Register now to get rid of these ads!

"Versatile" Packard V-8 ???

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by jimi'shemi291, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    I know for a fact the engineer's name is Potter (can't recall first name now... but it wasn't "Harry"... :D). I've got the SAE paper on the GEN-1 AMC V-8. My understanding from other AMC historians is that the design came from Continental. Kaiser Industries either owned Continental outright or held the controlling interest at the time, I don't recall which (also one reason Kaiser/Frazer autos used Continental engines... might be why KI bought/bought into Continental...). Potter worked on a V-8 design at Continental that was being considered for K-F autos, but K-F never got strong enough to make it viable. I guess there wasn't enough demand for a V-8 industrial engine for Continental to build it anyway. That design may have been based on or an outgrowth of a G-P design, I have no idea. All I know for sure is Potter was hired from Continental specifically to design the AMC V-8, and it went from drawing board to in a car in 18 months, and unheard of feat back in those slide-rule days! A lot of R&D had to already have been accomplished for that to happen. Don't know if Potter ever worked for G-P, but it's possible. He worked at AMC into at least the late 60s, and possibly early 70s. He was mostly responsible for the new 1964 "Typhoon" 232 which the Jeep 4.0L was based on (virtually the same block), and I believe he had some influence on the GEN-2 AMC V-8 as well... will have to check my SAE paper on the GEN-2 to find out for sure if his name is on it.


     
  2. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    I'm mainly an AMC historian, but get a lot into connections! I think Romney saw through the Studebaker camouflage of their financial situation. I do recall reading that he and Nance had different ideas about how a merger should go and that had something to do with it. I think that it's possible that Nance saw Mason as a senior or at least equal partner, but with Romney Nance was the senior executive. Romney didn't have the business (especially auto business) experience Nance did. The real issue was prior to Romney though -- Packard never held up their end of a joint parts agreement, just sold AMC the Packard V-8 and Ultramatic. If Packard had at least bought a few items from AMC instead of rejecting all bids there may have been a future there. I have no idea what AMC was paying for Packard V-8s, but the general consensus is that they were rather expensive. AMC needed a V-8 to be competitive and had little choice -- until Packard pissed Mason off. I'm confident that the possibility of a future merger is one reason AMC was willing to pay for the Packard V-8s, though again they didn't have much choice. I doubt the Packard V-8s impacted sales that much, but without it I bet Nash and Hudson would have died a year or two sooner. Rambler could have survived without a V-8 for a couple more years. With the expense of building the big cars gone I doubt it would have had a negative affect on AMC... might have even had a positive one!

    No telling how a Packard-AMC merger would have went. My first guess is that the Nash and Hudson would have been dropped, or at least the Ambassador and Hornet, and replaced with a Packard model. Or a Packard model built on the big AMC body. Packard and Nash/Hudson dealers could have merged, leaving Rambler as a separate make. Of course the Packard V-8 would have been kept. After a couple years a new Packard body would have replaced the getting dated big Nash body, but all done in the Kenosha plant.

    The killer is throwing Studebaker in with AMC/Packard. That might have brough the whole house of cards down! Then again the AMC plant in Kenosha had the capacity to take on a Studebaker model.

    In the end I think it would have ended up pretty much as AMC did without Packard and Stude -- assuming the focus was on the Kenosha plant, which is only logical. Kenosha was newer than the old Packard facilities (at least parts of it was), had a capacity of over 200,000 cars (though it never had to test that theory!), and was better located than the South Bend Stude facilities. Gaining additional dealerships wouldn't have helped IMHO. The only differences I can see are that the Packard V-8 would have survived at least until 66 when the GEN-2 AMC V-8 came out (and then it may have had a bit of Pacakrd influence, though the AMC GEN-2 was a clean paper design with nothing but bore centers shared with the GEN-1 model), and the AMC Ambassador would probably have carried a Packard derived name if not sold as a separate make, maybe just used Packard as the model name. And it's might have been that the middle car, the Matador, carried a Packard model name or make also. That would have worked -- the two big cars carried as Packards and the Hornet/Gremlin/Javelin/AMX/Pacer carried as AMCs. That would have separated the two along similar bodies anyway. In the end I think it would have ended up pretty much as it did though. The last Ambassador was 1974, last Matador 1978. But Packard could have carried on until then -- and maybe the Concord could have carried the model name Packard and become the AMC Packard (or used an old Packard model name... it was billed as a small luxury car) and carried on a bit longer... It's fun to speculate sometimes!
     
