R4 "Tribute" progress

[Randy Ridenour]

Bezhawk,

Your work looks great and I couldn't care less about an engine tag. I think from this point forward anyone posting criticizing messages should be required to post images of their own cars or work for commentary.

Randy

[bezhawk]

What is an R4? Numbers? This one has every bit the performance (even more) than an original numbered block.....same bore, same stroke same cylinder head ports (better flowing in fact) same valves, better cam (more lift), better pistons (lighter, usable on pump gas) Original True Studebaker made R4 intake, original numbers matchingR4 carbs (modified by me for far better throttle response, and usable cfm).
Original number R4 to me means it's a crap engine, not streetable, not track usable, and prone to blow up when they started to make power. They were in fact set up just like a 365 horse 327, but on a smaller displacement and longer stroke! The original Forged True Pistons were so heavy that the connecting rods broke when the rpms came into the power curve of the cam. They were not successful new, and if built to same as stock specs would not be successful now.

[SN-60]

What is an R4? Numbers? This one has every bit the performance (even more) than an original numbered block.....same bore, same stroke same cylinder head ports (better flowing in fact) same valves, better cam (more lift), better pistons (lighter, usable on pump gas) Original True Studebaker made R4 intake, original numbers matchingR4 carbs (modified by me for far better throttle response, and usable cfm).
Original number R4 to me means it's a crap engine, not streetable, not track usable, and prone to blow up when they started to make power. They were in fact set up just like a 365 horse 327, but on a smaller displacement and longer stroke! The original Forged True Pistons were so heavy that the connecting rods broke when the rpms came into the power curve of the cam. They were not successful new, and if built to same as stock specs would not be successful now.

Well, if You really feel this way, then You should DEFINITELY tag the engine so anyone who may be interested in buying this Avanti in the future will know that it isn't powered by a "crap" original Studebaker R4 engine, but rather by one of Your "improved" versions!

[SN-60]

Bezhawk,

Your work looks great and I couldn't care less about an engine tag. I think from this point forward anyone posting criticizing messages should be required to post images of their own cars or work for commentary.

Randy

Randy, If You're possibly referring to Me, You may want to check out the 2013 'SNAP-ON TOOLS' "SNAPSHOTS" Calendar (August) Have a nice day!

[bezhawk]

Well, if You really feel this way, then You should DEFINITELY tag the engine so anyone who may be interested in buying this Avanti in the future will know that it isn't powered by a "crap" original Studebaker R4 engine, but rather by one of Your "improved" versions!

Technology has improved in 50 years. believe it or not. If Studebaker stayed in buisness another year they would have pulled the R4 from market and tried to distance themselves as far as they could from it's reputation of blowing up .
Like I mentioned in earlier posts, I didn't build this engine. (you seem to pick and choose the facts that suit you and your arguments). I'm not here to argue, just stating well documented well known facts.
Ask Richard Bennet III, what he thinks of R4's

[SN-60]

Technology has improved in 50 years. believe it or not. If Studebaker stayed in buisness another year they would have pulled the R4 from market and tried to distance themselves as far as they could from it's reputation of blowing up .
Like I mentioned in earlier posts, I didn't build this engine. (you seem to pick and choose the facts that suit you and your arguments). I'm not here to argue, just stating well documented well known facts.
Ask Richard Bennet III, what he thinks of R4's

Don't need to..I already know. And I'm not arguing with You here.....On the contrary......I'm offering a common sense suggestion that could be of aid to someone in the future. bez, I think, (and a few others do also), that We don't 'own' these cars...but instead We are temporary 'custodians' of them. You may or may not understand what I mean.

[Chicken Hawk]

I don't want to get in the middle of arguements here but where did this idea of R 4 engines blowing up come from? I didn't think there were enough of them made to warrant this unless every one made blew up. The ONLY difference I think between the R 3 and R 4 is the pistons that raised the compression to 12 to 1 with no supercharger but an extra AFB.

If thinking the compression caused them to blow up, the R3 with the supercharger has more compression than 12 to 1 when the supercharger starts putting out boost.

Maybe one (or more?) blew up due to not using good enough fuel? But the R 3 would need just as good of fuel?

