mfg Posted March 9 Author Report Share Posted March 9 45 minutes ago, regnalbob said: If you are going to quote me make sure you post all of it. I made an effort to find out if it was or wasn't. Thats more than you are capable of doing!😁 Good old Bob always feels the need to get the last word in...... GO GET 'EM BOBBY!!! 😆 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 (edited) R4130 was a prototype mule for the '64 upgrades and some of them were different than the final versions used in production. It was eventually sold to Sherwood Egbert with some more modifications of the personal kind for him. But the car wasn't built for Egbert in the strict sense. Edited March 9 by Gunslinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 (edited) 15 minutes ago, mfg said: Good old Bob always feels the need to get the last word in...... GO GET 'EM BOBBY!!! 😆 I can sure tell you two are old buds from way back. 😂 Edited March 9 by Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Gunslinger said: R4130 was a prototype mule for the '64 upgrades and some of them were different than the final versions used in production. It was eventually sold to Sherwood Egbert with some more modifications of the personal kind for him. But the car wasn't built for Egbert in the street sense. I think it was built for him. I have some photos of the car at Paxton with less than 1000 miles on it. The car at that time was wearing Egbert’s personalized license plate, Halibrands, R3, 8 k tach, exhaust gas analyzer, chrome all over the engine compartment etc. I guess those photos could have been after the plant closed but the odometer was well under 1000 miles which makes me think it was prior to closing. Edited March 9 by Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regnalbob Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 13 minutes ago, Nelson said: I can sure tell you two are old buds from way back. 😂 Yes, this is all he has since he was banned from the SDC Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfg Posted March 9 Author Report Share Posted March 9 (edited) 18 minutes ago, regnalbob said: Yes, this is all he has since he was banned from the SDC Forum. That's hitting below the belt my friend...and, to set the record straight, I was banned on the SDC Forum the day after I told tbe administrator that I was quitting! He became angry when I pressed him to reveal exactly what SDC was paying him....which as a (then) dues paying member, I felt I, and others, had a right to know..... And as far as Bob Langer goes, I don't know the man personally, and I'm very thankful that I don't! 🥺 Edited March 9 by mfg Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 Too bad. Both you guys seem knowledgeable about Studes and Avantis. A lot in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfg Posted March 9 Author Report Share Posted March 9 1 minute ago, Nelson said: Too bad. Both you guys seem knowledgeable about Studes and Avantis. A lot in common. I agree....it really is too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lschuc Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 6 hours ago, regnalbob said: Yes, this is all he has since he was banned from the SDC Forum. Ok all, play nice.... 🥺 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963r2 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 Love the subject gentleman. Could I pose some questions but understand l'm no way knowledgeable as those before me who have posted and I'm not sure of timelines and locations etc. These are just some thoughts that crossed my mind. Could the car have been sent to the Granatelli's for the purpose of fitting another (brand x) engine? "Off the record" We know that ultimately studes had chev engines? Was the Avanti to continue? We know they were made in Canada right😊. Where was the larger capacity stude engine development at this stage ? Has anyone checked the Lamberti papers (not sure if my spelling is right)? Thanks and I will duck for cover now. Pb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfg Posted March 29 Author Report Share Posted March 29 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! 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 4 hours ago, 1963r2 said: Where was the larger capacity stude engine development at this stage ? This part is of interest to me, and is a big reason why I plan to use LS2* in my build; as a small way to pay homage to Studebaker history. 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. [LS was made as a global engine (so metric) but LS2 at 4" (101.6mm) of bore and 3.622" (92mm) of stroke, I'll take that as within machined tolerances of the 'what would have been' Studebaker 364 displacement.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64Avanti Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64Avanti Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64Avanti Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 (edited) 21 hours ago, 64Avanti said: 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. There have been rumblings of 340 & 360 Studebaker blocks either planned and/or in existence before the December close. These would have used the existing 3.625" stroke Studebaker crankshaft, so math demands bores of 3 7/8" (342) and 4" (364). Why were larger bores being examined? Look no further than the R3 head; that thing needs more bore than what Studebaker had on tap. The drawings of 3.75" might have been an idea to manipulate what was in existence. The 340 & 360 blocks may have been another idea altogether, a new casting that unfortunately became stillborn as it ran up against the wall of time. Studebaker was definitely working on the logistics of making a [next gen. | updated] engine when it was so rudely shuttered. Edited July 9 by Geoff Corrected grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 Geoff is right. There were blocks cast and machined to at least 3 7/8 bore. I have one on an engine stand in the garage. The oil galleys were moved higher and closer together. I believe the casting is dated November ‘63. It is fully machined and capable of assembly. I’m sure the cylinder cores were on center and modified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64Avanti Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfg Posted August 8 Author Report Share Posted August 8 On 7/8/2023 at 3:30 AM, 64Avanti said: 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. There was another Stude Avanti/Pontiac swap done as a shop project at a trade school here in Mass around 1970.... A really nice install of a 389 Pontiac GTO engine into a '63 Studebaker Avanti...The Pontiac was equipped with the popular three two barrel carbs...I only saw that Avanti once, and really liked it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 (edited) The way I've heard it come down through time was, Studebaker was working on an entirely new block; one with room for 4" of bore. It wasn't just a, "Let's rework what we've got" deal. At least that's going by what I have heard. Jim Pepper says that Paxton did prefer reworking R2 heads as far as performance is concerned. But that was because the R3 head was made for more bore (and thus more cubes). So R3 heads with 4" of bore (or maybe 4.040" as the new for '68 Mopar 340) could be made to perform very well. I know from talking to my father and uncle, that the heads on RS1021 (car 25) were ported, polished, and flowed. And those were factory R2 heads which were worked by hand (for many hours) to make them flow very well. Take R3 heads, port, polish, and flow those, then slap them on a 4" bore (or larger) Studebaker engine. Oh, what could have been. Edited October 6 by Geoff corrected a typographical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now