ClassicCar

51hornetA

Had to share this. Take a look at this Hornet Coupe hugging the curves and listen to that engine sound. Don't know if thats a Hudson power plant but it sounds great. Thanks to my Swedish buddy Roland for sharing this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gis-KZsp8A

Dave53-7C

The engine sound bites are from my car. LOL

SuperDave

WOW Got the hair on my arms standing up.. What a SOUND!

51hornetA

See the way that car hunkers down in the curves now that is sweet.....

I'm familiar with a car, a great road racer.

The engine is a 6.0L Chevrolet, LS1-based

Bellteck Nitro-Active Shocks

Airaid Cold Air Intake System.

SLP 160 Thermostat

Ram Air Twin Scoops.

Mustang II, Stage II front suspension w/power rack & pinion steering

Magna Charger RADIX Intercooled Supercharger Kit, MP122HH Silver Satin Finish, 90mm Throttle Body, 60 lb Injectors, 2.8" Pulley With 111.5" Belt - Replacement Oil Takes 4oz. GM #12345982 Supercharger Oil.

Metco 100mm Idler Pulleys With Extra Idler Spacer #69-90-57-001.

Pinned Crank Pulley.

Custom Ported Head Work With ARP Bolts (Top & Bottom End).

NGK TR6 Spark Plugs NGK-4177 Gap To .035.

AeroForce Interceptor OBD2 Scan Gauge, Duals Can Moniter 4 Parameters At A Time, BLK Bezel White Face White/Blk Display, And Magna Charger Boost Gauge 31-1400-007 Custom Fit Into The Lower Console.

Blower Cam Lingenfelter GT7 208/230 .554/.546 121 -

Comp Cams Gen III/LS1/LS6 Pushrods 5/16 7.400 Length -

Comp Cams Hi-Tech Roller Timing Chain Adjustable -

GM Performance Parts LS6 Valve Springs. - ***

Extensive Engine Dyno Testing At Lingenfelter Has Produced Some Of The Best Street Camshaft Profiles Available For The LS1, LS6 & LS2 Engines. The Lingenfelter "GT" Series Camshafts Were Designed To Produce Excellent Power While Still Producing A Smooth Idle For Automatic Or Six Speed Manual Transmission Equipped Vehicles That Can Be Daily Driven. - This Camshaft Was Designed To Be Used In Supercharged Or Turbocharged Applications In LS1, LS6, LS2 350 CID, 427 CID Engines.

MSD 8.5mm Wires #MDS-32829.

Dynatech SuperMAXX Stainless Steel Header System w/Cats Jet Hot Coated Int/Ext #115-841300.

Doug's Headers Electric Exhaust Cut-Out #DOU-DEC300.

Flowmaster True Duel 40s Dumped Over The Rear End.

Custom Built 4l65e Transmission.

Denny's Driveshaft Custom Aluminum High Performance, 2 Piece Shafts Billet Trans & Pinion Yokes, HIGH SPEED BALANCED.

RearEnd Detriot TrueTrac - T/A 1803 Rear Cover - 3.73 Ratio Gears.

HPTuners Software For Custom PCM Turning By Dorr's Speed Shop

PS: I can't get enough of that video; I was exaggerating above of course

Oh, Marvin told me today that my Super Jet will have a Powerglide tranny, trans-brake equipped, w/single turbo and if it won't do the quarter mile easily in the 8 second range on drag radials, he'll be VERY surprised!

necessary eq: racing fuel, no cross winds (only tail), roll cage, seat belts, helmet and DEPENDS 4 SURE!!!

Now here is a good one too; it has a repeat on the "Quaker' Hudson coupe', but near the end there is road racing of 50's Fords, several Jags, 50 (?) chevy, 51 Hudson coupe', several Studebakers, 54 Buick looks cool, several Volvo's, Packard, 57 Chevrolet convertible, several Porsche's, Mercedes .... a LONG string of cars, MANY many cars, just haulin a$$

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lfauAsU9S0&feature=related

bill a

Brought Tears To My Eyes Bill Albright

Browniepetersen

Great footage. If you have ever had that taste of speed or felt the need for speed, there is nothing better. Great footage.......

Harry Hill

That is one fine car, don't matter what the power plant and drive train are, mighty fine, mighty fine.

Harry

'47HUD

great camera work, really shows how well a step-down handle's on the tight curve's ! notice how flat that old Hornet corner's, a true statement to how well balanced the step-down chassis is, I didn't see any chassis roll in this video, watched it several times ! !

