64Avanti
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 64Avanti
-
-
The for aft loading results in more deflection than what is seen on the lower arm due to the difference in spread of the bushings.
-
On 2/2/2023 at 7:28 AM, DaytonaR2 said:
Still has not created my seats. He had no problem taking my money. I have demanded a refund and there is no response. It has been almost a year now.
I hope you got your money back. He made front seats in leather for another car for me a few years ago and they were good. I know he got very sick and I am not sure he is still alive. I know somebody was planning to take over the business.
-
What I didn't say is that given the tolerances on the rod bores, crankshaft journal sizes and bearings it is possible to end up with clearances that are too small. In that case you may need to make adjustment to the crank or the rod. You will have to work with an automotive machine shop that knows what it is doing. If you have a mild street engine and don't rev it very high then .0015 could be accepted.
-
.0005 is way too close! Besides the need for cooling if the engine is revved to high rpms the big end of the rod will distort enough to pinch the bearing and you will end up with a spun rod bearing. You should have more like .002 in of clearance.
-
Given an equal coefficient of friction between the pads and rotors the size of the pads will make no difference in wheel torque. To change the wheel torque you need to change the size of the caliper pistons to get more force for a given hydraulic pressure or change to a pad with a higher coefficient of friction.
-
Those are forging numbers not casting numbers. The rods are different because the oil squirt holes have to be in a different location between the left and right banks.
-
The 3.75 bore engine required relocating the oil galleries and there wasn't much room to relocate any more. I suspect that the block Nels has was built to the 3.75 drawing but overboard and perhaps the size of the oil galleries were a little undersize to allow boring it larger. It would be interesting to check the wall thickness to see if it conforms to the 3.75 bore drawing.
Another point is the R3 heads which I believe for a number of reasons was slated for the new intended 1965 engine would not have been a great head for a 340+ cubic inch performance engine but would have been ok for just an average passenger car.
-
I was also aware of an Avanti with a Pontiac engine that was swapped about 1970 or so in Chula Vista as well as a 425 Olds with W30 cam in a 63 Hawk.
-
On 3/29/2023 at 7:28 AM, Geoff said:
The 3.875" and 4" bore Studebaker blocks had to indicate the foundry was mostly ready to transition to full production mode in the summer of 1963, as a few had been cast [and hidden in an office] when Studebaker closed. The blocks were supposed to be scrapped but somebody helped them eschew demise. Both blocks would have used Studebaker's 3.625" stroke crank for 342 and 364 cubes respectively.
The drawings for the larger bore engine show a bore of 3.75 in. This required moving the oil galleries some. If they had a very good block with little core shift they might have gotten to a bore of 3.840 at .090 over. But that would not have been good for a production engine. There was no way to get to 4.00 in bore without making some major changes to the oil galleries.
-
On 3/29/2023 at 4:15 AM, mfg said:
Unless someone who was there comes forward with definite knowledge of exactly what condition this Avanti was in when it arrived at Paxton Products, I'd say that we will never really know for sure!
However, I would bet a cup of coffee that Joe Granatelli paid very little money for it...if anything! 🙂
Knowing Joe he probably got Studebaker to pay him!
-
Can you post a picture showing the "Casting Number." Those heads have to be modified R2s. The intake manifold clearly doesn't have R3 size ports. We never had any finished R3 heads. When we purchased the parts from Paxton the heads were long gone.
-
Without going into much of this discussion I would make a couple of comments. First I have driven an R3 powered Avanti with an automatic transmission and the 276 cam and it was no problem on the street. Second, you can overcome head restriction with more pressure from a blower but there are two downsides. The increased pressure results in higher air temperature which is not good for power. The second is that the higher pressure results in more power required to drive the supercharger.
The best route even with a supercharged engine is to reduce the restriction in the intake path. In other words, larger valves, porting and a less restrictive manifold.
None of this is a mater of opinion, just simple physics.
-
Went to the Slick Street Stuff website and there it stated the suspension system could not be used on Avanti's or sedans due to the starter being on the driver's side!
-
You had to take anything Andy said with a
grainbucket of salt. Joe was worse. -
On 1/21/2018 at 10:57 AM, mfg said:
#1112.......What an awesome photo of a Studebaker Avanti!.......This photo needs to be on a calendar...if it isn't already!!
It was a few years ago!
-
The suspension configuration makes it difficult to install R&P steering in a Studebaker. There are no racks that are short enough to provide proper geometry. The only real option is to use a rack that attaches the tie rods in the middle instead of at the ends. Racks of this type were used on some GM front wheel cars in the 80's or 90's. There may be others but I don't know for sure. You can do some searching on the Studebaker drivers forum and Racing Studebaker forum and find discussions of this.
I have seen a number of cars done the wrong way and that will result in excessive bump steer.
-
My 64 Avanti that I race at Bonneville is Avanti Grey. You can see some pictures at www.avanti4davidjr.com. I have in the past ordered some paint from one of the suppliers that will mix paint. I will need to look up the info on that. Indeed there is quite a bit of blue in the color.
-
Those heads are not R3 nor is the intake manifold.
-
Adam,
The price is not set yet but should be between $110 and $135 each. This is a best estimate at this time.
-
If you haven't seen it there is a thread in the Avanti Pub forum concerning Koni shock availability.
-
If you haven't seen it there is a thread in the Avanti Pub forum concerning availability of Koni shocks.
-
I am finally close one the Koni shock deal. It has taken some time but almost there. Member CMHOLM, It looks like you have a 63 Avanti. I need to know the serial number as the early 63 Avanti's had 62 style rear shocks.
Anyone else interested? This may turn out to be a one time deal.
-
No you are ok. Koni is still looking for their drawings. This will take a little while.
-
The problem with magnesium is corrosion that weakens it. It is not an age thing other than if the wheel is not properly cared for then it will start to corrode and it will get worse with time.
First Avanti I Ever Saw!
in Avanti Pub
Posted
The first Avanti I saw was in the National City Studebaker dealer's showroom. This would have been either late 1962 or early 1963. I think it was white. I remember trying to talk my uncle into buying one, however he was a GM guy.