Pistons question for my R3 engine

[StudeRich]

I agree with Jack, this guy has screwed up too many small blocks ! Lol !

[nels]

Well, a couple things to think about. The R3 rods did have problems. The original ordered rods flunked quality control inspection as the wrist pin diameter was on the high side of the print spec. An engineering deviation allowed their use. The wrist pin is supposed to be a shrink fit or maybe a press fit into the rod ….no retaining rings in the pistons. I’ve seen or heard of three or four engines where the pin in one cylinder slid out against the wall and broached a groove in that cylinder. So check and make your pins are still in the center f the pistons.
On the blocks: there is a visible difference. The water jacket hole between the cylinders is smaller to allow for larger bore and not loose sealing area. Since this was done they probably reworked or at least chose the best core boxes to use for the R3 engines. So the R3’s are probably great candidates for over boring.
I think (can’t say for sure) that all R3 and R4 engines built in 1963, being 299 or 304, were B engines. Those engines built in 1962 were A engines. I’ve seen and owned 299 engines with B numbers. In fact, the Bonneville six cylinder engines were assigned B numbers.

[M-Webb]

The "R2" motor I'm working on right now has had all 8 cylinders sleeved. Went from +.080" back down to standard. Sonic check showed 2-3 of the cylinders a bit on the thin side on one side due to core shift in the casting, so decision was made to just sleeve the whole block so all the cylinders would be exactly same. It is a full flow clover leaf block. Still working on putting it back together currently, so no proof in the pudding yet. I only have about what seems like $100K and going on a decade into this motor so far, so hoping it is OK.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Does anyone know what pistons and rings are used in a 308 cu. in. Studebaker V8? Also, what overbore? Thanks,
--Dwight

[PackardV8]

.118" over

jack vines

[Buzzard]

Dwight,
On my 308 CID, I believe Jack used Ford pistons in order to get the modern ultra thin rings and full floating wrist pins. I chose this so I could run synthetic 0W40 oil.
Bill

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Interesting! Thanks.

[PackardV8]

FWIW, the reason I didn't mention specifically which piston (the Ford 255" V8, STD bore) we used on Bill's (and others) is because we've gotten complaints from a couple of those who bought the pistons without noticing extensive machine work is required on the Studebaker rod small end to accept the Ford piston pins. Very few machine shops have the Tobin Arp rod machine and want to take on this type piece work. If one is determined to try, diesel engine shops usually are equipped to bore rod small ends.

A further caveat, blocks to be bored .118" must be sonic tested and even then, there can be problems if there is internal corrosion or inclusions in the cast iron. We had one block develop a hole in one cylinder at .080".

jack vines

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Oh geez; my irreplaceable R3 rods would have to be modified!

[SScopelli]

We respectfully disagree with your builder; this is not a SBC. The Studebaker block is heavy-as-hell-for-stout. We've sleeved all eight holes with complete success.

jack vines

Jack, There are a couple wet sleeved B-blocks out there, correct?

I needed to save a Ford F-Code ECZ-312 block. Sleeved all 8 back to Std. There were a few break through the cylinder walls. Took the block to a diesel shop and had them pour hot ceramic in the water jacket to assure sealing.

[PackardV8]

In a technical discussion, terminology is important.

A wet-sleeve engine, as are many diesels, the sleeves are removable and can be rebuilt in-frame. The wet sleeves are sealed with O-rings at the top and bottom, held in place by a flange at the deck of the block. The sleeves are surrounded by coolant.

Your Y-block and most other gas engines use dry sleeve installation; the sleeves are completely surrounded by the bore, driven in with an interference fit and once installed are not removable.

Yes, if there are holes which open in the sides of the cylinder, ceramic sealant is good insurance. However, a small hole in the middle of the cylinder will usually not leak; assuming the sleeve is properly installed.

jack vines

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Still working on R3 B69......
The following would seem to be my options:

