Geoff
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Geoff
-
-
Oh, how about the electronics shield? Covering the coil, et al.
-
I would hazard two guesses. My first guess is valve covers; my second guess is breather caps.
-
There's this sketch from '61: http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/classic/1962_Studebaker_Avanti_Loewy_Sketch_02.jpg
And a mockup: http://www.thoroughbred-cars.com/cars/USA/Studebaker/images/avantps2.jpg
And then there was another sketch I'm thinking of; it was a closeup of an oval, with two circles contained inside the oval. And now that I think about it, that would have looked a lot like a '62 Lark's setup. If you can envision these headlight bezels plastered on the front of Avanti, you'd have an approximation.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsdjySqKQlI/S74VHTVqcZI/AAAAAAAADNI/e9n8-2lntNo/s1600/1962+Studebaker+Lark+Coupe.+-+1.jpg -
Circa '03 I was perusing the Corvette Forum and stumbled across a guy who found a solution for the "dim bulbs" those of us with old cars have. He found an aircraft landing light that fit in the inner headlight bezel of his late C1 'Vette. He installed two of 'em, and bought an upgraded alternator to satisfy the battery while those behemoths were flipped on. I just visited while typing this and it seems there's a landing light "kit / fix" available for C1 - C3. Just be sure your low beams are properly aimed, because if someone flashes you thinking your highs are already on, they're in for a blinding awakening.
Later Avanti IIs had an extra pair of lights hanging beneath the bumper. So, anybody want aircraft landing lights? Just like The Who said, "I can see for miles and miles and miles!"
Airplane parts on Avanti, Egbert would be pleased.
-
I know about the RPM power rating tricks. The other thing they could have done is quoted a lower power figure at the peak RPM. Just like picking the peak of a lower RPM, that method wouldn't be lying but it wouldn't be telling the whole truth. I always figured it was through those power manipulations (and the price that you'd mentioned) that led people to choose certain engines over others.
I used to have a '69 myself; someone at one time removed the factory "tunnel back" rear upper deck and glassed-in the later C3 bubble rear window.
-
I kinda think that's the reasoning; who'd pay extra for a 299 R3 when they could have a 289 R2? Something I said on page 2, "I don't know why Studebaker elected to make the factory R3 a 304 cubic inch engine. My two guesses, it probably sounded better for sales that the R2 was a supercharged 289 and the R3 was a supercharged 304, or maybe they felt the additional cubic inches would make a more street-able engine? I could be way off."
It's almost a tangent of Chevrolet downplaying L88 (and ZL1), trying to get people to buy the "more powerful" L71, in the regard that numbers steer marketing/customers.
-
"But, of course, there was more to the R3 option than just the R3 engine itself!"
R3 option also brought along stiffer springs and bigger sway bars, yes?
"Wouldn't an even MORE interesting question be.....'What WASN'T available on a Studebaker Avanti if the R3 engine option was ordered'????????"
Well, we can say air conditioning wasn't available when the R3 option was checked.
-
If we're going to have a serious discussion of aerodynamics, we can't begin with garbage-in-garbage-out, so that "estimate" has to be substantiated. Where and by whom is the source of this estimate? What are his credentials and by what method was the estimate derived? Do we have a published frontal area? …
I found something! "… with a smaller frontal area of only 21.1 sq. ft." (which jives with the dimensions found on theavanti.net) and "… so far as I know, the drag coefficient must be in the high 0.30s in comparison to the Pontiac's 0.53 or the Corvair's 0.43." Article authored by J.T. Crow of Car Life magazine http://www.studebaker-info.org/AVDB3/duecento/cl64granatelli.jpg
-
I read some interesting things here, http://www.studebaker-info.org/AVDB3/duecento/dcind2d.html "(*2 Editor's note) 299 cubic inches was a class limit at Bonneville." That would be why the prototype R3 engines were 299 and not 304. This connects to the Bonneville Record Breaker video where the narrator makes these two statements, "This car, smaller than record-holders it will outrun …" and "The Avanti is actually running in class C because of engine size."
Then I notice on this print, http://www.studebaker-info.org/AVDB3/duecento/cl64granatelli.jpg (linked out of the above URL) USAC has a class for 183 - 305 cubic inches. My love of SCCA Trans-Am racing also chimes in my head, "I know they had a limit of 305; it's the reason Z/28 and Boss 302 were built, and it's why Mopar teams destroked the 340 and 360."
Could there have been* two limitations? And could Paxton / Granatelli have built out to 299 cubic inches because they were limited by the greatest common factor? SCCA, USAC, SCTA, FIA, ACO, and many more had classing systems and kept records. SCTA was the sanctioning body used in the Hot Rod article for the Riverside 1/2 mile event. Would their class have expired at 299 whereas USAC allowed 305?
*Have been being the active words, meaning now sanctioning bodies are more in agreement with engine class sizes.
-
This is the video, or at least 5 minutes of it:
-
I would go with the flared fender option but that could just be my preference.
