ClassicCar

josborne19

Hey guys I just bought a parts car for the 48 commodore I am trying to get back in shape , I went to look at it and it was on the trailer to go to the scrap yard ,I looked under it and saw it had overdrive unit and bought it for scrap yard price , got it to the shop and found it had twin h 308 ,alloy head . I don't know enough about the big 6 hudson yet to know if it is a 7x or not. I took it apart today to see if it was ruined or not ,the the car has been sitting in a fence row since early sixties . The engine was locked tight but 3 cans of penetrating oil and 5 hours of pure fun saw that it came apart with no major damage. The number stamped on the block is F1 3410 ,the cam 309742 , the head has super power dome , it also has hydrolic lifts . I am putting a few pics on here I hope they come up .
[attachment=12988]DSCI0604.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=12989]DSCI0606.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=12990]DSCI0594.JPG[/attachment]

schillaz

First thing I would do is measure a intake valve, if its a 7x it will have two inch valves.

here is a good read of my 7x:
(click here)

josborne19

It does have 2 inch intake valves and the exhaust is a little under 1.750 thanks.

chopperchuck

good score!

i would love to buy a parts car for my 49......

Ol racer

FYI
The Cam is a 7x 'Flat Top' Camshaft; The Twin H appears to be a '55 or '56.The Hyd lifters point to those two yrs too. Even though the motor will need freshened, you made a good purchase.

josborne19

I will put up some more pics once I get it all clean . Thanks for the info . I am thrilled about it , looks like I used up all my good luck for the year before Feb.

1951hornethardtop

save the fog lights and window visors. Both are hard to come by, especially the fog lights. Hyd. lifters were only in 56 hornets. Probably one of those 56 grate motors you could buy through the catolog from a place like JC Wittney

onerare39

What a great find, and at a bargain price. The overdrive unit looks like it came out of a fossil bed.

John Forkner

Hudson308

Nice to know there are still treasures ready to be discovered in those wind rows!

josborne19

Been a mechanic 25 years and still make dumb mistakes, this 308 is not a 7 x . I was to lazy to walk to the back of the shop to get my dial indicator and used an old stanly that was on the work bench where I was working on the engine and read inside instead of outside. These pic. shows how this can happen when you are in a hurry and excited. I am dissapointed in myself for not taking my time and checking more closely , I still have a 308 twin h that is buildable and transmission with overdrive that will go in my 48 commodore plus a lot of usable parts. Sorry about my mistake guys didn't mean to lie. Thanks for all the info I am sure I will need more.

Ol racer

FYI
Thats allright....You have a 308 to build and that alone is great start. Plus a twin H and the Cam number you mentioned is a Flat Top 7x cam...

The actual Factory 7x motors were used up many yrs ago, but I believe a few blocks remain scattered among members. A comforting thought to consider todays 'modern built 7x Motors' with research & parts available from Randy Maas 21st Century are by far superior to the original 7x.....

Tallent R

Plus you said it had hydrolic lifters, thats a big plus .
Roger

ivanz62

Guts, you need to remember that the 56 hydraulic lifter cams were ground on leftover flat top 7X 309742 castings. The casting number does not tell you what cam you have in your hand! It could be a flat top, a hydraulic only, or the 55 Hash cam which is the same as the 306344 from a 53 or 54.

dougson

Assuming the engine is an unaltered '56, the cam is the "redesigned" cam based on the flat top profile. Mine is .366 lift, 260 deg., your's is likely the same. Fairly healthy cam for the big six. The '56 was all but a 7X. Lacked only the big valves. Had many improvements over the original 7X though.

Tallent R

While we are on the subject of post merger engines. I read or heard somewhere that after the merger sometime they stoped using the extra hard engine block steel. High nickle /chrome content ? or whatever the secret mix was. Anyone else hear that same thing?
Roger

Lee ODell

Tallent R wrote:

While we are on the subject of post merger engines. I read or heard somewhere that after the merger sometime they stoped using the extra hard engine block steel. High nickle /chrome content ? or whatever the secret mix was. Anyone else hear that same thing?
Roger

True!
Lee O'Dell

dougson

Tallent R wrote:

While we are on the subject of post merger engines. I read or heard somewhere that after the merger sometime they stoped using the extra hard engine block steel. High nickle /chrome content ? or whatever the secret mix was. Anyone else hear that same thing?
Roger

Lots of comment on this one earlier posts, arguements both ways. I feel confident that the '55-'56 blocks were as hard as any. Remember, by early '54 Hudsons and their engines were already being built by AMC.

Tallent R

Its just one of those things you hear, so was thinking someone may know for sure. Maybe one of our members who rebuild them an bore them out would know?
Roger

Tallent R

Of course Lee Odell seems quite sure they stayed the same . . .

Lee ODell

Tallent R wrote:

Of course Lee Odell seems quite sure they stayed the same . . .

YEP!!!

Have a good day.
Lee O'Dell

walts garage-53 · walts garage-53 January 2012 Posts: 1,468Platinum Member

Walt here; I said it before and will say it again. The first run for 1955 Hornets had nickle blocks, but towards the end they were soft casting. All 56 blocks are soft, build the engine and don't install harden valve seats and drive on long trips with valves set to Hudson specs and you will have burnt valves and ruin seats. Remember, back in those days we had LEAD in our gas. And we still had to do valve jobs. Walt.

Lee ODell

At one time I believed the 56 engines were hard because earlier Hudson engines were hard and my AMC 390 engine has hard block. Different era. Thanks for the information Walt. I made corrections to my earlier posts.

I hope my April 55 engine is early enough Walt.

Have a good eventing.
Lee O'Dell

Tallent R

Thanks Walt , that sounds like what I had heard . . . Makes some sense that with the Nash folks being around things like that would be going on,
Roger

walts garage-53 · walts garage-53 January 2012 Posts: 1,468Platinum Member

They put 308 engines in all 55's and to adjust the valves you had to lower engine from chassis and that was a job. I know because I sold them. When 56's came out with Hydraulic lifters, boy were we happy. Not for long as they started to make noise and we had to remove lifters and cam and install solids back into them. That was a major job in that Nash body. Walt.

Tallent R

Yes I knew the reason for the lifters being made hydrolic was a maintainance issue. Just as you say in the Nash body there was no way to work on them,
Roger

dougson

My '56 was rebuilt by one of the most highly regarded builders in the area, has rebuilt motors from the '20s to the '90s, knows the "soft ones" from the "hard ones" and assures me that blocks built in the fifties were over-built for strength/hardness. He has no problems with non-hardened seats, has never had a problem with 50s era GM/Ford/Mopar etc blocks using unleaded gas. Actually regards hardened inserts a bad idea because they weaken the area around the valve because of the removal of so much original metal. He said "don't listen to the nay-sayers". I will add that the '55-'56 blocks had much improved distribution of coolant, which would further alleviate the heat issue. That plus the better distribution of fuel using Twin-H would decrease the lean/heat problem for the most distant valves. Finally, modern lubricants and coolant additives are vastly superior to the stuff used in the fifties and heat control in an early engine has to be better.

ClassicCar

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

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