289 V8 head gaskets

[M-Webb]

Rich, you are of course right. The goal was to try to build an interesting Studebaker motor as best as possible to still run reliably well on cheap gas basically. Not the best with whatever gas/octane needed and needing to be tuned well at all times. Let's face it, if I really wanted to chase hp, it would have been best to just drop a vintage SBC in it and call it a day a long time ago and for far less dollars. I just want a nice period original looking Studebaker factory-like motor that runs well and gets the truck around well without needing tons of attention all the time and needing to feed it premium gas at the rate these old motors burn through it and cost of gas. If I was just going to drive it minimally to shows or whatever, wanted the legit bragging rights and didn't really care, I would probably go the max performance route and enjoyed that. But I am Ok with it dialed back a bit and sort of more in the standard average range for this type of motor, maybe even a bit less than should be as far as that goes. But hopefully it will still be reasonably decent motor that at least runs well for the intended purpose, in a truck to be driven around quite a bit and not a performance car. We'll see how it pans out here soon enough, hopefully anyway.

[M-Webb]

When my Son had a 289 '57 Golden Hawk engine rebuilt using those low compression heads without bumping up the compression to 8.5 to 9.0 where a good running 289 should be with Shallow Dish Pistons, I noticed what a slug it became.

So you are saying that when he rebuilt the motor the way it came from the factory with the 7.5:1 or 7.8:1 cr as Bezhawk suggests is correct, it became a slug? Or did '57 GH's have flat top pistons to make up the difference and he put dished in and ruined it? I don't think most people consider the '57 GH motors slugs though as far as that goes. But yeah, I guess compared to R2 motors they might be to some degree.

In any case, the 259 I pulled out of my truck was definitely a slug, for whatever reason I don't currently know. But it was kind of crap I have to be honest, and it leaked like the Exxon Valdez. So I'm starting at a low bar compared to that, hoping for a little bit better - on the power, and the leaking at the very least, plus some AC and the power steering while at it.

[StudeRich]

No Mike, it is a Lot like yours, NO Supercharger, so just a de-tuned (Castrated G/H 289) ! It is not in a G/H, it's still in this Grey '57 Parkview 2 Door Wagon.

The '57-'58 G/H engine design was a very similar to Standard 289, a 2 Barrel with a pressurized Air Box, Low compression heads and deep dish standard Pistons, no heavier Valve Springs or 3/4 Race Camshaft.

It is not a serious "Slug" since it was upgraded to the G/H 289, but slower than I like, compared to other Newer higher compression 289's.
It did become quite a bit slower though, later when we switched from 3.54 gears in back, to 3.31 Ratio, being a heavier Car. It is a G/H H.D. oil cooled Flight-O-Matic, but still starts in Second.

[M-Webb]

OK, but reminder, mine does have the supercharger, hence why trying to keep the CR down on the lower end of things to begin with. So it is basically more like a marginally glorified GH motor, but with a full flow block, larger valves and will have the Holley 4-barrel Sniper EFI blow-through "carb" as well on an alum. Offy intake, and elec distributor - plus the R3 exhaust manifolds which probably won't do much extra if anything. But then off-set by the beastly York AC and PS added to it. So maybe all-in-all will end up slightly better than slug status. Maybe I should go with the thinner shim gaskets and call it good enough as reasonable with what I have and roll with that.

[StudeRich]

A Blower changes EVERYTHING, that will work OK.

[64Avanti]

Your engine will be fine. If you measure the piston to deck distance measure the depth and diameter of the dish. Then it will be possible to get a reasonable calculation of the compression ratio. By the way sometimes people will use thicker head gaskets in an engine and end up with more pinging due to a loss in quench.

[M-Webb]

I called Auto-Tec and they said the pistons were made to specs from the machine shop that ordered them for it, with goal to be @ 8.5:1 cr. The motor was then assembled by that shop basically as currently have with the Best composite gaskets, which are on the thicker side of things (but slightly thinner than the Fel-Pro gaskets). I have no idea if this combo with the Best gaskets does end up with 8.5:1 or not. But the Auto-Tec rep also told me that the dish on these is 15cc's and so we now have that specific info to throw into the calcs. I can get the piston top to deck difference and then we can make a more educated calc. on what the compression ratio should be about at. Quench and all of that, not sure, is kind of above my pay grade to understand and usefully factor in currently.

