Engine: 259 with Paxton blower, would this make an R 1.5?

[spokejr]

This was broached on the general forum more as a comment to someone's question regarding another matter.

It is a question that has been rattling around in my rather voluminous and very empty cranium. The noise caused by the rattling has gotten tiring so it's time to throw it out for discussion.

What got me started thinking was the `64 Avanti that Monte Shelton has for sale up in Portland. The car was originally an R2 but was many years ago changed to a 259 and A/C was retro fitted.

From what I understand, the 259 ran low compression pistons. If so, then would it be more of a simple bolt up of changing out the carb, distributor and adding the blower (after moving and replacing the A/C pump with a rotary pump). Would it be feasible? Granted, the car would not gain in value by any great amount but it would be a fun ride all the same. Then the "Superchared" badges would once again be worth something.

Cheers,

Ken

[SN-60]

To: spokejr,-----For what it's worth.....My Speedster ran very nicely rebuilt to stock specs (except for a one point comp. increase). 259, WCFB carb. But after installing a '57 GH supercharger system
on it, there really was a solid increase in power.....and the engine 'winds up' so quickly now....and to top it off, somehow the idle quality seems better. I've noticed the extra-smooth idle on other
supercharged Studebakers (not speaking of 'R' engines with the cam). I always figured the gasoline was atomizing better? Just a thought.

[BobPalma]

Absolutely, Ken. I R2-ized a 259 / overdrive in a worn 1960 Lark Regal 4-door while at Purdue. It was a mediocre old beige 4-door with blackwall tires; an incredible sleeper. It was really fast, too, and I had a wonderful time with it. BP

[PackardV8]

Yes, agree, the 259" is just begging for a supercharger. I did one many, many years back when a CASO blew the 289". I just swapped in the 259", used the R2 carb and distributor. Without the R1 cam it wouldn't pull past 5,000, but it was strong enough up to that point.

jack vines

[spokejr]

Cool, so did any of you guys swap out the cam for an R2 or would it just be too much for the smaller engine? How bad did it effect the fuel consupmtion vs what sort of power gain did you think you achieved?

I'm coming from a point of total ignorance as I have no experience with Studies and very limited drive time in a car with a supercharger, a 2003 Pontiac Gran Prix my wife and I rented for a weekend. Torquey little beast, would have been a whole lot more fun with a rear drive chassis. With the FWD, the natural reaction to turns was to plow when under much power or massive tramlining in a staight line on rough surfaces. The power was instant (unlike my WRX) and very intoxicating! Had it had RWD, the power slides would have been wicked rude! No doubt a great deal of fun until Happy John Law arrives on the scene...

Cheers,

Ken

[mjeansonne]

This is something I've tossed around in my mind for some years. I plan on rebuilding the 259 fullflow engine in my Champ Pickup and supercharging it. I think it would be a cool thing to do.
Is there a thread that discusses supercharging a 259... a how to, thread.

[PackardV8]

Cool, so did any of you guys swap out the cam for an R2 or would it just be too much for the smaller engine? How bad did it effect the fuel consupmtion vs what sort of power gain did you think you achieved?

An R1/R2 cam in a 259" produces less low end torque and less fuel economy and gives back more horsepower above 4,000 RPMs. The question you ask when considering the tradeoff is what percentage of your total driving time is spent above 4,000 RPMs?

Is there a thread that discusses supercharging a 259... a how to, thread.

Same as any Stude V8. It just bolts on. Change the carb and distributor. All it takes is money.

jack vines

[SN-60]

To: spokejr,----Also, the stock compression ratio on the 259 is good with a blower.

[BobPalma]

Yes, I put an R2 cam in the 1960 259 I R2-ized (Post #3). I was only 19/20 years old at the time, so just naturally assumed the R2 cam would be better. The car ran so good, though, that I believe it was the thing to do. BP

[spokejr]

Jack, Bob and SN60, thanks for all the feedback.

Jack, I really do agree you on the issue torque vs total horsepower. With the realities of today's traffic here in the Snake Pit (a.k.a. Los Angeles) having the ability to tip in the throttle and move out in a short burst can allow one to enter a space that opens up as well as get up to the pace of fwy traffic. Anything past 75 on the fwy is just begging for a ticket. Back up an engine like that with a 3.08 ratio and it would still do well for commuting as well as the occasional tour with a club, especially in a rather light car such as an Avanti or even better, a Lark. You won't win the 1/4 mile but the grunty nature would feel pretty good.

The reason I asked about the cam change was both to verify what I was beginning to hope was done by others. I am assuming you didn't use the R2 cam Bob? While boys will always be boys and there is no replacement for more power, the nature of delivery can be everything when it comes to overall pleasure. And dropping an extra $20.00-40.00 a week in fuel can detract from a little to a lot. This said by one who is developing the talent of not hitting the brake pedal nearly as much as the others in an effort to hit the lights green while still trying not to be the bloody clot holding up traffic.

Don't get me wrong, I love to hear a well tuned engine in full song as well as the feel of making the perfect shift just before the engine runs out of its powerband. Also a well done downshift, the co-ordination of the heal and toe on brake and throttle with the clutch released without a lurch. But these treats are like chocolates, dessert and good whisky, enjoyed in deep moderation. Most of the time I'm rolling up to stops gentle enough to release the brake pedal before a full stop on level ground to still have the car stop due to rolling friction alone (when driving stick).

Thanks,

Ken