Hudson Engine Weight

Lee ODell

I've been wondering how much a Hudson Engine Weighs. I recently acquired a 1953 book titled True's Automobile Yearbook, Number 2. There is a chart that list 31 car engines for the year of 1953. Out of 31 engines there are 6 engines heavier than the Hudson engine.

I'm only going to show the two Hudson engines listed. The 262 and 308.

262-127 HP at 700 pounds
308-145 HP at 650 pounds (Was it weighed with Aluminum Head? That's my quess)

Now I know why I had to stand on the back of the cherry picker to lift my engine.

Lee

essexcoupe3131

it was all the accessories that you applied to the engine
air con etc lol

hudsontech

Lets see - a 308 is basically a bored out 262. Could the boring actually save that much weight?? Interesting thought!!

Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN

RL Chilton

Lee-

First thought was bored out, but I don't think the difference would equate to 50 lbs. Also, those weights are rounded to the nearest (?), something, maybe nearest 10 lbs. A fully loaded 308 is every bit of 700 lbs. Or more accurately, a BLUE TON!! I built a special engine stand for one of my 308's, and needless to say, it's not just the weight, but the length that made me swear a lot when loading up my custom made engine stand: The stand bent and sagged down to the ground and was NOT going to hold up the engine. I've got to make a pivoting fore-mount that runs to the ground to hold up the front of the engine. That chromium alloy is dense and HEAVY!!

Out of curiosity, what engines out-weighed the Hudsons?

Park_W

The Chrysler hemi of the era outweighed the Hudson engines (and all others). They weighed a bit over 700, as I recall. The Caddie came in at about 550, the Olds around 600. That's why in the day, pre-Chevy V8, the Olds and Caddie were the engines of choice for conversions, the Olds engine being the "350 Chevy of the era," since Olds was a big seller and thus a lot of those engines in the junkyards. Back in '55 I put a '52 Olds 88 mill in a '38 Terraplane coupe ... cost me $175 including the dual-range Hydramatic.

Lee, here are pic's of my double-ended rotisserie.

dougson

The 308 probably had the aluminum head (^30 lbs). Heavier engines? My guess the Chrysler hemi, Desoto hemi, various straight eights (Packard, Buick etc)

RL Chilton

Park-

That's what I need right there! So simplistic, too. I was pretty disappointed that my single-sided homemade job didn't cut it, when it holds a V-8 fine. Even utilized a tractor gear and crank for turning the engine around.

Park_W

RL, it's worked fine for several engines now. I made a set of separate supports that hold the complete engine for stripping it down, building it back up, and test running it. This set of brackets allows the rig to accommodate anything from a 212 six to a Hornet, with or without tranny. I designed this whole rig back in '89 -'90. Bought two cheap rotisserie stands, got the extra materials, did the cutting and drilling, then took it to a shop for needed welding.

Lee ODell

I had the weights all typed and it all diisapeared just when I was about to post.
So I'll try again.

Engine
Weight - HP - Cubic Inch - 1953 Automobiles

950 180 327.0 Packard 400 8
765 160 327.0 Packard 300 8
765 150 288.0 Packard 200 8
750 180 331.1 Chrysler V-8
703 166 303.7 Oldsmobile Super 88 V-8

700 127 262 Hudson 6
650 145 308 Hudson 6

699 210 331.0 Cadillac V-8
690 120 252.6 Nash Ambassader 6
687 120 232.6 Studebaker V-8
675 118 226.2 Kaiser 6
650 118 268.4 Pontiac 8
631 160 272.1 Desoto V-8
626 188 322.0 Buick V-8
606 140 241.3 Dodge V-8
602 115 239.2 Pontiac 6
600 100 217.8 Plymoth 6

569 125 255.4 Mercury V-8
569 110 239.4 Ford V-8
557 108 235.5 Chevrolet 6
507 101 215.3 Ford 6

475 90 161.0 Willys F-head 6
450 85 184.0 Nash Rambler
450 80 161.0 Henry J 6
425 68 134.2 Henry J 4

All information came from 1953's TRUE'S AUTOMOBILE YEARBOOK, Number 2

That all folks.

Lee O'Dell

P.S. Park that is a great looking engine stand.

