AIR FLOW

This forum is devoted to all topics concerning high performance, Studebaker powered vehicles.
fastjohn
0 - 19 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Oct 2016, 10:11
Location: Sheboygan, WI

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by fastjohn » 10 Jan 2020, 12:03

Back in the early 70's I built a 320" motor with Jahns pistons. They put a wedge on flat top pistons. I do not know what the Comp. ratio was, but even with a starter in good condition,it was very hard to start when warm after running. It did run strong, but I do not know if the engine exists anymore.

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 10 Jan 2020, 18:55

Tom -

As with most Jahns pistons, they were (originals ARE) monsters. Big heavy, big full round skirts, that have exceptionally long skirts.
When I get to see them in person, I'll look at the dome shape from above and see what they look like.
Just guessing, since they are...old...I'll bet the dome is pretty generic, not right/left.

Mike

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 11 Jan 2020, 09:54

I particularly like the old TRW forgings that came out for 283-327 Chevy. The skirt design was exceptional. Manley also pioneered some of the best design pistons. Mahle makes a very nice forging for a 305 Chevy . I have not measured these . I would say that perhaps these forgings could be slimmed down to 3.655 ?? As flat tops they might be a good way to go. Wet or dry sleeve to larger bores is a great alternative. I like TRW ductile iron sleeves , they are hard iron and fit well do not come loose when installed correct. This modification will vastly allow for better airflow by letting us step up to larger intake valves and unshrouding to match. I often look back at the single ring pistons used by Bill Jenkins. His motors were phenomenal . Going larger bore also allows for a better range of piston ring types. Sleeve out will cost around $1500. But in 12:1 CR. just think what would happen to an R4. Or a nice 327 out of a 259! Because of journal size this allows a bunch of power without any need for a stroker crank. Bore to stroke ratios will be ideal. I classify Studebaker 259-289 as big blocks because of the tall deck height. Going big bore opens the threshold a bunch. Tom O.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 22 Jan 2020, 03:11

From seeing actual footage of wet flow bench it appears that the knowledge gained is vast. A wet flow may have been c/o on Studebaker heads . This would be nice to see. It may show that the basic vintage design might be worth further R@D. The Mondello wet flow has made significant changes in the way combustion chambers are designed. Tom
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 22 Jan 2020, 12:19

Many make good skirts these days. Have you seen a modern Pro Stock piston ? F1 pistons ? Upside down they're pretty crazy looking.
Larger bores for larger intake valves...that's a yes. Warren Johnson was (is) one of the first to promote/push that idea back in the 70's or early 80's.
Better rings, not sure what guys in the F1 arena is using, but it seems that Total Seal has the ring market pretty happy these days. But yea, they continue to develop new ideas.
Bore to stroke ratios...they bounce around all kinds of ways...depending on whom (what engineer/designer) you are talking to..!
While Mondello was most definitely on the forefront of early port design, not sure he was the go-to on "modern", shallow chamber design. The NASCAR guys had the wet-flow benches working hard before any out here on the west coast even heard of-em. Mondello started in Chatsworth, SoCal (or close by there) I believe. Today, just copy a current (seems most have gone to the GM design chamber in NASCAR), shallow wedge combustion chamber, use a proper set of valves, design a cam around it all...there you go. Have you seen any of Sonny Leonards big block Chevy chambers for his 900" engine combinations..?

Mike

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 24 Jan 2020, 12:28

Mike, yes well aware of sonny's 1000 cu in motor. The Koleno bb mopar is a work of pure art. In 598 cubes it easily makes 1150 hp on pump gas. Sonny's motor makes over 1800 hp on 92 octane. Aspirated but these motors cost over 25- 40,000 dollars . I talked to Joe Mondello back in early 80s regarding Studebaker heads. It was a long pause. He would port a set of heads but it would not be his choice of motors to spend hard cash on. Joe later invented and patented wet flow . He holds the patent till this day. His system is now purchased as an add on to dry bench systems. You could not build one for what he sells it for. Joe may have really good ideas now regarding the Studebaker chamber design and other quirky things we deal with. This is why I like wet flow, it picks up things that normally can be missed. Tom
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 25 Jan 2020, 01:36

