Landracing Forum Home

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Build Diaries => Topic started by: John (Maryland) on April 25, 2011, 07:49:55 AM



Title: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 25, 2011, 07:49:55 AM
The construction of the 1953 Studebaker is still underway. Things are starting to come together.  John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: SPARKY on April 25, 2011, 07:52:11 AM
it sure look like it!!!!  :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: 38flattie on April 25, 2011, 08:13:40 AM
Looking good!


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Captthundarr on April 25, 2011, 08:19:08 AM
Suuu  Weeeet!!


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 26, 2011, 04:34:35 AM
The driveshaft protective tunnel has been welded and is CM.  Most of the electrical work is complete.  The switchbox is mounted on the upper roll cage and the bracket next to the driver cage is for a data recorder.  John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: wheelrdealer on April 26, 2011, 05:14:48 AM
Nice. Great workmanship.

Bill


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Peter Jack on April 26, 2011, 07:43:03 AM
Good job John. That's a really nice clean looking build.  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: manta22 on April 26, 2011, 11:03:01 AM
John;

In an emergency can you hit the OFF switches for the ignition and fuel without hitting the starter?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 26, 2011, 01:12:00 PM
Neilo.

That is the way the switches are set up.

Thanks for the thoughts.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: johnneilson on April 26, 2011, 01:21:53 PM
Is that bed liner paint? if not, what is it?

John


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 26, 2011, 01:32:38 PM
If your question is about the frame, it is an epoxy primer. The parallel portion of the frame is original Studebaker.  The frame will be final painted as soon as I finish a few chassis items.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: aircap on April 26, 2011, 06:55:35 PM
Well, right now Raymond Loewy wouldn't recognize it, but you'll take care of that eventually.
Good luck with the build and your racing.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 26, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
Aircap.

TNXs.  The car body is all steel, as stock as possible, no customizing, a standard FG hood, air dam, bumpers, truck lid, in Bonneville trim (Moon discs/etc.).  If it ever gets finished, and it is starting to get there, hope to take it to a National Studebaker Show. I ordered the 3rd member and axles today. 

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Avanti Kid on April 27, 2011, 01:05:31 AM
Hi John, very nice build and strong and safe, what engine size and what class are you going to race in?  Dave


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 27, 2011, 05:35:45 AM
Steve Kramer of Pasadena, Maryland built the car and has put forth considerable personal effort - a stellar TIG welder.  I did not build the car.  The car is now at my house for more work, but the difficult fabrications are mostly finished, I hope.

It will be a basic Classic Gas Altered with a small-SBC, which is being planned as we speak.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: GH on April 27, 2011, 07:53:17 AM
John, the National Studebaker Show is in Springfield, Missouri this June. I will be looking for your car.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on April 27, 2011, 09:17:25 AM
John,,, wow  looking VERY good.. Keep it up and hope to see you run this fall.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 27, 2011, 04:33:15 PM
Hello Charles.  We went to Ocean City last week and our room number was 805, a very familiar number. R. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: will6er on April 27, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
John-

What can you tell me about your front suspension. I have mine mocked up, but yours looks real nice.

Will


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 28, 2011, 05:30:10 AM
Will.

It is an extensively modified super street stuff kit.  Any information I have you are welcome to; many details are provided before I changed the name from 53 Stude-Chevy.

If you want more pictures or any other information, let me know as I can take a fender off and give you the latest, which is complete, I hope - I have not yet installed the spiral springs. 

Lift stops have been added (shown as red), ball joints have been spot welded so they will not come loose under hard bumps at high speed, and I bought a new set of upper A arms with steel-cross supports vice aluminum, probably not needed but this car is being designed to go very fast - not saying it will go fast or I will but that is the design.

It seems like a good setup, we seem to have a handle on what has to be done.  There are some important items to consider in this arrangement like engine setback, engine height, lowered spindles or not, frame reinforcement, caster range, etc.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: RICK on April 28, 2011, 07:42:54 AM
John,
         I'd like to know more about your front suspension?  Where did you get the A-arms, who's spindles, rack-n-pinion???  etc.

   Thanks,  RICK


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 28, 2011, 08:24:24 AM
Rick.

It is from Slick Street Stuff, on the internet with photos, comes with most all the parts needed for a bolt-on type installation with rack-steering box, uppers, lowers, spindles, attachment brackets, etc.  My a-arms had to be replaced because they were not the right length and steel AVCO cross shafts were only available from one parts company out west; AVCO makes many arms in aluminum cross-shafts but not steel in the size needed.  You may NOT need to replace the a-arms if the kit is purchased.  I originally purchased the lowered spindles and they were completely out in camber - not useable (I do not know why that was the case).  Note too, I had custom brake caliper attachments made by Strange Engineering (Very nice people to work with) so I could install their disc brakes.  Overall, it may be the only stock system available and seems to quite work well after mods, but I have not yet driven the car. 

All this learning cost a lot of money and grey cells so if you go that route get back to me if you if you like. Steve Kramer did the work and TIG, knows this front, and I am sure would answer any questions. 

If you look at the Internet picture and compare with my car, you can see the tubes and TIG largely for strengthening, fitment, and safety.  I'm using QA tapered springs and QA adjustable shocks.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 28, 2011, 03:27:20 PM
Shown are a few pictures of the electrical system.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Stan Back on April 28, 2011, 07:13:50 PM
Looks like a lot to a guy that has one circuit to start the starter, and one to get the mag on.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 29, 2011, 08:45:27 AM
Rick and Will.

