Where was the new Stude Intake??

[Dan White]

I was at York and did not see any sign of a new aluminum intake manifold that was rumored on here a few weeks back? Anyone else see it?

Dan White

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

[DEEPNHOCK]

I saw an aluminum 4bbl Lionel Stone manifold with an AFB on it in the small building. It wasn't labelled or anything.

On my table there was a brand new polished Chrysler 318/348/360 air gap manifold with adapters to put it on a Stude V8 engine. Maybe that was what you heard about.
Jeff Rice[8D]

quote:Originally posted by Dan White

I was at York and did not see any sign of a new aluminum intake manifold that was rumored on here a few weeks back? Anyone else see it?

Dan White

Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

DEEPNHOCK@worldnet.att.net
'61 Hawk
'37 Coupe Express
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

[Dan White]

I guess the adapter setup you have is what Sonny alluded to a few weeks back. It was supposedly super secret, etc. However, I was under the impression it was a new Stude manifold design? The Lionel Stone manifold has not bee too well received lately from the scuttlebut I picked up at York.




Dan White
64 R1 GT
64 R2 GT

[64Avanti]

So who has the adaptors for the chrysler manifold. I plan to use one on the Avanti I will run at Bonneville this year and would be interested if they are available at a reasonable cost.

[Kdancy]

The adaptors I had made would not work under a stock Avanti hood. Your really limited with that engine height to hood clearence.

53commander HDTP
53 Champion HDTP
64 Champ long bed V8
64 GT

[dclewallen]

By saying the adaptors would not fit under an Avanti stock hood, would this also apply to the 53 commander as well? And lastly, Who sells these? Thanks again

Darryl C. Lewallen

[64Avanti]

Clearing the hood is not a problem. I can and will add a scope to clear the intake system. This is allowed by the rules at Bonneville.

Next year I plan to make my own intake manifold and use fuel injection but will not have enough time or money for that this year.

If you want to see what it takes to clear a SB Chrysler intake look at pictures of Dave Blumbergs Avanti.

David L

[Sonny]

http://RacingStudebakers.com

[Kdancy]

http://community.webshots.com/user/studehdtp53
Look at the album titled "manifold conversion" for the adaptors and chrysler manifold that I made and used. We put a different manifold on the Cursed Hawk with the same plates. Notice that height can change based on make and type of manifold you are converting. We did 4 different makes and every one was a little different in height.
When I started researching and talking to several Stude racers about which manifold to use I was told to stay with the 318 and not the 340-360 as the 318 bore size is almost identical to Studebaker. They told me that I would experience a hp loss with the bigger bore intakes. We have been surprised at how well the new motor with the Holley and chrysler intake system starts and runs. No choke on the carb but it cranks right up in cold weather and after running a minute or less is good to go. The machinest that I had make the plates is too bogged down with bigger fish to fry than my adaptors so I sent a set to Nemish (Nimesh Solanki) nimeshsolanki@hotmail.com
to copy. You might get in touch with him and see what the status is. You do have to weld (tig) up the Chrysler mounting holes and re-drill for the Stude motor as the location and hole angles are different. Of course, this set up gives you the "air gap" affect. The ends need to be cut off and tidied up. The toughest thing is drilling the new holes out. I did it but I didn't have a mill which would have made it much easier. Also, I purposely kept the manifold to head bore very tight which makes the manifold a little tougher to mount if the heads have been milled. That could be taken care of with a little bigger mounting holes if needed, but I mounted every set I made on the motor you see in the picture to make sure everything lined up and the bores were a perfect match. It sounds like Jeffs would be easier to bolt up but I would rather have the "small" bore manifold unless I see some dyno numbers that convence me other wise.


53commander HDTP
53 Champion HDTP
64 Champ long bed V8
64 GT

[64Avanti]

Thanks for the input on the adapters. I will find out about the status. It sounds like I may just go ahead and make my own. I will probabley use the 340 /360 intake manifold since I am only interested in power from about 5500 to 7500 RPM.

It is too bad that there really isn't a decent Studebaker manifold for high performance use. The R3 manifold is nice because it is aluminum and saves some weight. When we were building these back in the early 70's I always wanted to design a new one but never did.

It might be of interest to everyone that I believe that Studebaker really did intend to increase the bore size and the R3 heads and intake might have become the standard head and intake. One of the reasons that I say this is that I have a cast iron R3 intake manifold that was cast at the Studebaker foundry. All of the rest of the original manifolds were cast in California by Paxton.

David L

[Kdancy]

Didn't the R3 heads have a bigger intake port size than the R1-R2?
Is that what you are running?
I wonder why we couldn't take a mopar manifold, pin it to some adaptor plates, cut off the excess then tig the adaptors to the manifold and then have that used as a pattern to cast in a one piece unit? Or cut back a little into the manifold runners and tig to that point to lesson the cast height a little for low hood lines ?

53commander HDTP
53 Champion HDTP
64 Champ long bed V8
64 GT

[N8N]

If you're going to go to that trouble, why not take an early (tall) WCFB manifold, mod it to hold an AFB, port it and then recast *that?* Probably would flow as well as an "adapted" manifold due to the runner angles matching up exactly.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[64Avanti]

The R3 heads have a larger port, mostly taller. The R3 manifolds were not too different than the standard intake manifolds. They just had taller runners.

For Bonneville I will use of single plane manifold.

One of the problems with building something like a new manifold is finding enough people willing to pay the price. Tooling costs would most likely be $40K or higher (in the US). If 100 people were interested the cost per manifold would be $400 each for tooling. The casting in California for example would cost about $100. Machining isn't too expensive but you would need to build some tooling for holding the manifold for maching. So there goes another few thousand. Anyway you get the picture.

I am working on getting some decent connecting rods built outside the US. (you would be surprised how many of the high performance rods are built outside the US) US built rods like carrillo are now over $1600 per set. I have had quotes as high as $2000 from some vendors. On the other hand you can buy some decent rods for a Chevy for $400 to $800 a set.

I will go with a us vendor for my rods for Bonneville but haven't decided which vendor.

David L