[M-Webb]

Looks like the top of the pistons sit TDC at a hair more than .001" below the deck of the block.

1. Block is @ standard 289 bore
2. The heads are '57 GH heads @ 58cc chamber originally, now with about .0092" decked off.
3. Pistons are full dished w/ 15cc dish, top edge is .001"+ below the deck @ TDC.
4. Fel-Pro gasket is .058" thick if use that, plus some copper spray both sides, however much that might add. Not sure how thick the thinner shim type gasket is, and compression compared to that.

A. So what kind of compression would that give it?
B. Is that going to be good for the quench aspect for a supercharged motor?
C. And lastly and possibly most importantly, should I avoid the annual Studebaker drag race event with this so as not to embarrass myself, lol? That is assuming it actually runs well enough to even consider that when done of course!

[JoeHall]

Those are shallow dish pistons, so with the heads having been shaved .009", and 7.8 to 1, 1957GH heads, it will be around 8 to 1 with the thick gaskets and maybe .8.3 with shim gaskets. As mentioned above, the shim style are around .017, and you say your sandwich style is .058", but I will add that they will compress down to around .040 - .045" when torqued. Considering your plans for the truck, and you want AC, and want to use regular gas, and live in CA, I'd go with the sandwich gaskets. It will run a bit cooler, at negligible power loss, and be happy with regular gasoline any clime and any place, even with AC. - as long as you have an adequate radiator. I would not even consider the shim gaskets, given your stated plans. An added bonus, with sandwich gaskets you will also have a few more threads left on the push rod adjusters, to easily accommodate plenty of future valve adjustments.

[M-Webb]

Great, thanks for that confirmation Joe. Unless somebody else has thoughts contrary to that, that sounds exactly like the plan I was hoping for to begin with and will do.

Not sure where/how the machine shop that ordered the pistons came up with the 8.5:1 calc. as stated by the Auto-Tec rep., but I suspect they just didn't have the proper info on the heads and mis-calc'd that part of it a bit. I did stress to them though that I did not want this motor to be pushed too much towards max hp and having the issues as discussed. So they were aware of that as far as that goes.

But anyway, it sounds like the Fel-Pro gaskets will get the motor in a comfortable spot, so I'll roll with that to get the heads on here pretty soon.

Thanks!

[Buzzard]

Michael,
Looking at your cylinder head pics, it reminded me of my R4 Clone build in the early 70's. Being young and dumb (now just dumb) I custom machined Ford 406 valves and they nearly touched. They sure looked great though. I used 1970 Isky Z28 valves spings, retainers etc. and after all the machining and messing around, they did work well. Looking back it was probably massive unecessary overkill. As I stated, "young and dumb".
Good luck.
Bill

[M-Webb]

Bill, yeah, I hear you. I think I've gotten dumber as I've gotten older. I use to know everything back when I was a teenager, and was sure of it, but don't seem to anymore. The first shop that built the motor originally re-did the heads with the bigger valves and I have to admit when I first saw them I thought to myself as well that they looked very cozy in there for sure, maybe a little too much. Hopefully not touchy-feely cozy though. But they look very well done, pretty nice. I don't recall the source of the valves themselves, but seem to recall they are Chevy valves of some sort. We'll see how well they actually work though here before too long.

[64Avanti]

Calculating all the values it is about 8.47 with thin head gasket and about 8.02 with thick gasket. With that deck to piston clearance I would use either the thick Studebaker or Best gaskets. With the thin gaskets and a little piston rock and thermal expansion of the piston you are very close to the head. So I wouldn't risk the thin gaskets on a daily driver.

[M-Webb]

Cool, around 8:1 seems like a pretty good comfortable spot to be for what I want to use it for. I'm going to get the heads on this weekend and work on the top side of the motor, get it buttoned up. Thanks for the help everybody!