Nelson

I think about 350 cubic inch. Miles told me it was a 360 plus motor but I think he thought it started out a 304. I never believed the 5/8 stroker story until I dismantled it. It was so much stroke that the rod caps would have hit the cam-lobes so the cam was remade with a reduced base circle. I don’t know how they expected it to survive? I seem to remember the wrist pin peeking out the bottom of the cylinder when turning over the engine with the pan off. The engine was built totally on the edge.

I am shooting from the hip as I’m on the road with no reference shop manual but…when you put the ram back on did you put the hoses back on the ram in the correct location not reversed? Also, I seem to remember a deflector in the reservoir that keeps the return fluid under control and not blowing against the lid. Maybe I’m just dreaming that? Also, could you have a cracked fitting or lose fitting hose to pump?

Not sure how to help but does it leak with the engine NOT RUNNING? from your description it sounds like someone else has been working on it and they probably didn’t know what they were doing..torn seals, not worn seals

Peter. Thanks but not what I’m trying to find. I saw the photo possibly forty years ago and may have been at the Studebaker archives well before any museum. It was a glossy, 5x7 (?) black and white. Definitely a factory photo as it was taken in a building or studio with no discreet background. Those photos are generally detailed enough that you can examine small detain or body tag under the hood.

Yes, the car I’m referring to is the HRM R3 Daytona. It ran a 304 cubic inch R3. The original engine is back in the car. Miles built several stroker motors for the car and the latest one was a 299 with a 5/8 stroker.

Many years ago I ran across a factory photo of an R4 engine installation in an Avanti. It was an over engine bay shot either with the hood off or possibly the support removed and hood at a vertical position. I’ve asked Richard Quinn and Andy Beckman if either remember seeing the photo but neither one can remember seeing it. Has anybody seen this photo or have access to it?

With that comment I imagine you must have read the poster boards? It really is a self inflicted dilemma I’m faced with. I am tip toeing through the restoration. I decided to go ahead with the seat reupholstering and will try to maintain the original early style uncomfortable front seat back cushion. I just delivered those seats to a shop recommended by Brad Bez and Lew Schucart. Lew and I explained to the upholsterer in detail just how the seats need to be done. I agree on getting an engine back to spec. I am fortunate to have many odd ball R3/4 items. I actually have a choice on using a 299 or 304 block. The 299 block was in the Myles Walker car with a 5/8 stroker that Miles had built. The block came from Paxton but was a early engine with the 060 overbore. It has the chamfered cylinders and the small water holes between the cylinders so it’s the real thing.. I will replace the dash pad, headliner and many upholstery pieces as I think needed. The exreior paint is still a question. Certainly nothing under the hood will be repainted and nothing in the lower air scoop under the front bumper. Will do plenty of soul searching bringing this car back. Sure would be nice to find a set of NOS turquoise seat upholstery before I have to settle for something close.

Are you two brothers?🤔

Without looking I’m going to say four. I’ll change that to six if you exclude Avanti on the other side of Paula Murphy on the calendar.

Yes, There are two bearing in the water pump assembly. The bearing assembly has one outer shell, one shaft and two ball bearing sets, one in the front and one in the rear. When the Avanti pump became unavailable in the late 70’s I started rebuilding the standard Studebaker pump for use in an Avanti by using a special bearing assembly that had a roller bearing toward the front to carry the load and a ball bearing at the rear to handle the thrust load. A roller bearing will handle infinitely more load than a ball. It worked pretty well. Fortunately they started reproducing the Avanti tall pump again and things got better.

The reason the gussets are on the neck of the pump is because the neck is significantly taller. It is taller in order to move the bearing set forward. There are two bearings in the bearing unit. The belt load is supposed to be shared equally between the two bearings as the belt configuration is further forward than a standard Stude V8. A standard V8 water pump is short so only one bearing, the front one, ends up taking ALL the load. The distance from the mounting surface to the pulley flange is the same between the two but the bearing location relative to the pulley flange and mounting surface is different. Long answer to a simple question but the information is worthwhile.

Tom. If these work out is there any chance you would consider doing the 63 style wheel?

Yes, that makes sense.

You have the bearing part correct but gussets aren’t the important part of the equation.

Why do non Avanti water pumps fail when installed on Avantis? Are the bearings different between the two?

A guess but think they were the same size.

Maybe no grill?

A lot of wheel hop during hard acceleration will do that. No radius rod or broken mount or rod will also do it. Did you check the part number on the spring. Should be on the main or bottom leaf under mounting pad. Sometimes people used station wagon springs as they were close to flat but still needed to be heated and bent to lower the rear end of the car. The different mounting hole is to balance the car with just the driver aboard.

It had a standard bore .093 over R4 although it was running the R3 blower system on top of that. I find it hard to believe Paxton would sell the car with that setup but who knows. Their literature said it was ok to supercharge up to 11 to 1 comp ratio so what’s a little more. The owner might have done that on his own or maybe that was the easiest way to sell the car as an R3. Wish I could talk to someone who knew the owner or the car.

Bob. That location sounds familiar. I bought a 64 black/red R3 4speed from a dentist back in 1971(?). He told me that Vince did the installation several years prior and described the facility. Probably the one you described. you’ve been out in the LA area for a long time and around Avantis way back. Do you remember a Gordon York Mills? I think he was the first owner of R1016. I’m trying to gather any information I can on this car. I know Gordon has passed on but wonder if he had a wife or kids I might get in contact with.

None…..I hope.

Yes, I followed the R1025 story from the get go and had made several comments at the time as I thought I knew the whereabouts of the real test car but didn’t own it although I had looked it over and it looked correct. That was back in the 80’s or90’s. When it came for sale I decided to look at it thinking it probably isn’t what I thought it was. Opening the hood, even with no motor in place, I knew it was THE CAR. It took me five minutes to buy it. I actually thought the tow bar brackets had been added by the first owner until that evening when I looked at the MotorTrend test of the car and I was pretty certain I could see those brackets. As it turned out they were on the road test car in both HRM and MT. The car was parked in 1968 with engine problems. It still has 1968 California tags, still has original heater hoses etc. Above all it still retains all its battle scars. I haven’t been this excited about a Studebaker since I was in my 20’s.

The body number is taken from the photo portfolio for the Motor Trend Test car. Its pretty much a given that the same car was used for both HR and MT tests. However, there are some obvious clues that show the two are the same car, such as no radiator shroud, damage on the back side of the hood which is consistent with all photos, tow bar brackets welded to the bumper supports etc.

These are the two poster boards shown with the car at MCCACN. This is a small portion but should be pretty obvious.

Maybe Raymond Lowey’s?