Projects All Studes, All The Time

5686812[/ATTACH]

Good score on the engine stuff! One project I keep kicking around is a Studebaker V8 with a 4-71 blower, but I don't know if I can get enough power out of it to satisfy. Those heads are horrible (sorry Stude guys), but the older I get, the less I need 1,100 horsepower! On the rollcage, I made 4 diamond shaped gussets welded to the sides of the frame rails, and extended 2x2 square tubing horizontally out to the rockers. The cage is built on those. My cage is pretty unconventional, because I wanted to retain and use the back seat. (I have 3 race style harnesses back there for my girls). The back down bars are bent for head clearance, and the cross brace for the driver's shoulder harness stops at the main hoop diagonal brace. That allows decent access to the rear seat.

 

@Mike VV I'm not seeing this R3 damper that you mentioned. As far as I know the only damper I have is on the engine that's on the run in stand.

My understanding is that an R1 / R2 is essentially just a 289 with aluminum timing gears and a better cam right? I just think it's cool to have something that is 60 years old and still new. When I bolted it up to the engine stand that is probably the first time any bolts besides the bearing caps have ever neep put into this thing.

As far as heads go here is what I have (a pair of each I assume) :





@nrgwizard , I would be interested in those heads if you could put me in contact. I'm going on vacation in a few days so it would likely be after that before I could actually do anything though.

I discovered that 2" hitch receiver tube makes a nice "hat" fitting over the top of the frame rails. Has about .050 of clearance and sharp enough corners to sit on the flats. The pictures below show what I came up so far for the bellhousing to chassis mounts using the factory tie down or recovery point (what is it actually?). It uses a 5/8" bolt and is sleeved internally.











Not exactly sure which way I want to go from here, but I am thinking of making a new or modifying the block plate so it comes out wider, letting me meet these mounts with extension ear welded onto them. Or making the mounts extend up to meet the bottom block bolt and grab one of the Pontiac pattern bolts maybe. Full rigid mount? Bushing in here somewhere? Not sure. I'm not opposed to mounting either end rigid, with a bushing on the other side.

The driver's side has a starter to deal with but I think either idea can be made to clear.



Thanks for the pictures @mohr hp . Definitely gives me some things to think about. One of the drawbacks of of my 54 is the added torque boxes I need to rework or simply slice into to get my rear outriggers in place. A cage or a roll bar is a Stage II thing for now, but definitely in this cars future.

 

"My understanding is that an R1 / R2 is essentially just a 289 with aluminum timing gears and a better cam right?"

Wrong. The R1/R2s have flat top pistons, better valve springs, dual point distributor, AFB 4-bbl intake and carburetor, better oil pan breathing, modern large front balance damper, heavy duty water pump, chrome rocker, valley and air filter covers, among other things.

jack vines

 

I actually started out with just a 6 point roll bar, then later built the rest of the cage.

 

I'll be on a break from this for a couple of weeks. At the airport waiting to catch a flight. After that, we will be switching gears to the Lark right away to get it on the road for the year.

 

subscribed

Nice work!

 

No Studebaker related content, but I did see some Rhino's in the wild yesterday, so that's neat.

 

Were they white?

 

I believe they were white from what we were told. I don't think we would have gotten that close to a black one.

 

Just don’t try to milk one of those cows! Heard they kick hard.

 

Got back and mostly recovered from vacation. Got my car thrown back on tires and kicked out of the shop.



Seriously starting to consider getting an enclosed trailer since I'm out of garage space and refuse to downsize on equipment.

Sprayed some gas down the carb on the Lark and it popped right off. Seemed to have survived storage well.



Got it up on the hoist and attempted to swap tires / wheels. Fronts fit great. Definitely needs to come down a good 3 or so inches to cover the top of the tire. Rear was too close for comfort, so my father in law and I pulled the stock axle out this morning so I could set the tires in place at approximate ride height. I think this is going to look good.

 

The rears are perfect...

 

I think so too on the rears. I've got a few sets of springs to play with the stance and spring rate.

I got the rear axle popped on but need to rework U bolt plates to get it back under its own weight. Hopefully in the next couple days.

Anyone in the market for a full Lark power steering setup? Works great, no leaks...

 

What about cutting one coil?