  3. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Thank you, Farna, for the input. Potter may (or may not) have worked for Continental. We WELL know that Graham engineers took pride in ordering the Continental engines partially built -- THEN finishing them to their own standards (top end stuff). But we do know Henry Kaiser bought Continental, for the same reasons Tucker bought AirCooled.

    I really don't think this is a factual sticking point, nor are we at odds on the facts. If we got lost in unknowable minutiae, the whole point could be missed -- so I won't go into territory where I just don't have facts that probably weren't general knowledge anyway.

    In reality, most all we've said jibes. It must have been satisfying for Potter to see his designs power so many cars & Jeeps, at least in the longer term!!!

    (Whether he worked for Continental, G-P . . . or both.)

    I have surely enjoyed your input and our conversations. You, obviously, have passion for the brands you love! Salute!
     
  4. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    That's what I think about GM and Chrysler today, but mostly GM!!

    AMC also had labor problems. They paid more for labor than the other makers (I believe in the 70s it was an average of 10-15 cents more an hour... per employee that's a LOT!!) and therefore had higher overhead costs. Their problems started with the company trying to do the right ting and pass on some of the good times to employees in the early 60s (AMC was #3 in 1961... Plymouth was pissed!!) when they were selling cars like crazy. When the bubble popped, the UAW refused to back down, so AMC was locked into higher labor costs they could never get out of. But Chrysler did!

    When Chrysler bought AMC they promised Kenosha (city or county) that they'd keep the plant open as long as practical. Didn't take Chrysler long to figure out that plant had higher overhead than any others they had, so it was closed a year later. The city/county complained that Chrysler backed down on their promises, but Chrysler did keep the engine plant going, and it's still going today making V-6s (stopped making the 4.0L I-6 after 2006).

    The UAW is known to shoot itself in the foot too. I can understand some of their reasoning with GM -- if the company can justify multi million payouts to execs, why should workers take cuts? That wasn't the case with AMC.
     
  5. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Frank, you posted as I was waxing eloquent and NOT yet posted, man. I HUGELY enjoy reading what you call "speculation." I actually found ALL of it very plauisble. After all, didn't Teague go straight to AMC?

    The rest is "packaging," as far as the general public ever evn knows or cares. YOU have insight! Again, enjoyable!!!!!
     
  6. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    It comes from spending way too much time on AMC/Rambler/Nash history instead of other things, like making rank when I was in the military, though I did retire a respectable E-7... with 24 years in! Was close to due another stripe, definitely NOT willing to do the work instead of retiring. If I'd done some of that work earlier I'd have put E-7 on a few years before I did -- was four months shy of 21 years in when I sewed it on. If only being knowledgeable of obsolete cars that few care about would pay!! Even writing about it doesn't pay much -- I make about $1200 a year publishing my little magazine... Made about $500 over the last 25 years on a couple books I wrote also. Doesn't add up to much over that time period, just a little hobby money.
     
  7. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Frank, through these recent months, I have agonized over makes being killed off. But Pontiac (as an example) was pretty much GM's DeSoto or Plymouth: created to fill a market niche. When the market niche closed or constricted, you drop the brand you strategically created. What could be more reasonable?

    My feeling about Chrysler is that QUALITY had become a big consumer concern, beginning as early as (maybe) 1957 models. Chrysler cars after 1956 simply rusted through faster than earlier models. Why? Easy answer there. Lightening body weight by using lesser-gague steel, coupled with rushed-up, slip shod undercoating. (Let's not touch INNER coating!). The RAP STUCK!

    Now, I am a MoPar fanatic, so I should know the FAULTS of the brands I love, okay?