I found a couple more pics of the front-end taken during the build.  

R.
John.  


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: bvillercr on April 29, 2011, 09:38:14 AM
How much camber is in it?  Looking really sweet!


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 29, 2011, 03:31:53 PM
TNX.

There is quite a bit of + and - camber and at least 8 degrees caster, probably more with a little work.  I'm trying to minimize the scrub radius.

Any recommendations on an initial setup?

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: bvillercr on April 29, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Sorry, don't know what I was thinking.  How much caster are you running?  We have over 15 degrees in our car. :cheers:  I see you have 8.  Thanks. :mrgreen:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on April 29, 2011, 06:31:13 PM
John,  8 degrees should be a good starting point for your type os set up.  I have mine at 9 degrees and can add or subtract 4 to 5 from there,,, However I am staying with 9 as the car works great as is,,, no matter over the bumps at Maxton or the glass like smoothness at Loring..

Hope to see you finish that thing soon,,, as I knew it wood ,,,looking real good.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on April 30, 2011, 06:22:25 AM
Charles and bvillercr.

Thanks for the information on caster settings.

The transmission cross-member has been reinforced from earlier pictures, the bellhousing has been installed, and the fitment transmission case has been mated to the bellhousing.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on May 03, 2011, 06:38:34 AM
It took several months to sort out all the details, but the transmission is finally installed.  It uses a 71/2 inch bellhousing and a mechanical clutch.  R. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on May 15, 2011, 02:52:44 PM
The pics show beginning to install the fiberglass air dam, bumper, and grill.  The fenders are steel.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on May 18, 2011, 01:46:51 PM
Now John, that sure does look familiar to me as well ...

Keep up the good work.

Do you plan on being done for Sept or Oct at Maxton ?  Looks like you are a ways off to be ready for Loring in mid July??

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on May 19, 2011, 11:30:00 AM
Charles. 

Very nice runs and speeds at Maxton - your car is looking great; I always enjoy the pics and videos. 

I'm headed toward Maxton as that is the build, but I do not want to get ahead of myself - a bit of work remains. 

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on September 30, 2011, 04:26:28 PM
Attached are a few recent pictures of the build.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on September 30, 2011, 04:46:03 PM
John the Stude sure sets nice. Hope to see u run in October at Maxton or late April in Ohio.

keep us posted...have a great weekend.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: old chevy truck on September 30, 2011, 05:30:53 PM
Really nice car! Fine workmanship. One question - Does the ECTA require the amount of gusseting that is required at an SCTA event (esp. bonneville). I didn't see any gussets in the early pictures of the build. If you plan on heading west you may want to check with a SCTA before your final assembly.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on September 30, 2011, 06:12:51 PM
It has gussets.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on September 30, 2011, 06:19:27 PM
Charles.

Hope to see you at Maxton in October, I am looking forward to going.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 11, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
Attached are some pictures showing the final painting of the frame and assembly of the chassis.  R. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 12, 2011, 05:00:05 AM
Front view; the engine is a P-Ayr replica block.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Jorge on October 12, 2011, 05:20:50 AM
Great build!  Nice attention to detail, I like how the wiring got done on the car.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on October 12, 2011, 06:48:26 PM
John ,

Oh so close,,, Hope to see you at Maxton this month.

What motor will you have in the Stude and what class do you plan on running ?

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 13, 2011, 08:42:36 AM
Charles.

While I tried for Maxton in October there was simply too much to do, regrettably, as this build was principally for Maxton. 

Presently, everything seems to be coming together quite well.  It will be a classic altered probably a “C” or “B”, unlikely a “D”.  I am currently talking with the engine folks; I do like all the LSR classes.

Hope to see you at Maxton; I'm staying at the Comfort Inn.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jimmy six on October 13, 2011, 11:56:12 AM
I know this is for ECTA but if you bring it to Bonneville from what I've seen you window net is only 1/2 of what it needs to be or the one mandated in Jim Lovings Firebird........Good looking build....JD


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on October 13, 2011, 01:08:40 PM
  John, great looking build.
  If you are thinking about ever running on the salt, do yourself a big favor and paint the inside of the front fenders, rear quarter panels, and ESPECIALLY the inner body shell (inside the quarter panels) with at least a good epoxy paint.
  These are the places that you can never get the salt out of, especially at the "B" pillar.
  If I was starting over, I would powder coat the whole darn car.
  At least I was savy enough to do the entire chassis..................
  After fourteen years on the salt, I know.........
                                                  Good Luck, Bob


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 13, 2011, 03:12:17 PM
Thanks for the tips on the window net and salt.

The transmission cross member has been enhanced for greater strength.



Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 13, 2011, 03:41:58 PM
John,
Just a question regarding your front suspension set up. I was looking at the front suspension assembly and noticed that the upper arm axis of rotation is at, what appears to be, a much larger angle to the car center line than the much longer lower control arm. I would think that this combination would, cause a negative caster gain as the suspension moves down, i.e. the top of the spindle looks like it will move forward related to the lower mount which would decrease caster in compression. Any reason for this? if this is infact the situation.

Rex


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 13, 2011, 08:46:20 PM
John.

Hello Rex.

The car has been built to be as stock as feasible.  The frame is stock from the front tips to the rear main cross member although it has been strengthened (cannot be seen from photos). 

The aftermarket front-end kit (heavily modified) has the same geometric format as the original car, but with rack and pinion steering.  The a–arms are different lengths similar to the original design.

