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

289 Rebuild, what HP to expect?

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

  • Engine: 289 Rebuild, what HP to expect?

    Hello All,

    Just took the spare engine, a 1962-64 289 with 2 bbl intake, in to a machinist for an overhaul/rebuild. This is an engine that came with my 64 Daytona w/ 259 2 bbl & 4-speed that I bought last fall. I'll be replacing the tired 259 with the 289 w/ dual exhaust.
    The pic is of my son and I about to trailer the car home. Click image for larger version

Name:	Wes and Rich.jpg
Views:	438
Size:	169.4 KB
ID:	1843572

    I've been watching the YouTube series from Pete's Garage on rebuilding the Studebaker 289, and in episode 8 he does a dyno test after the engine has been reassembled but out of the car. His final horsepower rating after tuning the carb was only 163 hp, and that's with a 4 bbl carb (an old Carter that he rebuilt). Nominally the factory rating is 225 hp. Pete was satisfied with that number for some reason but some of the commentators thought it was ridiculously low. At least one on the other hand thought it was about what you can expect.

    Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gANE...Elcq5&index=14

    Here are my initial questions for this group:

    1. Should a correct rebuild to stock parameters on a 289 4 bbl dual exhaust get close to 225 hp, or is under 200 to be expected?

    2. One of the commentators asked if the engine had a cam for a 2 bbl or a 4 bbl carburetor. Are there really different cams and should I be replacing the cam in my engine since it had a 2 bbl manifold and presumably the accompanying cam? If replacing, where would I find the right cam?

    3. Can I have the machinist bore out the 2 bbl intake manifold to accommodate a 4 bbl without sacrificing anything relative to a stock 4 bbl manifold? I know this is done a lot by others.

    4. What carburetor should I use? I've searched this forum and past responses favor the Edelbrock Performance 500 cfm. Still a good choice?

    5. In addition to a modern carb, what are some other inexpensive upgrades/mods I could do during the rebuild that would provide more power (without sacrificing driveability)? I don't care much about gas mileage.

    6. What would be a good initial advance to run with this engine?

    Those are my questions for now, probably more later. But thanks in advance for your always sage advice.

    - RichB

    64 Daytona
    55 Champion

  • #2
    2. One of the commentators asked if the engine had a cam for a 2 bbl or a 4 bbl carburetor. Are there really different cams and should I be replacing the cam in my engine since it had a 2 bbl manifold and presumably the accompanying cam? If replacing, where would I find the right cam?

    The cams are the same from 2bbl to 4bbl. Some of the GM engines were set up differently and that included 2 or 4 barrel carbs with different compression ratios. It was that way on my 65 Buick Skylark.

    The Commentator/kibitzer obviously knew nothing about Studebaker engines and was showing his ignorance.
    RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

    17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
    10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
    10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
    4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
    5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
    56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
    60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

    Comment


    • #3
      The only cost-effective changes you can make for your type build:

      1. Use semi-dish pistons and thin head gaskets to raise the compression to 9:1
      2. Use the R1 cam and valve springs.
      3. Yes, to the 4-bbl intake, dual exhausts
      4. Yes to a Pertronix ignition conversion and have the distributor recurved to the R1 specs.
      5. Change to an R1 front balance damper and have the entire lower end balanced.

      With those changes it should be close to the R1s 240 hp.

      jack vines
      PackardV8

      Comment


      • #4
        In regards to the hp rating of Studebaker vs the dyno test on YouTube. When Studebaker rated the engines they ran with "dyno headers" , 10 wt oil and optimized timing and a carb that had been properly setup. A 4bl 8.2 CR produced 208 hp under these conditions. This engine was rated at 225 hp so as you can see Studebaker exagerated a little, but everyone did back then. They also used a different correction standard than today that is in itself worth perhaps 4%. They engine the guy on the dyno only showed 163 hp. That is on the low side. We don't know what kind of oil he used and were the rings seated, engine broken in etc. Was the carburator jeted correctly ( he did work to improve it) and was the timing optimized. What correction factor did he use for the temperature and air pressure? Was the valve job done correctly? Too many unknowns. Also he used a thick head gasket that would have droped the CR to about 7.5:1, that will drop the power about 3%. After break-in the engine will pick up another perhaps 5%.

        Studebaker worked hard to get to get to 208 hp and then claimed 225. However if you follow Jack,s advice you will have a good running engine with a very noticable improvement in power. You might want to consider a little better than R1/R2 valve springs as these tend to have a loss in pressure if you rev to arround 5,000 or more very often and then you will get some valve float ... not good.
        David L

        Comment


        • #5
          There are other things to consider if you are looking for Performance out of this Car.
          A Daytona Hardtop with a B/W T-10, 2.54 Low gear FOUR Speed is going to be a Fun Car and will perform quite well with that Transmission no matter what amount of H.P. is under the hood. But the "Key" to that, is having the Rear Axle Ratio keyed to YOUR driving Style.