'47HUD

hudsonkid

After that, I feel like eating some quaker oatmeal.....

wow

If Hudsondad ever gets his wasp back together, I'll make a video like that and post it up, of course, when they go on vacation....

Maybe we need a poll on that one!

Ol racer

FYI

I had the opportunity recently to purchase some old newsreel footage put on VHS of Hudson Racing at many different Speedways (Daytona, Detroit, Darlinton,etc). The Hornets looked very similar to this video remaining flat & tight in the corners, even on the rough bouncy crude surfaces. Brand X Cars were hitting holes swerving left & right and some even rolled over by themselfs from the ruts..Hudson finished in the top several positions easily because of the flat 'hunker down' cornering

Building the modern Hornet road Racer regardless of powerplant was certainly a tribute the the most dominate Street car in NASCAR history until recently.

Ol racer

PS

I do eat Quaker Oat meal regularly... I predict with NASCAR's Anniversarey this Year that we will see more Hudson Hornet Legacy footage throughout this Year....

DaveFury

WOW! I need to build me one of those!

Aaron D. IL

Oh man such a beautiful thing! Big 3 cars can never hope to be so immortal. Only replacement for a Hudson is another Hudson.

'47HUD wrote:

great camera work, really shows how well a step-down handle's on the tight curve's ! notice how flat that old Hornet corner's, a true statement to how well balanced the step-down chassis is, I didn't see any chassis roll in this video, watched it several times ! !

'47HUD

FIRSTLY, I am talking body roll, NOT chassis roll; chassis roll would mean the entire car rolled!

OK, let me explain; that Quaker car does not have a "stock Hudson" suspension, OBVIOUSLY! IF it did, the body would be leaning (over) like crazy in the curves, plus the top of the front wheels would be leaning to inside and the bottoms would be way to the outside; NOTICE how straight up and down the front wheels stand on the straight away as well in the curves; this car is set up for road racing, NOT NASCAR, where even today the suspensions are designed for "mostly turning left" and straight away's. It would be a nightmare to drive that coupe' at those speeds without a modern suspension in it.

http://home.earthlink.net/~goodspeeds/caster.htm

Another obvious factor is that it does not have "stock Hudson" rear suspension. Hudson rear axles, and maybe riveted wheels too, were easily broken in tight curves under torky acceleration and certainly not withstand those curves at those speeds. i.e., a modern, road-racing rear suspension and welded-together rear wheels.

Another obvious factor is that it is riding on radial tires vs. bias. tires is a HUGE PLUS.

This is the way of the future for Hudsons; there is no other way in my mind, that is if you want more power, more reliability, don't want a flathead Ford "cleaning your clock", you want a safer car, etc.

What are the reasons leading to Hudson going out of business?

SUGGESTION; if the Hudson Race team had sponsored this "Quaker" Hudson in 1951 (& for decades) in NASCAR, Hudson would have dominated in NASCAR for DECADES not just years 51 to 55 or 56 (the last NASCAR race won by Hudson was in 1959). Those wins on Sunday would have made Hudsons sell on Monday, and MAY have extended it's eventual demise for decades too. My rationale for updating at least 2 of my 3 Hudson's to street-strip cars; one will probably stay "original" for several years more. It's great to see some of you get "turned on" to the racy look and racy sounds of a true, updated work of Hudson art w/Chevy power, & U should!

The best thing to do now is to update yours-generate REAL excitement in your Hudson and in your life!! Go for it-bite the bullet (not the dust).

=^..^=

super651

Darlington S.C.

I lived in Aiken S.C. in the 40s 50s Some of us boys would skip school and Hitch Hike up to Darlington on friday to watch Nascar on Saturdays.

And at that time the track was dirt I think, And while we watched the Hudsons and Olds win on the track they did not sell good on the lots in Aiken S.C. or Augusta Ga. We saw a lot of them roll over and most of the time it was due to a broken rear WHEEL. BUT, they did out-run most of the other cars in the TURNS.

From then on it has been Hudsons on the streets and Drag Tracks.

Hudsonly Rudy

NHRA outlaw'd a front-wheels-off-the-pavement 1952 Oldsmobile 88 =>SUPER STOCKER from Metairie, Louisiana, years ago because although it was LEGAL by definitions in the rule book, it outran every other Super Stocker almost annually at the NHRA Nationals in Indianapolis.