The photo is an oblique shot distorting the actual condition, some shims have been pulled, and the car is resting on blocks above the lower arms so I can move it.  As she sits, ride height is lower than planned, but could be run at that height, which is quite low.  The rear can be lowered a couple more inches.

Quick look shows 0-cam, 7-cas and 1/4-ti with substantial adjustment leeway.  I am still in rough assembly, but will be setting initial ride height and taking gauge readings.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 14, 2011, 08:40:57 AM
John,
Thanks for the reply, always good to run it low. Very nice car and build, I love Studies and I am sure you will go fast. Any thoughts about running an ex NASCAR engine for C class? I think they are about the best bargain around HP/$.

Rex


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 14, 2011, 07:03:59 PM
Rex.

Funny you should mention that.  I have had several conversations with Keith Dorton of Automotive Specialists, about an ex Rick H. 358 SB2.  I had some questions, he had many answers (a man of profound knowledge), and shared some  insights about his engines. 

If I make it to Maxton, he invited me to stop in as there are some questions about fitting the engine bay; space for a driver-side, 5 stage, he has done lefties.  It was great talking to him; nice fellow, very helpful. 

I asked him about about backing out some power by initially running a two barrel and less timing, He said they do not run much timing and it would be better to go with a small 4 barrel and adjust the cam - could get it down to 700-hp for the combination discussed; 700 is good number for me.

I am looking at a number of engine combinations, but I have a problem, I'm a Mechanical Enginner that likes race engines, every one.

Regards.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 14, 2011, 08:24:14 PM
John,
Dorton is a pretty neat guy, and sure knows how to make HPs, I talked to him at Speed Week and sure learned alot. He told me he built an engine out to the "C" class limit of 370 cu. in and it made "over 900 HP" and I heard it was just this side of 950! He has a special intake manifold that mounts the Holly 1050 carb that is supposed to work well. He has lots of motors in Bonneville record cars, most seem to be from the East Coast and South. Detuned to 700 one of those engines could last for every.

Rex


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: interested bystander on October 14, 2011, 09:58:03 PM
Besides the obvious ex/NASCAR motors, the now defunct (at least as a National Event class) NHRA Pro Stock Truck motors @ 358''  made around 945 BHP, maybe a bit too "cammy" for LSR , but they are available @ discounted prices, too.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Kiwi Paul on October 14, 2011, 11:22:42 PM
One of the more impressive Dorton motors I saw at Speedweek was Shaen Magan`s blown 300 inch piece. 243 mph on Gas, in a less than aero, fifteen plus year old Streeet Roadster....ooooffffff.....


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 15, 2011, 05:35:20 AM
The entire automotive industry has benefited from the fine work of these engine builders.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: krusty on October 15, 2011, 06:25:36 AM
 
     We have used Keith's engines to set records in 7 different classes in two different chassis. You would be hard pressed to find a better engine builder. What I see as the big difference in the NASCAR and NHRA engines is that the Cup stuff has been developed to run at high rpms for extended periods of time, the drag motors not so much (less than 10 sec.). PM me if you'dlike to discuss this option further.  vic 


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: wheelrdealer on October 15, 2011, 08:56:27 AM
John:

That is one sweet CGALT. Great build. Cannot wait to see it.

Bill


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 15, 2011, 03:16:55 PM
Bill.
 
TNXs.  You car is really coming along - I watched the video, a potent D motor, sounds great.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 15, 2011, 05:15:13 PM
My Grandson took some photos after we installed the transmission.  John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 16, 2011, 01:29:42 AM
John,
You might read back thru the thread on John Weatherwax's 34 roadster build. He uses a Liberty tranny and started out with the same shifting set up you have but found out that you have to hold it in gear and that only left one hand for the steering wheel. He converted to the air shift set up.

Rex


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 16, 2011, 04:57:49 AM

Rex.

The trans is for drag racing, it has a different shifting arrangement, and the setup is for an LSC 5100.  For its design purpose, the Liberty is virtually a perfect machine similar to the genius of the small Honda generator. 

I would like to run a “B” motor option by you.

Regards.
John. 




Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 16, 2011, 11:41:18 AM
A couple more pictures.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 16, 2011, 01:40:35 PM
John,
I think that when you start looking at B motors you are at the point of deciding big block or small block. Tough choice. One of the 4.5 inch bore big blocks with a 3-3/8 stroke, big heads and valves, 8500 rpm etc would probably be the most HP choice but if you want to stay in the 700 hp range any good 370+ cu. in. small block should work. 400 block with a 4.1 bore and a 3-9/16 crank will give you around 375 inches and a pretty easy 700 hp with the right parts combination.

What are your thoughts?


Rex


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 16, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Rex.

Well, here are some initial ideas.

There are many attractive “C” options, but a high-interest “B” has emerged: A 427-ci with as many ex-RH SB2 parts as possible; a quality 4.00 crank, not premium; SS valves unless ex-ti; roller cam bearings; ex-RH SB2 heads; ex-spider manifold with tweaking; camshaft-whatever it takes; premium push rods; premium springs; ex-RH race block depending on compatibility with pin, crank, and bore otherwise a Dart (I do not know availability of staggered lifter bores); roughly 12:1; I have a set of Manley rods (If correct sizing and checkout); mechanical water pump; ex-RH 5 stage; ex-SB2 shaft rockers; and ultra-premium assembly for a high-reliability, high-torque profile exceeding 600 ft-lbs in the 6400-7400 range. 

