Stepdown Straight 8's Vs 6's

[Deleted User]

I'd like to ask those who are knowledgeable about the differences between the 8's and the 6's (besides the obvious). I know the 6's had much more hotrod or power potential and slight cubic inch difference- but what other observations, facts and opinions (could be trouble) can be brought forward? Niels

Jon B

Well, for one thing the eight is a much older engine (dates from the early 1930's) and uses splash lubrication and babbited rod bearings, for example. These are very fine and smooth running engines, but were somewhat antique by the time they were phased out in 1952.

Unknown

They sound good too and they will run with the best of them when done right. Very smooth. I have had 308's 262's, 232's and 212" engines and perfer the 8 in my Terraplane anytime. Accually the mains in a 8 are somewhat inserted. Hudson experimented with a pressurized 8, Bernie Seigfried wrote about it years ago.

[Deleted User]

Hi - I am doing a valve job on a 308 and may need new valves. I have used stainless steel ex. valves in 2 engs. in the past few years (a 262 & a 308) with no problems. I have heard a few stories lately of s. s. valves sticking in the guides. Does any one have any ideas about this. Walt? Thanks. Norm :rolleyes:

SuperDave

Having driven a 49 8 for several years, I can honestly say that in comparison to the 308's ,the 308's sounded like the rods were loose! The eight cruises comfortably at 70 MPH with OD. I could balance a new nickle on the front fender of mine while it was idleing. Bet you won't do that with a six! Never won any drag races, but got consistant 18 MPG at 65. It's design was outdated, but still a solid engine. I don't recall ever hearing about bearing problems with them. I think the only complaint might have been noisey valves when the followers got flat spots.. Takes a LOT of miles to do that too!

Geoff

The 8's were actually an evolvement from the original early 1924 Essex 6 cylinder motor. Hudson produced a fabulous Hudson Super Six motor up to 1929, of 288cubic inches, but this was originally designed in 1916, and was dated and expensive to make, so in 1930, they added two cylinders to the Essex concept and called it the Hudson 8. It started out as a rather underpowered 80 h.p. design, but finished up with 128 h.p. in it's final form. As mentioned, it was dated in design and build, but was still an excellent engine in every respect from the aspects of quietness, performance, and economy. In my opinion the best "all-round" engine Hudson ever built. By todays standards it is expensive to rebuild, as there are no easily replaceable bearing shells, and main bearings have to line-bored if they are re-metalled. Also very limited space between the cylinders precludes boring out over .040". An interesting sideline - when Hudson introduced their new Step-down cars in 1948 with it's brand new concept motor of 262 cubic inches, they boasted of it's power output of 122 b.h.p. Whereas the old eight, with 8 cubic inches less, produced 128 b.h.p.! If you want sheer brute strength and performance, the 308 is the way to go, but for refinement, quietness and economy, you can't beat an 8.

Geoff.

terraplane8

Reid Railton who was a consultant involved with the '33-'39 Railtons which used the Hudson Eight engine, has been quoted as saying that he was "tremendously impressed by the qualities of the engine" and he was quoted in Hudson & Terraplane News as saying that "so far as I know there is no engine in the world that can match it". So at that time in the mid-'30's it was thought of as superior to any other 6 cylinder or 8 cylinder engine. Its light weight of 400lbs for its output was one of the qualities the engine possessed and also its smoothness. The latter quality greatly impressed Rolls-Royce who studied the engine in 1933 when they bought their very own Terraplane Eight to study. They were amazed at its smoothness and lack of torsional periods with their Chief Engineer stating that the engine was the most outstanding straight eight he had ever driven.

Unknown

Geoff C., N.Z. wrote:

The 8's were actually an evolvement from the original early 1924 Essex 6 cylinder motor. Hudson produced a fabulous Hudson Super Six motor up to 1929, of 288cubic inches, but this was originally designed in 1916, and was dated and expensive to make, so in 1930, they added two cylinders to the Essex concept and called it the Hudson 8. It started out as a rather underpowered 80 h.p. design, but finished up with 128 h.p. in it's final form. As mentioned, it was dated in design and build, but was still an excellent engine in every respect from the aspects of quietness, performance, and economy. In my opinion the best "all-round" engine Hudson ever built. By todays standards it is expensive to rebuild, as there are no easily replaceable bearing shells, and main bearings have to line-bored if they are re-metalled. Also very limited space between the cylinders precludes boring out over .040". An interesting sideline - when Hudson introduced their new Step-down cars in 1948 with it's brand new concept motor of 262 cubic inches, they boasted of it's power output of 122 b.h.p. Whereas the old eight, with 8 cubic inches less, produced 128 b.h.p.! If you want sheer brute strength and performance, the 308 is the way to go, but for refinement, quietness and economy, you can't beat an 8.

Geoff.

Actually

---

the 1916 Hudson Super Six engine was designed a couple years before 1916 - and put into production in the 1914-1916 Hudson Six-40; Hudson engineers designed it, Continental built it. From that design came the Super Six with the same bore and stroke, but with the counterbalanced crankshaft.



The eights, like most Hudson engines, were almost bulletproof. About the only time Hudson messed up was with the first Essex 6 cylinders. They had a distressing tendency to spread scrap metal all over the place. One of the reasons was it was built along European lines; ie, small bore, long stroke. Took a couple years of replacing engines for owners, but they finally got it figured out and got their act together.



As for the later sixes and the end of the eight cylinder run, the 232, 262 and 308 engines were a marvel. They were bullet proof - especially the 308. There were a lot of 308 powered Hudsons that were raced "out-of-the-box" in the early 50's on local dirt tracks - I raced against them and they were awesome. Of course the ones used on the NASCAR tracks were not strickly stock.



That all said this was a case where the 8 was marginally better than the 6 - which could be debated all night and all that would be accomplished would be to lose a lot of sleep. I also raced against Hudson 8's back then, and the biggest problem they had with the Hudson coupes was the weight of the engine - would tend to pull the car straight in the turns. Not good. I know at a few tracks Hudson 8 coupes were famous for "running the walls" - drivers would reinforce the right side and just run the car against the wall in the turns. Little things you could get away with on non-NASCAR tracks.



Hudsonly,

Alex B

terraplane8

Alex, do you know the respective weights of the 308 and the straight eight engines? I was under the impression that the 308 was much heavier than the eight. It certainly looks massively heavy.