GIBSON-BINKS speed equip.

super651

Randy, saw your comment about the MOLDS for the G.B. 2-piece cyl.head and the GIBSON ALUM. 2 barrel inlet manifold. I still have the Gibson in. manifold that I used to race with on the 308 JET. and will use it on the eng.that i am building at this time.

Can you remember years back that we talked about buying the molds that CLIVE GIBSON had and at that time he wanted 600.00 to 700.00 for the molds ? well i wish that we would have bought them.

Could someone in AUSTRALIA contact him and see if he or some one else has the Molds ?

CLIVE GIBSON

62 MONS AVE.

WEST RYDE SYDNEY

N.S.W. AUSTRALIA 2114

Ph.02-874 6354

I still have the GIBSON-BINKS-EQUIPPED engine that the 2-piece head came from that i traded to you and will put together a story at a later date.

( have pics.of the engines and the HORNET POWERED boat but do not know how to list them )

Hudsonly Rudy.

[Deleted User]

I would love to see those pictures. Sounds like some nice Hudson race history.

Huddy42

Clive Gibson no longer lives in West Ryde Australia, I believe the moulds still exist, but whereabouts not positive , but could make enquiries as I still am in contact with Clive and his nephew who worked for Clive during his apprenticeship and for some time later on .

Les P. Down Under.



my name and email address can be found on page 45 in the Sept-Oct 2005 WTN under International.

bob ward

G'day Les, Tim Laird is the owner of these very much sought after moulds. For those that are reading these threads, Tim once owned a 54 Superwasp sedan for 20 years. This car was formally owned by Clive himself. It is powered by a 262 with the rare Gibson- Bink 2 piece aluminium head. This car is still in excellent original condition and still attends HET runs and rallies. It is currently for sale at around $22,000 Aussie dollars (for info please respond). Back to these G-B heads, I know at least a handful in existance down-under, including my brothers. About ten years ago speaking to Clive, he mentioned that only a dozen were produced, but truth behold, I believe much more were produced. Clive exported 2 of these heads to Jack Clifford and in Clives words (he copied my design, well almost). There is also a Gibson-Bink powered boat in Sydney town owned by a boat collector. Tim has been offered dollars for these moulds but is afraid that someone will be making large amounts of profit by reproducing the 2 piece heads. Next week when I'm back in Sydney for the Hudson -AMC presidents run, I will gather some photos of these heads, boat and the 54 SW and try & post them on this forum.



Keep on Hudsoning,



Steve Fripp from Brisbane, Down Under

[Deleted User]

I don't think anyone will be making the big bucks from the molds. The demand is not there. I have parts remanufactured and I still have to keep my day job. It would be nice to get the molds and reproduce the heads for those that would like to have them since the clifford head may be on its last leg of production. Those of us that race and like the street performers would benefit. The possiblity of aquiring the molds would be appreciated.

Randy

[Deleted User]

If he is worried about the big bucks he should give the molds to Randy and do a profit share. Its not very productive to sit on molds you are not using. But heck who am I to figure out what people do.



Randy is right selling maybe 20 heads a year does not a business make.

super651

Hudson308 wrote:

21.

Sign me up.



)

Randy, Go after em. and I will need on also. Hudsonly Rudy.

Unknown

THe following pictures were recieved from Rudy Bennett and will be part of an upcoming post that will appear on my website...Enjoy.

Hudson Head



Hudson Hornet Powered Boat with Supercharger



Hudson Engine

hornet53

I need a boat like that!

[Deleted User]

If this head dosn't "weep" coolant like my Clifford head I would buy one.

Someone could reproduce these on a CNC mill but I suspect the cost to do

that would be a little high.

At least is it was CNC milled you could go in and make easy changes, like

the provision to use domed pistons to promote air flow thru the transfer

slot area, which is what the big horsepower flathead ford v8 are running.