There is also an all-aluminum 427 BB with 17:1, but seemingly too much trouble to change now from a SBC.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on October 16, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
John, I like the idea of a SBC....  a B motor would be great and very easy to get 700HP....

my 370 C motor is old school ( 1997 Nascar technology ) and made 714HP
New Dart SHP Block, Comp Solid Roller, nice forged crank, JE Forged 18 degree Pistons, Forged H Beam Rods, Carillo Rod Bolts, 18 Degree Bowtie Heads, Ti Valves, locks, retainers etc..Jessel Shaft Rocker set up. Ok Victor Intake, 850 Quick Fuel Carb, Home made headers.

Nothing fancy above..no where near the SB2.2 potential,,, but it's what we had,,,I should get another oil pan and vacumn pump or bite the bullet and do a dry sump system.. also a Jessel Belt Drive set up would help.

Good luck, looks like you are on the right track.
 

FYI,,, my Motor guy has SB2 stuff and can de-tune a B motor to 750HP if thats all the HP you want.


Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 17, 2011, 05:20:50 AM

Charles. 

The 23 and 18 are remarkable engines in their own right.  I think of them as wise-school, hard overall choice, at least for me.

I ran an air pump on my 18 - preferred a dry sump, but they are costly.  Nice work on your engine package!  A friend of mine is running an SHP and really likes it.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on October 17, 2011, 11:44:04 AM
John,  "if"  I could afford a dry sump set up I would use it... then there is would the 5 stage oil pump fit, where would I put the oil tank,, etc.. etc... etc...

My motor guy wants me to at least put on a vacumn pump set up.  (since we did not do dry sump)..

For your deal,,, If you only want 700HP,,, why spend the extra $$$ for SB2 stuff when you know 18 degree SBC can do it relaibly ?  Now  I agree 100%  for higher HP and Higher RPM  the SB2 is far better, if  you want 830 to 950 HP

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Peter Jack on October 17, 2011, 03:38:21 PM
I see it as building only one engine in which you have room to increase the HP in the future without starting all over. JMHO

Pete


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: 38flattie on October 17, 2011, 05:33:09 PM
Great build, John! I'm really enjoying this one.

Oh, and put the biggest, baddest, engine you can- otherwise, you'll spend all your time trying to upgrade the one you have anyway! :evil:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on October 18, 2011, 03:59:08 PM
38flattie - The recent picture of your car on the salt would make a great Christmas Card.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: GH on October 29, 2011, 07:11:00 AM
Me and my Wife used photos from the salt of our car #787 for Christmas cards for quite a few years.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 05, 2011, 08:56:14 AM
John, It was good seeing you at Maxton,

I sure wish I would have had more time to chat with you.

I really look forward to you having your Car ready for Ohio next year.

And Yes your car would look awesome in Flat or Satin Black,, (just don't copy my scallops) LOL

I also like Hot Rod Flatz in a Satin Charcoal or the Satin Silver  for your ride,, man I can dream up some cool stripes for it as well,,

Talk soon,  now get back in the shop,, April will be here soon.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 05, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
38flattie - The recent picture of your car on the salt would make a great Christmas Card.

I could see Santa doing deliveries behind the wheel of the Chevy.

Give the reindeer a break this year.

Ho Ho Ho . . .  :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on January 15, 2012, 11:48:57 AM
A couple of pictures on the latest progress.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: hotschue on January 15, 2012, 01:47:39 PM
John....Looks real good!!!!  April, Hmmmmmm, maybe....


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Dreamweaver on January 15, 2012, 02:33:45 PM
Wow, looking very nice.

A quick question. I recently purchased a 1953 Stude Starlight .

I see pictures here of folks building them and it seems the rear "fenders" come off?

The PO had bodywork and paint done on mine and it appears as tho mines fenders have been molded in?

Do the rear "fenders" unbolt?

Thx,

Dreamweaver


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on January 15, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Dreamweaver.

The car is basically modular and comes completely apart, front fenders, rear quarters, etc. The rear fenders, as built, are bolted vertically along the rear inside door jam, on the top beneath the chrome strip, inside the rear taillights, inside the body shell, and along the fender bottom.  Check those places out to see how much molding-in was done, if any.

Wish you well with her.  I have done things the hard way with virtually every part of this car, so if you have any questions feel free to ask.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Tman on January 15, 2012, 04:39:38 PM
Coming together. Looks good


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on January 15, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
John, great job,,,and you know how I love flat and satin black..

What rear tire and size are you using ?

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on January 15, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
Charles.

I am using a NITTO 275/60R 15 Stock #180-300 with a static diameter of 27.76-ins and a best calculated high-speed loaded diameter of 26.96-ins.  Jeff (Firebird 3978) has run them at different pressures (all in the higher spec range) to get a handle on traction.   


John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: tigerbird on January 15, 2012, 07:37:38 PM
John..car looks great! Glad you stayed with black. Now you need to put a motor in it and R A C E!!!! Maybe I'll leave the bird home in April and volunteer Fred, Harry, Jay and me to crew for your coming out party.

Jeff


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on January 17, 2012, 05:23:50 PM
All.

Attached is a LSR Log Template that Jeff (Firebird 3978) and I put together to help keep track of data.  It is a single sheet in Excel, can be easily modified, and is setup for a binder.  Anyone is welcome to use it or modify as they like.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Peter Jack on January 17, 2012, 07:41:54 PM
Good job John. I like the single page format with pretty much all the pertinent information. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: dw230 on January 17, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Where does the GPS stuff go?