-
I know what I post is only on the Internet, and proving over the net is difficult, especially since I’m in CA while my dad and the car aren't. In my opinion the biggest thing working against 1025 is time. We didn’t know the extent of its history until a handful of years ago. My dad and Doug knew there were oddities about the car and had strong suspicions it was an R3 prototype though they didn’t have contact with anyone who could verify. Here we are fifty-two plus years after the car was built and new information is being brought to light so I understand those who feel skepticism. Below are a few more accounts I have and maybe something will ring a bell for somebody who knows more about Studebaker and/or Paxton history?
I know the top end of RS1021 was torn down in the early ‘90s and the bore was measured then. I was only 13 in 1991 and wasn’t interested in cars so I didn’t hang out in the garage when they did it. I have since gotten into cars and heard what's written on page one, "As best as we can tell it is pretty much a stock 289 block. It has a 289 bore." My dad mentioned the stock bore to Andy and that’s when Andy said the engine was stroked. A longer stroke does fit with Andy’s "fastest accelerating” comment since more stroke helps increase low RPM power.
The cold starting procedure for RS1021 is as follows: Pump the throttle about a dozen times. While continuing to pump the throttle turn the key. Wait for enough sparks to ignite the pools of fuel sitting in the cylinders and watch two large plumes of black soot shoot out of the pipes. Also, there is a good amount of valve overlap and the car consumes fuel at roughly twice the rate of other R2 / R3 cars. This was verified when Ron, Doug and Carolyn drove to the Seattle meet. Ron would have to stop twice for fuel whereas Doug and Carolyn could fill up every other time.
1025 has a hole cut in the passenger side inner fender with the air filter housing mounted in the upper passenger corner of the grille. The Paxton crew also brought a rubber fuel line inside the cabin where it connects to the fuel pressure gauge beneath the radio. If that hose ever bursts gasoline will spray wherever the resulting orifice points. I don't know if that's how fuel pressure gauges were installed at that time or if that was Paxton figuring, "Let's just do it this way, it’s quick, it’ll work, the car’s a prototype and we haven't heard about any plans to sell it."
This next tidbit my dad knew simply from driving the car but it was verified and the details came from the phone conversation with Andy [note: somewhere here “two times” and/or “four times” get placed]. The differential contains (two times? four times?) as many clutch packs as a factory twin traction unit so the rear wheels work best when the car is traveling straight. The rear wheels will spin independently but it takes (two times? four times?) more force than factory twin traction units to make them do so. While taking a corner, even sedately in town, the inside rear tire wants to lay rubber. My dad told me about a time when he was driving the car in the early seventies. He applied the throttle a little too soon exiting a tight radius on-ramp and while merging had to make one lane’s worth of corrective steering input because the tail wasn't yet in line with the nose and the diff. wasn't going to let the situation unfold any other way.
When I was driving the car daily I wanted to use 100k miles as a rebuilding point. I only got to 98k if I remember correctly. I also want to hear her bellow at 8,000 RPM through glasspacks. For both of those desires I will have to dig into the engine and give her a good refreshing. The good news is RS1021 will get opened up again. This time I am interested in cars so I can probe the bore and stroke with a micrometer (while wearing a GoPro Hero2 so I can post it to YouTube) and everybody can see the specifics. The bad news is, that won't be until at least this summer and maybe not until summer '16.
-
-
I understand the R3 debate: is 1025 a factory R3 or is it not? It started life as an R2 (finished July 5, '62) and was built up to prototype the R3. I'm okay with it remaining a prototype and keeping the nine factory R3s in their own group.
…
But even more more interesting to Avanti history, IIRC, the 172 MPH Bonneville car also had a prototype 299" engine. So the fastest top speed Avanti and the quickest accelerating Avanti were both hand-built prototype engines, neither having an R3 serial number nor R3 heads and neither being 304.5". For true or false?
jack vines
Didn't USAC rules dictate the reason for 299 cubic inches? I thought I heard somewhere that 300 cubic inches started the next higher class. Competition rules frequently change things, as in the former American Le Mans Series when Corvette Racing had to reduce displacement on their race car from 7L (the race car foundation was the C6 Z06) to 5.5L to be class legal. The ALMS required a 5.5L engine for competition but Chevrolet still only offered 7L C6 Z06 Corvettes to the public.
I don't know why Studebaker elected to make the factory R3 a 304 cubic inch engine. My two guesses, it probably sounded better for sales that the R2 was a supercharged 289 and the R3 was a supercharged 304, or maybe they felt the additional cubic inches would make a more street-able engine? I could be way off.
I hate to take away from 1025 but I don't think it is the road test car. I think that car was 1017 unless there was more than one. … I know the road test "Avantis a Pair" used a turquoise R 3 Avanti but didn't realize the Hot Rod road test car was also turquoise, I always thought it was red with a black interior. I could be wrong about that. Does anyone know for sure about any of this info discussed so far?
There were more than one, as the June 1963 Hot Rod issue talks about three (a 4-speed R2, the prototype R3, and an automatic R2), and the July 1962 Motor Trend issue printed two test Avantis on the cover.
