mike Van Veghten]

Mike

When I was head originally heavy into porting Stude heads and trying MANY different things, I also had a couple of intake manifolds flowed, as attached to the cylinder heads, with high flowing ports. The most accurate way of testing an intake is with the manifold, bolted to the head. Also, I had a Holley carburetor base bolted to one of the manifolds. On top of either the manifold or the carburetor base was a ring of clay to provide a rounded surface for the air to flow smoothly into the manifold.

There is a couple of us that have a custom made, single plain manifold done by a long time Stude guy a few years back. Unfortunately, way too many considerations were made to have the manifold usable for the Avanti body. This crippled the manifold...severely. Four ports flow, almost...ok. The other four ports, are terrible. And no shape changing by me did much to help.

As Jack notes, I also have a couple of Jeff Rice manifolds. Single and dual plain. I have not had them flow tested at all.
This is unfortunate on my end, as these manifolds, as delivered, have MANY more hours of work that is required for a proper flowing intake. Though they do...I believe, have the potential of flowing as well as my heads or anyone else's heads.
See here - https://public.fotki.com/-Mike-/stud...int-manifolds/
See pictures #3, #4, #5. for the things that I needed two repair (epoxy filled). The other Rice manifolds aren't QUITE as bad as this one, but they are still a LONG way from being ready to run.
Double click on the small picture to enlarge photos.

No other intake that I've seen is capable of keeping up with my or a couple others heads, flow wise. I've even found a way to make the valve lift "midrange" flow, outflow most, if not all commonly available manifolds.
Well, that may...not be completely accurate, as one guy that I know welded up a cross ram intake that uses two Weber carburetors. I don't know if he had that flow tested.

NOTE - All of my head work has been done on standard heads (non-R3), and will easily flow to 212 cfm, with a large jump in mid lift flow as compared to most others.
I would think the R3 heads should work better than any standard head.

One guy used to make R3 clone intake manifolds. As far as I know, those have dried up, and so far, no one has stepped up to continue them.

Mike

[VtMike]

OK - sounds like the tall Stude engine combined with the low clearance of the Avanti hood are serious obstacles when it comes to getting good flow from an intake manifold.

Here is a question that occurs to me only because I have no idea what I am talking about. If you weren't worried about making your high performance Stude engine look like one from the 1960s, would a changeover to fuel injection provide an opportunity to avoid the difficulties involved in a traditional intake manifold for a carb?

[64Avanti]

Jack - thanks very much for the info. It looked like the intake manifold and cylinder heads on Jim's engine were not well matched, but I am guessing I am missing something. Does the addition of a supercharger or a turbo do something to correct that?

That was not Jim Langes engine and manifold. That was another Jim.

[Mike Van Veghten]

No.
Flow is flow, no matter how you cut it.
If a small passage restricts the flow, it makes no difference how you introduce the fuel. It's still a small passage.
Jack Vines has been working on an idea for a while now to try to make a stock intake work well enough for ported heads. As of this writing, I don't think he's completed and or tested the idea yet.

Now that said, you MAY...get a very small, slight bit more air flow if you modify a given iron manifold to use fuel injectors as assembled into bungs welded into the manifold, right at the manifold to cylinder head interface with the injector aimed at the valve. But as I said, it would be a very small increase, because there is no fuel taking up space in the runners. NOT, in my opinion worth the effort or the money required to make it work.

Still, one current method of putting air into the heads is one of Jeff's modified Chrysler manifolds. During the construction, the way that the Chrysler manifold is machined to attain the correct angle, then weld on the port plate, there is huge pockets created in the runners. This is HORRIBLE for smooth air-fuel flow.
You need to go in and fill these hole/pockets with a quality epoxy (marine). Overfill the runners, then grind to fit the gasket, just like porting the manifold runners.

The current "BEST" method of helping well ported heads work, is to go to the Studebaker Racing Site. In that forum, there is a guy that has made up adapters to use a Chevrolet intake manifold. Similar to using the Chrysler manifold, the runners will easily flow enough air / fuel to serve a well ported head. Just be careful and do go TOO WILD..! A good dual plain should work just fine, with no epoxy filling required.
Though they could use some time on a mill to reduce their weight..! And be prepared, they aren't cheap.

