Hot Rods 308 Hudson 6 for Early RODS ???

StillOutThere: Four grand, do I get to take it out & do some donuts & shit??? LOL

 

StudHud! What a HELL of a great HAMBer you are! What a rare part.

 

I might add to EVERYTHING all you guys said: NOBODY back in the '30s was thinking seatbelts VS. g-force (which the aviation industry & military had already bought into.

Even Tucker nixed seatbelts when his engineers wanted to include those. He said it would give the impression a car as fast as this was "unsafe."

So, old notions sometimes die hard -- even if people have to die! NO LOL here!

 

i have been seriously considering jamming a 308 into my 31 essex. i personally dont think the car is valueable enough to not hot rod it. yes it is a running driving complete car with decent interior, pretty much no rust, and an ok older black laquer job. i do have a drivetrain for it that would fit much much better but who knows.

 

Sure sounds like a serious car guy in NJ found this thread -- and ESPECIALLY you guys' commentary -- tantanlyzing !!!

 

I have enjoyed this thread!

A Mr. White who in the late 60's was in his 80's. He had a Generator Shop
in West Monroe,La.
He told me about having a Hudson with 2 standard tran. mounted
tail 2 tail. Ran this car out in Ca. on a dry lake bed.
Reading this thread made me wish I had been more interested back then.

 

Great Engine Pics, A buddy and me were just talking about the Hudson 6 engine. I remember reading thats how Smokey got his start, working on Factory team engines and cars. He said they wouldnt let you port and polish the ports, so he lacquered the ports. Said they looked like glass. Thanks for Posting.

 

LB+1, I'll bet that beast have SOME complicated linkage, what with2 trannys in tandem! I've always want to know more about such a set up. ANYBODY ELSE know more facts about such experiments, back in the days before modern, complex engines?

 

Power58, that's keen hearing about Smoky's trick to get by the rules. Now, I don't suppose he SAID how long the lacquer was good for? But, then, they were probably tearing those motors back down after a few races, anyway.

 

I've been kinda time challenged lately, so I'm playing catch-up.

A Mr. William Woods, a WWII navy veteran, stopped by our place on his way to a ship reunion in Missouri. He wanted to pay a Hudson visit and drive/play around with my Super Wasp. I was also swapping some parts with his nephew who was accompanying him on the trip. Man, I listened to his stories all day and enjoyed every minute.

His best story was how he'd coupled a Hydramatic to a R-10 OD unit from a standard 3 speed. He went through all the details and had it fully functional right down the the kick down switch. Can you imagine the combined effect of the OD dropping out and the Hydramatic downshifting?

The only problem he never fully automated was the reverse lockout. You always had to pull the OD lockout cable when parking and ALWAYS push it back in before starting the car. To forget and fire the car up in reverse would mean jammng OD up so tight, it would have to be disassembled with new rollers replaced to be "on the road again".

He also raced a 262 powered Jet in the Baltimore Md. area in the late 50's and claimed it was as fast or faster than his later Hornet engine. He said the 262 had no rpm ceiling where the Hornet did around 5000rpm.

Respect the old-timers, they've been there and done that.

Hud

 

Does anyone remember the turquoise metallic '33 Terraplane street rod coupe that Jack Clifford (of Hudson and In-line Six power products) built in the 1960s with a Hornet motor? The car was sold to the owner of a diner in Barstow, CA, who had it parked with a couple of other stepdown Hudsons around the diner which was just east off Interstate 15 to make it look busy until around 1990 or that is my recollection. I think the diner was sold about that time. Somebody must own that car? Where is it today? Only details I can remember are chrome wheels, narrow whitewalls and the turquoise paint, full hood, full fenders.

 

Hud, the 262 had no rpm ceiling, and the 308 was good for 5,000?

Man, I NEVER should have sold my '50 Super 6 !!!

 

Yes, the 262 had an rpm ceiling. I just don't know what it was. Bill was making the point that the Hornet at the time had a pretty hard ceiling and the 262 could go past that quite a bit.

In the late 90's/early 2000's, several of us Hudson speed junkies were trying to figure out that hard ceiling and how to get through it. Mainly comparing old stories like Bill's and what had been learned the hard way in modern times. At the time I really only had the practical experiance of the mopar 230 and was schemeing a Hudson build, but worried at the "around 5000" rpm problem of the Hudson. Its a fact, if you are running a stock-ish 308 crank, factory harmonic damper, and hang your car at around 5250 for a while - your crank is gonna BREAK at #5 rod journal. Without exception, if you look at the DNF's of early stock car races and the Hudsons that had a failure, its always the crankshaft breaking. You can bet your bippy that guy was running a 4.56 rear end and was staying in the upper 4000's with a prolonged rev at near 5250 = DNF. All the winning Hornets ran 3.53 rear ratios and stayed in the 3000-4500 rpm range. A 4.10 ratio was edgey, but not for a 262!