Valve size and port volume during overlap phase. It seems that valve size and massive port volume is not always the winning combination. A bigger inlet valve pushes back a lot of air during overlap and consequently torque gets lost. It is current knowledge that being able to retain the inlet charge better is no secret and this is why early so called "old school" camshafts made really nice torque numbers . The timing sequences were specifically placed to net the best power curve over a wide range. The Studebaker "R" series cams with low lift were still great all around performers . Mopars 1966 273 solid factory performance cam backs the design up with 273 Hp aspirated. The camshafts share nice timing sequence designs that compliment the power curve. The Studebaker R3 was a beast for torque and really decent power for a small motor . The inlet port design actually was based on it should work. . Take the Paxton off and it was a dog. The flow numbers we see on this forum and also You tube, show very decent capabilities at around 200 cfm. Put the right camshaft in the stude and with 1.87 inlet valves the motor may well out perform the 2.02 inlet valve regardless of bore . Shorter duration and moderate lifts of up to .465 in and .465 exh. With timing sequences that are able to retain more charge during overlap. In drag racing the holeshot is where most races are won. A custom short duration roller cam might just provide some real Beef. Bigger ports may not be required. Tom
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 28 Jan 2020, 12:06

Please log onto "Joe Monsello camshaft theory" this will describe a few important features in depth. What this tells myself is that the 114- 116 degree lobe separation that Studebaker used is very healthy in making the motor run cleaner under boost. Some of the R series motors ran very hard even with .403" valve lift. The timing sequence is not something Studebaker engineers guessed at. We all know that 106-108 lobe separation increases overlap Power may suffer. In the 1970s 1980 Era and earlier cam grinders designed lobes that decrease overlap reversion. They were not always well liked because of failure. It is a good bet that a solid flat tapper Studebaker cam with .500" lift and 116 LSA would work exceptional. For most people, tlhey might only have heads that flow upwards of 170- 180 cfm @ 28" on the bench. So the point am making is: bigger is not always better. Joe mondello is now retired last l heard and no longer works the company? Please take a few moments to read his report . It may be of great help.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Jeff Rice
Global Moderator
Posts: 4883
Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 08:48
Location: Brooklet, Georgia,USA,Earth
Contact:

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Jeff Rice » 28 Jan 2020, 21:46

I used to sell carb kits and parts, helped build a B/SR and did some carb work with Chuck Nuytten way back when.
Chuck moved down to Texas and started another little company. CN Blocks. That's where Sonny Leonard gets his.
http://www.cnblocks.com/

BTW, Joe Mondello died 9 years ago.

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 04 Feb 2020, 21:48

OK... Tell me where I can get a Studebaker (or a Paxton) flat tapped cam built to the spec you are referring to?
Looking for a real source for the part.


Jeff, skip mondello for now. My main focus is on flat tapped 114-116 LSA camshafts with good timing events such as we're used by Paxton. One feature I notice is that the valve train can be very light without a roller cam. This eliminates many issues . Good roller rockers is a bonus. You know well with carb expertise of why motors run dirty with under 110 LSA. The carb takes a hit. A very nice flat tapped camshaft is waiting to be built and iskenderian was nearly perfect in his early quest. A nice reliable grind can be made to power up to 6800 RPM with minimal overlap .
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 06 Feb 2020, 10:42

OK, so the cam you are talking about is a regrind.
That was my original question.
Thank you.
Question.
How do you change lobe separation angle on a regrind cam?



Geoff Bardall of colt cams built me such a cam. It was given to Tom covington to test. It worked nicely. Tom's motor exploded, Think a con rod or piston failure. The cam had a 114.5 LSA. Tom's new motor with a roller cam did not plant down a significant increase. Studebaker valve train can be ultra light and this eliminates.occilation. The Colt cam lobes are borrowed from a Ford profile. It was a C-115-S COLT is in British Columbia. Send Geoff a stock cam core and he will build it. Geoff also toyed with a 108 LSA cam that I installed in a stock 259. Throttle signal was superb. Not what we expected. .455.lift after .018 lash. Tom has videos of his car making passes with the C- 115-S cam. This cam in the black car would likely shock your expectations. Nice job on your project by the way. How you find the energy level is mind boggling.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 06 Feb 2020, 10:58

