Projects All Studes, All The Time

Just in case this info helps-
I used to use both the stock steel flywheel, and a WEBER aluminum flywheel.
Mike Scherer my racing buddy, ordered a Schafer blowproof (wrong spelling?) flywheel drilled for the stude crank flange.
Launches at the dragstrip were better with the steel flywheels, but for street hotrodding, the Weber aluminum wound up quicker and felt a little bit sportier. The extra mass of the steel flywheels gave an extra punch for great 60 ft times.
We used the same Olds scattershields whether we installed Stude flywheels or drilled Chevy.
(note- we did not drill our own flywheels, we asked the maker to do it and sell us their balanced flywheels)
The chev and the Stude ring gears were very close to each other in diam, but right now I can't for the life of me recall whether the Chevy small or Chev big was the closest to Stude.
I think it was 154? teeth vs 160-something??164? The smaller of the two is what we picked.
At first we used the Stude starters, but later I started using a Ford starter for the big Fords that was also bought by AMC for their V8s. It was easier to just order an AMC Jeep starter rather than specify WHICH Ford starter to pick out of the parts shelf collection.
I remember when drilling for the starter mounting bolts for using Stude starters, I had to drill one of the holes right down the wall of the Lakewood, and weld in a stud in the wall, while the other was an ordinary thru-bolt.
I had to use a Stude 6V starter with the Weber aluminum because they only came with the coarser 6v ring gear. I liked the way my engine spun way faster in my 12v converted 55 Coupe and was always easy to start. Each 6v starter always lasted a few yrs on 12v, so I was happy.
I cant tell right now if I'm being helpful, or just rambling about the good ole days.
I hope some of this is useful.


P.S. about seat inserts-
you are right, in my humble opinion, about the exhaust needing much less help than the intake valves, but I always cringe when I see a choke-ring choking the opening down even smaller.
If you do that to the intake you have thrown away any advantage of cutting the bigger opening there, and killed a lot of power.
You can debate the virtues of an EXHAUST seat, but I have never never found them to be needed in Stude iron.
My truck has worn out 3 speedometers since we pulled that 259 out of a 114,000 mile 1962 Lark in 1974 in a friends driveway in Orlando. I used that 259 in three Studes before the pickup came along. So far since 1974 my 259 has had 2 "JC Whitney ring and bearing kits", the cyl head (chev valve conversion performed by myself at Dick Datsons place) had refreshenings every couple dozen or more years, and has never used seat inserts.
sorry for being wordy, but I hope I may have helped with possibly some insight.
Somewhere I have a few pictures of my Stude truck helping take down the signs at Buddy Ingersol's shop when the family decided to sell the place after his funeral.
He was a neighbor and friend. I bought the bigger sign, then an #^#^&-*!@@@ actually drove right over the sign as we were about to load it. !@!!!!.
All I have left for a souvenir is a metal sign frame that looks like scrap. !!##$××÷!!!

 

Not a huge update for the night, but I did manage to get the correct number of pedals in the car. If anyone has a decent set of pedal pads and blocking plates, I could use a pair.



I also managed to do some housekeeping and got the car repositioned on the hoist. Tomorrow I'm going to start looking at crossmembers, driveshaft length, etc. I'm not sure if I should convert to a one piece shaft or not. I will need to look the critical speed of a 64" long (very rough measurement) driveshaft. I'm also wondering if I can use the front engine mounts and just make a transmission mount on the tailshaft, or if I should try to hang it off of the bellhousing like Studebaker did.

 

If you go with a one piece driveshaft, know that the tunnel is very small. verify clearance throughout suspension travel. I ended up building a custom tunnel.

 

That's a good point on the small tunnel @mohr hp . It looks ok right now with a moderately low stance, and a relatively centered pinion on the narrowed 8.8. I bet by the time I get the large diameter driveshaft I will need that tunnel will start to look pretty small.

Any of the other transmissions I have been looking at don't really get significantly longer. TKX, T101, Hightower are all pretty close from what I have seen.

Going 2 piece would give me a good opportunity to add some better crossmembers, and maybe take some of the wet noodle out of the chassis.

 

The benefit of a small tunnel is you get to hit bottom occasionally.

 

In swapping the V8 engines between Studebaker trucks and cars, it's easy to forget the trucks use a taller waterpump manifold to place the fan higher in the taller radiator. They also usually have a four-bolt vertical thermostat housing. Use the correct waterpump manifold and thermost housing to avoid strange fitment problems.