NHRA finally decided it could not have ONE CAR (Oldsmobile), apparently legal, that DOMINATED in Super Stock, and I think they changed the rule book to some thing like the beginning year for SS's will be 1955 (chevrolet) and newer.

This 1952 Olds Super 88 was so fast that it braked & slid the tires across the finish line in order to prevent "break-out" (arriving at the 1/4 mile stripe too quick). It was a 3-spd, floor-shifted Cadillac tranny I think with Chrysler yokes, a truely, respectable HONKER!!!

Any drag race stories on the Hudson, in Super Stock??

Forgot to post the best ever quarter-mile time for this national record-holding '52 Olds car was an 11.83 seconds

FAST!!!!!.......

As you can see from the following URL of NHRA Super Stock (SS) Classification, they disallowed Oldsmobile prior-to-1960; same for Ford, Pontiac, ,,,,,,,,

http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/class...ion/index.html

HOWEVER, a 1955-59 Chevrolet is allowed to race in SS but NOT the 55-59 Olds or Buick, BOTH very FAST cars. 1949-1954 Olds DISALLOWED!

These rules are across the board unfair and biased against Oldsmobile (plus a bunch of other cars too) and in favor of Chevrolet, apparently!

Apparently biased against Hudson TOO, as Hudson is not even listed in 1955; Hudson had a Twin-H in 55. It's all about the money, I know, and internal politics of NHRA.

Cheers, Hudson fans; take it on the chin!

CHALLENGE? If I'd build a 49 Hudson 2-door with a 49 Olds super stocker engine (49-52) will there be anyone on this forum that will drag race me, "heads up", with a 49 Hudson and Hudson super stocker engine w/Twin-H? NO, & if he did he would lose, no doubt! It's a no-brainer who would win!

hudsonkid

54 HSWH wrote:

This 1952 Olds Super 88 was so fast that it braked & slid the tires across the finish line in order to prevent "break-out" (arriving at the 1/4 mile stripe too quick). It was a 3-spd, floor-shifted Cadillac tranny I think with Chrysler yokes, a truely, respectable HONKER!!!

The 52 olds probably ran a Lasalle transmission. with exception to the driveshaft, it wopuld be a direct bolt on application, I think the late 30's into the 40 model year? and there were two kinds, a short tailshaft, and a long tailshaft.

One last bit, you would probably have to cut the shifter, because you would bump the rear view mirror while shifting, I guess.

Back about 20 years ago, hudsondad bought a 49 olds with a heavily worked 51 olds engine in it, and it had a similar set-up as the 52 olds you mention. I bet it was a bit of a terror on the strip. Unfortunately, and ironic to a sense, hudsonmom, made hudsondad cut the 49 olds up, to make room for the first hudson we ever got, the 52 wasp coupe. kinda funny when you think about it, and generally odd.

54 HSWH wrote:

CHALLENGE? If I'd build a 49 Hudson 2-door with a 49 Olds super stocker engine (49-52) will there be anyone on this forum that will drag race me, "heads up", with a 49 Hudson and Hudson super stocker engine w/Twin-H? NO, & if he did he would lose, no doubt! It's a no-brainer who would win!

Okay, can't resist.... I'll challenge you, but you got to build the car with your two hands, and I got to build mine with my two hands, no outside company can do the fabricating, or assembly, etc...

I don't think it would be as much of a shut down as you would think. A lot of people forget about Olds domination, but they were fast, both on the dirt turns, and down the 1/4 mile asphalt.

I still feel with the right amount of thought and effort, you could make a good run for the money, with a hudson powered 49, with some work. You're still comparing apples to oranges, since you already limited the induction system on the hudson to twin H. Perhaps to make it fair, you got to maintain the original weirdo carb they used on 49 and 50 olds.... or better yet, just a (51-52) 2 barrel, I can't remember, did olds have 4 barrels, in 51 or 52 yet?

I always wanted to see a heads up race with some oldsmobiles and hudsons, see who would come out on top.