DW


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on January 18, 2012, 06:12:25 AM
DW.

What would you like added, GPS Speed, other?

Any other line items to add, delete, or change?

John.

P.S.  If someone wants to use this log for their specific data needs, give me a list of the desired adjustments and will try to make them and repost or send by email.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on May 06, 2012, 01:02:39 PM
A couple of pictures are attached on the latest build status.  The engine was built by Jeff and Keith Dorton of Automotive Specialists.  Jeff and Keith are really nice folks!

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on May 10, 2012, 03:08:09 PM
The build is progressing.   R. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 13, 2012, 08:04:08 AM
We did a some LSR advertizing at a local car show.  There was lot of interest with many questions; most people had never seen an LSR car. 

Interestingly, three people about 16 years old literally studied the entire car.

The pixs are the latest on progress.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: DND on November 13, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Hi John

In the 60's several Studes had air vents between the rear window & trunk lid, that lets the air out up in the rear end area and in turn helps keep the rear end on the ground and not try to fly.

As i recall they had 2 rec. shaped duct's about 3" wide by 8 - 10" long, one on each of the rear end center.

You might check and see if you can still run them, and help keep the car going in a staight line and the shinny up.

Those Nascar guys build some very good engines !!

Don


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on November 13, 2012, 04:29:37 PM
  DND, whether or not those openings and duct's worked is debatable especially with Today's lower car attitude and front Air Dam's.
  I would also have to question the legality of modifying the "stock" body rearwards of the front fenders  in the Classic Classes although they would certainly be o.k. in Comp Coupe.                                                                            Bob Drury
                                                                                     #394
                                                                                      A/CFALT  53' Studebaker








Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Frankie7799 on November 13, 2012, 04:46:22 PM
John the Stude looks bitchin'!


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jl222 on November 13, 2012, 05:07:37 PM
 DND, whether or not those openings and duct's worked is debatable especially with Today's lower car attitude and front Air Dam's.
  I would also have to question the legality of modifying the "stock" body rearwards of the front fenders  in the Classic Classes although they would certainly be o.k. in Comp Coupe.                                                                            Bob Drury
                                                                                     #394
                                                                                      A/CFALT  53' Studebaker








  The Jones and Cecatto Stude had those ducts. I''ll be seeing Buddy Jones shortly and ask him if he saw any evidence of air flowing up through the ducts. On our 222 Camaro the low pressure under the spoiler and behind the car causes a salt trail [and a lot of it] to rise up and stick to rear of car and underneath the spoiler.

             JL222


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 13, 2012, 07:43:56 PM
John, looking very good...what cubic inch motor?  How much HP did Keith get you?  He is super cool dude...wish I had the $$$$ to switch over to dry sump motors and use his motors.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 13, 2012, 08:33:57 PM
Hello Charles.

To answer your questions, the engine is a 358, over 800-hp, raised compression, Hendrick's roller instead of flat tappet, and two 850s.   NASCAR dry sumps make power, but they are not too much fun to install, so far so good.  It has a six stage R07 pump with a staged billet pan.

C/GCT would be a most fun class.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 14, 2012, 10:35:30 AM
John, good numbers,,, the last Dorton roller motor I saw dyno'd made just shy of 850HP....

What is class GCT ? 

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 14, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
Charles, my interests in LSR are on the technical side and to have some fun.  Gas Circle Track (GCT) for NASCAR types provides a good benchmark for an old stock-bodied car as the speeds are challenging, probably unreachable even with a similar engine.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 14, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
John,, FUN is the best part... whatever you do , I am sure you will have a blast,,, the car came out great,, I hope to see you and th Car in Ohio next year,,, it woud be cool if all us Stude Pilots could pit together,,,

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 15, 2012, 04:14:21 AM
Charles, how is your car coming along, hope you can get a hat early next year.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 15, 2012, 12:11:00 PM
John, my Stude is great..had a bunch of good Runs last year..

At Maine was able to get two runs over 205mph...and get me and Dave M both in the 200 Club.
No issues , just sorting out the changes.

At Ohio, had several runs between
193 and 196.8 mph...got two class records 195 and 196 ..but  With the long lines and limited runs, I just did not have enough runs to make the needed changes to get that last 3.2 mph for the ECTA 200 Hat...

I am knocking on the 200mph door at the mile ... I feel I can get there in April (weather permitting)..
At this point the goal is still to use C motor on gas....no fuel or power adders..old school SBC...

Time will tell if I can do it.. now if I had a fancy Dry Sump NASCAR style SB2 or the like.  I would be a done deal,,,,!,, Any Motor Sponsors out there for a proven Car...???

see u in April

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 15, 2012, 06:07:28 PM
Charles.  Good show, you have done well!  Are using your buggy or full size truck to push start?  John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Cajun Kid on November 17, 2012, 05:01:13 PM
John, I have used both my Kawasaki Teryx and the truck to push start the Stude... Both do the job, but the truck gets it faster quicker using up less real estate... Trap speed is more dependent on traction than it is from push speed.

Charles


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: GH on November 18, 2012, 01:39:53 PM
Why don't you guys just drive them Studes off the line?


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Captthundarr on November 18, 2012, 02:09:51 PM
Gearing,gearing, gearing, a mile is short and they(we) don't have space to waste to"just get it rolling" let alone accelerate.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 19, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
GH.

Hello, The car is set to be driven off although the rear structure is reinforced for pushing. The parachutte bracket can be removed to use either a push bar or double chuttes. 