The person with the6 best knowledge of Paxton is David livesay. The 1962 runs on the salt were done with various camshafts. Apparently the R4 factory motor was a screamer. A few cams were made to compliment each application. The timing sequences are ideal even by today's standards. These motors were pulling off 170 mph back to back. I am looking for a good stock cam to get another C-115-S Grind made. Because of the Mopar tappet Dia. The Colt profile works like a mushroom design cam and extra duration is made. The cams rise rate is fast.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Jeff Rice
Global Moderator
Posts: 4883
Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 08:48
Location: Brooklet, Georgia,USA,Earth
Contact:

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Jeff Rice » 07 Feb 2020, 06:36

Why not buy a new roller cam blank and have it ground to your exact spec and heat treated/Parkerized by the cam people?
Then, you'd have everything you are talking about. It can happen today.

Tom Osborne wrote:
06 Feb 2020, 10:58
The person with the6 best knowledge of Paxton is David livesay. The 1962 runs on the salt were done with various camshafts. Apparently the R4 factory motor was a screamer. A few cams were made to compliment each application. The timing sequences are ideal even by today's standards. These motors were pulling off 170 mph back to back. I am looking for a good stock cam to get another C-115-S Grind made. Because of the Mopar tappet Dia. The Colt profile works like a mushroom design cam and extra duration is made. The cams rise rate is fast.

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 07 Feb 2020, 10:21

Jeff, who sells iron flat tappet blanks? I would buy a bunch if they were available. If you would be so kind please weigh a set of Studebaker tappets, then weigh a set of mopar roller lifters. Look at occilation . I honestly see that the R3-4 series camshafts still have much hidden potential. We need .500" running net lift. As this seems to be the most favorable flow area on re-worked heads. The 280 duration 488 lift Paxton cams worked. Not many if other than 1/2 dozen were made. Mushroom profiles from the 1980 Era can be mastered to a Stude core. Providing it has extra meat. It is also possible to run hydraulic roller tappets on an iron Studebaker core. Just need enough iron to build one. Hydraulic roller cams are way smoother operating and do not hammer valve train so hard. You get good upper RPMS and seldom have any breakage. A net lift solid camshaft of .489 with 292 duration on a 299- 304 Studebaker would be my choice. Keeping LSA to a minimum. Overlap is power loss.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 07 Feb 2020, 10:45

Tom Osborne wrote:
28 Jan 2020, 12:06
Please log onto "Joe Monsello camshaft theory" this will describe a few important features in depth. What this tells myself is that the 114- 116 degree lobe separation that Studebaker used is very healthy in making the motor run cleaner under boost. Some of the R series motors ran very hard even with .403" valve lift. The timing sequence is not something Studebaker engineers guessed at. We all know that 106-108 lobe separation increases overlap Power may suffer.
Joe Mondello is the correct spelling.

In red - The 114° to 117°ish lobe centers don't make the engine run "cleaner". It keeps the power made by the boost "in" the chamber longer...to spend more time pushing on the piston, before it exits thru the valve.

In blue - The short lobe (102° to 106°) centers are great for small inch carbureted engines, and do "not" suffer in power. Many top small inch engine guys run short lobe centers. A couple of friends and I, long ago, went about testing s "small", small Chevy engine with a friend in his C/ED dragster. We tested carburetors, manifolds, tires, and yes, cams all in one early winter day. The two cams were identical, except...for the overlap. One was as I recall 103°, the other was 108°. We normally ran the 108° cam. We installed the 103° at the same "installed" position. Spun the tire VERY hard on the starting line..! uffer in power...I don't think so..! We installed a slightly taller, and a bit wider tire, and the 60ft'd like it never had. The E.T. was a tad better than with the 108° cam, the MPH did drop off a little, don't recall all the numbers. We did more experimentation in later weeks with the shorter cam. We ended up using the 108° cam on slippery tracks and the 103° cam on good tracks.
So again...no, not so much "suffering in power"..!

Yes, a bit of power to push the piston down is lost out the exhaust...this timing did and still does help small inch engines get off of the starting line.

Very little is a given..! Parts must "work" with other parts. Just tossing parts together isn't normally a good recipe for good power.

And of course, the Stude engineers did the best that they could with the knowledge that they had...at the time. Time marches on, people (hopefully) learn better ways of doing things..!

Mike

Post Reply