ClassicCar

G'day Les, Tim Laird is the owner of these very much sought after moulds. For those that are reading these threads, Tim once owned a 54 Superwasp sedan for 20 years. This car was formally owned by Clive himself. It is powered by a 262 with the rare Gibson- Bink 2 piece aluminium head. This car is still in excellent original condition and still attends HET runs and rallies. It is currently for sale at around $22,000 Aussie dollars (for info please respond). Back to these G-B heads, I know at least a handful in existance down-under, including my brothers. About ten years ago speaking to Clive, he mentioned that only a dozen were produced, but truth behold, I believe much more were produced. Clive exported 2 of these heads to Jack Clifford and in Clives words (he copied my design, well almost). There is also a Gibson-Bink powered boat in Sydney town owned by a boat collector. Tim has been offered dollars for these moulds but is afraid that someone will be making large amounts of profit by reproducing the 2 piece heads. Next week when I'm back in Sydney for the Hudson -AMC presidents run, I will gather some photos of these heads, boat and the 54 SW and try & post them on this forum.



Keep on Hudsoning,



Steve Fripp from Brisbane, Down Under

If he is worried about the big bucks he should give the molds to Randy and do a profit share. Its not very productive to sit on molds you are not using. But heck who am I to figure out what people do.



Randy is right selling maybe 20 heads a year does not a business make.

Hudson308 wrote:

21.

Sign me up.



:o)

Randy, Go after em. and I will need on also. Hudsonly Rudy.

I need a boat like that!

G'day again. I've just spoken to my brother Jeff about these molds. It's a matter of fact that Jeff dropped by to see Tim (the owner of the molds) sometime last week. Tim also has molds for inlet manifolds for Hudson's big 6. Don't know what exactly they are but will keep you posted. Jeff has in possesion of a NOS Gibson - Bink inlet manifold for marine use. It is a 2 x 2bbl version. It can be used for steet vehicles if special carby adaptors are made as the top surface is on a severe angle and would look a bit odd as the carbys would lay back towards the fire wall. Another club member has this manifold on loan as he has contacts with a gentleman to see if it's possible to create a mold. Jeff will talk to Tim in the near future to see if he will let go of these molds and to confirm to him that large profits is impossible with such a small market.



Keep on Hudsoning.



Steve Fripp. Brisbane Down-under

Sorry for my lack of knowledge at this point, but I don't quite see from the pics or understand a two piece head. How would that work and what would be the advantage. I have been reading up on whatever I can find on the 308 as I will be getting my 54 the first of next week. Supposedly the 54's had an improved head over the previous years and had more power. My car has a 262 head on it. Does that make it better or worse and how does either of these compare to this two piece?

As to the matter of using domed pistons, Jack Clifford, in his catalog, specifically addressed the domed pistons as a no-no for flathead air flow.

This is all interesting stuff. I would really like to see a picture of that manifold as well. The hot rodder in me loves the two piece head, the road driver in me hates it. A real Love/Hate relationship. I would like to see it revived. Anyone can attest it would be more a labor of love rather than of "huge profits". If there were huge profits we'd be able to get our Clifford stuff on next day freight. That ain't the case.



I might be better produced as a one piece head. Anyone wanting a two piece could cut it in half themselves and modify whatever they wanted. We do need a new head. But, not as bad as a supply of headers and a new dual carb manifold.



Mark

As mentioned earlier the 2 piece head is a lot easier to make in small quantities than a one piece head. One distinct disadvantage though is that it is only one quarter as stiff as a 1 piece head. Best to leave them as an interesting Hudson curio.



Going in the other direction, a Clifford 3" thick head is a bit better than twice as stiff as a standard 2" thick head

PaceRacer50 wrote:

High compression is a killer of airflow on a Flathead. This is because you can't

reduce the valve chamber area, transfer slot and relief area enough to gain high compression without making these areas restrictive to airflow.