 

Yes, I cut one coil from the front springs on my 259 powered 59 Lark. Put it at a perfect height.

As for the heads, you have two different castings there. The 555 heads haven't been been as consistent in their wall thickness as the 570 heads.
I've never done any work to the 679 casting heads, so no knowledge there. I use a sonic, material thickness meter to verify the wall thickness as I do my port work, to make sure I don't go too thin.

Damper wise, the standard, OEM damper is very...thin. As I recall, about .25", maybe 312" thick. The damper in the picture on the previous page appears much...thicker than that.

My 59 Lark with one coil cut, stock "old" springs in the back -


Mike

 

Had a busy last week but did manage to get some work done on the Lark.



After much struggle I got my new U bolt plates done. I thought I was being crafty by reworking the old ones. Welded up the bolt holes, then realized the plates did not have enough room to get the new wider U bolts in comfortably. Ended up using a different set (also had to be reworked) and then welding the correct shock mount tab back on. Next time I will just buy new and transfer the shock mount, but skip the filling and redrilling holes part.



Under its own weight I think it looks pretty good.







It's not exactly centered right now since the car desperately needs new leaf spring bushings.

With the larger rear tires I may actually need to move the axle back a bit (.5-1" maybe) to get the tires to look proportional in the fenders. Vertical front / tapered rear meeting a round tire makes it look too far forward. Depending on what I use for a yoke (direct bolt on vs flange style) I may be able to use my stock driveshaft. Right now it's just a little too long when the suspension is dropped out.

Front end is coming apart at least enough to cut down the front coils this weekend. I am still looking for 1961 and newer kingpins + lower pivots for both of the cars if anyone has any they want to part with. Need matched pairs since there were some minor changes throughout the years.

 

Word to the wise...Lark Convertible coil are significantly stiffer that those of a '54 Hardtop. Make sure everything is actually supported properly before you dig too far for whatever is holding things up in the car. Then you can carefully unload it as a system.

 

Try Russ @ STUDEBAKERPARTS.com, they usually have what ever you need.
I think the wheel/tire looks good where it is & the height is spot on... The underside looks nice & clean/solid.

 

@Jacksmith it is extremely clean and solid underneath. I have found no signs of patch panels under this thing. If it was ever patched they did a VERY nice job of it. Replacing full panels and properly spot welding everything together.

At the rear spring / body mounts there are a couple soft spots on the bottom plate of the frame, but mysteriously only there. I think I found my answer behind the front driver's spring pocket.



That's only part of the sand, insulation and rodent crap I pulled out of there. I will need to do a better cleaning up there and a better inspection of the frame for any other nests that are hanging out. I suspect that's what happened in the back. Gross.

 

I cut down the front springs the other day. I cut not quite a full coil off, and cut the profile flat trying to maximize surface area in the spring pocket. It took a while to complete the cuts while keeping the springs cool. When it was all said and done they are about a half inch shorter.







Removing the rubber isolator also took around 3/4" out. My math said this should get me about 2" lower than stock overall in the front.

 

Back together I think it is much closer to where I want it. There is about an inch of rake, but to my eye it still looks tilted back.









Top of the tire is fully covered by at least a half inch.



Rear wheel is about flush to the fender. I will need to do some measuring, but I still think this needs to be pushed back just a bit in the fender with the larger rubber.

I'm going to let it sit for a couple of days and see where it settles. I'm not expecting much of a change. Potentially I could have run a shorter front tire to get the rake I want, but I think the more practical approach will be to stiffen up the rear springs and get it to sit a little higher. I want a little bit of attitude, but my wife has requested nothing to crazy for this car.

 

Those wheels are sweet! It looks like you've got it right there... @ least to my eye. The center of the rear wheel sits @ the center of the flat horizontal area of the fender-well. It also appears to have a very slight gentleman's rake. Once driven for a while, the springs will settle in a little. Judge then.
That's a really nice little rag top you've got there!

 

Did some "government work" after punching out today.









These are the factory drum brake hubs from the Lark and a friend's '63 GT Hawk. I chucked them up and dialed them in to clean up the back face where they will contact the rotor. Factory disc brake cars already have this machining done on what I am 99% sure is the same hub.