Some truck V8s also came with a deeper, longer 6qt oil pan which will not fit in some cars.

jack vines

 

@PackardV8 I think this is the truck water pump and oil pan you were talking about. Pictures below is what I assume I will need to run. Maybe need to pop some dents out of that pan though



I did not make as much progress as I hoped tonight, but I did get the engine and transmission bolted back together without the 5/8" spacer. I have around .300" of clearance between the end of the pilot and the inside of the bearing counterbore in the crank. The splines get pretty close to the end of the crank though. I would say .050" give or take. How much room do I need here? Honestly putting a bigger chamfer on the back of the crank would get me lots of clearance in a hurry with minimal metal being removed.



Hopefully tomorrow I can get this sitting in the engine bay.

 

When I run into that, I have simply cut a hole right at the back edge of the front seat where the driveshaft would rub, then screw down a better section of slightly taller tunnel over that section of floor, then spray a layer of undercoat to seal it and make it look natural.
In my three cases (4?), the carpet laid right over it without looking awkward.
I remember one carrier bearing crossmember being completely removed, and one that we c-sectioned at the carrier bearing location to clear the "new" driveshaft for normal suspensionmovement. I don't remember which body style needed which solution, just remember that this clearance needs to be checked too.

 

Progress for the night! Had a friend come over to help me drop the engine and transmission in the car. Still trying to take it easy on my back. My chiropractor was not happy when I told him my plans for the night.

I am fairly certain that I do not have the correct mounts on the engine, but I was able to jam a couple 1/4" bolts in there to hold it in for now on the rear set of mounting holes. It is sitting on some stacked up washers where I assume there should be a rubber mount. Right now the bellhousing is sitting on the stock bellhousing mount crossmember. "Fits like a cork". This will need to get reworked or removed depending on how I mount stuff.

I have about an inch and a half between the oil pan and the center steering idler. I am considering dropping the whole drivetrain down to help with bellhousing and hood clearance. Not sure about retaining the ability to drop the pan with the engine in the car. It it able to be pulled when stock?

If anyone has any useful mounting pictures, or could provide height and fore / aft measurements of a stock setup I would appreciate it.

 

Pulling any Stude oil pan in-car is always a nightmare for me due to that wonky center-pivot bellcrank, plus how far the engine sticks over the main steering crossmember.
If you think that one in your car is tough, try dropping one while it's in a stubby Lark. It's packed even tighter with the engine farther forward right on top of the steering arm and tierods.
Keeping an engine mounted low helps keep center of gravity low, and the front end plows just a little less. plus the scattershield will kind of force you to keep things low just to fit in the tunnel. I think you WILL run with the engine mounted low just to make it all fit, but that's a good thing. You wont have to worry about pan ground clearance unless you make a custom large-sump pan, so it's ok to keep the engine low.
Far in the past, I have spent hours trying to get a Stude oil pan to come out, and every single time decided that it was easier to just yank the engine. I hated that idea because it involved unhooking the rusted in place exh pipes. Once I tried the remove-bellcrank method when someone recommended it, and decided that wasn't worth it either.
Once I unbolted the exh manifolds from the heads so I didn't snap any exhaust studs at the pipes, removed the dist so it wouldnt smash against the firewall, and made sure I wouldn't destroy wires as I lifted the engine way above its mounts, and that just barely worked. ... but again I swore I didn't like that way either. but lifting the engine high as possible while making sure you dont bend exh, over stretch wires, mash the distributor, and bend linkages, did finally let me wiggle the pan out of it's tight spot. Add in the extra tightness of fit from a fat scattershield, and it becomes almost impossible to elevate the engine.
as a kid at the time, I kept feeling encouraged that the pan was finally ready to wiggle out, then realized there was still a large part of the big crankshaft still hanging down in the way.
If you are planning to use a BrandX scattershield, you will indeed need to mount the trans, engine, etc as low as you can. Those shields fit like a tight cork.
If I have to get into the oil pan, I decided to consider that sort of internal work an engine-out operation.
Maybe that's just me, but I had to wrestle and wrestle before I learned that lesson.
P.S. If you need to find stock-looking engine mounts that won't tear the rubber like the Stude cushions used to when I really poured on the coal, --
wayy back in 1971 after I ripped up the driver side rubber due to a leadfoot in my 63 Avanti Powered Lark, my recently retired auto shop teacher got a job at a parts store. He showed me how to look thru the set of books that parts stores used to have, and found me a near-identical set of cushions from late 50s early 60s PONTIAC transmission mounts.
I had to add one washer to bring the engine height back up to Stude engine height, but they worked like a charm as engine mounts.
I never tore one again because of their harder rubber cushions. That Pontiac transmission mount was then published in the book You Can Drive A Studebaker Forever.
If that Pontiac mount saves the day for you, as it has for the many dozens of Studebakers over the last few decades, you can thank my old shop teacher Mr George, and the old fashioned parts store countertop parts books.

