Announcement

Collapse

Get more Tips, Specs and Technical Data!

Did you know... this Forum is a service of the Studebaker Drivers Club? For more technical tips, specifications, history and tech data, visit the Tech Tips page at the SDC Homepage: www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tips.asp
See more
See less

VR4 in a R3?

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

  • Engine: VR4 in a R3?

    Has anyone tried the high boost VR4 in a R3 setup or R2 setup before? Does it work? Is it too much boost for the engine? What would be a decent alternative with extra boost for a SN 60?
    Thanks,
    Vance

  • #2
    it's been done, and the engine can handle the boost just fine. I know of a Stude engine that lived with 40 lbs boost, and got 1100 hp.
    but eventually he did blow it up. Of course there was nothing about that engine that was "stock".
    Speed takes money....how fast do you want to go?
    Bez Auto Alchemy
    573-318-8948
    http://bezautoalchemy.com


    "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

    Comment


    • #3
      It's possible to melt down an R2 or R3 with one long-enough full throttle pull. Those Granatelli runs on the salt were with far-from-production-stock equipment

      Once boost begins to approach effective levels, then the need for intercooling, computer spark control and fuel management become critical. Don't just build higher boost and jam it down a carburetor and fire it with a distributor. Therein lies short engine life.

      FWIW, now that E85 is available, a high-boost Stude should look seriously to that.

      jack vines
      PackardV8

      Comment


      • #4
        A sort-of-related question: I have a '64 R1 Hawk, and a supercharger setup off a '63 R2 Hawk. The R1 engine, of course, has 10.25:1 compression ratio, much higher than the R2's 9:1 C.R. 582 heads. 93 octane 100% gas seems to be adequate for a stock R2. But, what if I put the blower on the R1 engine with the 10.25 C.R. 570 heads? Would racing gas (available nearby) be adequate to prevent detonation? I realize that racing gas is expensive, but I don't drive my Studes very many miles anyway. Am I missing something about raising the C.R. of a supercharged Studebaker V8?
        -Dwight

        Comment


        • #5
          See Packard's advice.

          Also look up the Avanti Kid. Lotsa boost (twin turbos), lotsa horse power, lotsa mph at Bonneville, all in a Studebaker block, heads and crank shaft.
          Can't do it with stock heads, stock intake manifold, stock exhaust, stock cam, no intercooler, no timing control, etc., etc.

          Mike

          Comment


          • #6
            In my case I would be just increasing the compression ratio from 9.0 to 10.25 on an otherwise-stock R2 engine. We all know that an R1 will outrun an R2 up to about 30 mph due to the R1's higher C.R. and lack of parasitic losses of the supercharger. So, just with this one change to an R2 engine (increased C.R.), would I gain what I think I would (about 20 HP)? Or, am I missing something here, like difficulty in trying to force the same quantity of fuel-air charge into a smaller combustion chamber?
            -Dwight

            Comment


            • #7
              High compression ratio's and pressurized cylinders equal broken pistons..!
              Even at lower boost pressures, you'd have to run 113 or so octane gas to keep from detonating the pistons into the oil pan..!

              Of course, there is a way for you to do this...run 100% alcohol in your tank instead of gas. Then you could have both the higher compression ratio and a good running engine. You'd also have an engine that would most probably never over heat in the summer.
              There are a few other concessions to running much over about 30% alcohol though. You'd need to redo your fuel system, run a higher pressure electric fuel pump, an additive on the fuel as a protectant so the alcohol doesn't eat into any bare aluminum parts and lubricate the fuel pump.

              Hmm...nothing is free..!

              Mike

              Comment


              • #8
                Yep, nothing is free--racing gas is expensive and not available very many places.

                Not meaning to digress too much, but.... In the late '60's a local guy had the Studebaker dealer in Winchester, VA install an R4 engine (#B-77, obtained in the crate from Paxton Products) in his '63 Avanti. Well, the car went through a couple more owners, one of whom must have been a cheapskate, because the engine suffered two ruined cylinders. All, or nearly all, the rings were broken. So, someone must have run less than Sunoco 260 gas in it. I suppose running it too hard or too hot could have contributed too. What is it that people don't understand about a 12:1 C.R.? (Then, again, some people just don't care.)
                -Dwight
                Last edited by Dwight FitzSimons; 11-18-2019, 07:27 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dwight FitzSimons View Post
                  In my case I would be just increasing the compression ratio from 9.0 to 10.25 on an otherwise-stock R2 engine. We all know that an R1 will outrun an R2 up to about 30 mph due to the R1's higher C.R. and lack of parasitic losses of the supercharger. So, just with this one change to an R2 engine (increased C.R.), would I gain what I think I would (about 20 HP)? Or, am I missing something here, like difficulty in trying to force the same quantity of fuel-air charge into a smaller combustion chamber?
                  -Dwight
                  Dwight WCD re built my R1 4 speed, later at the national meet a friendly little talk resulted in my R1 VS an R2. To make a long story short that R2 was not able to catch me up till just about 60 mph on two "runs". I do not remember what ratio rear end the R2 had, mine is 3:54.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dwight FitzSimons View Post
                    Yep, nothing is free--racing gas is expensive and not available very many places.