Aaron D. IL

54 HSWH wrote:

OK, let me explain; that car does not have a "stock Hudson" suspension, OBVIOUSLY! IF it did, it would be leaning (over) like crazy in the curves, plus the top of the front wheels would be leaning to inside and the bottoms would be way to the outside; NOTICE how straight up and down the front wheels stand on the straight away as well in the curves; this car is set up for road racing, NOT NASCAR, where even today the suspensions are designed for "mostly turning left" and straight away's. It would be a nightmare to drive that coupe' at those speeds without a MUSTANG suspension in it.

http://home.earthlink.net/~goodspeeds/caster.htm

Another obvious factor is that it does not have "stock Hudson" rear suspension. Hudson rear axles, and maybe riveted wheels too, were easily broken in tight curves under torky acceleration and certainly not withstand those curves at those speeds. i.e., a modern, road-racing rear suspension and welded-together rear wheels.

Another obvious factor is that it is riding on radial tires vs. bias. tires is a HUGE PLUS.

This is the way of the future for Hudsons; there is no other way in my mind, that is if you want more power, more reliability, don't want a flathead Ford "cleaning your clock", etc.

What are the reasons leading to Hudson going out of business?

SUGGESTION; if the Hudson Race team had sponsored this "Quaker" Hudson in 1951 (& for decades) in NASCAR, Hudson would have dominated in NASCAR for DECADES not just years 51 to 55 or 56 (the last NASCAR race won by Hudson was in 1959). Those wins on Sunday would have made Hudsons sell on Monday, and MAY have extended it's eventual demise for decades too. My rationale for updating at least 2 of my 3 Hudson's to street-strip cars; one will probably stay "original" for several years more. It's great to see some of you get "turned on" to the racy look and racy sounds of a true, updated work of Hudson art.

The best thing to do now is to update yours-generate REAL excitement in your Hudson and in your life!! Go for it-bite the bullet (not the dust).

=^..^=

54HSWH What you are posting on this forum amounts to Blasphemy and Heresy!May the White Triangle have mercy on your soul! LOL

I don't really think a fresh from the factory Hudson chassis would roll, sway or bounce that much, but after 50 years, yeah you'd probably roll sway or bounce a bit too. LOL I was looking at some of the old NASCAR races that someone posted on youtube and made a Hudson video playlist if anyone wants to check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=284149D20D26E25F

They seem pretty stable to me in the videos. Except when they lost a tire or something.

What I hear from the veterans is that Hudson's real success on the track is that it would and probably still will out-corner any Olds or any of the cars made at that time. Radial tires do make a huge difference though. The suspension on that road race car may be re-engineered but that chassis is still Hudson, and has a nice low drag co-eificent.

Olds (303 cu in-135 hp) had a 2-bbl 1949-1951, and a 4 bbl in 1952 (160 hp).

The 1954 OLDS 88 and Super 88 V8s used an 8.25:1 compression ratio for 170 and 185 hp (126 and 137 kW) and 295 and 300 ftÂ·lbf (399 and 406 NÂ·m) respectively. => 300 ft-#s of TORQUE; WHAT DID HUDSON Twin-H have in 1954?

1954 Hudson hp = _____

1954 Hudson torque = _____

The 1955 OLDS upped the compression to 8.5:1 for 185 hp (137 kW) and 320 ftÂ·lbf (433 NÂ·m) in the 88 and 202 hp (150 kW) and 332 ftÂ·lbf (450 NÂ·m) in the Super 88 and 98.

Compression was up again in 1956 for 230 hp (171 kW) and 340 ftÂ·lbf (460 NÂ·m) in the 88 and 240 hp (178 kW) and 350 ftÂ·lbf (474 NÂ·m) in the Super 88 and 98.

Look, if Hudson had been any kind of a NHRA Super Stock dominator or drag race threat (49-56) there would be some talk on here, BEFORE now, and it would be in the NHRA record books - where is it? Hudson did hold temporarily maybe a couple in the Stock classes; as I recall, it did hold OS (O Stock) at one point in time and the record was ~ 18.01 seconds; the one I built for that class ran ~ 19.1 before I stripped the differential and I sold it after that. The guy I sold it to drag raced it in Monroe, LA, and I don't know how he did after I went into the Army.

Hudson never was ANY threat in SUPER stock (6=/=

, I only used 49 as a lite-yr car.

I could have even used a Jet as an example; even a Jet with a Hudson 308 super stock'd engine (any year NHRA Super Stock specs) could not run quicker than 11.83 seconds, right? If so, prove it

So, NO CONTEST!

potential contest ain't hap'nen, even today. it won't ever.....................

