Avanti 63R-1025

[R2Andy]

The class limit was 305 CID. Studebaker went with the 304.5" to have a slight "fudge factor". Also, the prototype 299" R3 engines were the "A" series and were marked was such. At least one of them has 1 cyl head that carries the casting number that was the precursor to the production R3 head.

Edited January 11, 2015 by R2Andy

[Nels]

Nels,it's 63R 1016 you are thinking of rather than 1017. 1016 was "sold" to the PR Dept. and shipped to Los Angeles "for Mr Egbert's use in California" per the Appropriations Order. It was transferred to Paxton and was converted as the R3/Powershift prototype from it's original R2/4speed configuration. It received R3 B27 complete with the correct Transignitor ignition system and the correct style cold air intake setup with a hand made aircleaner. The car was originally equipped with a Hill Holder which was removed as well as having the affected brake lines replaced.

You're right Andy, it was 1016.

[Nels]

The class limit was 305 CID. Studebaker went with the 304.5" to have a slight "fudge factor". Also, the prototype 299" R3 engines were the "A" series and were marked was such. At least one of them has 1 cyl head that carries the casting number that was the precursor to the production R3 head.

The class was five liter displacement which, I believe is 305 ci.

Some B engines were 299 inch. Maybe that was done just to accommodate the production needs for South Bend. I imagine there were some completed and unmarked short blocks on the floor when the decision was made to move up to 304. I doubt Paxton was willing to scrap those engines. Same goes with the heads. I've seen several later R3's with both heads, one on each side. Anybody know if both prints exist for the two heads and what the difference is?

[mfg]

Boy, seems like 'AVANTI TRIVIA' is bringing VERY interesting information out of the woodwork..........RIGHT ON!!.....KEEP IT UP!!!

[R2Andy]

Nels,of all the engineering drawings I have collected thru the years, the early version of the cylinder head is one I have yet to acquire. I haven't given up hope yet tho. Did you happen to record which of the B series engines were 299's? And which have the early head? I would love to have that info to add to my collection. And casting date codes if you have saved any of that as well.

[Nels]

Nels,of all the engineering drawings I have collected thru the years, the early version of the cylinder head is one I have yet to acquire. I haven't given up hope yet tho. Did you happen to record which of the B series engines were 299's? And which have the early head? I would love to have that info to add to my collection. And casting date codes if you have saved any of that as well.

Andy, I have at least one engine, maybe two, with two different heads but will have to get those numbers to you at a later date. As far as recording numbers for 299's noted as B engines I will have to refer to memory. B4 and B6 I do remember. I have also noticed that I have never seen a lose set of used R4 pistons in anything but 299 bore diam's.

[mfg]

Very interesting stuff guys!!!!!!!

[R2Andy]

Thanks Nels, I'll note those in my lists. I find it interesting that the heads always seem to be mixed pairs rather than identical pairs. The difference can't be very pronounced given Paxtons propensity for mixing them. I'd love to have a chance to compare the two side by side or to compare the early head against my R3 engineering dwgs.

[Geoff]

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.

Edited January 13, 2015 by GeoffC312

[plwindish]

I'm sure that many of us are curious to see how the internals were put together on this interesting prototype. Good lock with the planned "refreshing".

[mfg]

This is really TOO interesting!

[Guest dapy]

"TOO interesting" to be trivia...

[Gunslinger]

Yeah...this isn't "trivia" in the sense the trivia forum is meant for...no disrespect to anyone. This is part of Avanti history and needs to be known to add to that history.

[PackardV8]

Agree. We all anxiously await the teardown of this prototype so all the anecdotal history can be confirmed via first hand measurements. Since this Avanti has circulated in a small circle, the legends will hopefully turn out to be fact.

As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Over the past fifty years, I've been asked to look at many performance Studebakers which after inspection were not as advertised. One local guy bought a long-distance Avanti R2 which arrived with a 259" under the supercharger. Another brought me an R2 core to rebuild which had a 259" crankshaft under the dished 289" pistons. There aren't many R3s or R4s up here in the NW, but none of those I've looked at turned out to be factory-original.

Bottom line - after conversations with a couple of those who worked at Paxton Products, in '62-64 they were developing 299" prototypes, each one different, then the nine factory-installed 304.5" engines were pretty much the same. After Studebaker closed, '65-71, they sold the few remaining completed production R3 engines. When those were gone, they began building out the remaining R3 parts. There were more piston sets than heads or rods, so some R3 numbered blocks were built and sold without R3 heads or rods.

