Customs 1951 Hudson 232 to 350 chevy Auto trans with Wilcap adapter have you done it Pros and Cons

Curious if any ones done the Transmission swap on original Hudson six cyl motor from manual to automatic 350 or even 700r4 using the wilcap adapter how hard was it. is it worth doing ive been researching ways to make mine more driveable installing a small block seems very difficult because or the steering in the stepdown so looking at other options mine is the 232 inline six cyl with manual trans would like to keep motor it runs great just add a 700r4 with overdrive for long hauls. suggestions or talking to someone thats actually done this would be great.

 

Half of the fun of driving a 51 Hudson on long hauls, is keeping the clutch full

Sorry, no help at all. But the stock setup works pretty well if you have OD and the right rear gearing, and the big engine. And you can get the clutch to work right. So I see where you're going with this.

 

I did that swap in a 51 Hudson.put a 700r4 in it.easy job.worked really great till the engine gave up ,haha.swapped in a sbc.need more details ask away.the owner still has the whole kit if your intersesed I could ask what he wants for it

 

Brian, I would be interested in the trans conversion kit if he still has it!

 

Go to the Studebaker Drivers Club and ask them. IIRC,early 50's Hudsons with flat 6 and flat 8's used a GM 4 speed hydro trans. Same design as the ones used by Olds and Caddy,but the bellhousing bolt pattern might be different,or it just might us a factory "adaptor" of some sort.

Chances are somebody at their web site has everything you need to bolt a 4 speed hydro right to your engine.

 

And it's possible to adapt the BW overdrive to the hydramatic as well.

 

To me that looks like a Hot Rod, and I thought Hot Rods have 3 pedals?
Have you considered a T-5 swap? also a newer rear end with correct gearing should get you cruising 70 mph, burst of speed to 90 mph.

And possibly just the rear end swap is what you need and be satisfied. Would think that would get you cruising 70 mph. Then later do the T-5.
Just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid.

 

As I am sure you are aware,the 51 Studebakers used the same Borg-Warner auto trans most people call a Ford-o-Matic. If you are rebuilding one of the early FOM's,Studebaker parts are generally cheaper than Ford parts.

Also,all the early iron case FOM's were 3 speed transmissions,NOT 2 speeds. The 2 speed FOM never showed up until the 6 cylinder Falcon arrived. When you put one of the early FOM's in "drive" and take off,it starts out in second gear and shifts to high gear. Put it in low range and manually shift to second if you need more torque at take off.

 

Sorry. I guess I am confused. I thought the OP asked about a Hudson, not a Studebaker. Are there similarities?...

 

Som Ting Wong here! @MO54Frank asked the right question. There is no commonality between Hudson engines and Studebaker engines, except for the one year only use of a Packard V8 in ‘56 Studebaker Golden Hawks, and those with automatics we’re equipped with the Packard Ultramatic. Packard derived V8’s were used in Hudson badged Nashes for a few years after the merger of Nash and Hudson.

There is no OEM use of the early GM Hydramatic in any Studebaker automobile or truck that I am aware of. Hudson, Kaiser/Fraser, Lincoln, among a few others, did use GM Hydramatics in the ‘50s, but NONE of that has any bearing on adapting a late GM Turbo Hydramatic to a Hudson six or straight eight. THAT has been done and adapters are available. IMO, a Turbo Hydramatic 2004-R would be a better choice than the TH 700-R4.
The 2004-R has a better ratio spread, has less internal friction, and a bit less weight.

Ray

 

@unrulyprocuda .....it has been done, many times. Ignore the advice about contacting the Studebaker Drivers Club ( I am a member, but the SDC doesn’t really have any info about Hudson engine/transmission upgrades). Rather, contact the Hudson-Essex-Terrplane Club, Inc. ( I have a ‘49 Hudson Super Six and am also a member of this club).

For membership inquiries Aaron Cooper, HET a club Membership, 7115 Franklin Avenue, Windsor Heights, IA 50324 915-308-1951 or [email protected]

Ray

 

My apologies to all. I thought I was making it plain that in many cases there was no such thing as a "Ford" or a
"Hudson" transmission because many makes used the same transmission that was manufactured by someone else and wearing a different name by each auto manufacturer.

By all means do NOT ever think "out of the box" and explore other possibilities. Monkey see-monkey do is the way to go. Do NOT dare to be different no matter what you do.

 

@Arthur ......you make a valid point about some/many shared components that offer opportunities for sourcing parts from other brand names. I think the information you cited is generally correct but not very helpful with the specific questions being asked by the OP.

I think it is fair to say, given the questions, that your reply was confusing, however accurate.

Ray

 

Why the hell suggest that he cobble something together out of parts that are harder to find than rocking horse shit and more expensive than a lot of race horses? Man asks a simple question and you bullshit artists pop up manure spreader and all and try to confuse the issue.

 

Thanks,you are probably right.

I always get a kick out of seeing and helping people do the unexpected by using parts that may otherwise be ignored and thrown away,rather than just buying adaptors.
I am a geezer,and I understand there are most likely a lot of people here under 50 that have never heard some of the suggestions I heard when growing up and trying to make stuff work using mixed parts.

The Hudson/Studebaker/Ford links are teneous because other than the 51 and 52 FOM's,I have no idea if Studebaker/Hudson used any Ford transmissions or not. It does seem reasonable that they wouldn't make the bolt patterns on the rear of flat 6 and flat 8 blocks different due to who they were buying transmissions from "this year",though. IF you can find a bellhousing to make it work,it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than buying one newly cast and machined,though. After all,how much are early 50's Hudson bellousing being sold for? Not much demand if you can find one.

BTW,here is another trans tip someone restoring a early 50's Lincoln might be interested in knowing. Due to a fire at Ford in 1952,Ford was installing 4 speed GM Hydromatics in the 52 and MAYBE 53 Lincolns. Which means if you want to put something like a 4 speed B&M hydro behind your hot 312,don't neglect 52-53 Lincolns sitting in junk yards or somebody stripping one out.

This is the kind of stuff hot rodding was based on a long,long time ago.

 

I am NOT responsible for your ignorance. Good back to looking through your catelogs.