So, what we want is the BEST mechanic hands, not any weak hands. We want the best that can be in 2008, not the weakest, sloppy race potential. What will that prove? Until you prove to me that any Hudson has ever run quicker than 11.83 and is built to NHRA SS specs just before the 52 Olds was outlawed, I would not even recommend that anyone prepare the 2 cars; it would be a total exercise in futility, as I KNOW what the results would potentially be => Olds WILL WIN!

I will venture to say that a GMC six in the same class as the Olds, built to NHRA SS specs will be faster than the Hudson simply because it is OHV, like the Olds. Again, NO CONTEST.

Aaron D, IL,

"What I hear from the veterans is that Hudson's real success on the track is that it would and probably still will out-corner any Olds or any of the cars made at that time. Radial tires do make a huge difference though. The suspension on that road race car may be re-engineered but that chassis is still Hudson, and has a nice low drag co-eificent."

I am not comparing "at that time". The Quaker car has an up-dated suspension.

Easily in the vids you provided the cars were "rocking & rolling", losing tires and wheels, etc.

I agree the original chassis, depending on the EXACT definition of chassis, is STILL Hudson on an original car, plus #1 the center of gravity on the Hudson is lower than the Olds, and THAT is one reason the Hud had advantage over the Olds;

#2 the Hud may have had more low-end torque, but the Olds would rev higher, as the crankshaft on the Hudson is longer and much heavier.

Under certain NASCAR race conditions the Olds beat the Hudson; I believe Olds dominated in 1950 (before the Twin-H), and it won some thereafter too.

We agree on lots of things. I disagree that the Hudson front suspension was BETTER than GM.

And today the Mustang II front suspension used on most street rods is far superior than Hudson & GM in EVERY way!!! ....hands down!

We aren't disagreeing; I think we are agreeing on every point. THANKS

hudsonkid wrote:

ld make a good run for the money, with a hudson powered 49, with some work. You're still comparing apples to oranges, since you already limited the induction system on the hudson to twin H. Perhaps to make it fair, you got to maintain the original weirdo carb they used on 49 and 50 olds.... or better yet, just a (51-52) 2 barrel, I can't remember, did olds have 4 barrels, in 51 or 52 yet?

I always wanted to see a heads up race with some oldsmobiles and hudsons, see who would come out on top.

Let's make it fair, both 52 cars, a Super 88 Olds w/4 bbl (factory rating

160 hp);

then, any 52 Hudson w/Twin-H (factory fuel induction w/o relieving must remain as it is in a Super STOCK class, factory rating 145 hp; blame NHRA not me)

TORQUE on the OLDS must be more than the Hudson, PLUS once it is boosted to SUPER STOCK it will be even a larger torque number for the OLDS-no doubt!

We use NHRA Super Stock rules, headers, .060" max over bore, posi with any gear ratio, both std or both automatic; just follow the rules.

i.e., NO CONTEST; it can NEVER be, rationally

MOTIVATION: do this; go to the NHRA annual Reunion in Bowling Green and watch the Olds' cars drag race, June 13-15, 2008. Do this before you ever consider such a OLDS-HUD match race. Find as many Hudson racers as you can muster and pair them off with the Olds' cars, and see what happens.

SIMPLE TEST, the proof is in the pudding.

half baked

ok high horse since you like your olds so much go build one and leave us be.

denverslim

This is a great video--the kind that still gets my non-racing blood flowing and even after all those years.

I have loved speed as much as anyone I have ever known in my life and have had lots of it. Going back to as early as I can remember my brother and I would launch the tricycle off the top of the driveway on the hill, taking turns steering, and standing on the back, flying around the corner 'til we tumbled over in the ditch only to jump back up, pull the fender off the front wheel, and head back up the hill again.

I raced motocross motorcycles back before they were called that, had a downhill ski racing scholarship that paid my way through college, and (sadly) wrecked more cars than I care to remember.

Having said all that, somewhere along the line I have gotten a little older and wiser, and I submit, more responsible about my relationship with cars and bikes and believe it or not, I have found some REAL, reasons to own, love, and drive these machines without the need to figure out how to squeak out the ever elusive MPH.

I still own a stocker '61 Corvette, and probably will have it 'til the day I die, but I drive it respectably on public roads, responsibly.

My connection here is my '36 Terraplane coupe, a wonderful driver with the stock six and drive train. although I have modified it a little to make it more of what I feel comfortable driving, I feel no need to gut the car and install parts to make it run faster. It's just too cool the way it is.