    By the late '60s and early '70s, MoPars had VERY snappy design (generally speaking) and well-engineered,though shared, drive trains. BUT THE GOSH-DARN BODIES WOULD RUST THROUGH ON DAILY DRIVERS IN WAY, WAY LESS THAN 10 YEARS!!!! I loved my '76 Cordoba almost as much as I loved my wife, BUT my wife didn't fall apart!!!!!!!!

    As time went on, Chrysler was about as ham-handed in the market as GM. In the late '70s and though the '80s, Chrysler styling was kicked shitless by GM, Ford and foreign competitors (despite all the Iacocca adulation). While Iaccoca was building minivans and staking his success on THAT (deja vu Stude Lark?), others were were SIMPLY STARTING TO BUILD SEXIER CARS!!!

    YEAH, YEAH, it was FINALLY nice to see the Hemi come back, but Chrysler seems to have hung their hat MOSTLY on that. Gas prices up/dpwn aside, the power plant isn't the only thing consumers look at!
     
  8. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Frank, I heard ya, man.

    NASH is a story unto itself!!!!!!!!! Charlie Nash WAS one of the true early GENIUSES of the auto industry.

    Though I feel post-Charlie styling decisions were sometimes TOO avante garde ('specially style lines!), NASH staff (ALL) took huge pride in their products. They did WELL all through the Depression, even developig aerodynamic bodies and great flow-through ventilation for passenger comfort, followed soon by the VERY AC model that ALL, ALL, ALL cars in the world use now!!!!!!!!!!!

    I know this isn't directly related to Packard V-8s, but in a way IT IS. I truly believe that all the companies' (big or independent) elite employees through the '30s--'50s were very dedicated. If not for that, our hotrodding hobby would be poorer.
     
  9. mbstude
    Joined: Oct 6, 2007
    Posts: 180

    mbstude
    Member

    I'd go along with that. I've driven that particular car (belonging to 413coronet), and it is scary fast.
     
  10. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    "Scary fast." I LIKE that!!! Yo, mbstude & 413, seriously, last time you trialed it at a strip, what kind of ET & top speed was the Packard-powered Hawk getting? I'd kill to know real-world figures, instead of somebody quoting dusty old figures.
     
  11. 413coronet
    Joined: Apr 21, 2009
    Posts: 21

    413coronet
    Member
    from florida

    Oooookay . . . . Let's not get too carried away here.

    Matthew was driving mine a bit too pokey, so I reached my foot over and mashed the gas to the floor for a few seconds. He was only 17 at the time and got kinda excited.

    I haven't had my 56 GH to the strip, but my G-tech and my seat of the pants says it's a high 15-low-16 second car, mph probably high 80's to 90 in the quarter. That's not so impressive today, but in 1956 it was one of the quickest, if not the quickest, stock passenger car.

    BTW, the NHRA wouldn't let the 56 Golden Hawk run in a stock class in 56; anything with less than 15 pounds per horsepower was put in a Gas class. The 56 Golden Hawk was put in B Gas. 56 D-500 Dodge ran C Gas; the hottest 56 Chevy ran D Gas. The Super Stock class was created the next year.

    [​IMG]

    <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://static.photobucket.com/flash/input.swf" style="" id="IMGTag-code" bgcolor="transparent" quality="high" name="IMGTag-code" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="ipt=%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi44.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff10%2F413coronet%2F56Packard422inchertwo.jpg%5B%2FIMG%5D&trk=image_code_click_FULLVIEW_IMG&width=175&height=21&color=#000000&border=#BDBDBD&cont=IMGTagContainer" height="21" width="175">
    [​IMG]
     
  12. 413coronet
    Joined: Apr 21, 2009
    Posts: 21

    413coronet
    Member
    from florida

  13. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    jimi, I wasn't going to get into Chrysler, but they are the closest comparison to the independents back in the days we're generally talking about. I don't see them making it a lot longer, depends entirely on what Fiat does with them. And don't slap Fiat down just yet. They actually DO make some GOOD cars over in Italy. Everyone here remembers the little ones they sent us, but those weren't their biggest and best even then. Renault was about to turn AMC around when they backed out for mainly political reasons. The French are stubborn though. AMC officials told them the Alliance needed a larger engine for the US market, and they wouldn't listen! It was something like "Look, we sell cars like this all over the world, and you guys needed a bail-out, what do you know?" Well, they knew the US market, just didn't have the finances to keep up and come out with new models!