          The Standard Rear Axle for the Car "as built with the 259" will be a Dana lightweight Model 27 with a 3.07 Ratio, the 289 had a 3.31 and a H.D. Model 44, a very good all around ratio for either engine.
          So unless Special ordered with a no charge optional ratio, this Daytona with the replacement warmed over 289 will NOT be a Tire scorcher, and will require an Axle replacement or there WILL be Spider Gears all over the road!

          For quite good Street performance I would use the 3.31 or the 3.54, and for Street /Drag Racing a 3.73 Twin Traction works Great, and SERIOUS 1/4 mile times happen with the 4.09 or 4.56, of course with poor fuel mileage and uncomfortable (Loud) long distance sustained Speed.
          So that goes RIGHT back to driving STYLE, you may have to do a compromise.

          The only reason I can think of, that the Factory built those Lower Torque 259 Cars even WITH a Sporty 4 Speed, with slow as a slug gears is, they did it for Economy (that they were well known for).
          They must have figured if you were serious about Performance, you would have bought the 225 HP 289, because it really does not need 3.31 gears in a Non-Wagon/Convertible Lark Type, to get going, but it DID have them!

          EDIT: I just hate doing LONG Posts, I prefer to keep them short to retain people's attention, but there are too many questions here that need answering to do that.

          I just realized that no one has mentioned yet, that with the Engine Change it is important that you remember to "Dial-in" the Clutch Housing Centerline to the Crank Centerline, as these Housings were matched to ONLY the original Block.

          There are many, many searchable posts here about that, so I won't go into it here.

          On the Intake Manifold; a good Machinist CAN make as good or better 4 Barrel out of a '59 to '64 2 Brl.
          There are several SDC Members that do that correctly some Right Here, like Jeff Rice who produces CONSISTENTLY the same, good flowing Manifolds and has "upgrades" for better ones.
          Last edited by StudeRich; 06-30-2020, 11:06 PM.
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

          Comment


          • #6
            Regarding question#3.
            If your machinist can do all the machine work to convert the 2bbl intake for less than $200...
            Go for it.
            Otherwise, you'd be money ahead to get a conversion intake from Studebaker Int'l.
            Made from NOS 2bbl cores.
            (Ignore the WCFB reference, it will accept an AFB or AVS, too)


            Click image for larger version  Name:	Studebaker International - AFB Conversion Intake Manifold PN 802446.jpg Views:	0 Size:	84.4 KB ID:	1843730



            (copy)
            3. Can I have the machinist bore out the 2 bbl intake manifold to accommodate a 4 bbl without sacrificing anything relative to a stock 4 bbl manifold? I know this is done a lot by others.
            Attached Files
            HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

            Jeff


            Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



            Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks everyone, that's great information. It raises a few questions though:

              1. David L: Do you have Studebaker HP test results for the 259 w/ 2 bbl and single exhaust similar to the 289 you quote? Is it similarly below the factory rating of 180 HP? What I'm getting at is how much actual extra oomph (HP/torque) I'd be getting with the rebuilt 289 + new 4 bbl carb + manifold+ dual exhaust + rear axel change. I have to weight all that extra cost and effort versus getting maybe just a valve job for the 259 and rebuilding the existing carb.

              2. StudeRich: Where would I find a 3.31 rear and how much would it cost (roughly) to purchase and have installed?

              3. Jack Vines: Where would I find an R1 cam + R1 front balance damper, and what would the cost be if I wanted to go this way? What's involved in having the lower end balanced?

              This project started out naively in my mind as simply replacing the 259 with a rebuilt 289, but it seems there's more enough to it that I have to rethink what I want to do. Would I be happy with a good running (i.e., fixed up) 259 with a nice 4 speed? (The motor has some burned valves I think, judging from leakdown, and is weak as it stands now.) Your input is helpful in making this decision.

              - RichB

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rbarvai View Post
                Thanks everyone, that's great information. It raises a few questions though:

                1. David L: Do you have Studebaker HP test results for the 259 w/ 2 bbl and single exhaust similar to the 289 you quote? Is it similarly below the factory rating of 180 HP? What I'm getting at is how much actual extra oomph (HP/torque) I'd be getting with the rebuilt 289 + new 4 bbl carb + manifold+ dual exhaust + rear axel change. I have to weight all that extra cost and effort versus getting maybe just a valve job for the 259 and rebuilding the existing carb.

                2. StudeRich: Where would I find a 3.31 rear and how much would it cost (roughly) to purchase and have installed?

                3. Jack Vines: Where would I find an R1 cam + R1 front balance damper, and what would the cost be if I wanted to go this way? What's involved in having the lower end balanced?

                This project started out naively in my mind as simply replacing the 259 with a rebuilt 289, but it seems there's more enough to it that I have to rethink what I want to do. Would I be happy with a good running (i.e., fixed up) 259 with a nice 4 speed? (The motor has some burned valves I think, judging from leakdown, and is weak as it stands now.) Your input is helpful in making this decision.