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: will6er on November 29, 2012, 10:34:50 PM
I have a couple of questions regarding a '53 Studebaker Gas Coupe.

Is it permissible to modify the firewall and transmission hump to clear the engine and bellhousing?

1953 Studebakers have vents from outside the fenders to the passenger compartment.Is it necessary to retain the ducting for this?

Thanks.

Will6er


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on November 30, 2012, 07:03:28 AM
Will6er.

Hello.

My car is actually an altered and refer your question to others who are more familiar with gas rules.  I do not want to mislead anyone.

The firewall, floor system, and vents in my car are completely altered.

Good luck with your build.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jl222 on November 30, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
 DND, whether or not those openings and duct's worked is debatable especially with Today's lower car attitude and front Air Dam's.
  I would also have to question the legality of modifying the "stock" body rearwards of the front fenders  in the Classic Classes although they would certainly be o.k. in Comp Coupe.                                                                            Bob Drury
                                                                                     #394
                                                                                      A/CFALT  53' Studebaker








  The Jones and Cecatto Stude had those ducts. I''ll be seeing Buddy Jones shortly and ask him if he saw any evidence of air flowing up through the ducts. On our 222 Camaro the low pressure under the spoiler and behind the car causes a salt trail [and a lot of it] to rise up and stick to rear of car and underneath the spoiler.

             JL222

  Saw Buddy Jones last week and he says he thought he remembered some salt down in ducts.
  This Stude ran at El Mirage [ I believe ] after he sold it, and if the ducks really worked a lot of dust should have been coming out.

  Anyone see this?

          JL222


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Stan Back on November 30, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
There was a Bud Jones that died two weeks ago?


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: bvillercr on November 30, 2012, 04:56:53 PM
No, Bud Jones from Santa Barbara.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jl222 on November 30, 2012, 06:34:57 PM
There was a Bud Jones that died two weeks ago?

  I remember the late Bud Jones as always being 1st in line at El Mirage before they had a point lineup.

  He always had a story, most made you laugh.

   JL222


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on December 04, 2012, 01:38:35 PM
I talked to Racepak about a Sportsman Data Recorder for land speed by adding a wheel sensor and a wheel turn-count algorithm tied to roll-out distance.  The output could be graphed as a function of speed vs. distance for the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 mile, or any distance of interest.  They said their Sportsman package could be configured this way at some extra charge.  Racepak also has a speed vs. distance GPS unit. 

Shown is a GPS speedometer I had built for LSR as a less costly means of gathering some data.  It provides 1/4-mile speed, which is quite useful in light of drag racing speeds.  Of lesser interest, the speedometer also gives 0-60-mph seconds and 1/4 E.T.

John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Plmkrze on December 04, 2012, 02:13:07 PM
Will you be in Ohio in April?

I look forward to checking out your car!!  8-)

One thing is for sure, we just don't have enough Studes. Has anybody else noticed this?  :roll: :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Captthundarr on December 04, 2012, 06:54:00 PM
John, I installed one of those GPS speedo's in my wifes LSR camaro and it work great especially for the mile. Applying the info that it supplies haas been a great help to figure out potential changes. Love the stude build. :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on December 05, 2012, 05:52:03 AM
Plmkrze.
I recently received a note that a 53 Stude was spotted in a junk yard in NJ; it would be nice to store it somewhere but I have plenty going on with only one of these Studes, which I take one day at a time.

John.
You commented that your wife has an LSR Camaro, do you drive as well?  One thought about gathering data was to make baseline runs and then add say 200-lbs. followed by 300-lbs to establish a payment LSR weight vs. speed algorithm (sort out traction) for a “standard”, if there is such a thing, gas/altered coupe.  I am very curious about the effect of weight on speed.


R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Captthundarr on December 05, 2012, 06:33:40 AM
No I don't drive the camaro, that one is hers, I am planning a lakester or modified sport class ('64 Triumph Spitfire) in the near future. As we winder her up in speed (her first year in the camaro) we will be exparimenting with weight to find the balance between stability, traction and accelaration.

Frank


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on December 08, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
The fuel fitting shown goes to the back of the car from the rear tank, hard to see in the earlier photo, so the tank can easily be drained into a can.  It uses a shutoff valve and plug.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on February 27, 2013, 08:58:42 AM
The pixs show outfitting the wheel wells using KYDEX (black plastic) instead of steel or alumnium well inserts.  The material is .063, .110 seemed a bit too thick.  The material is easy to work with and is resistant to stones.  We will see how it works, so far so good. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Plmkrze on February 27, 2013, 10:24:05 AM
John, good to hear from you again.


April, Ohio?? Hope you make it.!!! :-)


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: tauruck on February 27, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
That's good plastic. The right stuff for the application and it cleans off really well. Nice work on the fitting.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on February 27, 2013, 01:05:10 PM
  John, I love your build, but if you want to run any SCTA events, the rear wheel well openings cannot be filled as you have done.  In other words, the entire rear quarter panel (inside) must remain open to the rotating tire............ although you can widen the tub to the inside.      Bob


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on February 27, 2013, 06:16:57 PM