    Like you with Chrysler, I know the AMC situation all too well. It all started to come apart when George Romney left to become governor of Wisconsin. The fellow who took over (Roy Abernethey) liked big cars and had been in sales at AMC. He wanted to get rid of the "stodgy Rambler image" and push more of the cars up into the higher profit margin Buick/Mercury/Olds/Plymouth territory (Plymouth was more middle ground and Dodge the price leader... or do I have it backwards? I never noticed much difference....). The problem is that was a crowded territory, and there were lots of loyal "stodgy Rambler" folks who wanted more bang for their buck than fancy car. He ruined the Tarpon by mandating the nice fastback be put on the bigger Classic chassis to create the Marlin. Well, that's not what ruined it... what ruined the lines is Abernethey's insistence that an average size man with a hat on be able to sit in the back seat (he liked hats too... take the damned thing off when you're in-doors or in a car... got no manners?). That messed up any swoopy lines for sure! He priced the cars out of the traditional buyers niche, though they were a bit more nicely optioned and trimmed. Then when they got rid of him, they came out with the Pacer and Matador Coupe -- both shared few components with other cars (the Mat Coupe wasn't that bad -- it did share front suspension and drivetrain), which made them costly to build. The Pacer is excusable in a way -- it was meant to eventually replace the Matador, and designed before the gas crunch. It was unfortunate that it didn't get better gas mileage than a Matador and came out right before the gas crunch. The people who criticize the styling so much are way off, mpg and performance were the killers. AMC sold 45,000 Pacers in the first three months of production -- they couldn't build them any faster! They had 60,000+ orders. The novelty wore off quick once the gas crunch hit and the EPA helped them strangle off power. It was supposed to have a GM built Wankel rotary, but that wouldn't have been much better. Rotaries are no more fuel efficient than piston engines, the savings is in a smaller, lighter package with fewer moving parts. It was always going to be front engine rear drive.

    Oooh.... the Pacer could have been a Packard model had AMC and Packard merged!! Then maybe it would have been powered with a Packard engineered V-8.... (just to tie this in with the thread)
     
  14. 29nash
    Joined: Nov 6, 2008
    Posts: 4,544

    29nash
    BANNED
    from colorado

    "Versatile" Packard V-8 ???

    Yep, very.
     
  15. Zerk
    Joined: May 26, 2005
    Posts: 1,418

    Zerk
    Member

    I wonder sometimes about Studebaker and Packard, and what might have saved their futures.

    Suppose Packard had hung on as an individual company, diversifying their models? If they had revived their station wagons, let's say, just as wagons were coming on strong in the new suburbs. They may have invented the big, luxurious V8-powered SUV land barge in the latter fifties, who knows? With gas at .20 a gallon a car like that would've been a sensation.

    Studebaker on the other hand might have ensured their future with a wider production plan, but trucks, Hawks and Avantis were discontinued after the move in '64. Maybe something totally different could have saved Studebaker during the fifties, like building ATVs or perhaps motorcycles. Like Kaiser they might have cashed in on military and fleet contracts. With their available production facilities they could have devoted some effort to the aftermarket, and become an early OEM to get involved in marketing speed equipment, like Direct Connection, GM Performance and Ford SVO did much later.

    One never knows.
     