The problem was too repeatable and too common with the same result. Also, it was a known fact to the "old-timers" that a "55-'56 308 would go higher - up near 5500-5800. The only difference between the cranks was 1/2" of crank length at the flywheel flange. '51-54 308's are 1/2" longer than the 55-56. The earlier 308 cranks had problems with destroying flywheel bolts much sooner than breaking the crank if the ceiling was pushed.

This problem was overcome several different ways. Steve Farkalay of Uncommon Engineering (this was prior to his commercialization) cut 1/2" off the early crank and found it did extend the rpm range. Okay, crank length is a problem here for the 1/8" more stroke of the 308 over the 262. Steve went so far as to use the later crank reducing the front end and overall length as much as possible to keep raising the ceiling. There is a relationship between total crank length, including its hard bolted attachments, and the stroke of the crank. Its a torsional rebound problem related to the amplitude of the rebound over a distance vs. time. We'll not get overly wordy here. To put it simply, the longer your crank and the deeper your stroke - the lower your rpm ceiling. This explains my love for the little mopar. Max stroke in the shortest package possible.

The torsional rebound problem can be helped by another big aid, the harmonic damper. Stock Hudson dampers are more effective for their time than their contemporaries - but not up to the job of damping the 308. The reason they do not have timing marks on the damper is because its not attached 'hard" to the crank hub. Its connected by a "sandwiched" arrangement of flat elastomers. So, it kinda floats out there but doesn't respond fast enough to cancel the big rebounds of the 308. Works pretty good for a 262 evidently. Jack Clifford offered the "Fisher" damper and absolutely recommended its use in all racing applications. We cannot get the Fisher remade since Clifford's reorganization. By all reports, it raised the rpm ceiling beyond what you could get cams to use. Fisher is still around and still has the design, he just won't make a small lot of them.

Rudy Bennet fixed his problem by machining an additional weight that bolts to the backside of the stock pulley (inertia ring). By trial and error, he found the right diameter and overall weight that cancelled the 308's "rebound". However, this arrangement now weighs a whopping 21 lbs. He's a Caterpillar engine technician, so you see the logic behind his fix. Big engine, big damper - he'd been there and done that.

The problem there is the weight, and the fact you cannot get new elastomer disks for the stock harmonic damper. Few folks have had those things truly apart enough to see what condition those rubber pads are in. Rudy's whole arrangement places more (enormous!) stress on an old part that we can't get anymore. I'm sure it works, but for how long?

Since Randy Maas and myself were going 5" stroke, we talked back and forth alot during that timeperiod. We both decided that the route for us to take was a painfully accurate dynamic balancing, keeping the overall length as short as practical - but use the earlier cranks, and do our best to come up with an effective damper. At that time, most of the high performance dampers were a "hub" design that allowed you to change just the damper via 3 bolts and keep the hub on your engine. Randy took the true hub out of the stock damper and machined it to serve as the hub for the newer bolt on dampers. I consulted with ATI at the same time and remachined my crank snout to Chevy dimentions so I could use the whole ATI assembly and have some lattitude later as far as using different dampers.

As luck would have it, Randy and I had the same balancer using different hubs. Randy wasn't about to pay the $750 custom hub fee and I was at a place where I could get the front of my crank remachined affordably and avoid that whole problem. Randy's engine shifts at 5500 and has been much higher without incident. I still haven't finished mine, but am planning on the same results as Randy. Ralph Alden is running a stock stroke crank with the dynamic balancing attention, a remachined front crank hub like mine, and the same ATI damper - with no rpm problems up to 5500 and is best with a 4800rpm shift point(per his cam).

So, in summary, a very good harmonic damper is a must if you intend to use your Old Hornet's stinger on occasion just below 5000 rpm. If you intend to push it frequently at or above 5000 rpm, you'd better get serious about a damper and have your crank dynamicly balanced with bobweights that are EXACTLY the weight of the rod/piston on that throw. That means your rod/piston weight is unique to a particular cylinder - and it has to stay that way. The balancing is a pain in the ass, most shops won't do it and will give you all manner of reasons why not, but it really helps. Six cylinder 120* throw cranks have the reputation of being "inherently" balanced and they won't use bobweights while balancing - make them use the bobweights, it really does matter. To go all out and push the ceiling as high as possible, all the above and run the Hash crank as shortened as you can safely make it.

This is why I only endose the Wilcap adapter and its additional "crank spacer" layout with a caviat. I'm sure it works great for adapting the engine to a chevy bellhousing - it also cut your rpm ceiling down by at least 800 rpm.

