Engine: 259 warm up

[doofus]

Wanting to warm up the 259 in my '60 Lark Rag Top project. planning on an R-1 cam, cleaned up valve pockets, back cut valves and multi angle valve seat grind. WCFB and lo restriction mufflers and "H" pipe. can i get to a 9 to one CR with shim gaskets and .060 head shave? trying to keep the mods on the mild side for a daily driver. Thanks Everybody, Doofus

[showbizkid]

Please remember to use the Topic dropdown and select a topic when posting in the Tech Talk channel.
I fixed this one for you. Thanks.

[StudeRich]

If you want to "Go Faster" why not have the Intake Manifold bored out to fit an AFB, and get a New Edelbrock AVS, AFB Clone Carb. to get some REAL 4 Barrel ACTION ?

[PackardV8]

You probably meant to include R1 valve springs, a necessity with the R1 cam.

The Pertronix ignition conversion is a good investment on a Studebaker V8.

FWIW, when the block is square-decked and the heads milled .060", that "narrows" the engine enough the intake manifold usually no longer aligns correctly with the intake ports. Some ignore this and claim milling the intake isn't necessary. There's no cheap Studebaker power.

Before milling the heads, measure against the 3.5625" OEM spec to verify what you're starting with. Some have already been milled once.

jack vines

[thehotrodder]

Are you wanting to keep it a 259? Going to a 289 opens up a lot more piston choices. .060 seems like an awe full lot. I’ll admit I’m a bit of a chicken when it comes to permanent block changes. Seems like swapping pistons would be easier

[Mike Van Veghten]

.060" off the deck is not a problem.
BUT, like Jack says, the lower the heads go (milling the block AND-OR the heads) the intake also needs to be milled to bring the alignment of the ports and bolt holes back.
.060" off of one surface should not be a problem.

Mike

[PackardV8]

Are you wanting to keep it a 259? Going to a 289 opens up a lot more piston choices. .060 seems like an awe full lot. I’ll admit I’m a bit of a chicken when it comes to permanent block changes. Seems like swapping pistons would be easier

It's swapping pistons and the crankshaft to build a 289" Agree, back in the day when one could have his choice of a running 289" for cheap, few would choose to build a 259". Today, with 289" cranks costing more than the whole engine went for back when and most of the used 289" crankshafts require a regrind, more 259"s are being built.

It's only after $2000 of professional head and intake porting, or a supercharger, that the 289"/304.5"/308" make more power. In the real street engine world, there's seldom more than 15 horsepower difference between a 259" vs the 289" when built to the same specs. The 289" will have noticeably more low-RPM torque and the 259" will be smoother at higher RPMs.

jack vines

[doofus]

Thanks for all the advice everybody. yes to Pertronix, better springs, gasket matching ports. keeping 259 size. looking to get to 9 to 1 comp with head shave and thin gaskets. new .001 over pistons will tighten up 57.998 mile block. R-1 cam will be enough with WCFB. have AFB carbs and modified manifolds, might try the oddball 450 cfm buick carb later. will start with head shave and valve work while it's so flippin hot! again thanks everybody for advice! Doofus

[Hallabutt]

As Jack indicated 289 cranks used to be a dime a dozen. Certainly not like 259 cranks, but readily available. What would I have to pay for a decent core 289 crank needing a grind?

[PackardV8]

As Jack indicated 289 cranks used to be a dime a dozen. Certainly not like 259 cranks, but readily available. What would I have to pay for a decent core 289 crank needing a grind?

Then, to add to the equation, some will pay a premium for the later long nose 289" crankshafts.

jack vines

[Son O Lark]

WCFB carbs do have a problem. A baffle needs to be present to keep it from hesitating and or dying on left hand turns. Very annoying and slightly embarrassing in traffic.

[doofus]

Believe that a baffle in the choke vacuum passage will help this. stale fuel in secondary float bowl wont be a problem thanks to me "Getaway Car" driving styleLOL. Thanks for the reminder SonOLark! Doofus

[Buzzard]

Gerald,
With you being a turbo guy, don't you recall how successful Mike Scherer was with his single turbo '59 Lark? It was amazing and he was running up against big block 'Vettes.
Keep us posted.
Bill

[StudeRich]

Believe that a baffle in the choke vacuum passage will help this. stale fuel in secondary float bowl wont be a problem thanks to me "Getaway Car" driving style LOL. Thanks for the reminder Son O Lark! Doofus

IIRC I think this is the First I have ever head of a "Choke vacuum passage Baffle", maybe you can remind us what that is about?

That is not the Baffle Son O Lark is talking about, it's the one in the primary Float Bowl between the Float and the Needle and Seat that reduces Flooding on turns.

[jrlemke]

Ref. to post#8, the 450 cfm AFB Buick carb. Was that the one used on the 300 cid motor in the mid 60's? I am using one on my 289 Hawk. Works great, much better than the WCFB it came with. - Jim