Hot Rods 308 Hudson 6 for Early RODS ???

StillOut There & Hud, MAN! Has this been interesting. I found out the 262 WAS a GREAT engine, and I found out Hudson enigneers wrung EVERYTHING possible out of that flathead!

Crykie, it would be AMAZING to see what THOSE guys could have done with a V-8 design!!! (What's SAD is: There was a V-8 design done by a Graham-Paige engineer just SITTING ON THE SHELF at this time.) Joe W. Frazer would have known about it AND, of course, TOLD Henry Kaiser. But Kaiser was so drunk with power, he instead bought the Continental engine company! So, Kaisers never got bigger than the Super Hurricane stright six with a single-barrel Carter.

Hudson didn't get the V-8 WHEN they really NEEDED it, but Nash wound up with it. It became the basis of AMC V-8s up to about, I think 1973 (so, of course, AMC put some of those in Jeeps of the time).

 

Hudsonator & OutThere, pardon me if I ask a sensitive question here. What the hell could have ogne wrong with a Hudson-Essex-Terraplane organization, politically speaking?

They are keen cars. So, the guys in the org. in the -- what? -- '60s or '70s acted like morons? If so, may they shouldn't have been representing (after the fatc) a fine line of automobiles such as Hudson, Essex or the Terraplane (ne Essex) ???

 

I too was first a plymouth man. The mighty 230 first aquainted me with something I had never given thought to, the power of a flathead six.




Believe it or not, that is a production tractor from 1947. Custom Mfg Co. from Shelbyville IN. Dual exhaust and all. Mostly surplus Power Wagon parts from WWII, including the chrysler industrial six.

We reworked the engine into a 230, dual B&B's, upgraded the oiling system - and could turn 5500 rpms quicker than I ever imagined possible. I never saw the engine pull down below 4750 rpms even in the hardest pull.

The rules of the antique class we pulled were changed to intentionally beat this tractor. Rules that allowed non-stock blocks and engine types to be put into tractor frames.

To make a long story short, this little tractor beat tractors with twice its cubic inches. I became hooked on flatheads, and actually became interested in Hudson engines to possibly transplant into this tractor and give the boys another round of "who's ya Daddy?" after the rule change. We'd have to add 6" to the frame rails to get the Hudson in there. The tractor is too rare for that kind of cutting - so we left it "as is" and built a 292 chevy powered Allis. The Allis bent the rules less than a Hudson powered Custom because Allis actually used the 292 in some of its combines.

But yeah, I've been in the seat of a Plymouth chained to an impossible load while turning 5500 rpms. All I have to say is....."Awesome!"

Hud

 

Hey man, I have no idea what went on in the club back then. I don't keep up with any such crap today. Club politics are just not my forte'.

Hud

 

Hud, thta is a straight answer. THANKS.

I really like the story about the 230 Plymouth and the 292 Chevy, though!

I have a 230, currently in my '38 Plymouth (came from a '55 panel truck) and a 250 Gen-3 Chevy (Mercruiser) in our Larsen boat.

Now, THIS is cool info -- from someone who KNOWS!!! Is the HAMB COOL, or what?

 

Now that I look at it, I THREW OUT a Windsor 265 flatty from '54 that was in my '38 and put the 230 in it.

WAS I RIGHT OR WRONG? The Ausie contingent may pipe up here, I think! Yike!

 

As far as I know, Hudson NEVER intended to use a V8. They were developing an OHV straight six of about the same size as the Hornet. That engine is supposedly the Ford 300 we know now.

One has to remember, Hudson ceased to exist in '54. Technicly, all '54 models are AMC/Hudsons. However, '54 Hudsons represent the last truly independent actions of the Hudson Motor Car Co. When AMC dropped the revised Hornet engine in '57 - for all practical purposes there wasn't one thing Hudson left in AMC. Romney had skewed everything towards Nash, who was a bigger loser than Hudson prior to the merger. The AMC V8 is just that - All AMC. No Hudson engineer nor anything Hudson ever went into it that I know of.