 

The removal of the oil pan is pretty easy on my 57 Hawk. Just need to turn the wheels to the side and remove the starter.. I am thinking the earlier coupes and hardtops are probably the same.

 

Great thread

 

Good to know.
I must have been remembering all those Larks and sedans without the long hawk wheelbase and the hawk engine set-back.

 

Turn the steering wheel. What a great idea.

Happen to have a part number for that Pontiac mount? From looking at pictures online, I am more or less in the correct mount location on the chassis. The front must be for a 6 cylinder car? Am I using the correct mounts on the engine though?

 

Now don't quote me that this has the right dimensions, but I googled around and this jumped out at me as the exact LOOK, but I can't be sure its exactly the size.
The Pontiac trans mount we found and used was almost exactly like the Stude except it was slightly thinner than the slightly taller Stude cushion. Since it was 1971, that tells us it was a pre 71 cushion.
I keep remembering the old parts book mentioning late 1950s . 57? 59? 56?? 61? possibly more 60s?
That would be great if this Summit Racing item was it, but I am hesitant to declare it so.
at least you have the right clues to help you pick.
I cannot declare that this is the exact one. Compare it to Stude, and make sure this isn't some small diam look alike.
I'VE TORN STUDE CUSHIONS APART WITH MY ROUGH DRIVING, BUT HAVE NEVER TORN ONE OF THESE SINCE I HAVE STARTED USING THEM IN 1972 OR 73

 

With the engine sitting on washers on the mounts I have about 1.5" till it hits the steering. If I can't pull the pan with the engine in the car or without jacking up the engine I will live.



The bellhousing sits on the crossmember currently. Plenty of room in the tunnel, minus where the original Pontiac bolt flange gets close to the firewall. Use those extra holes and make a bolt on midplate? Or one step better use the block plate as a pattern to make a steel midplate maybe?



Hard to see but the shiny thing on the middle is 3" tube going through the original carrier bearing crossmember, and roughly aligning to the output shaft. It really wants to run way down hill. This is with the engine sitting back about 4° in a fairly level chassis. This tells me the engines must have a lot of angle to them originally. My tailshaft needs to drop 2-3 inches at least to have any hope of a driveshaft being happy. It is around 6" from the center of the tailshaft to the bottom of the frame. Anyone have a stockish car they can measure for me as a reference. Tailshaft height and engine angle vs chassis will tell me a lot.

 

Pulled the bellhousing crossmember out of the way and set a 2x4 between the transmission crossmember and the transmission. This lowered the tailshaft centerline to around 4.5" up from the bottom of the chassis. The driveshaft seems more more plausible now.



Transmission bottom, bellhousing, and oil pan all seem to be somewhat reasonable height wise.



I have no idea if this is anything close to the right pulley. It's around 6" and has 1.25" clearance to the bellcrank.



Firewall clearance looks much better with the transmission dropped.



All of that being said, now the engine is tilted back around 7° relative to the chassis. This can't be right, right? I must be missing something here. Even if I dropped the nose to steel on steel (again wrong mounts maybe?) And brought the rear up 3/4" that only takes around 1.5° out of the tilt.

 

Remember, the intake has a decent angle cut into the carb pad to compensate for this(back is taller than front). Don't know off the top of my head what the angle is, & my studes are literally buried in snow so I can't check. You could have the carb pad milled abit more one way or another to compensate, if you wanted to.
Marcus...

 

I was more thinking along the lines of driveline angles and how oil circulates and pools in the engine with that much tilt.

With the low profile of the car and the bellcrank steering, maybe that's the only way Studebaker could set these up?

@nrgwizard our snow down here is almost all melted away as of this week. Just the big piles remain.

 

I can't remember the factory angle, but yes, because of the need to get low using their bellcrank steering, the angle is more than typical. As long as the U-joints are happy, it will work. Studebaker was trying something new, they were inventing "low"!

 

As you can see in this shot, I have a pretty steep crank angle-despite ditching the stock front end. I didn't want the trans (T400) beside me in the car.

 

Oil just runs out back of the valley/lifter area past the dist. & tries to get out of the little-itty-bitty head-drain-back-holes. Rocker-arm & shaft wear is another. Like I mentioned, Stude does have a few things to consider. Nothing bad, but if you're not aware... ;( . If I can get to the 1 mill in a chassis that's accessible, I'll get a couple of relative angles for you. Might be a few days yet. If someone doesn't beat me to it.
Marcus...

