Find A Classic Car
Thousands of listings here >>
sell your classic car
FREE to list - Online until sold

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

In this Discussion

Hugging the Curves -- Unexpurgated Version
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    54 HSWH wrote:
    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.



    John, I have made effort to be impartial, and at the same time stick up for your right to have your opinion and views on here, because for me, I feel someone needs to do that for another, when the rest of the group doesn't.



    But I think this singular statement you made is too far out of line. If you are speaking of embarrassing yourself, at the expense of readers, stepping over a professional line, and you speak of the ladies of the world, just for someone mentioning the word "balls" let me make one statement, and think about it, before you reply....



    check out your avatar....



    do you think that everyone here finds that acceptable? do you think that the "ladies" here find that acceptable? do you think that the folks here that surf the forum maybe at work on their breaks, enjoy having that pop on their screen? how professional do you think that looks?



    QUite honestly, I don't mind it, but I realize that because what I find acceptable or not, others may not agree. I'm starting to find it harder and harder to find justification to even chime in to tell the group to relax, especially when you go and make statements like the above, and essentially are not practicing what you preach.



    John, this is a turning point, I'm embarrassed that you would even suggest such an argument. :(
  • Posts: 0
    Hudsonkid, I suspect that you are getting personal, and that you are getting off topic; the Avatar is NOT "ON TOPIC".



    My Avatar is open to my discretion; are you now saying that YOU are setting the guidelines for Avatar? If so, why don't you open an Avatar discussion and conduct a "poll" in the Discussion area, to determine who thinks I am demeaning or insulting women OR how many actually ENJOY it?



    Ask Jon if I am right or wrong, OK?



    Keep it up & you go on IGNORE too!
  • maasfh
    Posts: 318Gold Member
    Sorry John,



    It is actually spelled Cialice. I'm surprise you didn't spell check first--could have called you for the correction; however, would not waste my money on a call when I can correct you here.

    Randy
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    54 HSWH wrote:
    Hudsonkid, I suspect that you are getting personal, and that you are getting off topic; the Avatar is NOT "ON TOPIC".



    My Avatar is open to my discretion; are you now saying that YOU are setting the guidelines for Avatar? If so, why don't you open an Avatar discussion and conduct a "poll" in the Discussion area, to determine who thinks I am demeaning or insulting women OR how many actually ENJOY it?



    Ask Jon if I am right or wrong, OK?



    Keep it up & you go on IGNORE too!



    John, neither is a discussion on Cialis, or the spelling of it, or if you think about it, specific to this thread, Super stock, oldsmobiles, or anything else other than the video clip of the hudson, going thru the curves. If you want to get into a debate of on or off topic, I would think that you were the first to drop off topic in this thread. Check back at the beginning.



    Further, I just wanted to point out to you, how hypocritical your reply to the balls comment was, when in fact every time you post, it shows a certain degree of disrespect for the same groups you are so worried about other offending. Again, see avatar. I doubt that you will see the point I am tying to make.



    If you feel the need to put me on your ignore list, please do so. It does not bother me one bit. I think that if you don't like when I point out inconsistencies with your posts, and it drives you to putting me on your ignore list, then it just shows how far escaped from reality you may actually be.



    I don't see a specific guideline for avatars, maybe Jon can clear it up for me, because if he cannot, mine will be changed shortly. You won't like it. Further, I will make the avatar available to everyone. I think the avatar guidelines fall under the same general guidelines as posts and attachments, but I guess we need to push the limit to see where it falls.



    I honestly enjoy the progress reports that are made on your car, and further, I like the degree of quality you are building the car at. What I don't like is when the only basis of your reply, to another member, is so far from target, with you being a far bigger offender, with your avatar, than anyone else was with one line in a post.
  • Posts: 0
    hudsonkid, on IGNORE;



    what you must understand is that I have a right to respond to something that is OFF TOPIC (initiated by someone else), and then hit the IGNORE, or do U understand that?



    Adios



    PS: do your polls & good luck
  • maasfh
    Posts: 318Gold Member
    Hopefully when enough of us get on the "ignore list" he will go away
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    here you go 54 HSWH...



    vote away everyone....





    and something for you, 54 HSWH

    pacifier.jpg
  • `Hudsonator`Hudsonator
    Posts: 858Platinum Member
    Actually, I was talking about drag racing. Hudson did well in stock classes during the mid sixties when the muscle car era was just beginning to roll. The fact it did well in stock classes against the big 3's factory attempts to run a bit better than stock, is a testament to Hudson's tenacity. John also made my point by mentioning that 7x Hudsons were not allowed, so the rule makers stacked the deck against the Hudson in stock classes. So, the old factory option warrior couldn't compete with obvious newer factory offerings in 64-65 that were no different than the Hudson 7x option offered in its own time. Having a 10 year old Hudson stomp your new muscle car isn't good for sales and sponsorship. It happened, on the dragstrip, many years after all other flatheads and early V8's had faded from the winner's rosters.