If you looked at my picture site above, that's what I'm using to install the cross-ram onto my Stude engine, is the adapters noted above. That's a highly modified Chevy intake ready to bolt onto my Stude engine.

Mike

[DEEPNHOCK]

This video is of Tom Covington doing the flow bench work.
Tom has been a Studebaker racer for decades.
His knowledge of Stude performance engine work is immense.
BTW, I know the guy that took that video.
Jeff

[DEEPNHOCK]

Your opinion, right Mike?
You have one of the earliest aluminum conversion intakes I ever did.
The later ones are a lot better. That 'pocket' you hate has been reduced greatly.
All of the intake styles I have done have been flow bench baseline tested, including some aftermarket styles currently available. No marketing hype or anything. Just knowledge.
Also, those SBC adapters you mention. I helped in the basic design for those on another project with Jon Kammer.
Yes, they work, but they will also bring height issues to a Stude project.
I appreciate your knowledge. Just make sure you are up to speed on what you continually bring back up on forums.
What are the flow bench numbers on your work? Just curious.
Reminds me of a quote I once heard. "You'll never make yourself look big by trying to make someone else look small".
I've never condemned your work.
Jeff

<snip>
Still, one current method of putting air into the heads is one of Jeff's modified Chrysler manifolds. During the construction, the way that the Chrysler manifold is machined to attain the correct angle, then weld on the port plate, there is huge pockets created in the runners. This is HORRIBLE for smooth air-fuel flow.
You need to go in and fill these hole/pockets with a quality epoxy (marine). Overfill the runners, then grind to fit the gasket, just like porting the manifold runners.

The current "BEST" method of helping well ported heads work, is to go to the Studebaker Racing Site. In that forum, there is a guy that has made up adapters to use a Chevrolet intake manifold. Similar to using the Chrysler manifold, the runners will easily flow enough air / fuel to serve a well ported head. Just be careful and do go TOO WILD..! A good dual plain should work just fine, with no epoxy filling required.
Though they could use some time on a mill to reduce their weight..! And be prepared, they aren't cheap.
<snip>
Mike

[DEEPNHOCK]

Clark, You ask good questions. The only dumb question is the one that does not get asked.
I can provide you 'some' info to the questions you ask. Some of those answers bring more questions.
Will answer in bold in this reply.
Jeff

At the risk of beating a dead horse into oblivion . . .
I just found an interesting video from 2011 on Youtube and it showed some flow testing of Stude engine parts. The guy who did the test spoke to "Jim" and it said the test was on Jim's Bonneville engine components, including r3 cylinder heads, and the Bonneville intake manifold and carb.

Jim McCuan had a set of Nash Solanki modified heads that had the ports raised to R3 style.
That is what Tom Covington flowed.

Here is link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijfh1oLcTls

BTW, I took that video at Tom's place.

Anyway, as I understood it, they did a test of the r3 heads without the intake attached and came up with a flow of 212, which sounds about as good as it gets with Stude heads, if I remember the prior flow discussions correctly.

Be careful when using flow numbers as absolute. Lots of variables between machine, weather, and operator.
Most head porters flow without an intake, but with a radius block on manifold entry.
Flowing with a manifold helps give you manifold flow efficiency, and helps to show flow losses/gains as a total.

The second flow test was with the intake attached and the carb mounted, and the reading they got was 160.

I don't know how to interpret those test results, and would appreciate feedback on that issue.

Looks to me like, in order to take advantage of his r3 heads, Jim needed to find a way to improve the flow of his intake manifold and carb.

Those clone R3 style heads are now on David Parris's (dormant) land speed Avanti engine. Jim is out of the picture with those.

I was wondering if that was true of the factory r3 engines? Did the r3 engines use a standard Stude intake manifold? If not, what intake was used on r3 engines?
Did the intake manifold and carb on r3 engines match the capacity of the r3 heads?