One of the biggest gains in airflow I have seen is the method Barny Navarro and others use, which is to go with a 7/16" to 5/8" domed piston and cut the head out

to maintain a .100" clearance gap. This allows the transfer slot to flatten out into

the center of the cylinder. This causes the air to flow out of the port thru the valve seat area at a larger radius into the cylinder, instead of having to make a sharp turn out of the valve seat area, thru the relief at a tighter radius only to be forced thru a tighter radius again at the steeply angled transfer slot in the head into the cylinder.



The domed piston does not change the compression ratio or the valve chamber area, relief area or transfer slot area. It just moves the airflow up higher into the head.



By moving the airflow up higher the radius increases and the air velocity increases because its not forces to turn so tight to get into the cylinder. Airflow gains may not be very high, maybe 30-50cfm but that is a substantial improvement on a flathead.

You do have to have a good high powered ignition system to fire it but the results are worth looking into.



I do not know why Jack Clifford maintained that this was not a good thing on the Hudson engine BUT I do know that MOST all the fastest flathead fords are running dome pistons with either Baron, Navarro or other domed cylinder heads.



But this is all just my opinion and my next engine I am going to experiment with this even more that I am doing now.

PaceRacer50

I'm going to have to agree with this post. I'm on the verge of flow testing a Hudson and trying to weed out the chaff from the wheat in this area. You can't really compare a Briggs to a Hudson because of the radicly different bore to stroke ratio. Let me get a 4.25" piston in the Hudson and we'll talk.



I've been talking with Joe Mondello in his new Crossville facility and nobody knows 5 hp Briggs like Joe. Joe says that any flow testing ever done on an automotive flathead was done to prove the "old school" therories and no real attempt at improving flow with modern thought whatsoever. They just tested what they had, compared it to stock, and called it the "cutting edge". I have to agree completely. He said a flathead had never been adequately tested, and that Jack Clifford NEVER flow tested one. I called Smokey Yunick back in '99 and was told the exact same thing, and he admited to having never tested a Hudson himself. I proposed the Navarro chamber question to Jack personally on the phone and was cut off in mid sentence with the same "it cuts your flow" answer. I asked him if he'd tested it - and he immediately got pissed off in a major way - but never answered the question. What Smokey and Joe told me, kinda lays the reason for the temper fit in perspective. Jack didn't know if it would or not.



I have built some G series Harleys, which won't exactly compare with the Hudson, and used a "pop up" piston. I'm not going into specifics, but I did see enough improvement in mph to believe the higher transfer slot being filled by a "pop up" of some type as being highly effective. Mind you, the bore/stroke ratio of 750cc Harley flatheads is even worse than the Hudson. I am going to say I haven't tested it on a flowbench, so I question whether it was the additional compression or added flow that added 20 mph to its top speed. Bottom line is, it was 20 mph faster - and that is significant in anybody's book.



I'm still debating the compression vs. flow situation. I think there is a balance there depending on your build. We've got Randy's Hot Street cam in a CamPro Plus fixture and will take a look at what flow we're looking for to optimize it and then compare compression ratios vs. the flow we get. This will take a while folks, but the answer is out there for the dilligent. I'm building a fixture to fit into the cylinder to mimic the piston head at a given depth in the cylinder per valve lift. We're really trying to put our best efforts forward here.



I bought some digital flow bench measuring instruments from Joe and am in the process of assembling my own bench. In addition to that, Joe and I are going to work on the Hudson together. It won't be cheap, but how many chances do you get to study a Hudson's flow potential with a man having 50+ years of experiance? Joe has been so eager to get his hands on his old nemesis (Joe is an old Olds man!) that the project is going to get moved to his shop and run on his bench, which is wet flow and will tell a whale of lot more than a dry bench.



I hope to be hauling the good block and the test block to Crossville tomorrow.



Now, I hope y'all understand why I'm dragging my feet on the Dana rear end!



Mark Hudson

One more thing.