    Those facts are what first turned me to Hudson as a vintage powerhouse. I learned of its NASCAR heritage long after reading old Hot Rod articles about the Hudson while in college back in the 80's. Strangely enough, there were articles about Hudson engines being used successfully in outlaw round track racers about the same time, mid 60's. I didn't read any articles about using Olds Rocket 88's during the same time period.



    A stock Olds Rocket couldn't compete in its own time, nor in 64-65 where we have Hudson stock victories documented very well on the dragstrip - and couldn't now.



    I've never seen a torque number for a Hudson. Either published in its time or since. The only torque numbers, as measured on a dyno, I was ever given was by Jack Clifford himself over the phone in '99 and were not written down at the time. I remember that a stock 308 had in excess of 300 ft/lbs at 2500 rpm and he was shooting for over 500, but was falling short in the 480's range at just over 3200 for a 5" stroker. I have no concrete numbers, but hope to have some numbers for myself someday while watching my own engine create them. Don't hold your breath, the farm economy is going to have to improve in my sector before I can get that finished.



    I'm not foolish enough to claim a Hudson flathead six to be the ultimate engine for racing, its not. However, for a daily driven, dependable road engine capable a hanging with a modern engine built for the same purpose - you'll not get embarassed, particularly in a hill climbing run. In fact, within its "roadable" rpm range between idle and 3200 rpm - I'm astonished at what it will do compared to modern engines. I have no use for a trailer queen or any vehicle you have to "baby" around, a mildly built Hudson fits my criteria just fine with no "kid gloves" required.



    As for my professionalism, I'm a professional farmer. Nothing wrong with what I said at all. Steers are for selling, but bulls are kept for a special purpose. Bulls grow a little slower, but are ultimately happier and live much longer. Kinda like my '49 coupe, all the right parts are still intact and hopefully looking for many more years.



    Mark
    Gimme a Hudson, with that "Instant Action"
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    Don't worry Mark, I wasn't offended. I'm more offended by his argument, and tactics, and quite honestly, his avatar. if you are to, feel free to sound off....



    vote on the issues!
  • Posts: 0
    The stock Hudson six-cylinder engine produced 145 horsepower. After Marshall Teague and Hudson engineer Vince Piggins were done with it, the engine had been modified to include a bigger bore, valves, modified combustion chambers, split dual exhausts, high performance cam, high compression head, and 'Twin H-Power' carburetors and manifold. The result was an increase in horsepower by 75 and over 275 foot-pounds of torque. To accommodate this increase in power, the suspension, brakes and axle where beefed up and reinforced. The low center of gravity, superb handling, and potent engine left the competition in the dust.
  • Posts: 0
    Stock Hudson TORQUE & HORSEPOWER RATINGS VS. stock Olds 303, Hudson 7X & 06 LS1 Chevy/Caddy (364)



    SOURCE is Wiki: The 303 was available from 1949 through 1953. 1949 through 1951 "88" 303's came with a 2-barrel carburetor for 135 hp (100 kW) and 253 ft·lbf (343 N·m). 1952 88 and Super 88 V8s used a 4-barrel carb for 160 hp (119 kW) and 265 ft·lbf (359 N·m)



    SOURCE: The stock Hudson six-cylinder engine produced 145 horsepower. After Marshall Teague and Hudson engineer Vince Piggins were done with it, the engine had been modified to include a bigger bore, valves, modified combustion chambers, split dual exhausts, high performance cam, high compression head, and 'Twin H-Power' carburetors and manifold. The result was an increase in horsepower by 75 and over 275 foot-pounds of torque. To accommodate this increase in power, the suspension, brakes and axle where beefed up and reinforced. The low center of gravity, superb handling, and potent engine left the competition in the dust, from: http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z11423/Hudson_Hornet%20Twin%20H-Power/default.aspx



    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

    254 = 128 at 4200 RPM

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



    52 Hudson, 52 OLDS (303) , 52 Hudson 7X...., 2006 Escalade 6.0L, LQ9 (364)



    .....145hp.........160hp.............. .220hp......................345hp......



    ......?................265ft-lbf.............275ft-lbf...................380ft-lbf.......