PaceRacer50

bob ward

G'day again. I've just spoken to my brother Jeff about these molds. It's a matter of fact that Jeff dropped by to see Tim (the owner of the molds) sometime last week. Tim also has molds for inlet manifolds for Hudson's big 6. Don't know what exactly they are but will keep you posted. Jeff has in possesion of a NOS Gibson - Bink inlet manifold for marine use. It is a 2 x 2bbl version. It can be used for steet vehicles if special carby adaptors are made as the top surface is on a severe angle and would look a bit odd as the carbys would lay back towards the fire wall. Another club member has this manifold on loan as he has contacts with a gentleman to see if it's possible to create a mold. Jeff will talk to Tim in the near future to see if he will let go of these molds and to confirm to him that large profits is impossible with such a small market.



Keep on Hudsoning.



Steve Fripp. Brisbane Down-under

Unknown

Great Pictures, thanks for sharing. I would love to have one of these also. Is there a real disadvantage in casting this in two pieces like the original? Sounds like it may be simpler to cast, but end up with two pieces and additional machining steps. Would be nice to see something like this and other neat speed equipment available again! (Randy's the guy to do it)

464Saloon

Sorry for my lack of knowledge at this point, but I don't quite see from the pics or understand a two piece head. How would that work and what would be the advantage. I have been reading up on whatever I can find on the 308 as I will be getting my 54 the first of next week. Supposedly the 54's had an improved head over the previous years and had more power. My car has a 262 head on it. Does that make it better or worse and how does either of these compare to this two piece?

[Deleted User]

The two piece head is a manufacturing compromise. Its easier to cast the head assembly in two pieces then machine the surfaces of the two halves then assemble them. One piece casting is more difficult and requires the right casting techinques which are beyond most small outfits. These applications are for people who want more hp for racing. You can get along very nicely with the 262 head you have and more time can be spent machining the relief into the block which is where your real performance boost lies. Match that upto one of Randys street grind cams and you will be flying.

50C8DAN

As to the matter of using domed pistons, Jack Clifford, in his catalog, specifically addressed the domed pistons as a no-no for flathead air flow.

464Saloon

Apparently I can only see how it can be done as one piece then machined. How do you get the two pieces together? Is there some kind of welding process? I must really be missing something here, but I have almost no experience with inline 6's. All the heads I have dealt with have been for different V8's and a few motorcycles. Obviously smaller heads so I have not heard of this two piece design. Reason I asked about the 262, is that is the way it is now, and in order to relieve the block, I would have to disassemble the motor. With 66,000 original miles, and numerous vehicles already in some form of restoration, I have no intention of tearing into this motor other than bolt on's. Heads, carb's intakes,exhausts. even a cam,right now, is more than I want to get into. I have heard the same on domed pistons from the Flathead Ford experts, and it makes sense, especially with a large cam. As the valve is hanging open, the domed piston is blocking all the airflow into the chamber

Unknown

The way I see it, one piece fits on top of the other with a gasket in between the block and the head and another gasket between the two pieces, sealing the water passages. Correct me if I am wrong. Looks simple, but I have been decieved more than once. If I am correct, that would be really easy to copy on CNC machinery out of a casting or even aluminum.

Bob

[Deleted User]

Yes the assembly is bolted together with two gaskets one for the block to head and one for the two halves. And I agree with you if that engine only has 66K drive it and enjoy it, with the 262 head you will notice you have lots of power. I am thinking if its a 54 you already have a pretty good cam.

[Deleted User]

This is all interesting stuff. I would really like to see a picture of that manifold as well. The hot rodder in me loves the two piece head, the road driver in me hates it. A real Love/Hate relationship. I would like to see it revived. Anyone can attest it would be more a labor of love rather than of "huge profits". If there were huge profits we'd be able to get our Clifford stuff on next day freight. That ain't the case.