  16. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    Studebaker could probably have hung in there for a while just building government trucks. They sold that contract to Kaiser as they were liquidating. If they had kept that going along with the engine plant they might have been able to continue a scaled down car production -- the Lark line along with the Avanti. But for how long? Engines could have been built in South Bend and shipped up to Canada, but cost is a problem. Without a doubt South Bend had to go due to age and overhead, which left Canada. that wouldn't be a big problem after the AutoPact deal struck about that time between the US and Canada, which virtually eliminated import/export fees and problems -- at least for models also built in Canada (AMC's Canada plant only made one model, and most of those were shipped to the US for sale, but as many as were shipped out could be shipped in of other models... something like that...). But how long could they have hung in there? Would GM have sold them engines after 66? Prior to 66 GM wanted the numbers for their Canadian plant, so selling Stude engines wasn't that big a deal, but once that requirement was gone (there were Canadian content laws prior to AutoPact, and the more engines the plant built the lower the overall cost each)... I'm not so sure AMC would have (or could have!) taken them in at that point, and Stude really had nothing to offer, though the government contracts might have been interesting. Surely if AMC had "merged" with Stude, the Lark and Avanti would have died shortly after. The Packard name could have been kept, if only for a ultra luxury/semi-custom Ambassador model... almost a coach built car.

    Without Studebaker dragging it down, Packard had other problems. One was their really old plant. They had problems getting bodies too... I think Chrysler bought a large stake in the plant that built Packard bodies because they (Chrysler) needed/wanted the capacity. Regardless of which company bought the formerly independent body supplier, Packard was in a bind! I'm pretty sure that's one reason they were eager to get Studebaker -- they had their own body plant. Too eager it turns out...

    Packard was in the same boat as AMC. Financially they were okay, but lacked development money for new models. If Packard had been more cooperative with AMC in the early 50s things would have been much better! AMC had the unused plant capacity to build Packard bodies, AMC would have benefited from using Packard V-8s, and the cooperation would probably have led to a nice merger of equals who were already partially integrated. Instead, egos got in the way (as much Romney as Nance, I'm sure, since they saw things very differently -- time just says Romney was "righter"!) and both companies are now gone.
     
  17. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Frank, engrossing perspectives. An opinion I would like to add is the Romney was in it (never was) "for the long haul. I think it was just an executive stepping stone in his career.

    Zerk, ALSO stimulating speculation on just HOW these independents could have survived AND thrived! Unfortunately, it's easier for us to look in the rearview mirror and see missed opportunities than its was for company planners to SEE those opportunities AT THE TIME. It also would have required some REAL outside-the-box, visionary exploration of alternative products and/or markets; and THOSE guys weren't going to expand their scope of thought THAT darn far! So, they didn't stray too far from what had been their norm. Result: Often opportunities were only recognized once they'd become, well, mistakes.
     
  18. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Guys, here's an obvious question that I failed to ask before: If Packard could have introduced a potent V-8 two or three years sooner, COULD this have helped save the company's bacon in a fast-changing market???
     
  19. 29nash
    Joined: Nov 6, 2008
    Posts: 4,544

    29nash
    BANNED
    from colorado

    Nope. Packard quality is what killed them. The public chose the lesser, The Big Three and subsequently, the Japanese imports.
     
  20. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Thanks, 29Nash. Well, I HAD to ask that question, I guess because I hated the way once-great and proud Packard finally went the way of Peerless, Locomobile, Marmon and Pierce. It was sad to see them really just withering away, "dying out."

    I sure do agree about the general quality issues -- and along with that their steadily eroding prestige & consumer confidence. In the changed market of the early and mid-'50s, companies that couldn't compete -- unit-cost-wise -- were doomed to fall under pressure from the Big 3. Not all, but MOST people anymore wouldn't pay the higher tariff for a luxury car (which some Packard models no longer WERE!) when they could get a Chevy or Plymouth for a fraction of the cost. drive it a few years, then trade for another new car. The market had changed but SO had consumers.

    And so, too, had Packard itself changed. The magic was gone.
     
  21. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,282

    farna
    Member

    Once Packard started making cars that looked and felt like fancy Chevys and Ford they were doomed. They probably could have stayed in business by scaling down and only making expensive cars, sort of like Rolls Royce, but the old American way of thinking was that if a business wasn't constantly expanding and making more it wasn't successful. That's got us in a mess too!!

    I don't know enough about Romney's out of AMC life to say much about him. He was definitely good for AMC -- good enough that some of the bigger share holders tried to sue him for leaving the company to run for governor (or rather tried to sue to prevent him from leaving). Maybe he just saw that the auto business, especially in a small company that was having to fight for everything it got, wasn't a good place to be! Actually, I think it was more that he wanted to help his fellow man more, and he couldn't do that in the auto industry.
     
