308 Engines

Lee ODell

An interesting coincidence happened the other day while checking the viin #s on a couple 308 engines in my garage. One out of a Hudson PU the other I removed from 54 Hornet.

54 Hornet - engine # 225200, cast # 304539, cast date # A233.-- Cast Jan 23, 1953, Engine # Feb 1953

HudsonPU- engine # 232619, cast # 304539, cast date # B203 -- Cast Feb 20, 1953, Engine # Mar 1953

What are the chances of two engines manufactured within a month of each other, from vehicles they were not originally installed in, ending up in the same garage 61 years later.

Neither engines where what I thought they would be because the pickup engine had 55-56 intake/exh manifolds and 1/2 inch studs. The other I thought would be a 54 engine because I removed it from a 54 Hornet. And both ended up being 1953 engines.

Pays to check numbers to be sure.

Lee O'Dell

ArkieJazz

Lee, the casting date on the block does not necessarily indicate the year in which the engine was initially put in service

Frankvintagefullflowcom

And, furthermore, doesn't indicate when the machining was done to make it an engine block instead of a hunk of C/I. Of course, I don't know how long Hudson "seasoned" their block castings, but it may have been some time between those operations. There's a good question for the historians. Possibly the Chrome alloy iron didn't require that step? Just a thought..........
F

Lee ODell

It would seem as if the engines vin numbers would indicate they were made ready to install one month after casting date in a matching vin number car.

Can someone check their numbers matching car to see if they have similar results with casting date number?

Lee O'Dell

brumac

Lee, you are pretty close.  The casting date on my 54 Special is B14, Feb 1, 54 and the SN is 6298235 which was built around the 1'st week in April.  It is interesting, according to the roster, that my Special came down the line 8 cars before D J Kava's Special.   Mine came East and his went West??   Bruce

RL Chilton

Frank-

I had been told that Hudson "cured" their blocks by standing them up out in the field for (sometimes) up to 10 months.  

bob ward

............. Of course, I don't know how long Hudson "seasoned" their block castings, but it may have been some time between those operations. There's a good question for the historians. Possibly the Chrome alloy iron didn't require that step? Just a thought..........
F

I believe that by the 1950s metallurgy and casting methods had improved to the stage where long term curing of raw castings was thought to be no longer necessary by the auto industry.

Most certainly Ford (maybe not a good example) had dispensed with the practice at least 30 years earlier. At the River Rouge plant the huge piles of coal and iron ore that arrived would be driving down the road a few days later.

Glowplug

............. Of course, I don't know how long Hudson "seasoned" their block castings, but it may have been some time between those operations. There's a good question for the historians. Possibly the Chrome alloy iron didn't require that step? Just a thought..........
F

I believe that by the 1950s metallurgy and casting methods had improved to the stage where long term curing of raw castings was thought to be no longer necessary by the auto industry.

Most certainly Ford (maybe not a good example) had dispensed with the practice at least 30 years earlier. At the River Rouge plant the huge piles of coal and iron ore that arrived would be driving down the road a few days later.

Fellas

Hudson actually did continue the process of "aging blocks"  as can be seen in Bernie Seigfried's comments on page 17 of the article located at  http://www.hudsonrestoration1948-54.com/BernieSP3.pdf ... center column about 8 lines in. 

Another interesting aspect of Bernie's history is he as well as most of the other Experimental engineering staff from Hudson... migrated to FORD where they became the core of the FORD experimental engineering department.