Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R3 headers

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

  • R3 headers

    Are R3 headers worth the expense vs the hp gained? Does anyone have any experience with these? How much did you gain (HP wise)?
    Bez Auto Alchemy
    573-318-8948
    http://bezautoalchemy.com


    "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

  • #2
    Try one of these, found on a search for "R3 headers".

    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rms=R3+Headers

    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rms=R3+Headers

    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rms=r3,headers

    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rms=R3+Headers


    StudeRich at Studebakers Northwest -Ferndale,WA
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner
    SDC Member Since 1967

    Comment


    • #3
      Depends on what you are doing, what you want.

      Just like a set of tube headers. Many people put them on and expect 40hp when they close the hood!
      Isn't gonna happen...period.

      The way the engine is tuned "before" ANY better (or worse!) flowing system is installed...the engine will react different after the header is installed.

      If the engine was tuned VERY well...right on the air fuel ratio...you put on a set of free flowing exhaust and that's all....more than likely...the engine will run worse.
      Just the oposite is true of the engine was tuned too rich before...this could really wake the thing up!

      So yes...if everything is worked as a unit (the engine), a free flowing system will increase power.
      How much...see above! It's a package and must be tuned as such. No one can predict the amount of power added or taken away if things don't work together.

      Mike

      Comment


      • #4
        Thankyou for the replies,it is the generousity of the members that makes this club great.
        I am usually very on top of the state of tune on my Avanti's engine. I use a exhaust anaylizer and a chasis dyno to get the correct stoichiometric ratio and timimg for any given rpm. That being said,will I pick up noticable hp or torque??
        My engine is 63 R1 +60 to 299 ,stainless R3 valves Extensive port work,welded and raised port roof(by me),ARP fasteners,R2+ cam,6000 rpm seen frequently.
        Bez Auto Alchemy
        573-318-8948
        http://bezautoalchemy.com


        "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

        Comment


        • #5
          "Correct" AFR...?

          If you go to 14 to 1 as the "correct" AFR (as many do!), you won't get the most out of your engine.

          That said...if you tune to get the most from your engine (closer to 12.9 under power and 13.7 or so for cruse) in the 6000 rpm range...yea...I'd go for them.

          I did.
          I'm also building a 299 for my 54 wagon. It has extensive port work (over 200cfm at .500" lift), 1.8 rockers, Ted's single plane manifold...and the R3 copy header.
          Actually...I'm still working on the heads. Trying to get closer to 200cfm at .400" lift.

          Though after I get things sorted out, I will be experimenting with...headers.

          Mike

          Comment


          • #6
            Mike,

            Why do you call them copy R3 headers.

            David L
            David L

            Comment


            • #7
              because most (all?) of the ones sold are actually recastings of the factory R3 headers.

              As an aside, all of the ones I've seen require minor porting to work well; most have some extra casting flash inside the outlet that will restrict flow from the center port. No big deal, but don't just bolt them on without cleaning that out.

              nate

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

              Comment


              • #8
                The reason that I ask is that these are all made from the original patterns. Therefore I would not call them "copy R3 headers." I would call them "reproductions from original tooling." If I were to make new patterns by just trying to copy some original R3 manifolds by reverse engineering (in China for example) then I would call them copy R3 manifolds. If I were to take the drawings and make new patterns then I would call them "reproductions."

                And yes they frequently need to have the flashing cleaned up. But even those that were cast by Studebaker needed to be cleaned up. I still have one Studebaker cast manifold that was designed for the right side of a Hawk or Lark with the mount for the alternator and it needed to be cleaned up.

                Anyway I think it is important for people to know that these are not just "copies."

                David L
                David L

                Comment


                • #9
                  As the search threads furnished will demonstrate when read, there is little new news to be reported on the R3 headers.

                  However, to bottom line this one, most of the really knowledgeable Stude builders don't bother with R3 headers for anything short of a full R3 build. If the heads and intake and supercharger and camshaft aren't at least to R3 specs, there will most likely be no noticeable power increase with the R3 headers.

                  One R1 Avanti guy I tried to talk out of using them wouldn't admit it to me, but a third local club member told me the Avanti owner said, "That was a waste of $500. The car isn't any faster and nobody can see them down there, so I didn't even get any bling for my bucks." Last I heard, he was planning to have them hi-temp jet-hot aluminumized so they would show up a little.

                  thnx, jack vines

                  PackardV8
                  PackardV8

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jack is correct. On a stock R1 you might be able to measure 5 HP. On an R2 or a highly modified R1 you might measure 10 or so HP and on an R3 or highly modified R2 you might get as much as 15 to 20 hp.

