Jump to content

R3 Airbox


1963r2

Recommended Posts

R3's were installed in 64 only, They didn't have the hood brace. Also they used thinner motor mounts, AND shimmed the body higher for hood clearance!

So the quick answer is yes, it will hit. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Brad.

I guess I should have said it was a 63 Avanti. I'm sure there are a few who have fit these onto R2 motors, I was hoping there may be way around the problem without removing the brace.

I will have to do some thinking by the sounds of it.

pb

Edited by 1963r2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, a friend of mine owned a '63 Studebaker Avanti R2. He replaced the carb bonnet with an aftermarket R3 air box. The box cleared the reinforcement brace. He did, however, install the R3 type 'thin' front engine mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did try the thin mounts when I dropped the engine in however there was some clearance issues so I reverted to the normal mounts.

The body is currently off the chassis so I have time to think about things.

I haven't had a good look at the brace but I have thought about shaving down the middle section so that the brace remains in place, albeit thinner in the affected area, or even sliding the brace forward away from the box .I guess I will find out when I drop the body on.

pb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2014 at 10:33 PM, silverstude said:

You can shave 3/16" off the mating surfaces of the airbox to achieve a 3/8" shorter height and it won't affect the operation. However after having done this, I'd say it was a pretty expensive way to achieve very little.....

3/16" can mean a lot when it comes to hood/engine clearance.....Good tip!

Edited by mfg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
On 10/18/2014 at 11:56 PM, 1963r2 said:

 

Can anyone on this thread elaborate on the benefit of swapping out the R2 airbox for the R3 one?  What does it do to performance, fuel economy, etc if everything else stays the same?  I have a lead on buying a car that has this conversion and was a bit perplexed if it was even a good idea.

Edited by JavierB
forgot to check "notify of replies"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did it so as to not worry about having to seal the carby.

But it also looks different, good, etc.

Not sure of any performance gain although I guess there must be otherwise they would not have used it.

pb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 1963r2 said:

I did it so as to not worry about having to seal the carby.

But it also looks different, good, etc.

Not sure of any performance gain although I guess there must be otherwise they would not have used it.

pb

When the Studebaker Avanti was first introduced it was touted for its many safety features....All true!.....However, I've always thought the engineers really blew it when they decided to use a 'sealed' carb on their R2 engine....especially after successfully using a carb enclosed in an air box on the '57-'58 Golden Hawks.

For what it's worth, I believe a huge gain in safety was achieved when Studebaker decided to enclose the carb inside an air box on its R3 model.

( Ask the man who had the carb accelerator pump seal fail, (under supercharger pressure), on the highway in his R2, which resulted in a gasoline soaked engine compartment!....ME!!:o)

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...