(1) Lightly hone cylinders & reassemble engine
--a) Cheapest & quickest
--b) There is appreciable wear on cylinder walls
--c) Will burn oil (~quart every 300 miles. At least this would be about a quart per tankful of gas.)
--d) Keeps engine original
--e) Of course, polish crankshaft, line hone, square deck, etc.
--f) New rings, bearings, gaskets, NOS standard oil pump, etc. Engine builder questions the spacer on the oil rings, thus need new rings.
(2) Bore engine 0.010” oversize
--a) Should “clean up” at 0.010” (based on measuring one cylinder)
--b) Have forged pistons & rings custom made
--c) Engine would be as new and as original
--d) Expensive (adds several $1000 to engine rebuild cost.)
(3) Sleeve all 8 cylinders, back to 304.5 cu. in.
--a) Re-use original forged pistons, with new rings
--b) Cylinders will be perfect, as new
--c) Keeps engine all original
(4) Use another block (259 / 289)
--a) Bore 0.093 to 304.5 cu. in.
--b) Re-use original forged R3 pistons, & new rings
--c) Must chamfer cylinders & reduce size of 4 holes
--d) Weld over the original engine number & grind smooth. Leave it that way to avoid confusion.
--e) Lose originality
(5) Bore engine ~0.0245 (0.118 overbore from 289) to 308 cu. in.
--a) Use Ford cast pistons (readily available)
--b) Small end of rods require “extensive machining with a Tobin Arp rod machine.”
--c) Blocks to be bored .118" must be sonic tested and even then, there can be problems if there is internal corrosion or inclusions in the cast iron.

So, unless I'm convinced otherwise, I am going with door number 1. Still need new rings.

[PackardV8]

Engine builder questions the spacer on the oil rings, thus need new rings.

??

jack vines

[Dwight FitzSimons]

The engine had gap-less rings installed when it was rebuilt many years ago, so maybe the engine builder mistook a part of those for spacers. I'll ask Dave Thibeault, the supplier of the rings. With less than 1000 miles on the engine since I personally don't see why those rings can't be reused, assuming that there are no broken ones.
--Dwight

[bezhawk]

If you just want stock rings, (In moly filled top ring) I can get you the Jaguar number that I use from Hastings.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Thanks. I'll talk with my engine builder. --Dwight

[Dwight FitzSimons]

If you just want stock rings, (In moly filled top ring) I can get you the Jaguar number that I use from Hastings.

Yes, please, I would like the number and source. Thanks,

--Dwight

[PackardV8]

We used to buy four sets of Hastings 2M666 for the 1965 Chevrolet/Studebaker 194" six-cylinder. Then, we'd have three sets of moly rings for the Studebaker V8. Hastings was making them in sets of six for that engine, but wouldn't offer exactly the same ring in sets of eight for the Studebaker V8.

jack vines

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Thanks!
-- Dwight

[Dwight FitzSimons]

It's awfully tempting to take another block (259, etc), bore it 0.093" to 304.5 cu. in., and reuse my original ForgedTrue pistons. Using all the R3 guts, a new set of moly rings, square decking & all that stuff, and I would have a like-new engine. Just musing, here.
--Dwight

[M-Webb]

That is exactly what I would probably do. So long as you keep the original block together with it as well in safe well stored condition so that anyone in the future could still put it all back together if and whenever wanted. The fact that the R3 block is likely already bored out close to its max makes the prospect of sleeving it and getting to back to the R3 bore somewhat questionable as to if possible. If it can't be honed to proper spec and needs to be machined more than that, I would think it is getting into a bit risky territory and unless you are willing to get into any of that at the moment, I would just store the block and machine a fresher one to get to the R3 specs and use that one since you actually want to use this motor. If you weren't really going to use it much, I would put the block and all back together as best as can and live with it. But since you want to use it, I'd go the alt. block route.

To me, the motor built to be more like how an R3 performs with all the proper internals is better than an original block with "less" correct internals and probably less performance. Correct performance over correct looks, ie VIN # on the block. As long as you still have the correct VIN block, you can mention that to whoever wants to challenge you to if it is a R3 motor or not, if that really even matters, which I wouldn't let it if it were me.

As long as you take care of the parts, don't ruin them or lose them, a motor is still just a collection of parts. What is put together can always be taken apart and put back together however you want in the future. Building the motor this time around with an alt. block is not going to permanently ruin anything as long as you don't lose track of the original block and the parts start getting separated in a way that makes if likely impossible to get back.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Thanks, M-Webb,
You have helped me make up my mind. In this plan only the donor bare block will be used. All R3 internals will be swapped into the bored-out 259-289 block: crank, rods, pistons, cam, lifters, cam gear, oil pan, etc. The only part of the original R3 engine I will have "left over" will be the bare block itself & I will keep it with the car. -- Dwight