                    So unless you like the look or have a highly modified engine it is not worth the money. You will get more out of a R2+ cam and some mild porting, even with stock valve size, than you will out of the R3 manifolds.

                    They are better than the stock manifolds but you need an engine that needs better exhaust.

                    David L
                    David L

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      64Avanti -

                      What N8N said.
                      Semantics...copy, version, reproduction.
                      Otherwise...not an original.

                      bez -

                      As most have reiterated my original thoughts in their own ways...in a nutshell, if you have a nice car, have the money, and "do" actually drive the car harder than most, go for it.

                      Will they free up 20hp..no, not under any circumstance. Will they "add to" a well planned out engine combination...yes, they will.
                      Espicially if that cars owner actually goes out and pushes his car a little...not just cruises from show to show (nothing wrong with that either!).

                      Mike

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mike,

                        Words have meanings a reproduction and a copy are two different things. Are they original productions no. How many originals are there? I don't know. I have a couple.

                        It is sorta like asking how many R3 engines are there? Even those from Paxton for the most part aren't correct. Most didn't have ported R3 heads and many didn't have R3 rods or real R3 cams.

                        I don't agree that you won't get close to 20 HP on an R3 that has the heads ported per the requirements on the drawings and uses the 288 cam. A real R3 with ported heads will produce a little more than 400 HP and if you put the standard Studebaker manifolds on you will lose a significant amount of power. I can't prove the 20 HP at this time but did pick up about .1 seconds in the 1/4 mile on a highly modified R2 powered Hawk many years ago by using the R3 manifolds vs the stock manifolds.

                        I think we can all agree that on 99.99% of the cars out there you will not pick up a noticable amount of power and on a $/HP basis they are not worth the money.

                        David L
                        David L

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:Originally posted by 64Avanti

                          Mike,
                          Words have meanings a reproduction and a copy are two different things. Are they original productions no. How many originals are there? I don't know. I have a couple.
                          It is sorta like asking how many R3 engines are there? Even those from Paxton for the most part aren't correct. Most didn't have ported R3 heads and many didn't have R3 rods or real R3 cams.
                          I don't agree that you won't get close to 20 HP on an R3 that has the heads ported per the requirements on the drawings and uses the 288 cam. A real R3 with ported heads will produce a little more than 400 HP and if you put the standard Studebaker manifolds on you will lose a significant amount of power. I can't prove the 20 HP at this time but did pick up about .1 seconds in the 1/4 mile on a highly modified R2 powered Hawk many years ago by using the R3 manifolds vs the stock manifolds.
                          I think we can all agree that on 99.99% of the cars out there you will not pick up a noticable amount of power and on a $/HP basis they are not worth the money.
                          Jon Myer had the NOS R-3 I sold a couple years ago dynamometered. With the milder cam and totally stock, if my memory serves me right, it measured 357 horsepower.
                          I had several sets of original Paxton R-3 headers and in my opinion, they were poorly made- misaligned castings, rough, etc.


                          Paul Johnson, Wild and Wonderful West Virginia
                          Paul Johnson, Wild and Wonderful West Virginia.
                          '64 Daytona Wagonaire, '64 Avanti R-1, Museum R-4 engine, '72 Gravely Model 430 with Onan engine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Those manifolds were difficult to cast. The patterns were really for prototypes only not production. When we (STU-V) were casting these we had to scrap many of them. The ones produced by L. Stone have had the same problems and worse.

                            An R3 engine that was recently rebuilt that did not have the heads ported as required by the Studebaker drawings produced 375 HP.

                            The 400+ HP I stated is obtainable with properly ported heads.
                            David L

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I should also add that the reproductions have had reductions. It's kinda like taking a mold of a mold of a mold, and each time it happens the product shrinks a little bit. It also helps explain why they don't do much more than look like eye candy as the ports shrunk just enough to obstruct flow through the manifolds. The solution, of course is to port the manifolds and bring them back into stock specifications.

                              [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201950%202r5%20Studebaker%20Pickup%20with%20turbocharger/P1000137-1.jpg[/img=left][img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201950%202r5%20Studebaker%20Pickup%20with%20turbocharger/P1000145-1.jpg[/img=left][IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/Ex%20Studebaker%20Plant%20Locomotive/P1000578-1.jpg[/IMG=right]
                              [IMG=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/My%201964%20Studebaker%20Commander%20R2/P1010168.jpg[/IMG=right]

                              1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
                              1963 Studebaker Daytona Hardtop with no engine or transmission
                              1950 Studebaker 2R5 w/170 six cylinder and 3spd OD
                              1955 Studebaker Commander Hardtop w/289 and 3spd OD and Megasquirt port fuel injection(among other things)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X