    NOTE, even after the Hudson race engine work was done, it only had torque of 275 v. 265 for the stock Olds, PLUS it IS 100 ft-lbf below a stock 06 LS1; in drag racing it is the TORQUE that is the ruler vs. horse power for sure.



    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 (137% MORE HORSEPOWER such as more with the lighter Escalade engine and 38% MORE TORQUE than the 7X, PLUS who knows what the savings advantage 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 HORSEPOWER + 38% MORE TORQUE v. 7X. Yes, 44 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 (your business); I simply am providing "food for thought"; stop getting personal. If you want argue with the numbers-it's the numbers that tick U off-not me. Get real, Lucille!
  • Dave53-7C
    Posts: 2,523Platinum Member
    Has anyone see that episode of the Simpsons where the giant statues in town came to life and began destroying everything? What were the townsfolk told to do to get the statues to stop?
  • Posts: 0
    THE TRUTH comes out thanks to 51hornetA:



    "Engine Edelbrock crate 350 CID engine edelbrock performer rpm intake, 600 cfm edelbrock carb, K&N filter.



    Th350 trans.



    Front suspension: The front clip of this car is fiberglass the suspension is off a camaro.



    Rear end is narrowed Ford 9inch.



    Brakes: Wilwood setup 6 piston calipers, four wheel discs with 3 master cylinders. Two for up front and single for back.....



    When this amount of mods has been done you are not discussing Hudson Vs the others you are discussing engineering of components as the Studebaker that won had almost the same setup and most of that car was fiberglass as well. Are they actually Hudson and Studebaker well they are in the same way a Chevy Malibu Nascar is like a Chevy Malibu you find on a dealers lot."



    I knew the front suspension, sound, brakes, engine, tranny, differential was not HUDSON. That car is a REAL road race car. I love the Hudson-look, but it was the Studebaker's aerodynamics that yielded the win in the end.



    I noticed that there were at least a half dozen Stude's racing too, another advantage.



    For those of you who THOUGHT the Hudson had an original suspension and that you didn't see it "roll", you now know why it didn't roll, PLUS how wrong one can be when one assumes certain things in life.



    No original car from the 50's can go around corners and be stable like those cars did without heavy duty brake & suspension modifications. They looked cool.
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    Dave53-7C wrote:
    Has anyone see that episode of the Simpsons where the giant statues in town came to life and began destroying everything? What were the townsfolk told to do to get the statues to stop?



    I don't remember that one, but I do remember the one where Bart cuts the head off the statue... ;)



    And remember the Happy Days where Fonzie jumps the shark?....



    well, this thread has jumped the shark. I think I know more BS data now, about specific Olds, Hudson, and Escalade motors, than I ever care to. :rolleyes:



    Just because one motor makes X power on a dyno, doesn't mean they all do. Each engine is different. some make more power, some make less.
  • Dave53-7C
    Posts: 2,523Platinum Member
    hudsonkid wrote:
    I don't remember that one, but I do remember the one where Bart cuts the head off the statue... ;)



    And remember the Happy Days where Fonzie jumps the shark?....



    well, this thread has jumped the shark. I think I know more BS data now, about specific Olds, Hudson, and Escalade motors, than I ever care to. :rolleyes:



    Just because one motor makes X power on a dyno, doesn't mean they all do. Each engine is different. some make more power, some make less.



    To stop the raging statues, the townsfolk were told, "just don't look, just don't look." In other words, ignore them and they'll stop. ;)
  • nash4088
    Posts: 50Senior Contributor
    Did you guys ever notice that Homer's car body rolls as he makes the curve while digging the uranium out from his shirt? I guess that there was some real discussions about which front suspension was to be used in that cartoon car. Turns out Homer and Marge figured that there car was fine the way it was and had no real plans on racing it around too often. They were enjoying the car as is. Flanders too thought it would be a "sin" to change Homer's car around but Moe didn't see any harm in it.
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    But Homer had to have the fastest car in Springfield, and argued with everyone at Moe's about what powertrain would be the fastest. At the end of the day, no one in Springfield really cared because they figured out Homer's an idiot.
  • Posts: 0
    hudsonkid wrote:
    But Homer had to have the fastest car in Springfield, and argued with everyone at Moe's about what powertrain would be the fastest. At the end of the day, no one in Springfield really cared because they figured out Homer's an idiot.



    sounds like art imitating life - on the Hudson web page
  • Posts: 0
    stateline wrote:
    sounds like art imitating life - on the Hudson web page



    Stateline, that photo of DOC HUDSON is physical EVIDENCE of how the stock Hudson's would display dramatically their "body roll".