I can say that when my dad was talking to Andy, my dad mentioned evidence of a tire fire in 1025's wheel well and Andy was able to verify it was the car he was thinking of. Unfortunately we lost Andy late in 2013 or I would send an e-mail to mrindy500@yahoo.com for written verification and for Andy to include memoirs he had with the car.
I apologize this conversation is taking place in the trivia section, it isn't every day one peruses the forums and sees a thread titled with the VIN of the family car.
-
No Avantis were built after the year 1991 until the year 2000.......True?
I follow the reasoning for answering false.
Perhaps a "lesser grey area question" would be, "No Avantis were built for public sale between 1992 and 2000. True?"
-
We don't have the production order for 1025 and I'm sure it would be interesting to see what information is contained. However, 1025 wasn't delivered to the Granatellis, it was property of Studebaker (likely Egbert) and used by Studebaker / Paxton as a prototype. The Granatellis bought 1025 used from Studebaker in 1965.
-
It's not posted on here, it was during a phone call with Andy Granatelli that he told my dad RS1021 was stroked. I know the "short stroke 299" segment is inline with the A.G. conversation though that's not the proper location for it. I believe Vince told my dad it was a short stroke 299 and Andy made the correction. Andy also corrected my dad with this bit, my dad had talked to Vince in the later portion of 2003, then again in 2011 and Vince shared memories of the car and said it was his car. My dad brought that up and Andy said, "That wasn't Vince's car … That was my car."
My dad and uncle (Ron and Doug Crall) had the engine torn down in the early 1990s (late '91, early '92-ish) as they were getting ready to drive from the SF Bay Area to attend the 1992 AOAI meet in Seattle. They did have the heads off and measured the bore at that time.
-
boogieman, not the 4th gen. Monte Carlo; it also was body on frame. I also heard Avanti (the company) entered an agreement with an insurance company, and the insurance company used the spare Monte Carlo bodies for claim repairs, etc.
-
The 4th generation Monte Carlo ran into the 1988 model year. I'm only using Wikipedia information here, so take it as you will.
This was the last year for the fourth-generation Monte Carlo.The 1988 models were actually built in late 1987 … The final G-body Monte Carlo - a silver SS coupe — was produced on December 12, 1987. Total SS production for '88 was 16,204.
Then there was a hiatus and the Monte Carlo picked up again for model year 1995.
-
There are a few ways to build a Studebaker engine to 299 cubic inches and they're just different.
+0.060" overbore: 3.6225" by 3.625" stroke = 298.885 cubic inches
Stock 289 bore: 3.5625" by 3.75" stroke = 299.034 cubic inches
+1/16" overbore: 3.625" by 3.625" stroke = 299.298 cubic inches
I won't argue that most 299 engines are reached via increases in bore but Granatelli's crew punched out RS1021 by increasing the stroke. So far it's the only one known to have reached those cubes in that manner. My uncle and dad are also very impressed with the work done on RS1021's heads, and they say they've not come across other factory cars with the same amount of work as done on RS1021's heads. The engine in 63R-1025 is a prototype and one of a kind.
-
Thank you. It is my focus now to get it back up before my dad gets to the point where he can't enjoy it. I have a feeling we're going to need some help from brand X (Comp Cams, Crane, Lunati, etc.) if we ever want to spin RS1021 to 8k RPM again. When I was driving it in the middle 1990s it would start experiencing valve float above 5500 RPM. In one of the phone conversations, Andy told my dad he wouldn't take the engine as high as he did because when [Andy] was doing it, he had the support of Studebaker and Paxton. Everything in the engine is as Studebaker & Paxton built it and rebuilt it; the original parts are old and worn. On top of that, one of the cylinders swallowed a lock washer when my dad and Doug had the engine torn down in the early '90s, so there's a good scoring on one of the cylinder walls.
1025 has had a rough life.
-
As correctly posted earlier the change occurred for model year 1989. To add sprinkles to the story, don't forget that before the factory went to unmolested Caprice frames (as in, whole), they used Caprice frames with 6" of wheelbase cut out.
Caprice wheelbase = 116". However, when removing 6" it becomes 110".
Monte Carlo wheelbase = 108".
and for reference's sake, Studebaker Avanti wheelbase = 109".
I surmise some confusion originates because cars with cut Caprice frames can look similar (yet "off") when compared to prior cars on G-body chassis. Place a 1987 or 1988 next to a 1989 and those 2" are more easily noticed. Watch any of those years drive down the road (without a reference vehicle) and those 2" are better hidden.
-
The Aurora had a couple of things pillaged from it; Shelby used the 4L V8 as the heart of the 1999 Shelby Series 1.
-
I don't frequent the board or else I would have answered that one too quickly
1963 turquoise paint code needed
in 1963-64 Avanti
Posted
It's either 4444L or 882-96422L
Some members were recently talking about paint in this thread http://www.aoai.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3948where two relevant links popped-up.
http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/chipdisplay.cgi?year=1964&manuf=Studebaker&smodel=Studebaker&info=&page=9
http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/colorcodedisplay.cgi?type=paint&paint=9097&ditzler=zstudebakeravantiturquoise&smodel=&syear=1964&smanuf=Studebaker&sname=Avanti%20Turquoise