Avanti Color!

[Geoff]

I have a question and then a clarification.

Does 1016 have the standard +0.060" overbore?

Per the Granatellis, "An R3 is anything we say is." After all, it was their shop creating R3s from Studebaker engines. They stated RS1021 became an R3. Vince got in touch with John Hull, urging him that the story of R3 isn't complete without including 25.

[Nelson]

5 hours ago, GeoffC312 said:

I have a question and then a clarification.

Does 1016 have the standard +0.060" overbore?

Per the Granatellis, "An R3 is anything we say is." After all, it was their shop creating R3s from Studebaker engines. They stated RS1021 became an R3. Vince got in touch with John Hull, urging him that the story of R3 isn't complete without including 25.

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.

[mfg]

2 hours ago, Nelson said:

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.

That's why I've always wondered if it's really necessary to locate correct R2 heads when supercharging an R1?...

Correct advance curve YES...but lowering compression from 10-1?.

(assuming thick head gaskets and stock Paxton are used....and best available fuel)

Edited December 30, 2022 by mfg
added text

[bob caser]

Sorry, but I did not know Gordon York Mills

[mfg]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:23 AM, Nelson said:

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

I vote for keeping this 1016 'as found'....with exception of possibly re- creating and installing the 299 CI engine as was used in the HRM road test.

[Nelson]

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.

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Nelson

[mfg]

1 hour ago, Nelson said:

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.

 

Sounds like a good plan to me.....Best of luck!

PS.......

Myles Walker?.....Isn't he the fellow that owned 64V1078 many years ago?......

That car ran a 299 CI when  tested by HRM?

 

 

 

[Nelson]

3 hours ago, mfg said:

Sounds like a good plan to me.....Best of luck!

PS.......

Myles Walker?.....Isn't he the fellow that owned 64V1078 many years ago?......

That car ran a 299 CI when  tested by HRM?

 

 

 

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.

[mfg]

8 hours ago, Nelson said:

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.

WOW!... Beginning with 299CI and adding a 5/8" stroke to the crank....my math isn't very good....

What would the total CI be????

[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.

[Geoff]

So Ed: bore squared × stroke × cylinders × (pi/4).

5/8" additional on top of the 3.625" would be 4.25" of stroke. I did read of a Granatelli stroked Studebaker crank out to 4 1/4" on a website, but forgot to bookmark or take a screen capture. This was back when I was researching the required stroke to punch a 289 out to 299 without any overbore.

[bores across top, strokes down left side, cubic inches at intersections]

[mfg]

2 hours ago, Nelson said:

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.

WOW!.... wow, wow, wow!!!

[mfg]

38 minutes ago, GeoffC312 said:

So Ed: bore squared × stroke × cylinders × (pi/4).

5/8" additional on top of the 3.625" would be 4.25" of stroke. I did read of a Granatelli stroked Studebaker crank out to 4 1/4" on a website, but forgot to bookmark or take a screen capture. This was back when I was researching the required stroke to punch a 289 out to 299 without any overbore.

[bores across top, strokes down left side, cubic inches at intersections]

So, the Granatelli's actually could have done this to the engine in 63R1025!.... (to gain the CI without reaching for the boring bar!)

[Nelson]

12 hours ago, mfg said:

So, the Granatelli's actually could have done this to the engine in 63R1025!.... (to gain the CI without reaching for the boring bar!)

A machine shop in Michigan did that work not Paxton. The block was furnished by Paxton and I think they offered stroker kits maybe out to a 1/4 inch but I don’t think anyone had tried a 5/8 stroker before and I think it’s obvious why now that I’ve torn one down.

[mfg]

1 hour ago, Nelson said:

A machine shop in Michigan did that work not Paxton. The block was furnished by Paxton and I think they offered stroker kits maybe out to a 1/4 inch but I don’t think anyone had tried a 5/8 stroker before and I think it’s obvious why now that I’ve torn one down.

I see.....I'd think that engine would have had impressive torque numbers...if it held together!

[Nelson]

It detonated so bad I was afraid to drive it. Had the car for years and I doubt if I put 100 miles on it.

[mfg]

2 hours ago, Nelson said:

It detonated so bad I was afraid to drive it. Had the car for years and I doubt if I put 100 miles on it.

Super high compression ratio?

[Nelson]

35 minutes ago, mfg said:

Super high compression ratio?

I really don’t know.

[Geoff]

23 hours ago, mfg said:

Super high compression ratio?

That's the logical conclusion I would draw. Longer stroke, same combustion chamber volume at the top … Sounds like tailor made bigger squish.

[Nelson]

Could well be. I don’t think the combustion chambers were tampered with. I can’t remember what the tops of the pistons looked like ie. Flat or dished.it had R3 rods so I saved those and gave the crank and pistons to a fellow Stude nut who was going to try and do something with them. that never did happen.

[Geoff]

Or … not.

1016 was built as a 4-speed. I referenced Bob Johnstone’s page.

1025 was built as an automatic. Hot Rod Magazine tested an auto, they even went so far to print the gearbox’s ratios: 2.40, 1.47 & 1:1 if memory serves me.

[Nelson]

34 minutes ago, GeoffC312 said:

Or … not.

1016 was built as a 4-speed. I referenced Bob Johnstone’s page.

1025 was built as an automatic. Hot Rod Magazine tested an auto, they even went so far to print the gearbox’s ratios: 2.40, 1.47 & 1:1 if memory serves me.

You are correct on that. Paxton converted 1016 to a power shift. I would imagine they were concerned the four speed would have been breaking axles. Looking at the photographs the test car still had tapered axles. It also had standard upper control arms. This car still has the narrow brake pedal pad and the return spring under the dash for the clutch linkage. The car also had  power steering which was removed during the R3 install. Take a look at the poster boards I published here. The production order etc. is there. You are correct, It definitely was built with a four speed transmission.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Nelson

[Geoff]

1016 may have some interesting history to it, the fact it was a manual R4 is interesting for sure! I'm going to put myself on the side that 25 was the Hot Rod car. Andy himself said he used 1025 to beat 426 Mopars in 1/2 mile competition, and that he needed 8,000 RPM to do so. He also said 25 held 1/2 mile drag class records at Riverside.

Two points regarding the belts flipping and under hood damage.

1. 1025 had a color change in the early 1980s when it was stripped, primed, and then painted. A lot of imperfections were corrected at that time. Body filler was used to fill in a large divot (which would hold water) in the roof. Filler was also used to fill a gap beneath the passenger (IIRC) door. My dad said when he got 25, you could fit your hand between the rocker and the door, and grab the bottom of the door. Let's hear it for Molded Fiberglass not using jigs to assemble the first batch of cars, right?
2. About Avanti supercharger belts flipping. That could have been an issue with any supercharged Avanti getting drag raced at high RPM without a discovered fix applied. It is quite possible this is a "when" issue, not an "if" issue. When did any B5 generation Audi S4 swallow their turbochargers' impellers? It wasn't just a one car problem; given certain conditions, all of them could. Stay away from known conditions, or have the required turbocharger fix, and they're suddenly not hungry for turbo vanes.

[Nelson]

Geoff. Not sure where you get “ the fact it was a manual R4” ? Do you know aomething I don’t.? 

[mfg]

Hello Nelson...I just saw a clear photo of your 63R1016 taken at a recent show......

For what my opinion is worth, (not much), I've changed my mind.......If I owned 1016, I couldn't leave it like that.....I'd probably take several clear photos of the condition it's in now,  (for posterity), and then fully restore the car.