Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aluminum Intake Manifold

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

  • Engine: Aluminum Intake Manifold

    I had a good chat with Don Simmons of Silvertone Exhausts today. Turns out my 62 GT probably has R3 exhaust manifolds installed as Don remembers selling them to the fellow I bought the car from and I was told it has factory headers installed by the previous owner.

    That's the good news but the not so good is that I was telling him that I am having a difficult time getting the car to idle well and am only getting 13 mpg on the highway. It has a recent Holley carb and aluminum manifold but my carb expert friend says there is nothing wrong with the carb and is likely a vacuum leak. I mentioned this to Don and he said the manifold would be from a guy named Stone I think, or something like that, and they are lousy manifolds with lots of problems.

    So my question, has anybody had problems with these manifolds leaking at the heads and if so were you able to correct it by installing two gaskets as Don suggests works sometimes? Other than that it is re machine the manifold for big $$ no doubt. any other suggestions?

    Here's a pic:Click image for larger version

Name:	P1090282.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	108.5 KB
ID:	1751217

  • #2
    I'd go with a stock Studebaker '63-'64 Carter AFB style factory intake manifold and new Edelbrock carb with electric choke....sell the Holley and aluminum manifold to one of the 'boy racer' types on this forum!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SN-60 View Post
      I'd go with a stock Studebaker '63-'64 Carter AFB style factory intake manifold and new Edelbrock carb with electric choke....sell the Holley and aluminum manifold to one of the 'boy racer' types on this forum!
      I've had that very thought and it turns out a friend of mine has a new in the box 600 cfm edelbrock he wants to sell. How hard is it to source a 63/64 intake manifold?

      Comment


      • #4
        This Engine looks like it has the "Full Monte" Aluminum Parts Kit installed, "Lionel Stone" Intake Manifold, Valve Covers, Valley Cover, maybe a Oil Filler Pipe Cover, also the L/S Repro Cast Iron R3 Exhaust Headers.

        Lionel is retired now, most Parts sold to John Erb of Supercharger Fame.
        Usually with some grinding and reworking most of it can be made to work, for those that want overkill "Bling" and high maintenance.

        If the Holley Carb. is over 500 CFM, that is most of your MPG problem, not counting the Fact that it IS a Holley!
        StudeRich
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner

        Comment


        • #5
          I have a 63 GT Hawk, when bought the car was stored for over 15years. The original owner had purchased a crate motor from whomever was the owner of the Studebaker inventory. When purchased the engine only had about 5000 miles on it. The mechanic bought an intake manifold too and added a 4bbl then around 1990. After rebuilding the carb and doing other changes; oil and water pump, full tune up we added a Dave Thibeault electronic ignition. At best and at speed I only average about 13mpg.
          Mark

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
            This Engine looks like it has the "Full Monte" Aluminum Parts Kit installed, "Lionel Stone" Intake Manifold, Valve Covers, Valley Cover, maybe a Oil Filler Pipe Cover, also the L/S Repro Cast Iron R3 Exhaust Headers.

            Lionel is retired now, most Parts sold to John Erb of Supercharger Fame.
            Usually with some grinding and reworking most of it can be made to work, for those that want overkill "Bling" and high maintenance.

            If the Holley Carb. is over 500 CFM, that is most of your MPG problem, not counting the Fact that it IS a Holley!
            Yes, I wouldn't have done all of this if I had restored it. Not sure why all the bling as the engine compartment is not detailed to a high standard. The Holley is a 350CFM but yeah, it's still a Holley. Wish they'd gone Edelbrock! Not sure whether to try and make this work or cut my losses and go with a stock manifold and an Edelbrock.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mch View Post
              I have a 63 GT Hawk, when bought the car was stored for over 15years. The original owner had purchased a crate motor from whomever was the owner of the Studebaker inventory. When purchased the engine only had about 5000 miles on it. The mechanic bought an intake manifold too and added a 4bbl then around 1990. After rebuilding the carb and doing other changes; oil and water pump, full tune up we added a Dave Thibeault electronic ignition. At best and at speed I only average about 13mpg.
              Mark
              OK, so maybe the mpg isn't out of line. At first I thought I was getting great mileage as being a Canadian I was using the conversion factor from litres to gallons for the imperial gallons we used to have here. When I realized that and used the correct conversion to US gallons I was a little let down! Still have a lousy idle though!

