VIN help

Frankvintagefullflowcom

There were no differences in the blocks at that point and a '41 casting date isn't unusual for a '42 year vehicle. It's a 175 engine unless the letter "L" appears on the body ID plate, in which case it would be the optional 212. There are several other clues regarding that.....carb, rod length, etc.

Look very carefully for cracks on the deck, particularly in the narrow spans between threaded stud holes and adjacent coolant passages. The center row (longitudinally speaking) is especially prone to cracking. Why Hudson made the deck so thin at that point is a mystery to me. The eights are far more stout, but that's just how it is. Most cracks are repairable in some, usually expensive, way.

F

RL Chilton

Numbers matching in general is over-rated, even more so in a Hudson.  Don't put too much stock into it.  

47Hudson

Frank, I didn't see an "L" anywhere, but I also don't have the carb or rods for it, only a head..someone had stripped the engine, I will be sure to really look at the stud holes and coolant passages for cracks thank you for the advice! RL Chilton, I understand about numbers matching, I just think it's neat to know that I have the original engine like the guy said it was who I bought the car from (who also said it was a 47' and it's not) and not just some random engine that wouldn't fit in the car or wasn't even close to something similar for the car.

Frankvintagefullflowcom

If you have the crankshaft, it will ID it too. If not, then I'd suggest acquiring a 5 inch stroke 212 crank and a set of 8-3/16" 212 rods to make a 212 out of it. I'm not sure what a 175 head would do to compression ratio (obviously raise it, but how far? I'll grind some numbers to get an estimate) and 212 manifolds would be on the list as well.  As far as I know (and I surely don't know it all) the bare blocks are identical, but I suspect that if I'm in err, I'll be soon corrected.

None of that is worth the trouble unless you are really wanting to keep the #s matching block, which I agree, isn't a big deal, but it's cool if you can do it. It would be far easier to find another engine, 175 or 212, that's complete.  

F

47Hudson

Ok Frank sounds good! I'll have to check and see if I have the crank for it. Ya it would probably be cheaper and easier to find a complete engine, but that's taking all the fun out of it haha!

Nerve_Center

Here's a point of debate. I know there is "no substitute for cubic inches" in just about everything in life but I've driven both 212's and 175's extensively. I have to say the 175 is a really good motor to drive with little if any hill climbing degradation compared to the 212. Yes, the 212 has more HP on paper but the 175 just seems to spin up easier and faster with the shorter stroke. I wouldn't dismiss it in a hunt for cubic inches as the longer stroke can feel more like a low revving truck engine. IMHO

47Hudson

Good call nerve_center...I will definitely keep that in mind! I have never driven either so, i will just be taking everyone's opinion then making a decision on what suits us best!

Geoff

I heartily agree with Nerve Centre - the little 175 motor gets a bad press, very much like the Jet and the Pacemaker.   But in actual fact  the short stroke motors are usually much understressed, and give great performance and economy.  the late Dix Helland who worked at Hudson Motors Garage  once told me that the Pacemaker engines never came back for factory warranty repairs, unlike the bigger motors.    If you have ever read the British "Motor" reports on the Hudson 112, they rave over it's brilliant performance and ability to spin rapidly and effortlessly.  Plus, if the timing gear gives out it does not have potential to wipe out the camshaft or damage connecting rods like the 5-inchers.   And let's face it - how much performance do you want from a nearly 80-year-old car?  My two-bob's worth.

Geoff 

46HudsonPU

How compete is the engine?  You mention the block, but indicate you only have the head (?).  Are the majority of the other components there?  

Do you have the intake manifold for the engine?  The valve covers?  I mention these, as they are some of the 'key externally viewed components' on an engine that can indicate the difference between a 212 and a 175.  

- The carb mount on a 212 intake is four-bolt, two bolt on a 175;

- There are two valve covers on both the 175 & 212 engines, however only one 'breather pipe' on a 175 (on the rear valve cover).  The 212 engines have 'breather pipes' on both valve covers;

-------------------------------------

However, the problem with these indicators is that they are 'easy' swaps, and one of the 'upgrade' options for more HP was to install the 212 intake (and thus, the larger carb) on the 175.  They also put a second breather pipe on the front valve cover.

47Hudson

Good info thanks Geoff!.. Rick, he gave us two blocks, and two transmissions, I only have one head, rods, pistons and a crank for one engine...someone had taken both engines apart, I have no externals, no manifolds, carbs, or valve covers etc. unfortunately, I don't even know if either of the blocks or head are good or salvageable yet. The guy we bought from left everything sit outside. I will have to measure the rod length!

Frankvintagefullflowcom

Wow. The good ol' boy network has struck me down again.

My uneducated guess is that the Pacemaker 232, having an identical lower end to its bigger brothers (aside from the obvious stroke difference), places far less stress/wear on the wear parts than the larger displacement engines, making them last longer.

I wouldn't toss a 175 just because it was a smaller engine, nor would I insist that it be converted to a 212. The long stroke 212 does have the risk of destroying itself if a fiber gear is employed.....I wouldn't have one of those (actually, I do have several but would only use one in an eight or 175, and then only if my arm was twisted). 

F

Geoff

I wasn't gunning for you Frank!  Interestingly, the 175 motor would have a different torque characteristic because of the longer rods. The rod length can be compared to  pedalling a bicycle with the seat lowered, it changes the angle at which the maximum thrust is applied.  The original super Sixes had an extremely long connecting rod compared to say the Step-downs, and they ran much quieter and smoother.  In the case of the Pacemaker, the piston  height is changed, hence the rod angle remains the same.   More useless information!