Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions26,920
- Orphaned Marques
- ↳ Hudson20,986
- ↳ Street Rods798
- ↳ Off Topic556
- ↳ American Motors149
- ↳ Kaiser - Frazer70
- ↳ Nash71
- ↳ Packard163
- ↳ Studebaker121
- Classic American Cars
- ↳ Ford Motor Company959
- ↳ Chrysler Corporation478
- ↳ GM Corporation1,394
- ↳ Post War Chevrolets75
- ↳ Pontiac Forum119
- General
- ↳ All makes1,961
- ↳ Poll Discussions24
- Swapmeets & Events
- ↳ Events130
- ↳ Swapmeets108
- Hot Rod Corner
- ↳ Ford Rods90
- ↳ Lead Sleds67
- Special Interest Groups
- ↳ The Flathead Forum139
- European marques
- ↳ MG Car Company2
- ↳ Mercedes-Benz2
In this Discussion
- 1951hornethardtop September 2010
- 53jetman September 2010
- hudsontech September 2010
- MikeWA September 2010
- royer September 2010
- Steve E September 2010
56 Rambler
-
A friend is selling his 56 Rambler(super). It is in really nice condition(strong #3). What is different from a Nash based Rambler vs a Hudson, other than hubcaps( H or N) and the hood crest. The VINs seem to be the same D + six numbers ?
-
Engines are different - Hudson Wasp used the 202 and the Hornet used the 308. Nash used it's 195.6 engine.
Think there are some other differences - somebody will come up with them.
Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN -
Various differences in trim details- Some years had an "R" on the gas cap for the Ramblers, for instance. You'd just about have to find pictures of both corresponding models to compare. There was also a tendency toward the end of "mixing and matching" stuff depending on inventory of parts left over from the Hudson days. I've heard that they knew the Wasp would be anemic with the 202 engine, but darn it, they had a ton of them left over, and were determined to use them.
-
I don't think they thought the 202 would be anemic in the Wasp. The Nash Statesman used the same platform with a six making 20 less horsepower than the Hudson 202.
-
If I understand the original question above, the only difference in the 1956 Ramblers were the hood crest, and the fact that it would have been titled either as a Hudson or NASH. The Wasp & Hornet had nothing to do with the Rambler. Yes, the Wasp did use the Jet 202 engine, however, the Hudson Rambler used the 195.6 cube Nash engine. And as Matt mentioned above, the Wasp had 20 more HP than the Nash Statesman, and would run rings around the StatesmanJerry
email: HudsonJetman@mail.com
2nd Generation Hud-Nut
HET Tech Adviser on Hudson Jets 1953 & 1954
HET Registrar of all Hudson Jets -
That 202 was terrible in the 56 Wasp. I owned one and going to Front Royal I could only get 35 MPH going up the mountains. In fact a HET member drove up beside me in a 49 and ask if I was having trouble because I was going so slow.
-
If you think that the Wasp with a 202 was slow, you outta drive a Statesman with the 196, a SLUG among slugs! Especially with a Hydromatic!
-
Steve it was apretty car.green and white with a continental kit. Some women in mich. fell in love with it and is now the proud owner. I never drove a statesman. In those years most of the members dident even admit the 55-57s were even Hudsons. Ps this had a hydro too.
-
The Rambler with the 196 engine had decent performance due to its lighter weight, no barn burner, but decent even with a Hydro. When I was a kid, several of my friends folks bought these cars new & had pretty good luck with them. When they go to be about 10 yrs old with 80 to 100,000 mi on them, they started to come apart like a cheap suit! I worked as a mechanic for 10 yrs or so and never tore one of those engines down that didn't have a cracked head, the OHV version!
-
Steve E wrote:The Rambler with the 196 engine had decent performance due to its lighter weight, no barn burner, but decent even with a Hydro. When I was a kid, several of my friends folks bought these cars new & had pretty good luck with them. When they go to be about 10 yrs old with 80 to 100,000 mi on them, they started to come apart like a cheap suit! I worked as a mechanic for 10 yrs or so and never tore one of those engines down that didn't have a cracked head, the OHV version!
The 195 engine wasn't a bad power plant - but when they made it over to the OHV version, that was mistake. The OHV version was a piece of junk IMHO. However, it did lead to the 232 seven main bearing 6 that was virtually indestructable. I owned a number of 1964 thru 1969 American 440 station wagons with the 232 engine - I bought the cars with from 75,000 to 100,000 miles on the clock for $60 to $80. 4, 5 years later down the line the cars had 200,000 to 250,000 when I junked them. The drive train was going great, but the bodies were rusted out. I lived in Maine at the time.
In my opinion, and this is my opinion only, the three best 6 cylinder engines made were the old Chevy stove-bolt 6, the Chrysler slant-6 and I'd put the AMC 232 at the top of the list. Over the years I've had several of all 3 and none of the engines ever let me down.
Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN -
Amen, Alex!