I might be better produced as a one piece head. Anyone wanting a two piece could cut it in half themselves and modify whatever they wanted. We do need a new head. But, not as bad as a supply of headers and a new dual carb manifold.



Mark

[Deleted User]

My preference is always for a 262 head on the 308 works nice seals nice.

bob ward

As mentioned earlier the 2 piece head is a lot easier to make in small quantities than a one piece head. One distinct disadvantage though is that it is only one quarter as stiff as a 1 piece head. Best to leave them as an interesting Hudson curio.



Going in the other direction, a Clifford 3" thick head is a bit better than twice as stiff as a standard 2" thick head

464Saloon

Seems like the 262 is a popular head to put on the 308. I was just curious with the Hudson motor since about a year or so ago I built a pretty tricked out Flathead Ford V8 for my Dad. I did quite a bit of research while building it and one of the latest theories thanks to the modern day flowbench is that the theory of using a high compression head or milling one down can choke down the airflow on a flathead since the air has to come over the valve into the head and over. This can be offset somewhat with relievieng the block, but there goes your compression again. I ended up with an Offenhauser head with medium compression chamber to allow ample airflow around and over the valve and a shallow relief in the block to keep compression up. When he gets the rest of the car together we will see how it works.

[Deleted User]

High compression is a killer of airflow on a Flathead. This is because you can't

reduce the valve chamber area, transfer slot and relief area enough to gain high compression without making these areas restrictive to airflow.

One of the biggest gains in airflow I have seen is the method Barny Navarro and others use, which is to go with a 7/16" to 5/8" domed piston and cut the head out

to maintain a .100" clearance gap. This allows the transfer slot to flatten out into

the center of the cylinder. This causes the air to flow out of the port thru the valve seat area at a larger radius into the cylinder, instead of having to make a sharp turn out of the valve seat area, thru the relief at a tighter radius only to be forced thru a tighter radius again at the steeply angled transfer slot in the head into the cylinder.



The domed piston does not change the compression ratio or the valve chamber area, relief area or transfer slot area. It just moves the airflow up higher into the head.



By moving the airflow up higher the radius increases and the air velocity increases because its not forces to turn so tight to get into the cylinder. Airflow gains may not be very high, maybe 30-50cfm but that is a substantial improvement on a flathead.

You do have to have a good high powered ignition system to fire it but the results are worth looking into.



I do not know why Jack Clifford maintained that this was not a good thing on the Hudson engine BUT I do know that MOST all the fastest flathead fords are running dome pistons with either Baron, Navarro or other domed cylinder heads.



But this is all just my opinion and my next engine I am going to experiment with this even more that I am doing now.

PaceRacer50

bobbydamit

Sign me up too for a head. If I can get in on drawing to win the boat too, sign me up. It would be better than winning the lottery

bobbydamit

51hornetA wrote:

My preference is always for a 262 head on the 308 works nice seals nice.

How about a 232 head on a 308 ???

[Deleted User]

I prefer 262 for street. 232 is fine if you are going full 7X and taking it to the track.

[Deleted User]

PaceRacer50 wrote:

High compression is a killer of airflow on a Flathead. This is because you can't

reduce the valve chamber area, transfer slot and relief area enough to gain high compression without making these areas restrictive to airflow.

One of the biggest gains in airflow I have seen is the method Barny Navarro and others use, which is to go with a 7/16" to 5/8" domed piston and cut the head out

to maintain a .100" clearance gap. This allows the transfer slot to flatten out into

the center of the cylinder. This causes the air to flow out of the port thru the valve seat area at a larger radius into the cylinder, instead of having to make a sharp turn out of the valve seat area, thru the relief at a tighter radius only to be forced thru a tighter radius again at the steeply angled transfer slot in the head into the cylinder.



The domed piston does not change the compression ratio or the valve chamber area, relief area or transfer slot area. It just moves the airflow up higher into the head.