Park_W

308, you've overcomplicated things just a bit. The rotational axis is fixed by the rotisserie mechanism. The only challenge in this regard is to roughly center the weight of the block assembly so it rotates fairly easily and doesn't want to twirl around to a particular position. A modest out-of-balance condition is no problem, as the rotating shafts have holes for a pin to go in, to hold it in position. What I have found a challenge is, once the block is roughly in position on the hoist, finding appropriate bolt holes in the block to attach the three adjustable support arms at each end. Actually it turns out sometimes that getting this part of it right results in the engine block's not being rotationally balanced ideally. No problem, it just takes a bit more oomph to reposition it as needed (especially after you put the crankshaft in it!)

terraplane8

The Hudson Eight engine weight looks like 150lbs more than the 308. This is derived from the fact that the same body of say a 1952 Hudson weighs 150lbs more with a H8 engine than a 308 engine. Is there anything else that could account for the weight difference apart from the engine itself? Transmission etc?

If this is right, a H8 engine is a heavy beast indeed at over 800lbs. Yet that seems too much as Reid Railton was impressed at how little the engine weighed for its size with thin-wall casting etc. I think he said the block was 400lbs, maybe that was the bare block only.

Lee ODell

I added HORSE POWER to the chart.

If only Hudson had made the 8 one more year it's weight would have been included.

Lee

Marconi

On the weight of the Packard 8, I think the first one listed is actually for the 356 or 359 Custom 8 engines. The 327 was never rated over 160 hp I think, besides the two weights for the 327 engine doesn't make sense, lots of good info there Lee, thanks.

Lee ODell

Marconi wrote:

On the weight of the Packard 8, I think the first one listed is actually for the 356 or 359 Custom 8 engines. The 327 was never rated over 160 hp I think, besides the two weights for the 327 engine doesn't make sense, lots of good info there Lee, thanks.

Thanks Marconi. Publishers do make mistakes sometimes. I wondered about that also.I added your information to the side. Makes since to me. I checked my Motors Manual and they left out Packard entirely after 1952.

Lee

Park_W

Just checked my old Motor Manual ... '53 327s rated at 180 HP ('52's were 160).

I can attest to heaviness of the splasher engines. In the mid-fifties I put Olds engines with Hydramatic in two different cars that had been splasher sixes ... a '38 Terraplane and a '38 Hud Custom Six sedan. Front springs hardly knew the difference. See photo above.

Lee ODell

Park does your Motors Manual list a 356 or 359 Packard engine for 1953. If yours does not I'll remove the side note. I was surprised mine did not have any Packard information.

Lee

Park_W

Lee, the last 356 shown was 1950. Only 288 and 327 after that. No mention of 359. I know the Packard engines were heavy ... an acquaintance had a '40 Super Eight, and he told me what the crankshaft weighed. I don't remember the figure, but recall thinking "Geez, that thing wouldn't need a flywheel if it weren't for having to mount a clutch plate!"

Lee ODell

Thanks Park. Clears that up.

Lee

dougson

Top end Packards by 1952/53 were using the WCFB 4-barrel, maybe this engine produced 180 hp?

Park_W

My reference book shows all 327s in '52 were 150 HP except for the 400 series, with higher compression, had 155.

Marconi

That's probably the difference between the 52 and 53 327 engines, the 4bbl carb. The 359 engine must have been a 54 only engine as I've seen several 'senior' 54 Packards with it. Also, my 57 and 58 Motor's manuals list Packard, but my 62 doesn't. I'd look at them but I can't lay my hands on them right now.

Lee ODell

I was also curious about the weight difference between the 327 Packard engines.

In the book, Packard A HISTORY OF THE MOTOR CAR AND THE COMPANY page 567, I believe holds the answer. There is information that tells of several new additions to the engine which I believe accounts for the big difference in weight between the 327 engines. In 1953 Packard added not only the four barrel carb and manifold but also added power steering and air conditioning.

The added weight of manifold, carb, air filter, P/S pump, A/C compressor, brackets. belts and pulleys must account for the increased weight.

Lee

Unknown

The difference between the weights of the 327 most likely has to do with the fact that the Senior cars were 9 main bearings, whereas the Junior cars were 5.
The 356 was made between 1940 and 1950, the 359 was a one year only engine, in 1954. There wasn't a 9 main 327 until 1951, when the 356 was discontinued. From 1951-1953 there were two different 327's made side by side each other, all parts will interchange save the crankshafts.