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

REACH ROD HITTING HEADERS HELP!!

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

  • REACH ROD HITTING HEADERS HELP!!

    Hello all, I am having a problem with my reach rod hitting the headers on my 62 lark. Has anybody had this problem? Can the rod be modified with out messing up the other parts, or is there another rod I should look for? It bumps the headers pretty good..right on the gasket flange..Am I screwed??[xx(]

    Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

  • #2
    How's your engine mounts?

    nate

    --
    55 Commander Starlight
    http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
    --
    55 Commander Starlight
    http://members.cox.net/njnagel

    Comment


    • #3
      Nate, I've got the 65-66 chevy type mounts, I thought about raising the engine, but I worried about the trans angle and it hitting the floor boards..

      Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

      Comment


      • #4
        quote:Originally posted by prager

        Nate, I've got the 65-66 chevy type mounts
        I ran into the same interference prob putting the Chevy in my '54. With ANY engine change, you will have to plan very carefully, then make compromises (it won't fit like factory). I wanted my engine in a position to use a clutch fan AND the stock fan shroud AND I wanted to use block hugger headers. With these as "givens", I had to move the steering box down 1/2", back 1/2" and lengthen the reach rod. There are other ways to solve this problem (different...custom?...headers, change the engine position, etc.). If this is the ONLY problem you encounter with the swap, consider yourself VERY fortunate [^]. Most will involve about a dozen problems like this to solve.


        Dick Steinkamp
        Bellingham, WA
        Dick Steinkamp
        Bellingham, WA

        Comment


        • #5
          Here's a pic..[img][/img]

          Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

          Comment


          • #6
            Looks like the interference is worst at full left lock?

            You realize, of course, that when Studebaker adopted the 283 engine, they picked a manifold design that was comapatible with their frame? I'm just saying that there may be NO way for you to use those manifolds in that particular car. Not all Chevy parts are universally compatible.

            Having said that, can you move the engine to the right? or back?

            Failing that, perhaps you could determine that X degrees of rearward slant on the downpipes would move the flange back far enough to clear the reach rod. Then bolt the left side header to a scrap head and make a Vee cut with a die grinder or hacksaw and weld it up again.

            I would avoid messing with the reach rod at all costs.

            Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
            Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

            Comment


            • #7
              Gord, thanks for the good advise..I guess at worst case I could use the correct manifolds. I have aluminum heads on the engine, and wonder if the 65-66 manifolds would be too restrictive? Any thoughts? Thanks!!

              Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

              Comment


              • #8
                It appears that you have the generic "block hugger" headers installed on your car. Iron exhaust manifolds probably would resolve your clearance problems and are low-mainenance with respect to leaks. Power output at high rpm would be diminished, somewhat. The type used on most 70--80's Chevrolets full-size cars, trucks and vans has the outlets toward the rear. I can't say that I would recommend altering any steering component, such as the reach rod. You run the risk of solving one problem, at the expense of creating another. [:0]

                Comment


                • #9
                  If it were mine...I'd move the engine over a little. Just be sure and keep the crank centerline 90 degrees to the rear axle.

                  Youl'd have to move it too far back...though that would be "prefeable"...if you can, do that! Otherwise just do what most of the OEM's do...slide it to the right an inch. Nothing will be harmed. The big three factories have been doing it for years.

                  You say you have aluminim heads but I don't know what else you've got inside the engine...so I can't say anything about the restrictive flow! If you have a bigger cam, manifold and carburetor thAn original...then yes...the stock manifolds "will" hamper the exit of exhaust gasses.

                  Mike

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Challenger & Mike V. Thanks for the ideas..Mike, the engine has a medium-high hot cam..( exact don't know..long story) Alum intake heads blah blah..built for good power..how bad do you guys think my power loss at tip in to mid range would be? 10-15 hp? Also heat..Am I going to run a chance at messing up the heads? Thanks!

                    Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FWIW, don't think cast iron headers would make any noticeable difference from tip-in through mid-range. The type headers you have only make 15-20 hp difference in rear wheel horsepower in the +4000 RPM range when running through a street muffler system.

                      thnx, jv.

                      PackardV8
                      PackardV8

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Packard, thanks for the tip..I just happened to think...These heads are angle plug, D shaped exhaust port type..Will the 65-66 still go onto these with plug clearance etc? Man!!!!! One problem after another!![B)]

                        Still working to restore my 62 Lark in South Bend, Indiana

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          when i did mine i shorten the pitman arm 1/2 inch worked great

                          keith kirchhoff
                          brockport ny 14420

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            While I would generaly agree with the others on any perceptable power loss at low (up to 2500rpm) would be minimal at best...
                            I'd guess you put all these nice parts on the engine for more thAn just show?

                            For "any" fun sort of driving or cruzing on the freeways, I'd guess the power/drivability/milage loss would start showing up in the 3000rpm range and obviously higher. And as we know SBC's love to be in the 3500+rpm range on the freeway! At least mine do!

                            Move the engine over.......leave your shorties on.

                            Mike

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My thought would to cut the header flange loose and re clock it so that all three bolte are usable and custom bend the pipe (dent,indent,etc.). And if there stil isn't enough clearance I would lenghten the header and then weld the flange back on. You could make the extention custom fit around the rod or a smaller dia.. Any good Muffler shop could do this. It sure seems easier then moving the motor. It appears they are ceramic coated, you may have to get it coated again. Good Luck.

                              1956 Studebaker Pelham Wagon Houston, Texas
                              Remember, \"When all is said and done. More is always said then ever done.\"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X