While I had it in, I figured I would turn the O.D. down just a bit so rotors will slip right over them. Theoretically anyways, since I didn't have any rotors on hand to double check the fit. If there is a problem, a quick dusting with a die grinder should get me there.

I will reassemble at least one of these with old bearings and check the runout before I assemble with rotors and studs. Should be pretty good I hope. If not I will need to fixture them differently next time.

 

Not a great picture, but I think I have my brake line figured out finally. Hoping to find the time this weekend to get it a little more sorted out.

 

Still here, still working on things. Slowly. It's amazing how much having a job, other hobbies, a house, as well as needing to eat and sleep chews into Studebaker time.

Anyways, we are working on getting the rear axle set up in the car. We redrilled the spring perches for 3/8" setback getting more clearance in the fenderwells so the tires look more centered. This also gets the stock driveshaft really close to working right length wise. Probably needs to move back another 1/8" to not over compress the shaft on full droop. Or possibly limit down travel with the shocks a bit because there is more than enough right now. This is turning into a measure once (incorrectly) and then TIG weld and redrill 2 or 3 times type of operation.

This gets us onto driveline angles. The pinion angle is just eyeballed in so I can get a better driveshaft measurement. The first time it was pointed further down than I realized throwing off my length measurement. Again pinion angle is NOT set in the following diagram, this is just a baseline. Chassis is level and the rear axle is at approximate ride height.



Starting at the front, the engine and trans run about 7° downhill. Because Studebaker. The front shaft runs about 6° downhill, making for a 1° working angle on the front U-joint. Seems fine. The rear shaft comes up around 3°, making a 8° or so working angle. Not ideal. I even eyeballed it and measured again just to make sure I wasn't way off somewhere. Pretty centered side to side though with the narrowed 8.8". Better than factory BTW. The pinion is pointed up ("down" in the diagram) around 2°, making a working angle of 5° on the rear most U-joint. Again, probably not ideal.

I kind of understand the "add to zero" idea with a 2 piece driveline. In this case the rear axle would actually need to point further up, which makes the working angles of the center and rear U-joints worse, but the phasing happy. Not exactly sure if the front 1° needs to get added or subtracted out, or if it even matters.

I have a few inches I can move the driveshaft up before it hits the floor in the center. I can modify the carrier bearing mount and move it up further into the car. This will increase the front working angle, but help the others out. Not sure if this angle can be actually phased out further down the line or not.

What would my limit for angle be on the front U-joint? Can I bring this up to 2° or 3°? More? Then I could get down to maybe 5° or 6° with the center joint and set the pinion (up?) a few degrees so it all adds to zero?

Not really sure which direction to get here. Angle changes will happen in the center with not much movement if I go that route. Pretty easy trig to do once I have a number to shoot for.

The center crossmember in these things would probably make a one piece shaft difficult, otherwise I would already be going that direction.

 

I was going to ask about that, especially on such a short wheelbase car. Can you beef up and flatten out(?) the center crossmember at all? I think a one piece driveshaft would save on hassle, be easier to install and remove, and possible the best reason, less math.

 

@In_The_Pink, the center crossmembers on the convertibles are crazy thick. 3/8 top and bottom flanges, with around .100' thick center web. Full frame rail height.

That being said I took another look this morning after talking to a couple other guys familiar with these cars. The later cars and we think Avanti's as well switched to a 1 piece shaft. The Avanti had the same center crossmember as this car. Once I pull the carrier bearing there is a pretty tall tunnel available between the bottom plate of the crossmember and the transmission tunnel with nothing else in the way. Can someone with a chassis book confirm what Avanti's ran for a rear driveshaft?



Here is a shot of the rear wheel at approximate ride height. I think it looks pretty good being pushed back 3/8". We will have to play with rake with the top up and down for sure. I suspect when that downwards sloping roof is tucked away the rear might look too high.

 

Avanti’s do have a 1 piece drive line, and as I understand share the Lark convertible frame with reinforcing plates. I’ll crawl under and get some pics in a bit…

 

Here are the pics from the Avanti parts and service manuals

 

Thanks @Kevin Pharis , that's what I was hoping to see. Looks just like the Lark. In this case I just need to point the pinion up around 6° or 7° to be parallel with the engine and transmission right? Still seems like a lot of angle, but better than the 2 piece shaft.