              Comment


              • #8
                Nothing...wrong with the Holley..! While a little small, it probably better suited than any 600 CFM carburetor..!

                Also with the intake manifold. As long as you can verify that there is no vacuum leak, there's nothing wrong with that either..! The don't do anything but sit there and direct fuel/air. Again, verify any possible air (vacuum) leak.

                Also...headers... No one at Studebaker or Lionel Stone even made any headers for the Stude engine. The one that you speak of could be the (as you note) R3 series "performance, cast iron manifolds". If these are Lionel's manifolds, they do need some grinding to be done inside the "outlet" area to cut a lot of "damming" (plugged up) of the flow. Bad design.

                To get the best out of your car -
                1. Verify no vacuum leaks in the intake manifold carburetor interface AND the intake to cylinder head interface.
                2. Remove the exhaust manifolds and remove the restrictions in the outlet area.
                3. Put a vacuum secondary "500cfm" carburetor on it.
                4. Make sure the total ignition timing is up around 36 or 38 or so degrees (depending on your fuel oct.)
                5. Make sure your valves are properly adjusted.
                6. Verify the points, condenser, rotor, distr. cap, plug wire and spark plugs are in good condition.

                Do the above...that should get you pretty close to a good running engine.

                Mike

                Comment


                • #9
                  That carb and intake manifold would be least suspect, in determining why the 13 MPG. Headers often even improve MPG. Other factors are likely more to blame, e.g. rear end ratio & transmission compatibility, and driving conditions.

                  For best MPG, if an automatic transmission, it needs a 3.31 or 3.07 rear end. If a 4-speed, or 3-speed w/o overdrive, a 3.54 or 3.31. If an OD, it needs a 3.54 or 3.73, and the OD will yield best MPG of any OEM transmission, since final drive ratio with a 3.54 is 2.48, and with a 3.73 it is 2.61.

                  If you are running a 3.73 with a standard or automatic transmission, you are lucky to get 13 MPG.

                  If your driving is mostly in city, 13 MPG is great, no matter the rear end or transmission. If it is mixed town & country driving it will get better MPG. If it is interstate driving it will get best MPG.

                  Then too, if someone went to the trouble of installing headers and aluminum intake, they may have also installed a hotter cam, which may be at least partially responsible for the low mPG.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have repaired at least a dozen Lionel Stone intakes over the past ten years.
                    While the casting is decent, the flange machining is less than ideal.
                    If you are interested in checking, and possibly repairing, that intake...send me a PM.
                    I will be happy to explain what it takes to make sure it is correct.
                    HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                    Jeff


                    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                    Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
                      Nothing...wrong with the Holley..! While a little small, it probably better suited than any 600 CFM carburetor..!

                      Also with the intake manifold. As long as you can verify that there is no vacuum leak, there's nothing wrong with that either..! The don't do anything but sit there and direct fuel/air. Again, verify any possible air (vacuum) leak.

                      Also...headers... No one at Studebaker or Lionel Stone even made any headers for the Stude engine. The one that you speak of could be the (as you note) R3 series "performance, cast iron manifolds". If these are Lionel's manifolds, they do need some grinding to be done inside the "outlet" area to cut a lot of "damming" (plugged up) of the flow. Bad design.

                      To get the best out of your car -
                      1. Verify no vacuum leaks in the intake manifold carburetor interface AND the intake to cylinder head interface.
                      2. Remove the exhaust manifolds and remove the restrictions in the outlet area.
                      3. Put a vacuum secondary "500cfm" carburetor on it.
                      4. Make sure the total ignition timing is up around 36 or 38 or so degrees (depending on your fuel oct.)
                      5. Make sure your valves are properly adjusted.
                      6. Verify the points, condenser, rotor, distr. cap, plug wire and spark plugs are in good condition.

                      Do the above...that should get you pretty close to a good running engine.

