Jump to content

Seized Avanti!


mfg

Recommended Posts

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 by mfg
added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...