                    Not meaning to digress too much, but.... In the late '60's a local guy had the Studebaker dealer in Winchester, VA install an R4 engine (obtained in the crate from Paxton Products) in his '63 Avanti. Well, the car went through a couple more owners, one of whom must have been a cheapskate, because the engine suffered two ruined cylinders. All, or nearly all, the rings were broken. So, someone must have run less than Sunoco 260 gas in it. I suppose running it too hard or too hot could have contributed too. What is it that people don't understand about a 12:1 C.R.? (Then, again, some people just don't care.)
                    -Dwight
                    Dwight, sadly SunOco race gas is no longer available via pumps at gas stations on Long Island, save for at the track out in Riverhead. I am however, still "enjoying" the thrill of leaded gas by purchasing cases of TEL blended in qt cans "Octane Supreme". I can not imagine an R4 engine running today, not with 12 to 1 compression. Indeed, Dave Thibeault built an R4 from collected parts over the last 50 years.....save for the heads.........even the "Thibeault meister" knows 12 to 1 is just impossible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      12 to 1 is NOT impossible to run at all, as long as you have the right fuel..! As noted, you just need to dig deep into your wallet. Just how do you think various race engines run ?
                      VP fuels is a major NHRA fuel, can be bought at many locations. Sunoco is still available, and can be bought by the can or even barrel.
                      VP's C14 or C16 should work quite well at 12 to one with iron heads.

                      I for one would not cheap out with additives. One they are minimum concentrates, most don't follow the instructions and use the cheap gas as the base..! 99% (or more) do NOT work as noted. This info is all over the web.

                      Mike

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not sure if I would trust putting in a VR4 from what I see here. What others could work and not be too much for a stable R3?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lowrey View Post
                          Not sure if I would trust putting in a VR4 from what I see here. What others could work and not be too much for a stable R3?
                          It's complicated. Centrifugal supercharger manifold boost is a function of engine displacement, RPM, manifold and head flow, camshaft timing, the crankshaft pulley to supercharger pulley ratio.

                          Yes, VR4 boost can be regulated by pulley choice. It's not a fixed number.

                          No, then it wouldn't be worth the extra cost and effort over a typical Paxton.

                          Maybe, define the goals and the budget. That helps plan the build.

                          jack vines
                          PackardV8

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If we had a wider selection of camshaft grinds, the higher compressions would be more doable. Closing the intake valve later lowers the effective compression ratio as less mixture is trapped in the cylinder. I have done this on many high compression brand x and y engines. Richard Paul in his recollections in the latest TW stated that restriction to airflow in the Studebaker cyl. head allowed higher compressions, however in his racing days he had other camshaft options from Isky and others.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rapid View Post
                              If we had a wider selection of camshaft grinds, the higher compressions would be more doable. Closing the intake valve later lowers dynamic compression ratio as less mixture is trapped in the cylinder. I have done this on many high compression brand x and y engines.
                              For true, longer intake duration lowers effective compression; it's especially effective on large cubic inch engines. It also kills the low end power and unfortunately on the small displacement Stude, we don't have any extra.
                              Originally posted by Rapid View Post
                              Richard Paul in his recollections in the latest TW stated that restriction to airflow in the Studebaker cyl. head allowed higher compressions, however in his racing days he had other camshaft options from Isky and others.
                              Iskenderian still has the masters for every Studebaker cam they ever made.

                              Richard also said the optional 288-degree R3 cam never worked well for him, so longer duration isn't a cure-all.

                              Maybe what would work well is a current-technology high-intensity roller cam. It gives more area under the lift curve without increasing duration.

                              Maybe, higher boost through an intercooler and E85 fuel might be one way to run high compression in an iron head.

                              Your opinions and results may vary.

                              jack vines
                              PackardV8

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X