The intake manifold was different on the R3. Port runners were different out at the ends.
The 'clone' of that intake was made by Lionel Stone in the R3 port spec, and later with an R1/R2 port spec.
I am not privy to the 'history' of that intake, but the R1/R2 Lionel Stone intake has been flow bench tested on Tom Covingtons flow bench. (opinion) No, the intake was not 'maximized' to the head potential. It was just a copy of the OE intake.

This is the first time I have heard of flow tests that combine the cylinder heads and the intake components. Seems like an excellent way to evaluate whether engine components are a good match. Are there other tests like this on Stude engines?

Yes. Others have done this work. Usually, the flow work is done to the head(s) to maximize the parameters of the head.
Then, the intake can be done. This is a LOT of work, and hard to get 'balance', especially on a dual plane intake. This is one reason tunnel rams and fabricated manifolds are popular. Easier to find that runner to runner balance.

What is the best option for an intake manifold if you are building an r3 clone engine . . . which would fit under the hood of an Avanti?

Good question to ask.
I am sure you will get some good answers to your question.
I have some additional info and an opinion about this question (cylinder heads and intakes).
PM me if interested.

Thanks

[Mike Van Veghten]

This video is of Tom Covington doing the flow bench work.
Tom has been a Studebaker racer for decades.
His knowledge of Stude performance engine work is immense.
BTW, I know the guy that took that video.
Jeff

Jeff -

I have three...THREE, of your manifolds (two dual plain's and one single plain). So...unless you purposely sent me three garbage manifolds, they ALL three have the same problem. Granted and I believe I noted such, that the manifold shown in my pictures, that this is the worst of the three (thanks for that by the way !), that all three have a very bad manifold to plate matchup, port wise. All three NEED epoxy for them to flow well.
When was the last time you bought a proper intake manifold with big pockets and cavities in the port runners..? I'll bet...you never have.

It's "not" my opinion that big pockets in the runners are bad for flow, that is fact. ANYONE in the intake or cylinder head building or porting industry will tell you the same thing, the runners should provide a smooth, clean path to the cylinder head, not the Rocky Mountain Crossing.

And for what it's worth, I'll bet that I have about as much time porting and flow testing said ports as Tom. Back a few years ago, we had direct dialog about each others work and what it showed on the bench. By the way, the numbers that I achieved were as taken on a professional flow bench done by professional people.
NOT...taking anything away from Toms work, at all. Just that the flow numbers that he's attained vs. mine...CANNOT be compared (if toms is still using his flow bench from a few years back, upgrades or not).

So yes Jeff, much more than...just an opinion. And I believe, inside, you know that.

Mike

[DEEPNHOCK]

OK. Great. I have a couple of dissatisfied customers out there.
Send them back and I will gladly refund your money and you can build your own.
Go for it, dude.
Jeff

Jeff -
I have three...THREE, of your manifolds (two dual plain's and one single plain). So...unless you purposely sent me three garbage manifolds, they ALL three have the same problem. Granted and I believe I noted such, that the manifold shown in my pictures, that this is the worst of the three (thanks for that by the way !), that all three have a very bad manifold to plate matchup, port wise. All three NEED epoxy for them to flow well.
When was the last time you bought a proper intake manifold with big pockets and cavities in the port runners..? I'll bet...you never have.

It's "not" my opinion that big pockets in the runners are bad for flow, that is fact. ANYONE in the intake or cylinder head building or porting industry will tell you the same thing, the runners should provide a smooth, clean path to the cylinder head, not the Rocky Mountain Crossing.

And for what it's worth, I'll bet that I have about as much time porting and flow testing said ports as Tom. Back a few years ago, we had direct dialog about each others work and what it showed on the bench. By the way, the numbers that I achieved were as taken on a professional flow bench done by professional people.
NOT...taking anything away from Toms work, at all. Just that the flow numbers that he's attained vs. mine...CANNOT be compared (if toms is still using his flow bench from a few years back, upgrades or not).

So yes Jeff, much more than...just an opinion. And I believe, inside, you know that.

Mike