HASH Bargain

50C8DAN

If you are into Hashes this would surely be a winner. Great price for what it looks like.

http://knoxville.craigslist.org/cto/3731333965.html

[Deleted User]

Not bad .......... :-?

MikeWA

Nice looking car, for the money. "Rat rod?" I don't think so.

IIRC, '56 Hornet with V8 would be a 352 Packard- not a muscle car engine, but it moved my Packard along OK. I don't think they started using the 327 AMC engine until '57? Not sure. . .

RonS

AMC offered the 250 mid year, but this appears to be the Packard 352 with Ultra-matic.

50C8DAN

Even has a Cont. kit on the back. This looks to be a bargain. Of course we cannot see the underside.

[Deleted User]

That would do well up here in rusty NJ

faustmb

It was auctioned earlier this year, not sure what it brought but I guess less than 4500 it looks like a pretty nice car, estate auction I think.

50C8DAN

I believe the Hornet Special in '56 used the first gen AMC V8, 250 cu in. or something near that. It was unfortunately not a outstanding performer. The next year made a huge difference with the 327.

Nevada Hudson

I have a '56 Hornet Special with the 250 v8. It is not slow! It has 190 horsepower on a light Wasp body. The last stepdown '54 Hornet had 175 horsepower with Twin- H and alloy head.

50C8DAN

I need to clarify my comments. Per Langworth's book the Hornet Special with the 250 was not up to the muscle of the Packard V8 nor even the 308 Twin H of '56. Not saying it was slow but in comparison with other Hudsons just not as spunky!

Nevada Hudson

Well, I have a Packard V8 one also, which is much faster, but I put a Packard 400 Rochester 4 barrel in it. Have Langworth's book also, and it is a good book, but there are a few mistakes in it. The 308 Twin- H in 1956 only was available in the full size model, which was heavier and it had 175 HP. I stand by my statement that the 250 v8 was faster.


Ask the man who owns one. Have owned and driven '57's with the 327, dual exhaust and 255 HP, they are really fast cars. Right Paul?

50C8DAN

I think you will find the 308 has more torque than the 250 plus more cubes. So it may ultimately be faster but perhaps not as quick off the line. We be fun to have a drag race with these to see what happens.

Nevada Hudson

I'll bring it to the National, and you can see!

PAULARGETYPE

THERE WAS NEVER A 308 INSTALLED IN A WASP BODY THEY WERE ALL 202 6'S THE HORNET SPECAL WAS 250 V8 ONLY
I WHEN I WAS A KID (AROUND 19 ) WENT OVER 100 MPH MANY TIMES D) AND WHEN I DRIVE THE HOLLYWOOD (I'M 19 AGAIN LOOK OUT HERE HE COMES AGAIN )LOL OVER THE YEARS I HAVE OWNED MANY 55,56 ,57S THE 327 IN THE 57 HAS IT OVER ANY HUDSON I EVER DROVE SHORT OF IT BEING A RANDY MASS RACE CAR AND I WOULD NOT SHY AWAY FROM GOING UP AGAINST HIM

DAN THE ONLY THING I SEE THAT WOULD KEEP ME FROM STEPING UP IS IT IS NOT A HOLLYWOOD

[Deleted User]

According to my 1957 Motor Trent magazine the 57 Hudson would go from 0 to 60 in 8.0 seconds. The 57 Rambler Rebel would do it in 7.5 seconds. It had the same 357 ci v8. The only car faster from 0 to60 was the fuel injected Corvette. I have driven both the Rebel and 57 Hudson and they were very fast for their day. The problem was the road ability left something to be desired. The old stepdowns would out handle and out corner both the rebel and Hudson. At 120 MPH the Rebel used the whole road, the Hudson was somewhat better. The stepdowns you could drive them at top speed (100MPH) with one hand on the steering wheel and the other around your favorite girl with very little effort. I believe the stepdown Hornets would turn 0 to 60 in about 13 seconds, depending on the driver.
PS the 56 Hornet Specials that came out at mid year had the first AMC v8s were 250 CI

MikeWA

1951- not criticism, but maybe a typo? Wasn't the '57 AMC V8 a 327? You said 357-

Seems like I remember some "experts" saying AMC bought that engine from Chevrolet. Which would have been interesting, because I don't think the Chev 327 came out until a couple years later.

[Deleted User]

yes. thanks. Fat fingers or just old. lol

50C8DAN

There have been several engines from different mfg with the same displacements. The one that Studebaker folks always get is that the 289 is a Ford engine, when actually Studebaker was making 289s before Ford! (others 360 AMC & 360 Chrysler, 302 Ford & 302 Chev, 428 Pontiac & 428 Ford, all GM but totally different engines, 350 Chevy, 350 Pontiac, 350 Buick, & 350 Olds, I am sure there are others).

I believe the comments on speed etc. was that the 250 not the 327 AMC engine was not as fast at the 308 I6 twin H. When rereading Langworth's book he may have been referring to the '54 Hornet Coupe w/ the 308 as compared to the '56 Hornet Special with the 250.

[Deleted User]

I am by no means a expert on engines but the AMC 327 was totally different than the 327 GM engine. Bigger block, longer stroke and smaller bore. Later when AMC came out with the 290 V8 I heard it was an international design. I know there are people in the HET club that are very knowledgeable on early AMC engines. Maybe there is someone out there that can clarify this??

50C8DAN

There is absolutely no relationship between the AMC V8 and the Chevy V8. They are totally different engines. My earlier post was to point out that many "experts" are full of it when it comes to engines and who made them.