To many of us, these cars are beautiful the way they were made, relics of days gone by, when styling and engineering and craftmanship was king. Taking all that away just to go faster somehow seems silly.

'47HUD

yes, I agree with 'half baked' , you 'know it all', so go write a book ! !

'47HUD

Mustang front end on a Hudson is a step backwards. Spend all the money you want on a mustang front end and you won't outcorner a stock Hudson.

Harry Hill

Come on guys, can't you tell when you're being baited? John enjoys his cars the way he wants them, but he enjoys making you guys angry just as much. If he likes the Mustang front end on his car, and a big block chevy in his Hudson what do you care? Why risk getting booted off the forum just to yell at him. Lets get back to the fact that the video is of a real fine car going fast.Heck, I want to put on headers and twin exhaust just to try to get close to that sound which I know I probably can't get with the twin H anyway, but I'm gonna try. My 55 is a big ol boat that doesn't need to go fast like that but I'm still going to tighten things up so I can corner a little faster.

Harry

Jimalberta wrote:

Mustang front end on a Hudson is a step backwards. Spend all the money you want on a mustang front end and you won't out corner a stock Hudson.

You are so-so wrong.

Just admire that # 190 blue Quaker car. For a car to do road course driving like that one does, it has to have disc brakes in order to be safer (which is obviously great; it can't solely rely on the 4- or 6-spd tranny via down-shifting through the sharp hair pin curves although it is used to a certain extent-listen carefully), plus power rack & pinion steering is a huge plus (imagine driving a stock Hudson with no PS on a road course @ bursts of WOT), and the great stability of the car in curves is simply amazing!! I love it.

DOC HUDSON; what size was the Twin-H engine that they put in it?

D.W. himself, Daryl Waltrip, and John check out the big 410 (big block Ford) engine. Scott McLearen did a fine job with the engine and transmission for this project.

check it; l@@k for your self

http://www.gunnarracing.com/Misc/hudson/Hudson-may2006.htm

It's just the way the worls is moving (for some).

No hard feelings.

37 Terraplane#2 · 37 Terraplane#2 February 2008 Posts: 1,659Platinum Member

Harry Hill wrote:

Come on guys, can't you tell when you're being baited? John enjoys his cars the way he wants them, but he enjoys making you guys angry just as much. If he likes the Mustang front end on his car, and a big block chevy in his Hudson what do you care? Why risk getting booted off the forum just to yell at him. Lets get back to the fact that the video is of a real fine car going fast.Heck, I want to put on headers and twin exhaust just to try to get close to that sound which I know I probably can't get with the twin H anyway, but I'm gonna try. My 55 is a big ol boat that doesn't need to go fast like that but I'm still going to tighten things up so I can corner a little faster.

Harry

YES HARRY, your right . Time to put on the brakes from ALL points of veiw. This gonna have the last word stuff is gonna get us in trouble again. Please don't. Golly will some of us NEVER learn ?? BUD

hudsonkid

Oh god, here comes another locked thread.....

If it makes anyone feel better, we were into Oldsmobiles (49-56) before we got into hudsons. I would say, if I were to find a respectable 49 or 50 88 olds coupe, I would be equally happy having that over a 51 pacemaker coupe. I don't know what that makes me.

argue with John or not, the mustang II is a superior steering/suspension over the hudson design, mainly because it has many more years of development. You can't compare technologies from a 20 to 30 year spread, no matter how hard you try.

Was the hudson steering/suspension superior in it's day? Absolutely. If it was so great, how come they are not in business still? They made great cars, the design was great, but they couldn't keep up with the times, the demands of the buying public, and had management that was out of touch.

Seems Oldsmobile survived the era well, but in the end, they fell victim to poor management, and a lost market, where they no longer had an identifiable customer base.

I'm going to ask that you guys take it easy. Some of you are just perpetuating the whole thing once again. Give the guy a break.

Oh, one last thing, was the hudson up to 220 hp by 54? at least the 7x? Were they at 170 in 52 with twin H? anyone know the right number and year?

hudsonkid

54 HSWH wrote:

Let's make it fair, both 52 cars, a Super 88 Olds w/4 bbl, any 52 Hud with Twin-H (must remain as it is a Super STOCK class; blame NHRA not me)

We use NHRA Super Stock rules, headers, .060" max over bore, posi with any gear ratio, both std or both automatic; just follow the rules.

i.e., NO CONTEST; it can NEVER be, rationally

MOTIVATION: do this; go to the NHRA annual Reunion in Bowling Green and watch the Olds' cars drag race, June 13-15, 2008. Do this before you ever consider such a OLDS-HUD match race. Find as many Hudson racers as you can muster and pair them off with the Olds' cars, and see what happens.