    Why, they even had to put an upper, concave curve in the front bumper so it wouldn't drag the ground on each side while in the tightest of curves on a road course.



    CASE CLOSED: the Hudson's need either a Mustang II front stub or a Camaro front stub to help keep the cars stable on the drag strip and the road courses. I couldn't have found more convincing evidence (THANK U) . If you don't see the body roll to the driver's side, put your bi-focals on.



    So, DOC HUDSON has a Ford 410 engine with huge "HUDSON" lettering on the valve covers (was that original?), PLUS an original Hudson front suspension?? How minimally bastardized can one Hudson get? It needs MORE state-of-the-art to make it truly drag/road worthy, and stable.



    YEAH, like a Mustang II, Stage II front suspension, like on John Williams' 54 Super Wasp and soon-to-be Super Jet street/strip drag car!! Yep, both cars will have it!! i.e., do it once and do it right (state-of-the-art).



    I LUV IT!!!
  • nash4088
    Posts: 50Senior Contributor
    You DO NOT need (I repeatNEED) a Mustang 2 front end for drag racing . Besides a huge list of others didn't guys continue to use a Willys axle set up in Most of the GAS class cars? Those cars were running in the 10's I believe. You want a Mustang 2 front end , put it in , you don't than don't. it all boils down to your intentions. If you want to try an achieve remakable results with what was in the car to start with than great. If you want to change it all around than I believe there are forums much better suited to this type is discussion. true?
  • Tom Drew
    Posts: 133Expert Adviser
    54 HSWH, are you really saying that you believe that an animated cartoon image constitutes "physical evidence" of how an actual stepdown corners? Please explain.



    Tom
  • Posts: 0
    Holy Cow! Seems like some one is a few fries short of a happy meal here!!
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    edited, to get things moving on, in a progressive direction.
  • hudsondad
    Posts: 491Platinum Member
    Wow, I missed this thread for awhile, but I have a serious question for 54HSWH.



    You've caught my interest about the Olds Drags in Ky in June. Being an early Olds V8 guy hoarding six 50-56 88's, I wasn't aware the Olds only drag races. Are these early Olds or All Oldses? Is this an annual event?



    The "which is fastest" argument about Olds and Hudson has been going on for over 50 years. I appreciate them both.
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    hudsondad wrote:
    Wow, I missed this thread for awhile, but I have a serious question for 54HSWH.



    You've caught my interest about the Olds Drags in Ky in June. Being an early Olds V8 guy hoarding six 50-56 88's, I wasn't aware the Olds only drag races. Are these early Olds or All Oldses? Is this an annual event?



    The "which is fastest" argument about Olds and Hudson has been going on for over 50 years. I appreciate them both.



    If you have not noticed, 54 HSWH, does not appear to be with us anymore. It further appears he was banned. I don't know if it is temporarily, or permanent, but nonetheless, his avatar caption reads as such. I don't know what went down, but let us respect the decision made, and move on.



    If nothing else, he was thinking progressively towards the hobby, and keeping another one on the road. Many of us may not have agreed with him, but I will still stand up for his ideas, and pursuit of top quality workmanship.



    And hudsondad, I think you got a few more than 6 early olds engines, hoarding sure, sandbagging may be a better word. Maybe you should build a stock 53 olds 88 and look for a stock 53 hornet that's up for the challenge...
  • hudsondad
    Posts: 491Platinum Member
    Or maybe just build one of each that we already have. But than I'd have to find someone to drive the hudson..................................
  • Dave53-7C
    Posts: 2,523Platinum Member
    hudsondad wrote:
    Or maybe just build one of each that we already have. But than I'd have to find someone to drive the hudson..................................



    Get the keys ready, I'll be right over! :D
  • hudsonkid
    Posts: 2,298Platinum Member
    I'll drive the hudson, if I don't win, i'll wreck hudsondad, trying. He would expect that.



    Someone ask him what happened we drag raced last time???



    hehe
  • hudsondad
    Posts: 491Platinum Member
    "Kid" Driving MY hudson? I don't know.....I'm getting several other offers.



    I don't think the Kid treated it real nice the last time I left hiim drive it!
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions
ClassicCar

Thousands of Classic Cars for Sale - Free to List.

Since 1996 we're been the place to go to for all things Classic Car. Classifieds, news, events, community and so much more. No clutter. No hassles. Just Classic Cars.

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

Copyright 2011-2013 Classic Car
All rights reserved.

We accept no responsibility for inaccuracies. All trademarks acknowledged.