Hud

 

A friend and I always wanted to build a Hornet block (big bore) with a 262 crank (short stroke). If memory serves that was going to work out to 274 cu. in.. The idea would be to have a very quick reving engine. With a modern T-5 trans, lightweight clutch assy. /flywheel and in an already light early Terraplane (like the yeller '33 coupe that has been shown!) this could make one heckuva hot rod. Yep, I've already got it named: Screamin' Yeller Zonker.

The Terraplanes and Hudsons even in that era, if you don't know, rode on four elliptic leaf springs, not two buggy springs like the cheap Fords or some silly knee action like a Chev. And the Hud /Terra springs were "splayed" to the frame meaning they were at a slight angle rather than ladder 90o. This engineering further dampened the bumps of the roads of the day. They are really great riding cars. And if you get a chance, look at a '30s Hud /Terra frame. This is not just a flat channel of metal that will twist under stress. Hudson stamped numerous bell shaped holes into the cross members which gives INCREDIBLE strength. There is an engineering term for the bell effect on those holes - I'd have to look it up but it is a multiplier of the strength. Have NO doubt: Hudson was a GREAT engineering corporation.

 

Hud you gunna set me up with a dampner? I new of this problem but always figured my car is still just a street car I am not going to drag race it. But then again pull up to the linne dump the hydraulics downs then pick up the front do a burn out and stage would be a different sight not neccessarily a cool one though.
Dave Hitch

 

Hud,

I love your dissertations. Hope I can transfer some of your knowledge to my chrysler 265 build.

By not mentioning piston speed, I assume that it does not become a problem at 4000 FPM (4.75" stroke and 5000 RPM). The stock or stroked 308 would encounter similar piston speeds. When does this take over as a limiting factor from the balance and crank length issues listed in your post?

N B R

 

If you already have your engine built, and the crank snout is stock, you'll have to go Randy's route. Find any old single sheave pulley/damper: doesn't matter if its a narrow head, Hornet, just that its the "Big Six". Take it apart, get the hub out of it, and there ya go. Take the bolts out of the rear of the damper and press it apart. There's a nice little hub in there with a flat surface about 1/4" thick.

In the time since we figured all this out, ATI has gone to making its balancers with "integral hubs". However, the separate hubbed ones are more upscale and pricey now. The one we used has gone "integral", I'd have to do some detective work to get the new damper type/model# and avoid the $750 custom hub fee.

We'll keep in touch.

Hud

 

Man! I've missed you! Wondered where you were these days.

We wore piston speed absolutely out over at OSRF a few years ago. I think you may have actually been in on that discussion. If not, go over there and look. I still keep a close eye on their tech section and when things of this sort pop up - there I am.

I think the general problem with piston speed is outrunning your flame front and pressure wave. I have no quantifiable, first hand information on that: just observation by looking at different engine types and peak hp numbers. I noticed a long time ago that certain strokes have particular piston speeds where they made max torque - regardless of bore. This is a good place for Panic to step in - as I have alot of confidence in his knowledge of such and would actually like to hear a comment.

The main problem, BIG problem, with piston speed is the destruction of your piston proper. If one is going to push the envelope in the FPM department, go with a custom piston and discuss with the piston company what your FPM is going to be. The higher your FPM, the better your piston will have to be in both material and mode of manufacturing ($$$$). The biggest danger is your piston launching itself on the top end of an exhaust stroke by virtue of tearing through its pin boss.

This also gets back to the use of bobweights in your balancing operation. You have no idea what the effect of the total mass will be at your rpm - if you don't subject the crank to that weight at balancing time. While the bobweights do not mimic the total of forces going on in a running engine, it does get you one step closer and at least you have added the mass the journal is working with at whatever rpm you target.

If you want to see a pretty 265, check out the "Flatliners" thread in the HA/GR section of HAMB. I know nothing about it other that what I see, but what I see - I like.

Hud

 

Hud, if that's a dissertation, I never yawned once. I'm gonna ocme back to this & ask some more Qs, buddy.

BUT, for now I wanted to ask your gut feeling. For literally DECADES I've heard the camps discuss the Packard straight-8 crank breaking OR beating the hell out of the bearings --- causing engine failure. Packard denied it, while at the same time wringing 356-CID out of the biggest ("Super-Sonic") version for '54.

WHAT is your gut feeling? Should Packard have stopped around 320/325-CID? Or, were even THOSE pushed too far by individual owners -- rev-wise?

 

Larry Milwee has it. Jack had it when he died, torn into a million pieces to build back as he had it before.

Larry, Jack's son-in-law, sent me pictures of it scattered all over a garage. I inquired about buying it, was told it was not for sale at any price. It was the only hudson car Jack had ever owned that was still in the family. Larry was attempting to cut his Hudson teeth by building a new 308 for it.

So, who knows what will come of it. I hope Larry does eventually fix and showcase it.