SIMPLE TEST, the proof is in the pudding.

I still think that two cars, an olds and a hudson of the same year, would be pretty equal. Hudsondad's wasp runs real good, and I've driven oldsmobiles of the 50's, not much difference. I'd like to think the olds has it sewn up, but stock for stock, it would be so ever close.

HUDSON HORSEPOWER RATINGS

http://www.classiccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=24694

The Horsepower ratings are from a 1952 Hudson factory shop manual and are actual:

232 = 112 at 4200 RPM

262 = 123 at 4000 RPM

308 = 145 at 3800 RPM VS. 160 for the lighter OLDS-NO drag race CONTEST

254 = 128 at 4200 RPM

Note: the 1954-1956 308's were rated at 165 to 175 at 3800 RPM

COMPARE: 52 Hudson (308) , 52 OLDS (303) , 2006 Escalade 6.0L, LQ9 (364)

.......................145hp....................160hp....................345hp............................

...................................................................................380'-#s..........................

NOTE; the Escalade has lighter aluminum heads vs. cast iron, and the transmission is aluminum VS. cast iron (Hydra-matic), and the Mustang suspension is much lighter to boot (more power such as 137% more with the lighter Escalade, and who knows what the savings will be in weight reduction). The combination has to make the Wasp "Super" in the handling and performance departments.

364 / 308 => i.e., with only an increase of 18% in cu in, the GM LQ9 develops 138% more horse power in it's stock/factory condition. 54 years does make a positive difference, hands down we Americans are making great progress in mechanical efficiency.

I am not expecting you to change your feelings OR your car; I simply am providing "food for thought".

MikeWA

I think the most fun I have had in my Hudson was going up a twisty turny road over the coast range on my way to Jim Harmon's place in Banks, Oregon, for a chapter meet. I was layin' into the '48 coupe as hard as I could going up, and I met a procession of Mini-Coopers doing the same thing coming down. Many grins and high 5's from the Cooper crew. It may not be as fast as an LS-1, and maybe the front end isn't as good as a Mustang, but its good enough for me. If I wanted a new Escalade, I'd buy one. To each his own.

I guess where I'm coming from is where does it ever end? I could mold a fibreglass body the shape of a Hudson coupe and put it on one of John Force's funny cars and you would all be beat. What's the point of it all?

We need to agree to enjoy our cars the way WE want them and let it alone.

Baiting people into an argument is the sign of a bully with nothing else to do or a very low self esteem which is much the same. You see people like that occasionally in all walks of life and the best thing to do is ignore them.

I bit this time but it won't happen again. Its just too bad this kind of sh#$%^t goes on in a forum .

Harry Hill

Jim;

the forum is where this is supposed to happen, a free exchange of ideas and opinions. I think as long as cars have been built someone has been trying to improve on what they have. Maybe it's just fog lights or maybe it's a completely different front end or engine, it doesn't matter because once the car is changed it is no longer original. I like my car pretty original and it's fine for driving back and forth to work but I'll like it better with radials and front disk brakes would be nice, then some Clifford headers going into twin exhaust with a nice rumble, see what I mean, we all have a different idea on what makes our car ours. Nothing I do will make my 55 a road race car but I could with enough money make it look like a road racer, and make it handle a lot better than it does. I would probably have to scrap all the Nash stuff underneath.

Harry

I agree Harry and we all do mods to our cars to make them more driveable for the street to some extent. But where I'm coming from is I look at this forum as a place to learn more about my car and how to keep it running and discuss the merits of how great they are.

Then along comes a discussion about how much better a race modified car is or how great an Oldsmobile is.

Who cares? If I want a race car I'll build one and race it I don't need to bait people into arguing about how great it is. I'll race it and show how great it is.

As far as modifying a car the mods are endless, again...there is no point in saying how MY mods are better than yours. Thats as bad as comparing at a urinal. We all have equipment and it all works.

I guess I'm getting tired of listening ( or reading) the rants of small minded people who obviously have more money and time than brains.

Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, I think my frustration is having to pick through the topics to see if its Bull#$t or a real discussion worth reading.