Ted

[SN-60]

Ted,----bezhawk mentioned another difference.....The Stude R3 engine uses different cylinder head bolts than the R4 engine.

[bezhawk]

Just the front studs where the mounting bracket for the supercharger bolts. But you knew that! They blew because of the rods broke because of the pop up pistons were heavy and put too much stress on the rods when people revved them to 7000 rpm . I have heard of at least three with rods out the side. The carbs were set up horribly and to get all eight barrels flowing you have to rev the hell out of a stock R4.
They were basically two 625 cfm stock carbs one without a choke. Does anyone think 1250 cfm will work on 304.5 cu in?????? Do the math.
Perhaps the ones that blew up were poorly built by owners, or perhaps they were later editions where they ran out of R3/R4 rods, and used stock ones. Who knows, but three or four blowing out of a dozen or so is not a good thing! There is no need to defend poor engineering no matter who did it!

Ed your idea of making a plate has merit from several stand points. It documents the parts inside for future reference, and possible parts sources, and it's bragging rights to the owner, and it's a marketing tool for the builder. All good things. Also without documentation, future owners may scrap rare engines when they can't figure out what parts to order to fix or maintain them. I give full documentation and receipts and a copy scanned to cd on every build, along with pictures. I think it is good business to do so.

[plwindish]

Seems like a lot of hullabaloo over 50 year old engines to me. Ever developing technology from 1963 on has helped all the remaining original Stude engines gain a lot more power and reliability. Gasoline and other conditions for the motors today are much different than back in the day they were made. Brad and other engine builders have helped the original and tribute R4's run and be much more reliable today than in 63 and 64. If you are so hung up on whether its "original" or not, then get the very few original R 4's and R5's , put them on engine stands and get them on display in the Studebaker National Museum. From what I've heard about them, they were too finicky to run down the street back in 63 and 64.

[SN-60]

To: bezhawk,-----Thanks for considering My idea. Once again, something like this I.D. plate may help a future Stude buyer/owner avoid confusion.

[SN-60]

To: plwindish,------Sorry, but I believe the point that I was trying to make went right over Your head.......But that's OK, bezhawk got it, and I still appreciate Your input.

[Randy Ridenour]

Randy, If You're possibly referring to Me, You may want to check out the 2013 'SNAP-ON TOOLS' "SNAPSHOTS" Calendar (August) Have a nice day!

SN-60, Sorry, I'm sure you have a nice car but the fact that it is on a calendar doesn't impress me. The point that I was trying to make is that most member posting pictures of their projects or completed cars don't appreciate the criticism that a handful of members dish out from time to time. Put yourself in their place and I think you would be offended too. I understand that you were trying to make a point concerning authenticity but the manner in which you attempted to make that point reduced you message's effectiveness. The original poster wasn't advertising the car or engine as being original and more importantly didn't solicit a critique by the forum members. He was simply sharing progress on a project that he had every right to be proud of. Everyone needs to remember that we are all stewards of this forum, the SDC club, as well as the Studebaker legacy and need to project a positive and welcoming image to potential forum members and Studebaker enthusiasts. If we fail in this mission, no one including me can complain about dwindling membership or lack of younger/new members. Our destiny is in our own hands.

Randy

[SN-60]

Randy,----With all due respect-?, You still sound (to Me anyway) like You feel that You must defend bezhawk.....Hey, I think that He is capable of defending Himself if it were necessary....but it isn't, since no one, including Myself, IS criticizing Him. As You just said, the 'original poster' (bezhawk) didn't say that this engine was an original Studebaker R4. What You can't seem to understand is that He didn't say that it WASN'T an original Studebaker R4 engine! Get it?.......That was the issue. bezhawk got My point, and added the word 'TRIBUTE' to His thread heading. Your not being impressed about My '63 Avanti being included on this years "SNAP-ON TOOLS' Calendar is of no concern to Me. But don't forget that YOU rather crudely asked to see a photo of My car.....Your saying that the Calendar picture "Doesn't impress You" REALLY reduced the effectiveness of Your message.

[bezhawk]

Really Ed, I'm never offended with discussion of Studes. Heck I have always enjoyed learning new things about them. If ones point of view differs from mine......well they certainly have that right.
Please call me Brad.