                - RichB
                First decide if you're going to drive it like you stole it or putt around like an old CASO. I've told this story before, but I built a $4,000 performance 308" for a guy and later took a two-day-600-mile road trip with him in it. Never once during the two days did he use what he bought; the way he drove, he'd have been just as happy with your patched-up 259" 2-bbl.

                jack vines
                PackardV8

                Comment


                • #9
                  As most of you know the old saying goes something like this, more go takes more dough. Jack can attest that the more mods you want to make will add more costs to the build. You need to decide how much increase in performance you want and then have the machine shop price out the costs to get what you want to accomplish. Many of the parts you'd need will have to sourced through our Stude vendors as most machine shops do not deal in the Stude parts. Hope you get what you want, Bill.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rbarvai View Post
                    Thanks everyone, that's great information. It raises a few questions though:

                    1. David L: Do you have Studebaker HP test results for the 259 w/ 2 bbl and single exhaust similar to the 289 you quote? Is it similarly below the factory rating of 180 HP? What I'm getting at is how much actual extra oomph (HP/torque) I'd be getting with the rebuilt 289 + new 4 bbl carb + manifold+ dual exhaust + rear axel change. I have to weight all that extra cost and effort versus getting maybe just a valve job for the 259 and rebuilding the existing carb.



                    - RichB
                    I do not have actual dyno data for a 259. However I would expect under similar conditions as testing on a 289 2bl that the 259 would have come to about 176 hp. So the 180 hp rating for the 259 is close to valid for the test conditions. The dual exhaust system used on a 289 cost about 5 hp. A single exhaust system might cost 7.5 hp or more. That is speculation. I didn't mention it in the earlier post but the manifold heat was also blocked. Once all accessories were on including the fan, exhaust system etc. and the spark advance back down to the standard production spark advance the power dropped more than 20 hp. The most common fan used took 11.5 hp at 4500 rpm. So you should consider some change in that area.

                    If you rebuild the 289 per Jacks recommendation you will notice a difference. If you like to drive a car hard or even a little hard go for the rebuild with mods. If you never push a car hard then don't bother.

                    One of these days I will put something together in detail that will also cover some of the dyno testing Studebaker did.
                    David L

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      On the other hand, Studebaker UNDERrated the R2 engine, apparently to put them in a better class at NHRA drags. Studebaker's SAE paper on the Avanti engines showed a HP vs. RPM graph with the vertical axis (HP) unlabeled. That plot compared the R2 with (I believe) a 289-4V engine. Mensurating the two curves results in a peak HP of 315-325 for the R2. At the time Studebaker hadn't rated the R1 and R2 engines yet. But, a person with a quality ruler and a slide rule could figure it out.
                      --Dwight

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mensurating ?
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          FWIW, I have a 1964 Truck Specifications Book with dyno sheets signed by the Chief Truck Chassis Engineer.
                          The truck engines are 7.5 compression, single exhaust. The net, as installed horsepower:

                          259" 2-bbl 170 @ 4200
                          259" 4"bbl 178 @ 4500
                          289" 2-bbl 182 @ 4000
                          289" 4-bbl 192 @ 4100

                          Originally posted by Dwight FitzSimons View Post
                          On the other hand, Studebaker UNDERrated the R2 engine, apparently to put them in a better class at NHRA drags. Studebaker's SAE paper on the Avanti engines showed a HP vs. RPM graph with the vertical axis (HP) unlabeled. That plot compared the R2 with (I believe) a 289-4V engine. Mensurating the two curves results in a peak HP of 315-325 for the R2. At the time Studebaker hadn't rated the R1 and R2 engines yet. But, a person with a quality ruler and a slide rule could figure it out.
                          --Dwight
                          When we look at Ted Harbit's Stewed Tomato 1/4-mile speed of 112 MPH, the 315hp is very believable. However, based upon magazine road test reports, the R2s Studebaker delivered to customers performed more like a dog with fleas; most were 16 sec @ 90 MPH; that factors out to 253hp.

                          jack vines
                          PackardV8

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Those are really neat Jack! That shows you how different things are when it comes to Trucks.

                            Specifications were much more important to Truck buyers than Car buyers.

                            There is all kinds of data about weight capacities, many different Spring Options, details of Frame Dimensions all kinds of things important to Co's that planned to use the Studebaker Cab and Chassis or Cowl and Chassis for many different Bodies and uses.

                            So it makes total sense that there would be quite accurate actual Dyno numbers for Truck Engines.
                            So we can extrapolate these numbers pretty easily to 8.5 to 1 Compression, Dual Exhaust 2 & 4 Barrel 259 and 289 Engines.
                            StudeRich
                            Second Generation Stude Driver,
                            Proud '54 Starliner Owner

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bensherb View Post
                              Mensurating ?
                              Mensurating means measuring. I wasn't trying to use fancy words; That is the word we used when I worked in the intel community.
                              -Dwight
                              Last edited by Dwight FitzSimons; 07-02-2020, 04:36 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X