I do remember. I have also noticed that I have never seen a lose set of used R4 pistons in anything but 299 bore diam's.

I've already learned something from this, as I've never had the good fortune to come across a set of used R4 pistons. All the written materials indicate they should be R3 bore. It would be interesting to see the few supposed production R4s disassembled for bore measurement. Were those 299" R4 pistons Nels has seen just prototypes or were all R4s actually 299"s?

jack vines

Edited January 14, 2015 by PackardV8

[mfg]

On 1/14/2015 at 11:48 AM, dapy said:

"TOO interesting" to be trivia...

 THANKS TO this trivia feature...This information WAS brought out!

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfg

[Gunslinger]

Is it really necessary to pat yourself on the back?

[mfg]

Is it really necessary to pat yourself on the back?

Well 'Gunny'...When certain folks keep 'belittling' trivia, yes, it is a bit irritating. And if you took the time to actually READ my text, I believe that you'd see I was patting AVANTI TRIVIA on the back,....NOT myself!

[Gunslinger]

I was simply making a joke...sorry it wasn't taken that way.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Gunslinger

[Guest dapy]

Can't separate mfg from trivia. He IS trivia.

[Geoff]

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeoffC312

[mfg]

Geoff....That's very interesting....I've often wondered that if the 'early' R3 engine ran well at 299CI,....why even bother going after the extra 6 cubic inches? Maybe the powers that be felt they 'needed' an engine with at least 300 cubes for advertising purposes?

[Geoff]

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.

[Gunslinger]

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.

Chevrolet downplayed the L88 and ZL1 as they were true racing engines and wanted them as a regular production option so race teams could order and race them as homologated production engines. To discourage sales of them for street use, they didn't come with radios or heaters. The horsepower numbers quoted were accurate...they just didn't tell the "rest of the story". They were rated at 430 hp at a specific rpm, which was accurate. The rest of the story was an L88 was more than capable of about 565 hp at a higher rpm which was well within its capabilities. Chevrolet simply cherry-picked an accurate figure but at a lower rpm to spin the advertising. The much higher costs of the RPO L88 and ZL1 put most buyers off as well. The true race guys knew the real story.

My '69 L71 Vette is a beast...to drive an L88 must be a real rush.

[Geoff]

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.

[Geoff]

My dad called for my birthday yesterday and we got to talking about cars. He told me some previously undisclosed things about his correspondences with Andy Granatelli; things which correlate with Jack's information about R3 being a 0.060" overbore R2 … and mfg will like this bit, my dad mentioned Andy said, "If we called it an R3, it was an R3." Which makes sense because Paxton's handiwork of an R2 was what constituted an R3.

Due to homologation rules, the factory R3 cars (those with 304 cubes) weren't legally allowed to set records, Studebaker hadn't produced enough 304 cu. in. road cars to homologate R3 engines. The nine official ones weren't enough and Studebaker didn't do the trick Dodge made famous later where Dodge paraded the same handful of cars through the barn. So the early R3 prototypes were R2 engines pushed to the absolute walls of the rules, complete with 0.060" in overbore, because "sixty over" pistons were a legitimate Studebaker part and were therefore homologated for competition.

That covers most early R3s with the stock Studebaker 3 5/8" stroke, but what about the oddity in RS1021? The one Andy said, "That was the one we stroked." It was brought to Bonneville but it wasn't raced; it wasn't allowed to set Bonneville times because the 3 3/4" stroke wasn't homologated. The Granatellis didn't care about that one, it wasn't a car built for USAC records and was one of the magazine test cars. Meanwhile, other sanctioning bodies (ex: NHRA and SCTA) didn't care how an engine made its cubes, just that said cubes were properly aligned with one of their classes. The SCTA had a class expire with 299 cubic inches, so RS1021 kept the stock 289 bore and used 1/8" more in stroke. This gave the car a bit more low and mid-range oomph. It had better low RPM characteristics than the "sixty over" cars and yet was still asked to spin to 8k RPM. Andy said he needed all 8k to outrun the Hemi powered Mopars.

My dad does wish he had asked Andy for something hand-written with his signature on it. A paper covered with Andy's recollections of those early R3 prototypes would give better closure than me (him / us) talking to people or posting.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GeoffC312