Seized Avanti!

[mfg]

Hypothetical question.....

Given two Studebaker Avanti engines, an R1 and an R4, that have both sat around for years, and all else being equal, why would the R4 be less likely to be 'seized up' than the R1 would be?

Edited January 7, 2023 by mfg
added text

[VtMike]

Wild guess here  . . .  I understand that R3 & R4 engines were assembled differently by Paxton than the R1 and R 2 engines.  Can't recall the language they used, but my understanding was that the R3 & R4 engines were built in such a way that components, such as pistons in cylinder heads, were sized so that they would not fit so tightly together as in other Stude engines.   With more space between the moving parts, there would be less friction and they would produce a bit more power.  And, for the same reason, I would think they would be less likely to seize up.

[mfg]

4 hours ago, VtMike said:

Wild guess here  . . .  I understand that R3 & R4 engines were assembled differently by Paxton than the R1 and R 2 engines.  Can't recall the language they used, but my understanding was that the R3 & R4 engines were built in such a way that components, such as pistons in cylinder heads, were sized so that they would not fit so tightly together as in other Stude engines.   With more space between the moving parts, there would be less friction and they would produce a bit more power.  And, for the same reason, I would think they would be less likely to seize up.

Completely agree!...(the floating piston pins would help too!)

[Nelson]

Pins are not full floating in either one. They’re locked in place with a nut and bolt on the R1 and pressed in the rod on the R3/4.

just nitpicking, sorry.

[mfg]

1 minute ago, Nelson said:

Pins are not full floating in either one. They’re locked in place with a nut and bolt on the R1 and pressed in the rod on the R3/4.

just nitpicking, sorry.

No, that's OK.....I've never worked on an R3-4..... and I thought the wrist pins were full floating, retained with clips on either end of pin.

[Nelson]

Well good, we all learn on this site! To clarify the rods on the R3/4 engines: only the first 50 or so engines had the special rods with pressed pins in the rod. After that the standard Stude rod was used.

[mfg]

It may have been Jim Lange's full race Bonneville Stude Avanti engine that had the full floating wrist pins.

[Nelson]

1 hour ago, mfg said:

It may have been Jim Lange's full race Bonneville Stude Avanti engine that had the full floating wrist pins.

I think he did/does run those pins. I never understood why you wouldn’t run full floating pins. I’m sure there is a reason. That bolt and nut and additional machining to the rods done by Studebaker had to be expensive. I wonder what they were thinking?

[mfg]

9 minutes ago, Nelson said:

I think he did/does run those pins. I never understood why you wouldn’t run full floating pins. I’m sure there is a reason. That bolt and nut and additional machining to the rods done by Studebaker had to be expensive. I wonder what they were thinking?

Exactly..and also considerable extra reciprocating weight.

[mfg]

I recently went through the Packard engine in my 56J..Like the R3, that engine also utilizes the wrist pins pressed into the rods.

[Nelson]

Did you ever look at the wrist pin in a Stude? It is very strong but heavy. The ID gets smaller toward the mid section. Very strong but again a lot of reciprocating weight. I would think they could have saved several 1960 dollars per car if they would have taken a hard look at the rods and pistons.

[mfg]

14 minutes ago, Nelson said:

Did you ever look at the wrist pin in a Stude? It is very strong but heavy. The ID gets smaller toward the mid section. Very strong but again a lot of reciprocating weight. I would think they could have saved several 1960 dollars per car if they would have taken a hard look at the rods and pistons.

Sometime check out the valve lifters in an original 232CI Stude V8...INCREDIBLY THICK LIFTER WALLS...which I think Studebaker stuck with till the 259CI was introduced in '55.

[Nelson]

35 minutes ago, mfg said:

Sometime check out the valve lifters in an original 232CI Stude V8...INCREDIBLY THICK LIFTER WALLS...which I think Studebaker stuck with till the 259CI was introduced in '55.

That’s strange. You would think that after all the cam problems they had in 51 they would have been trying to reduce valve train weight.

[mfg]

26 minutes ago, Nelson said:

That’s strange. You would think that after all the cam problems they had in 51 they would have been trying to reduce valve train weight.

Yes, they absolutely overbuilt!...machinists would bore  those early lifters out simply to lighten them up.