The KYDEX is a normal extension off the wheel tubs just to cover the gap between the rear quarter and wheel tub, i.e., inner fender shield.  The wheel opening is not affected.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on February 28, 2013, 12:36:01 AM
  That's what I am saying John, you cannot have a inner fender connecting the quarter panel with anything.  The stock quarter panel only touch's the body shell at the door post and at the tail lights.  The wheel tub cannot extend outwards beyond the stock trunk inner sides or where the stock tub meets the inner body shell (aproximatly where the rear seat sides/armrests mount).  The drivers side does have a vertical plate from quarter panel to trunk side wall but it is only to protect the gas filler hose and brace the gas filler box.
  In essence you have a six foot long wheel well which in my opinion creates lift and is why the cars of Beachball Sanchez, John Edmonds, Neil Thompson, Gene Burkland and Bruce Geisler tried to negate the lift with ducting from beneath the car exiting thru the upper deck lid and below the  rear window.
  They also ran a ton of weight in the rear but remember, they were not allowed front air dam's or rear spoilers and sat pretty high in the air.
  Those guy's and a few others were and still are my hero's from my earlist reading of Hot Rod Magazine in 1959, and when I first visited Speedweek in 1995 I knew I was going home and build a Studebaker.....................  and that's how I spent my fortune...............
p.s. see 2012 rule book page 70, paragraph 2, sentance 2.
                                                                                                             Bob  :-P :-D :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on February 28, 2013, 07:02:00 AM
Bob.

That is why the good Lord made nuts and bolts.

What number is your Studebaker?   Same with this car, spend some quid.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on February 28, 2013, 11:39:12 AM
   John, A/CFALT #394.
  I got to thinking about your car after my last post and if you were to run it on the salt, you could probably go thru tech (which is mainly Safety oriented) and even run the car as it is.
  The only drawback would be if you qualified for a record you would have to throw away that run (or waste your time going to impound, and waste their time tossing you out), then remove the "outer" tub pieces and requalify.
  Anyway, you have done a beautiful job and your car looks great.                              Bob


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on February 28, 2013, 01:15:21 PM
Bob.

I can make the connection now!  I am most familiar with your car having looked at it numerous times to get some pointers - thanks.  Nice work, hope to see it run someday! 

Intererstingly, the San Chez Studebaker was the inpetus for me, never dreamed I would have one.

Anyways, back to the shop, we are working on the car full time, oil tank, lines, radiator, linkage, brakes, headers - we are getting a lot done, hope to buy the clutch this week.   

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jimmy six on February 28, 2013, 06:22:27 PM
Just an observation on the air ducts behind the rear window. When you get to 185 and it spins remind yourself it might have been a good idea. At one time many years ago I believe they were "almost" mandatory on Studebakers. I realize this was before the front airdams so you may be just fine. At that time picnic tables were also not allowed on the trunk either. Studies and roadsters did a lot of spinning back then. Roadsters still do.

Make sure when test yourself in the car with your firesuit and arm restraints on that you can reach everything you want especially overhead. Not only will the inspectors at Bonneville check to see that even your fingers stay within the plane of the roll cage the starter will too. In an accident it's planned that the doors will be gone and you need to keep everything on you body inside that plane. I would advise you to practice getting out (pretending there was an emergency) many times in a complete suit with your restraints very tight. We have all found out how tight a starter can put you in when you thought everything was OK.

Car looks great....Run it and have fun..............



Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on February 28, 2013, 07:04:41 PM
"Jimmy" 

Those are GOOD words you are passing on!  Thanks.

I do not think air vents are permitted in altered even if for safety.  I will keep you ideas in mind, your thoughts are appreciated! 

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on February 28, 2013, 08:01:37 PM
  John, my first year watching at Speedweek (and before the creation of the Classic Classes) The Studebaker of Whitley and Turner ran minus the entire tail light assemblies to vent or exhaust the rear wheel wells.
  With the rule book sometimes difficult to decifer, I asked Mike Manghelli to clarify it (a few years back), and He told me that it is no longer allowed in the classic classes.
                                                                                                Bob Drury
p.s.  Listen to J.D. ............ he volunteered for many years as a Impound Inspector and has raced forever (sorry J.D.).


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Glen on February 28, 2013, 08:06:44 PM
John, it's a good idea to practice the bail outs in a dark garage so if you have a lot of smoke you can automatically go to the chutes levers, fire bottle etc.You don't have time to look for them.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: jdincau on February 28, 2013, 08:22:35 PM
There are different definitions for air vents and air ducts in the rule book. Air vents are prohibited, air ducts are not mentioned. They used to be allowed in gas coupe, I would ask Dan Warner or the commitee chair.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Bob Drury on February 28, 2013, 08:58:13 PM
  Which I practice every time I run.  Once I am belted in (usually three or four cars back from the starter) I have instructed the crew to not bother me with anything trivial and let me practice my mental "bail out".
  I base my Bail Out Scenario from the standpoint of the car being on fire:  In my case, Hit the Mag Kill Switch, Fuel Pump Shutoff, and Chutes.
  Next is to stay calm enough to not turn off the course until I am slow enough to not roll the car.
  The next step is THE MOST IMPORTANT AND MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE: DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDO YOUR SAFETY HARNESS OR ANY OTHER RESTRAINTS UNTIL YOU ARE AT A DEAD STOP!
  Continuing along in my imaginary scenario, I undo my Harness, Head Restraint, Window/Door Net, Remove the Steering Wheel and open the Door to exit.
  What you don't want to do is Panic, and unless you drill this or a simillar sequence into your head, you may Die before the Safety Crew can reach you.
  This past October at the World Final's I lost the clutch at the Four mile mark (229 mph) and the car filled with smoke.
  Not knowing if I was on fire, I followed my practice proceedure and would have gotten off the course without incident had I not looked around for fire which resulted in my taking out the Five Mile Timers (Subaru happens real quick at over 200 mph............  at 250 you are going a football field a second so you ain't got time to pick your nose.......................                                              Bob