I believe Jack Clifford was heading in this direction, but took a stance against it for some reason. This is why I think that. Alot of the additional material in his head is in the deck, around the outer edge of the valve pocket, and over the head of the piston. I've talked to Randy in the past about Clifford heads and was surprized by the amount of material he said they had in them. I'd really like to have one to sonic test and confirm this suspicion. The Clifford head may actually have enough material in its deck to do a Navarro, Baron, or Offy type of truncated spherical dome.



Whomever, if you decide to reproduce a cylinder head for the Hudson - please keep these things in mind. Make the area above the piston as thick as you can. I really believe there is potential in that engine beyond the traditional 7x relief. I may be wrong, but I believe it would respond to the dome better than most flatheads due to its valve canting and the valve's proximity to the cylinder's edge - relative to about any other flathead you can name.



If we're lucky, I can have some useful data on hand before somebody does a new head, and incorporate what I've found. That's about the sum of what I can contribute to the project. We may find out that the 232 is the superior head, you just never know. But that is the reason for all this, I want to know and suspect I'm not alone.



Mark

i am really interested in a manifold at least for now....

im guessing that any hard won results off the flow bench wont be given up so easily in an internet forum but some descriptions of findings would be great cos i wanna make my hudson fast and surprise the kids in their new cars. haha!

Which aftermarket pistons did you use?

Rudy Bennett asked me to post the following Gibson Intake manifold pictures... still need to put all this together and post to my Website... maybe this coming weekend. Cheers.



Happy Thanksgiving

maasfh wrote:

Went back to the desk top dyno and stroked my 7X by .250 to 4.750 stroke with by 3.905 bore. I come up with 341 cu. in.--two more cubes than your 339. At 3500 RPM results:







323 cu. in 3.905 bore stock stroke 217HP 325Torque

341 cu. in 3.905 bore +.250 stroke 225 HP 338Torque



Randy

I believe it was "Big Daddy" that said it. I don't have a Chevytop dyno, Nor do I race an 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper that hypothetically shows me what I should have. I never did see at what RPM these figures were at. The problem with these programs are that that they have to be too generic. Can you calculate the distance of the intake runner and the angle of flow from the intake to the valve? A simple modification such as this can alter horsepower. Example: Put a 4.0 liter AMC head on an early model 258. The only way to TRULY know is to build each engine and put it on a dyno. I stated earlier that it depends on your application- this still stands. Multiple sidedraft carbs and such are great- if you can get them to run right. desktop dyno doesn't consider this. I remember at the Cleveland HET national a multi carb setup in a '41 got beat in a heads up drag by a modestly built jet with a 308. More CFM is not always the answer. Most people don't want to spend the money stroking a Hornet engine. They do what is most cost effective. If you think that boring a hornet engine doesn't change much- come to Doc's meet this spring and I'll show ya first hand, but don't spill your coffee on my interior and save the doughnuts for after the ride! Now, its time to quit playing deerhunter on the computer and try the real thing in Pa. EVERYBODY HAVE A GOOD THANKSGIVING!

maasfh wrote:

Big Daddy--Well I don't think you two are thinking along the same wave lengh when considering cu. in.'s and power. Go back and re-read--the rpm figure is stated. I have run sidedraft webers for over 15 years and have never had a problem tuning them. First started running on gas and then changed over to methanal. No problems. If the 41 you speak of got beat, there was a problem with the tuner. The desk top is an excelant tool as Mark has indicated. Maybe Santa should bring you one for christmas. I'm always up for a fast ride. I'll bring an extra head gasket. I'm also up for a race. Meet me at the tree. I'll be at Auburn for the National this year. I'm sure there is a track nearby. I'll bring my 54 coupe, small 7X (.060) overbore. I'll give you your extra cu. inches. Danny Spring & I are going to have a friendly race with both of our '41 coupes. We talked about it in Nebraska. Both have strokers. I can have both cars there. It will be fun. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

Well, if I wasn't enthusiastic about going to the National before?



I AM NOW!!!



I can't promise I'll have anything to run - but this sure is incentive to try REALLY HARD!



Alright, I'm wound up now.



Mark