If we were talking in today's automotive language, Hudson had a "platform" that could have lasted right on through the 60's with the stepdown. The upper body would have had to change, but the running gear would have been fine "as is" with minor changes. If they had only invested the Jet development money into a V8 and had that ready by '54 - they may have survived. Like I've said earlier, they should have hired Zora Duntov much earlier than chevrolet. They already had Smokey Yunick for God's sake!

Oh well, it didn't happen that way - now did it?

They pushed the Flathead as far as it would go - then died with it.

Hud

 

Fascinating stuff for a guy like me. My father had a Hudson Hornet when I was very young, and later owned a Ford van with one of the 300 cubic inch sixes. (Dad was partial to inline sixes.) I learned to drive a stick in that van.

Well anyway your post got me interested so I Googled up Bernie's name and found this discussion thread over in the Hudson section on the Classic Car forum:

Bernie Siegfried (destroked 308)

About half way down that short discussion there is a message with three links to some great stuff for Hudson fans who haven't already seen them.

 

I especially enjoyed the racing footage on the beach in the Hudson Milestones Part 2 video. Did you see the way the cars lurched and bounced on the sand?

And there was that biplane flying past overhead, as well as the fellows standing unprotected along the waterline as the cars roared past.

Man, that was real stock car racing.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtKkGKdSRQ&feature=related

 

Sheesh, Hud, you love yer Hudsons. People accuse me frequently of "living in the past." I respond that PEOPLE discard the present way too fast as PAST!!!

Moreover, they do it so quickly, they don't LEARN anything. So . . . you know the rest!

 

Hud & OutThere, I once went to an aucton where there was a '56 "Hash" and a '58 "Packabaker" up for bids. BOTH were in beautiful condition, I must add.

Even though I was young back then, I'd studied my auto history. I was VERY glad to see bot cars in such nice shape, 'cause I could be OBJECTIVE when i said: "THOSE ARE NOT HUDSONS or PACKARDS!!!"

 

Yes, real stock car racing.

I absolutely love the comment made by the narrator, "These are not highly specialized cars that serve no useful purpose."

 

Hudsonator, I'm dying to know what you did to make that MoPar flatty spin up to those kinds of RPMs...but don't want to hijack this thread. You have a PM.

 

Nice sight..big Hudson pounding pavement..

 

I missed a prime chance at some good 308 stuff not to long ago from sleeping off a drunk. I regreat the shit out of it. Good Hudson stuff is somewhat rare, and the "blue triangle" is a rough crowed when you are looking to cut, chop, stroke, and beat their prized posessions.

 

Some how I missed this post?? I dig Hudsons and this thread has a ton of info Thanks Hud! Here's some pics of my hudson motor I just finished. It was a 10 year project thats finally together! Ivan Zeremba helped with some info I would frequently stop by his shop and pick his brain. It started off as a street motor but became a little more than a "street" motor. Its almost 320 cu in. Has a huge Isky cam , Roller timing chain, Arias pistons, over sized valves blablabla. A picture is worth a thousand words I guess.
Dave Hitch

 

The HET's loss is certainly our gain. I have been using StillOutThere's knowlege on Hudsons since I bought my Super Wasp a couple of months ago. A Chrysler friend of mine here in New Zealand hooked us up, his knowlege on all things Hudson and I believe Chrysler is huge. My 53 Twin H Super Wasp came out of New Mexico ( an EBAY gamble) it was fitted with Twin H propane! believe it or not. The original carbs and aircleaners came with it. I had a later Twin H set up I bought a while ago , dreaming of one day actually owning the rest of the car. The air cleaners that came with the car are wierd short ones ( maybe Hudsonator can identify them). My plan is to do a Marshall Teague replica, yes I know its not a Hornet but beggars can't be choosers. Will put some pics on once done.