Jimalberta wrote:

Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, I think my frustration is having to pick through the topics to see if its Bull#$t or a real discussion worth reading.

SIMPLE SOLUTION for a SIMPLE MIND, I'm putting you on iggy

How do I put someone on IGNORE (1st time 4 me)?

there's a REAL solution,,,,you just made my point for me...thank you

Jon B

Okay, so now everyone has had their say, expressed their opinion, had their "rants", and pushed the ignore button.... could we please get back on topic?

half baked

ive driven everything from old falcons to semi trailers and back to 5 series BMW's, i put my hudson up with the BMW in the handling stakes. i really do like it that much, its like an old falcon that you can go a heck of a lot faster in! (im well used to old falcons 99% of my driving has been done in them) its not so likely to wag the tail coming hard out of fast downhill turns, tip it in, once the weight has transferred over to the outside tyres it will just hold its line. (they like a little bit of the "scandinavian flick" to settle into the turn)

all that had been done is a whole lot of lowering and some radials.

Sarah Young

SuperDave wrote:

WOW Got the hair on my arms standing up.. What a SOUND!

Let me tell you what Doc Hudson sounds like as the engine cranks and he races on the dirt track in Cars through BOSE surround...

Yes, my kids know why I join them to watch that movie ( as my foot presses down on a gas pedal that isn't there)!

`Hudsonator

I've seen video clips of Ivan's Hornet, its just as flat around the curves as the oatmeal imposter. I'm sure Ivan's front end is original with some tweakage.

I don't care what argument is made, A Hudson without its flathead six - is like a steer. It may be bigger and gain faster, but still has no balls.

It seems to me that Hudson 6 cylinder powered cars were winning their classes in NHRA competition against early muscle cars. I think Jack Clifford may even have a record or two? According to the old '64-'65 Hot Rod articles I have, they weren't even running larger 7x valves.

I can't believe I even responded to this.

Mark

super651

Well said Mark,you just Did. Pal Rudy.

Hudsonly to all Rudy

`Hudsonator wrote:

I've seen video clips of Ivan's Hornet, its just as flat around the curves as the oatmeal imposter. I'm sure Ivan's front end is original with some tweakage.

I don't care what argument is made, A Hudson without its flathead six - is like a steer. It may be bigger and gain faster, but still has no balls.

It seems to me that Hudson 6 cylinder powered cars were winning their classes in NHRA competition against early muscle cars. I think Jack Clifford may even have a record or two? According to the old '64-'65 Hot Rod articles I have, they weren't even running larger 7x valves.

I can't believe I even responded to this.

Mark

Mark, you are not digesting clearly:

NHRA Stock is NOT NHRA SUPER Stock,

a huge difference when you do, especially when you "soup" up a V8 vs. an in-line six (flathead), as you very well know. Have you ever weighed a 6-cyl crankshaft vs. a V8? ....think about rotating mass.

Do you know the factory stock torque specs of a factory stock 52 Hudson with Twin-H? (not 7X, a race engine that could not run in NHRA Super stock)? ___

As far as what you wrote about "b@lls", I believe you have stepped over the professional line, and are embarassing yourself at the expense of all readers herein, INCLUDING the ladies around the WORLD. I am disappointed in your behavior.

maasfh

Somebody send this guy some cilasis to relieve the pressure in his brain and send it to another part of the anatomy-- hopefully he will feel better:however, if it lasts more than four hours see a doctor.

Harry Hill

I think your both talking apples and oranges, Mark is talking about stock car racing and John is talking about drag racing. If we're talking about drag racing I don't know squat about stock vs SS, not that I know anymore about road racing or going in circles. I love that car in the video, don't car that it's not all Hudson, I also love watching Smokey Yanuck or Marshall Teague racing the beach and wish they had better audio so I could hear what those cars sounded like.

I think Mark made a good point addressed to the purists and straight Hudson guys, well put if a little descriptive. Nothing offensive though.

Harry

maasfh wrote:

Somebody send this guy some cilasis to relieve the pressure in his brain and send it to another part of the anatomy-- hopefully he will feel better:however, if it lasts more than four hours see a doctor.

Randy, U & son R on ignore, immediately; both of you have my phone # in case you want to contact me personally.

BTW, it is Cealice, NOT "cilasis";

might be easier for you to remember => see Alice (not many)

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe!!!

ClassicCar

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

We'd love to hear from you! info@classiccar.com