  22. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Frank, this is obviously your passion -- notice I did NOT say sickness! LOL. To me, this is not trivial shit, by God. What goes on in every industry, regardless of the era, is a reflection of the politcal policies of the time (note, Herbert Hoover, who realized, too late, that he'd been asleep at the wheel!!!!!!!!!). On and on.

    Without going into boring detail, I have to say: Your Post #141 is one THE VERY BEST passages I have read in my life about the U.S. auto industry. FRANKly, I am glad to know you. I'm a MoPar nut, you're one of the FEW true AMC analysts (okay, nuts!).

    WE NEED NUTS on the HAMB. THIS THREAD HAS NUTS! MAYBE, THE U.S. (AFTER WWII, ANYWAY) HAS ALWAYS NEEDED MORE NUTS!!!! People can take that any damn way they please, 'cause it's a triple-entendre.

    Guess you can't tell, I have certainly ENJOYED this discussion. AND I LOVE THE HAMB!!!
     
  23. Ocean56
    Joined: Oct 5, 2009
    Posts: 128

    Ocean56
    Member
    from Michigan

    If you go to www.packardinfo.com, ALL of your questions regarding ANYTHING Packard will be answered!...:)
     
  24. Shop Rat
    Joined: Jul 8, 2009
    Posts: 4

    Shop Rat
    Member

    Here's another Packard V8 site:

    http://www.1956packardpanther.com/links.html

    Some good info, and somewhere on the site is a link to a photo of Packard's experimental fuel injection for the then-new V8s.

    The password to get into the members-only pages is 8VdrakcaP (case sensitive, and everyone uses the same password)

    FC
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  25. Shop Rat
    Joined: Jul 8, 2009
    Posts: 4

    Shop Rat
    Member

    The owner of a gorgeous '56 Patrician 4-door told me the reason for the quality problems in 1955 was that Chrysler had purchased the body manufacturer Packard had used for decades and forced Packard into a rush job to get into the body business on their own. I can't recall the name of the body company.

    FC
     
  26. Gigantor
    Joined: Jul 12, 2006
    Posts: 3,823

    Gigantor
    Member

    Not to hikack Jim, but I was curious about that last statement regarding a 727 being mated to a Hudson. Would that be the big Hudson 6? Do you recall who makes such an adapter?
    Thanks!
     
  27. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Not the 352, definitely, but Packard nuts'll love this anyway! For the cool details on this breaking HAMB news story, see the thread: Hot Rod Packard cover car for "HOT ROD" mag. The car is the work of HAMBer Hot Rod Packard (Brian) of Salt Lake City.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  28. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Gigantor Sam, no probs, man! I myself don't have hands-on knowledge about the adapters, since I never had reasons to pull my 262 Super 6 or my 289 Hawk engines (and both of those were std. trannies any-who). My assumption is RustyNY's talking about the adaptor plates that would have been needed to factory mate the Hudson to the GM Hydramatics (since Hudson didn't built an automatic of their own). I know there were some crazy factory swaps going on back in that era, and I know Checker bought adapter plates from Borg-Warner to utilize SBCs. But -- hey -- I'm getting into speculation here, and that won't really help you, buddy.

    But, sound like Rusty has a good handle on all the details. I'd bet PM-ing him would yield a ton of solid info! He seems to be saying relatively LITTLE machining would be needed for a Hudson setup. BEST of luck, cause the 727 is a hell of a trans! IMO just as good, if not better than a 400 Turbo.
     
  29. jimi'shemi291
    Joined: Jan 21, 2009
    Posts: 9,499

    jimi'shemi291
    Member

    Sam, maybe some of the hard-bitten Hudson-Essex-Terra guys would already have DONE this or KNOW of someone who HAS already done it. Maybe PM-ing Hudsonator, StudHud, maybe Nads???
     
  30. Gigantor
    Joined: Jul 12, 2006
    Posts: 3,823

    Gigantor
    Member

    Thanks Jimi! Just thought I was hearing something new... still haven't decided what transmission to run behind the 308.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.