 

Wow Dave the metalwork on your car looks superb it will be a shame to paint over it won't it? Nice engine too. where did the mag come from?

 

My 262 has an aluminum head and one of the plugs (#4 if I remember right) is threaded into a metal insert before it threads into the head, it sits higher than the others. I suspected maybe this was a repair for a stripped thread, using some sort of adapter to allow the use of the same plug in a larger bore with new threads. (got lucky in that whoever put it up left the plugs finger-tight and they all came loose).

Is that a common problem with the Hudson aluminum head? Will it run acceptably with the plug shrouded as it seems to be?

 

Rocket88NZ, did you check out "docc"s pic of Marshall Teague in his #6 "FABULOUS HUDSON HORNET" yet??? What a time when upstart Hudson set the whole racing scene on its ear! WOW.

Marshall was one of the best -- "King of the Beach" in his Hudso days. Too bad he had the VERY dubious distinction of being the first driver killed, testing at at Daytona Super in '59.

 

I friend of mine's Dad owned Parker Magneto's this came out of his stash. It was a jimmy 6 mag I believe? The base and shaft were reworked to fit the hudson. Not sure how many have been done?

And as far as the original question of this thread If you want to be different and still traditional put a hudson in your hotrod. If people dont like it just smile as you smoke tires into third gear with your finger out the window
Thanks Dave

 

I know the main topic has been the 6, but what about the 8? I have a 48 Commodore 8 and was wondering if they're worth trying to squeeze some power out of, or if there is even speed parts around for them.

 

Yeah shame about Marshall, died trying to get back into Nascar, in Smokey's book he said that France had agreed to let Teague back into Nascar if he could set the speed record at the new Super Speedway. Marshall contacted Smokey to see if there was anything he could do to the car to stop it from floating at high speed. Smokey told him yeah start again , cars aerodynamics were all wrong. The rest I guess is history.

 

Rocket88NZ, so France had barred Teague for osme reason (maybe simlar to what he did to Tim Flock)? And, Smoky was saying SETTING a SPEED RECORD was how France, Sr., said Teague could get BACK into NASCAR? I'm not sure I understand the drift here, buddy. Throw me a line, 'k ?

 

The Hudson 8 has a problem in that it is still a splasher engine - that is it still has dipper rods and poured babbit rather than insert bearings. The bottom end of that engine won't take much beyond its stock design unless you want to design a full pressure oiling system for it. You'd best drop that oil pan and clean out the screens so the oil can be pumped up into the dipper trays to keep the rods well oiled if you are currently driving the car and want to continue. There is tremendous oil pressure at the rods of a dipper engine IF the oil is in the tray but people did not do the manitainence with the pan.

There is no speed equipment available for that 8 from back in the day that I recall and if they build something today it would surprise the heck out of me. IMHO if you are seeking performance rather than restoration, put the 8 cylinder engine under the bench and get a 262 or a 308 six cylinder from a salvage car. Finding a '54-56 Hornet motor with the relieved valve seat area would be ideal.

 

OutThere, I always think when someone says BABBIT bearings: LOW REV, LOW-STRESS (actually '30s-style) engine.

So, my question is: Did Hudson just keep the old 8 around for a while after the war, until they came out with more "modern" engines? That was always my read on that, THOUGHT I never had a Hudson 8.

Please correct me if I am wrong, buddy.

 

Well this is a Hornet SIX thread but briefly: the Hudson Eight cylinder engine was basically designed for the 1930 model year and went virtually unchanged from 1934 through 1952 which does say this: it did what it was supposed to do very well.

Now back to the Fabulous Hudson Hornet

 

So, occasionally, we DIGRESS, but what better way than in some relevant context?

'34? Then the 8 would NOT ever have been used in an Essex. How about Terraplane?

(Sorry, I digress! LOL)

 

Not currently driving. Its in pieces being built as I have money. Thanks for the info though. Trying to decide on motorvation.