Hud

 

I don't know Packard engines. I have subscribed to a Packard 8 thread here hoping to see and learn something about them. Not because I'm gonna build one - but these things are too common not to have some problems/solutions that would be common.

My gut feeling is this:

1.) Beating the hell out of bearings is an oiling problem. Been there and done that - mopar

2.) Breaking cranks is a torsional rebound problem. Its hard to imagine, but cranks actually twist while operating due to the forces acting on them. Not only do they twist, but twist in opposite directions depending on what's happening with ignition/cylinder events.

Just like sitting around and bending a wire until it breaks. You can bend it slowly, and it won't break - speed up how fast you are repeatedly bending it, and it will break. If you are bending it in exactly the same spot, and doing it as fast as you possibly can - it breaks faster. The repeated torsional rebounding a crank does has this same effect. Its complicated by the fact its throwing the ripples of its perdicament down its length like a rock thrown into a still pool and contending with the rod journal adjacent to it throwing a ripple of its own. The combined effect of the rebounding and rippling makes up the crank's harmonic at a specific rpm.

As long as its not a material flaw in the crank itself, you can help this problem by dampening the harmonic at the end of the crank. Here you intercept the ripple and cancel its energy through an inertia ring. the destructive energy that might be transmitted back down the crank is spent in the elastomer between the fixed hub and the inertia ring. What you are hoping is that the inertia ring is doing the rebounding and the energy is being dissipated by the elastomer. There are limits to how much dampening can be done and what rpm a crank can inherently live at. So, don't go about thinking you can turn a Packard, Hudson, or some other longish engine into a 14,000 rpm buzz bomb - it won't happen.

If you look around, none of the V8 guys have to deal with this crap - so they don't pay it any attention. Because their cranks are much shorter, strokes much shorter, and their reciprocating weights aren't nearly as much.

Could a Packard be helped - more than likely. I'd push the two "gut feelings" above as far as they would go before giving up.

Hud

 

Sorry little ot,but cant keep my fingers off from this talk.Here is my version from 1930 roadster with nailhead and´35 or´36 doors.Sad,but stock grill is gone,i dont have idea when,because first customizing happened in early ´50s.So i still have to go with Ford grill,but someday i will change it,and stance maybe coming up again.

 

Ok dont get offended the look of the motor doesnt thrill me but that back 3/4 photo of that is Bad ASS! Maybe a tripower would cure the front end?
Dave Hitch

 

Yep.you´re right,engine screaming more carbs.I have a 1 set of Krieg´s 4x2 intakes for the IDA Webers and old Hilborn setup,but its not ready yet,i have to converted it to efi system,cause Hudson is my daily driver.I try to hide all of extra wires and other stuffs as well i can.And those Webers are too expensive for my wallet at the moment wheelbase is also little too long,but have to live with that so far.

 

MotorPsycho, I think it has an overall GREAT look, including the wheelbase/length. The engine & headers have a NICE look. Myself, I think RODS are ALWAYS a work in progress, and I don't know too many guys who EVER get "satisfied" with their cars! LOL

Multi-carb? Fine, but you can get around to that when the $$$$ are available, right? AT LEAST you have a GREAT car to work with! Salute!

 

Man! Hud, I love the way you give each question SO much thought and dredge deep into your treasur-trove of knowledge & experience. (!)

I asked the question that started the thread, AND I never thought there was SO MUCH enthusiasm (& history) RE rodding with 308s (&262s!).

I guess if i ever had any DOUBT, there are guys whose interests go BEYOND the Fords, SBCs and MoPars!!! 'sbeen fun!!!

 

When I ran my 270 GMC I had some of the same crank issues that you mentioned. Crank whip or vibrating on GMC engines is famos for fretting or welding the flywheel to the crank flange, or breaking all the bolts and leaving town. Joe Fontana wound his GMC to around 7000 I was told. He did a lot of experamenting with dampeners. I don't think he ever found anything that was 100%

 

My timing isn't good right now since y'all are in the middle of the crankshaft problem but these are scans of my little 3" x 3" photo prints from May of 1970 when I was restoring the yellow 1953 Hudson Hornet sedan and getting ready to install the Twin-H and 7X manifolding onto the car in the garage of my home in the Porter Ranch area of East Pasadena, CA. I thought "Now when will I ever get to take a picture of this stuff off the car again?" so I laid it out on the front lawn and shot it. I'm sure glad I did. That is a genuine 7X main exhaust manifold without any heat riser and genuine 7X elbow and genuine factory 2-into-1 head pipe. Had to share.

 

"had to share" you mean had to rub it in. That is one of the few I have ever seen and I have been into hudsons for a bit now. I think a "good" header would produce more ponies but that is kewl as shit.
Dave

 

Gotta run with no hood so you can SHOW off THAT kinda hradware!!! LOL

Man! Is this thread fun er what???