 

@mohr hp that thing looks pretty wild. I bet it's a fun ride. Lots of angle to that. What is the general setup / intended use of the car?

I measured the intake pad on a mystery stock 2 barrel intake I have and came up with somewhere around 6 or 7 degrees, so I'm getting more comfortable with this.

Driveshaft is 60" long, so it's definitely going to be a 2 piece unit so I don't have to worry about running it at high RPM. Even a 3.5" carbon fiber shaft that long tops out around 7000 RPM. Obviously this does not really matter for the stock 259 that's going in for now, but I want to set this thing up for future use and abuse.



Did some digging around and found out these are the engine mounts I need. Right now I have one of at least 2 truck style mounts I have seen. If someone has a loose set sitting around, I could use it. Otherwise I may make something of my own that mounts with a tube style bushing and lets me drop the nose of the engine more. I figure if I can get a belt on and off (with the correct pulley) and the oil pan clears the steering I will be happy.

 

Got a special delivery in the mail from @Fordors today:



The rabbit hole deepens...

 

I put my Stude together in 2005 over 9 months (total thrash) to compete in ECTA mile speed trials while being fully streetable. Started with a mild blown 454, which got me to 181. I wanted to go 200 in the mile, so I built a crazy aluminum 426 hemi. Made tons of power, so I got my 2 club hats, but I can't keep it together. I use a Turbo 400 with a tight converter and a Gear Vendors OD. Chrysler 8 3/4 with 3.23:1 on leaf springs/pinion snubber like an S/S Mopar. I used a Fatman front end and the car has a nice mild steel rollcage, and all the safety gear. Currently the engine is out while I work on another somewhat off topic car. I'll get back on it eventually, but I really need a new block ($6,500), so I've considered building a different engine altogether. I can tell you one thing I learned, but never could have believed, that is, I probably could have built 2 dedicated cars (1 for track, 1 for street) and spent less money. But the thing is cool, and a ball to drive. I'm married to it, because my three daughters grew up riding in it, and it actually got me a job that led to the great one I have now.

 

Do you have a build thread on that car? Or you can feel free to post more pics and info here to keep the 'bad ideas' coming. I am particularly interested in how you did your cage and attached it to the chassis. The torque boxes are right in the way, but I'm sure there is a good way to go about it.

You are definitely right about it being more expensive to build a street + race car, but I think it is so much cooler that way. It definitely makes you think of everything a lot more critically. Also, as I mentioned, I live in town and have limited space, so one car has to do multiple purposes. But then we bought the Lark so that idea got thrown out of the window a bit. Not really sure how I am going to fit this and the Lark in the shop and still have room to work on stuff.

Yesterday I picked up some cool parts. A couple sets of used R1 / R2 rods and pistons, (I was more after the rods), a used 289 crank, and a N.O.S. R1 / R2 block with fitted pistons. It's never been assembled and is still covered in cosmoline. This has changed hands a few times, but there was a thread on the SDC forum a few years back on it.







I think this will be my first Studebaker engine build, but will be more or less built as a fun street engine for my car after it is on the road. I would like to find the rest of the parts needed to build it up as a true R1 or R2 if possible, although I would probably use a more modern Paxton for reliability. Already making plans for the next engine after that...

 

I am picking this one up. It's been sitting for a few years.

 

Just to let you know. The R2 and especially the R1 engine combination are no real big deal. These two combinations were found in MOST V-8 Studebakers.
So, if you go to buy a, or parts, and the "R" designation doesn't come up in the conversation, it's not a problem.
BUT...I see that you DO...have an "R3" crank "damper". That's a VERY good thing.

A note on cylinder heads -
When looking for heads, try to find heads that have a 570...as the last three numbers in the casting number. On one hand, they were cast most often in the later years.
On the other hand, if you...or you have them ported, in my experience (with a sonic checker), they have the most constant port wall (to water) thickness.

Mike

 

Without re-reading the thread...it's late and I'm feeling lazy...have you been to
https://www.racingstudebakers.com/foo/index.php
Tons of info on there. You are already getting great info here from some serious Studebaker people and that site will get you in touch with enough Stude hot rodders who have BTDT along with the contributions here.
Enjoy the rabbit hole of working on Studes.
BTW....I sold maybe 4-5 sets of 570 heads to a Northstar chapter member and I know he still has them. I can provide contact info if you need a set.