                      Mike
                      If these are the headers sold to the previous owner by Don Simmons they are R3 cast iron headers according to Don. That makes them a Lionel Stone manifold then?

                      Definitely the next step is to verify whether or not there is a vacuum leak. Sounds like the exhaust manifold re work would be a good winter project. You are suggesting a 500 CFM Edelbrock or Holley or either? Will check the timing and valves and this engine has the Pertronix ignition conversion and all the other components look very good.

                      Thanks very much for the great advice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
                        That carb and intake manifold would be least suspect, in determining why the 13 MPG. Headers often even improve MPG. Other factors are likely more to blame, e.g. rear end ratio & transmission compatibility, and driving conditions.

                        For best MPG, if an automatic transmission, it needs a 3.31 or 3.07 rear end. If a 4-speed, or 3-speed w/o overdrive, a 3.54 or 3.31. If an OD, it needs a 3.54 or 3.73, and the OD will yield best MPG of any OEM transmission, since final drive ratio with a 3.54 is 2.48, and with a 3.73 it is 2.61.

                        If you are running a 3.73 with a standard or automatic transmission, you are lucky to get 13 MPG.

                        If your driving is mostly in city, 13 MPG is great, no matter the rear end or transmission. If it is mixed town & country driving it will get better MPG. If it is interstate driving it will get best MPG.

                        Then too, if someone went to the trouble of installing headers and aluminum intake, they may have also installed a hotter cam, which may be at least partially responsible for the low mPG.
                        I do know that a standard cam was installed as I was able to ask the previous owner that question. I thought that might be why the lumpy idle. As for the rear end ratio I do not know what is in there. The tach is intermittent but at 60 mph the engine is turning at about 2200 rpm if the tach is accurate. My latest mileage check was freeway driving at about 60mph and it was actually about 13.45 mpg. The car runs well at highway speed and it was a warm day with the air conditioning running and the temp was never above 195.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK View Post
                          I have repaired at least a dozen Lionel Stone intakes over the past ten years.
                          While the casting is decent, the flange machining is less than ideal.
                          If you are interested in checking, and possibly repairing, that intake...send me a PM.
                          I will be happy to explain what it takes to make sure it is correct.
                          PM sent! Hopefully you can send me in the right direction.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You should be able to find either a R series 4 barrel manifold, or one of the "modified" two barrel to 4 barrel manifolds pretty easy. Idle really shouldn't be a problem on that engine unless cam replaced. Have you closely adjusted the valves to specs? Too tight and quiet- your idle will be crap from lack of vacuum, slight ticking like a sewing machine-smooth as silk. As to MPG- I would check what gear ratio you have, despite anecdotal accounts of great mileage, Studes get it only with the right ratios, as do even modern engines. What was good in 1962 with 50 MPH limits, and little stop and go traffic, is less satisfactory today at 65-70 and lots of stop and go traffic. You might have to give up some off the line performance to get decent mileage. Ah see you updated since I started--that A/C is old school-lots of drag and HP used to drive it and costs MPG. Someone on here will chime in on a good guess of you rear ratio 2200 at 60 sounds like a good range though to me.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kato View Post
                              I do know that a standard cam was installed as I was able to ask the previous owner that question. I thought that might be why the lumpy idle. As for the rear end ratio I do not know what is in there. The tach is intermittent but at 60 mph the engine is turning at about 2200 rpm if the tach is accurate. My latest mileage check was freeway driving at about 60mph and it was actually about 13.45 mpg. The car runs well at highway speed and it was a warm day with the air conditioning running and the temp was never above 195.
                              With that speed/RPM, if you have anywhere near 27" tall tires, you likely have a 3.31 or 3.07. Is it automatic, 3 or 4 speed?

                              If by lumpy idle, you mean it rocks the car a bit when at idle, likely some exhaust valves are too tight. If unsure when they were last adjusted, I'd advise doing it yourself. Properly adjusted, the low end torque is a bit better, and so is the MPG.

                              The headers likely improve MPG, instead of lower it.
                              Last edited by JoeHall; 06-20-2016, 07:29 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X