Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

cam recommendations

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 64studeavanti View Post

    I am confused. Going from the composite head gaskets to the shim is the same as milling the heads .030. Why wouldn't that require different intake manifold and new pushrods?
    I doubt it's a problem with either gasket, but using thin gaskets AND milling the heads is where my problems began. I have mentioned this particular 259 several times here over the years due to its oddity. Long story, but when I rebuilt it in the late 1980s I noticed the pistons sat a little deeper in the holes. That was my first 259 rebuild and I bought the pistons by phone from Mr Snearly, an aging Stude vendor in Colorado. I noticed the motor was not as peppy after the rebuild, and did what I could to bump the compression, including shaving the heads to the max a local machinist recommended. I recall .030", but maybe it was more. I recall there were also problems with the end bolt holes in the intake, and believe I filed them slightly oblong. At any rate, I ran the motor in the desert most of its life after that rebuild and it ran cool as a cucumber, but never got quite the MPG it did during the 100,000 miles or so before the rebuild. Later, I also rebuilt a 63 Cruiser's 289 with parts from Mr Snearly, and he sent flat top pistons. That Cruiser was very peppy after that rebuild, but ran a bit warm when I installed AC. Hindsight is 20/20, and we live and learn. Today I am pretty sure both the 259 and 289 were rebuilt with 289 R1 pistons, thanks to Mr Snearly's advanced age and my ignorance. Back then, not sure I'd even heard of an R1, or if I knew the difference. I figured the 259 pistons were for a truck or something, and the flat top 289 pistons were just for more zip.

    The 259 was in the 62GT for about 200,000 miles total, and I have driven the car around 310,000 miles since 1985. Toward 100,000 miles on that 259's last rebuild, each time I adjusted the valves I wondered if I'd be able to adjust them again next time, as some of the adjustment screws (for the exhaust valves) became tighter each time, and the ends of the studs came near flush with tops of the rockers. One of these days I am gonna tear that 259 down, just to confirm what I am 99 percent sure of, re: the pistons. For now, it sits in a corner of the garage. I don't care if you believe me or not. Heck, sometimes I don't even believe it myself. LOL

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JoeHall View Post

      I doubt it's a problem with either gasket, but using thin gaskets AND milling the heads is where my problems began. I have mentioned this particular 259 several times here over the years due to its oddity. Long story, but when I rebuilt it in the late 1980s I noticed the pistons sat a little deeper in the holes. That was my first 259 rebuild and I bought the pistons by phone from Mr Snearly, an aging Stude vendor in Colorado. I noticed the motor was not as peppy after the rebuild, and did what I could to bump the compression, including shaving the heads to the max a local machinist recommended. I recall .030", but maybe it was more. I recall there were also problems with the end bolt holes in the intake, and believe I filed them slightly oblong. At any rate, I ran the motor in the desert most of its life after that rebuild and it ran cool as a cucumber, but never got quite the MPG it did during the 100,000 miles or so before the rebuild. Later, I also rebuilt a 63 Cruiser's 289 with parts from Mr Snearly, and he sent flat top pistons. That Cruiser was very peppy after that rebuild, but ran a bit warm when I installed AC. Hindsight is 20/20, and we live and learn. Today I am pretty sure both the 259 and 289 were rebuilt with 289 R1 pistons, thanks to Mr Snearly's advanced age and my ignorance. Back then, not sure I'd even heard of an R1, or if I knew the difference. I figured the 259 pistons were for a truck or something, and the flat top 289 pistons were just for more zip.

      The 259 was in the 62GT for about 200,000 miles total, and I have driven the car around 310,000 miles since 1985. Toward 100,000 miles on that 259's last rebuild, each time I adjusted the valves I wondered if I'd be able to adjust them again next time, as some of the adjustment screws (for the exhaust valves) became tighter each time, and the ends of the studs came near flush with tops of the rockers. One of these days I am gonna tear that 259 down, just to confirm what I am 99 percent sure of, re: the pistons. For now, it sits in a corner of the garage. I don't care if you believe me or not. Heck, sometimes I don't even believe it myself. LOL
      No reflection on you Joe, or anyone else for that matter. It has been stated that milling the heads requires machining the intake manifold and using shorter pushrods. I was just enquiring what Studebaker did when they changed from the composite gasket to the shim gasket giving the equivalent of milling the heads .030.

      It could be significant if these changes are necessary. Only certain combinations of heads, gaskets, intake manifolds, and pushrods would work correctly.
      78 Avanti RQB 2792
      64 Avanti R1 R5408
      63 Avanti R1 R4551
      63 Avanti R1 R2281
      62 GT Hawk V15949
      56 GH 6032504
      56 GH 6032588
      55 Speedster 7160047
      55 Speedster 7165279

      Comment


      • #18
        I just arrived back in Canada yesterday. Regarding Jack's commentary, I spent a lot of time with Jim at Racer Brown! Cams. He is truly interested in what a few of us are trying to achieve by applying 21st century know how to a 70 year old engine design. He is extremely knowledgeable as although I am a ways away from the real world experience, I certainly will keep you all (including Jim as per his request), in the loop. He even called me working on my cam on a SUNDAY knowing I was tight on my return time frame picking the motor up from Jack's. I find Jack's simulation results very encouraging as Racer Brown built my original R4 Clone 12.5:1 camshaft 41 years ago. It truly is a monster. His only caution related to increased noise from the valve train due to very tight tolerances(as if I care it sounds like a 365 HP Chevy 327). If anyone is interested in what I am doing, pm me and I'll forward Racer Browns' specifications as well as his contact information as I truly think we have found a gem of a guy who is also thinking outside of the usual proverbial box. I am interested to see how all this plays out utilizing Jeff's one off Quadrajet (and Thermoquad) custom intake along with a very special Holley 650 cfm Double Pumper Spread bore carburetor supplied to me by my friend the Holley Rep.
        Cheers and keep well everyone.
        Bill

        Comment


        • #19
          I've used Delta Cams several times and been very happy with them. I put an R3 cam in my previous 64. There are two grinds for an R3 and I chose the more aggresive one. It was just a wee bit cammy but was easy to live with and made the car at least as snappy as an R1 and probably moreso (had one of those a while back, too.) Just be sure you have good standard valve springs. Your valves won't float under 5,000 rpm and you're not gonna what to excede that with a Studebaker-- which is a square engine. .030 isn't enough to make any difference

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jeffry Cassel View Post
            /Cut/Just be sure you have good standard valve springs. Your valves won't float under 5,000 rpm and you're not gonna what to exceed that with a Studebaker-- which is a square engine. .030 isn't enough to make any difference
            I THINK you meant normal R1/R2 Valve Springs, NOT "Standard" as in a 259 or 289 Non-Avanti/Jet Thrust.

            The 110 Lb. springs are not good enough for over 4500 RPM, you need the 155 Lb. Avanti ones for a "Performance" Engine.

            Originally posted by 64studeavanti View Post

            I am confused. Going from the composite head gaskets to the shim is the same as milling the heads .030. Why wouldn't that require different intake manifold and new pushrods?
            That is because ALL Stude. Car Engines from 1957 to 1964 used the Thin Shim Head Gaskets, so all Compression Ratio and H.P. Ratings/Specifications were using those 1545072 Gaskets.
            Last edited by StudeRich; 04-16-2020, 03:23 PM.
            StudeRich
            Second Generation Stude Driver,
            Proud '54 Starliner Owner

            Comment

            Working...
            X