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: saltwheels262 on February 28, 2013, 09:26:17 PM
that reads as very good advice in my opinion.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Kiwi Paul on March 01, 2013, 12:24:43 AM
If you don`t want to start your bailout practice in a dark garage,have someone stand directly in front of the car, and make sure you look directly at them when you are reaching for the chute, firebottles and shutoff. Always a good idea to be able to to know where things are without having to put your head down and fumble around. When I do bailouts at the Salt, I try to have the driver look directly at me as they are doing this, before they physically exit the car. I also would rather somebody take a little extra time and make a smooth exit, rather than panicking/rushing and getting stuck or hurting themselves....


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on March 01, 2013, 08:06:53 AM
LSR IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER FORMS OF RACING
 
In reading over the posts below, it strikes that this type information could be ready assessable in some form (if not already done so).  Safety information is most helpful to any racer especially the new folks. 

The experience level of many LSR folks is off the charts.

Safety information and tips could be combined to cover concepts and operating regimens for hauling safety; in-pit safety; understanding track conditions; safety check-out and readiness (would include vehicle walk-around and check-listing); in-run racing safety; and STOPPING safety.  In-run and stopping would include “tips and regimens” for accidents and trouble.

Many of us have been around racing a while and heard important safety comments that otherwise could not possibly be realized.  There are so many examples, e.g., the posts below! 

Other tips come to mind like the benefits of racing regimens and sequences specific to your vehicle rather than finding out later the hard way.  A new racer could not know the value of sequences until after a few incidents.  Put another way, one does not lift quick and jump on the brakes.  A friend checks the temperature of his trailer tires at rest stops to ensure the tires are not overheating.

Anyways, there are a few thoughts.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: Stainless1 on March 01, 2013, 10:10:37 AM
If you don`t want to start your bailout practice in a dark garage,have someone stand directly in front of the car, and make sure you look directly at them when you are reaching for the chute, firebottles and shutoff. Always a good idea to be able to to know where things are without having to put your head down and fumble around. When I do bailouts at the Salt, I try to have the driver look directly at me as they are doing this, before they physically exit the car. I also would rather somebody take a little extra time and make a smooth exit, rather than panicking/rushing and getting stuck or hurting themselves....

Corey sat in the car for hours, not only getting used to the confinement, but to get familiar with the controls and locations.  Pork Pie did not get as much time but still sat in over a couple of years to get familiar (we kept blowing it up just before it was his turn for a rookie pass).  Johnboy and I both talked with him about sequences and control familiarization.  The guy that did his bailout had him close his eyes, and then he called out the controls in random and had PP touch them several times... I was very impressed with that.  Then he had him show him the sequence of events for an emergency, and finally he closed the canopy and told him to get out. 
The main thing I think new guys need to know is there is not a (20 second) time limit to get out, like Paul, most inspectors want to see that you can do it efficiently, and quick enough to not be consumed in a fire or panic if a belt hangs up on the way out. 
It is for your own safety.... practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....practice....  :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: will6er on March 01, 2013, 10:43:01 PM
I remember hanging out at tech inspection one year. The inspector told the driver, "Your car is on fire. You have 30 seconds to get out." The driver didn't hear (or ignored) what he said and kept telling anyone who was listening about what he had done to the car. After hearing the inspector repeat his statement a couple more times, I had to leave before I just broke out laughing.

The moral - Always be paying attention when you are in the car.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on March 02, 2013, 06:15:41 AM
We are finishing the fuel lines, the oil system, and the headers.  The carb linkage, tow bar fixture, and radiator are complete except for the water lines. 


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: tauruck on March 02, 2013, 07:12:37 AM
Nice looking motor. :cheers:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on September 01, 2013, 01:46:42 PM
FOR SALE

Titled 1953 Studebaker with VIN plate, stock steel body/FG deck lid, highly reinforced stock frame, Professional chassis system, four link-torsion bar-double rear frame rails, chassis NHRA Certified to 7.50 secs., 358 Keith Dorton/Hendricks’ SB 2, Liberty 5 speed NHRA Pro Stock Z clutchless, Boninfante Pro Clutch, sheet metal rear housing, 40 spline gun drilled axles, rear street fuel tank, pre-wired lights, premium parts, engine has been started but not raced; set for land speed, drag racing, street (engine configured for race only), or local shows.  Engine could be sold separately with complete 6-stage NASCAR dry sump system.  Best offers considered.

R.
John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: SPARKY on September 01, 2013, 03:32:43 PM
John, so sorry to hear this---hopefully it is not for health reasons :cry:


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: John (Maryland) on September 02, 2013, 04:22:03 AM
Sparky.  Tnxs.  We have had a lot going on, but doing okay.  My interests in racing have become mostly technical, not much of a driver, notably after hearing this engine run.  This engine is not for the faint of heart.  R. John.


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: aussievetteracer on September 02, 2013, 04:37:19 AM
John- I too am sorry to hear this. I have followed your build with great interest, and am very grateful for the info/advice you have given to me via PM'S. I wish you all the very best with your change of direction.
                                                                                                                     Regards, Denis


Title: Re: 1953 Studebaker
Post by: SPARKY on September 02, 2013, 08:39:23 AM
That's simple, just get some ear plugs. :-D