By moving the airflow up higher the radius increases and the air velocity increases because its not forces to turn so tight to get into the cylinder. Airflow gains may not be very high, maybe 30-50cfm but that is a substantial improvement on a flathead.

You do have to have a good high powered ignition system to fire it but the results are worth looking into.



I do not know why Jack Clifford maintained that this was not a good thing on the Hudson engine BUT I do know that MOST all the fastest flathead fords are running dome pistons with either Baron, Navarro or other domed cylinder heads.



But this is all just my opinion and my next engine I am going to experiment with this even more that I am doing now.

PaceRacer50

I'm going to have to agree with this post. I'm on the verge of flow testing a Hudson and trying to weed out the chaff from the wheat in this area. You can't really compare a Briggs to a Hudson because of the radicly different bore to stroke ratio. Let me get a 4.25" piston in the Hudson and we'll talk.



I've been talking with Joe Mondello in his new Crossville facility and nobody knows 5 hp Briggs like Joe. Joe says that any flow testing ever done on an automotive flathead was done to prove the "old school" therories and no real attempt at improving flow with modern thought whatsoever. They just tested what they had, compared it to stock, and called it the "cutting edge". I have to agree completely. He said a flathead had never been adequately tested, and that Jack Clifford NEVER flow tested one. I called Smokey Yunick back in '99 and was told the exact same thing, and he admited to having never tested a Hudson himself. I proposed the Navarro chamber question to Jack personally on the phone and was cut off in mid sentence with the same "it cuts your flow" answer. I asked him if he'd tested it - and he immediately got pissed off in a major way - but never answered the question. What Smokey and Joe told me, kinda lays the reason for the temper fit in perspective. Jack didn't know if it would or not.



I have built some G series Harleys, which won't exactly compare with the Hudson, and used a "pop up" piston. I'm not going into specifics, but I did see enough improvement in mph to believe the higher transfer slot being filled by a "pop up" of some type as being highly effective. Mind you, the bore/stroke ratio of 750cc Harley flatheads is even worse than the Hudson. I am going to say I haven't tested it on a flowbench, so I question whether it was the additional compression or added flow that added 20 mph to its top speed. Bottom line is, it was 20 mph faster - and that is significant in anybody's book.



I'm still debating the compression vs. flow situation. I think there is a balance there depending on your build. We've got Randy's Hot Street cam in a CamPro Plus fixture and will take a look at what flow we're looking for to optimize it and then compare compression ratios vs. the flow we get. This will take a while folks, but the answer is out there for the dilligent. I'm building a fixture to fit into the cylinder to mimic the piston head at a given depth in the cylinder per valve lift. We're really trying to put our best efforts forward here.



I bought some digital flow bench measuring instruments from Joe and am in the process of assembling my own bench. In addition to that, Joe and I are going to work on the Hudson together. It won't be cheap, but how many chances do you get to study a Hudson's flow potential with a man having 50+ years of experiance? Joe has been so eager to get his hands on his old nemesis (Joe is an old Olds man!) that the project is going to get moved to his shop and run on his bench, which is wet flow and will tell a whale of lot more than a dry bench.



I hope to be hauling the good block and the test block to Crossville tomorrow.



Now, I hope y'all understand why I'm dragging my feet on the Dana rear end!



Mark Hudson

[Deleted User]

This sounds really interesting please keep posting any info you come up with. You need to get the results and methodology into an article for the WTN.

[Deleted User]

One more thing.



I believe Jack Clifford was heading in this direction, but took a stance against it for some reason. This is why I think that. Alot of the additional material in his head is in the deck, around the outer edge of the valve pocket, and over the head of the piston. I've talked to Randy in the past about Clifford heads and was surprized by the amount of material he said they had in them. I'd really like to have one to sonic test and confirm this suspicion. The Clifford head may actually have enough material in its deck to do a Navarro, Baron, or Offy type of truncated spherical dome.



Whomever, if you decide to reproduce a cylinder head for the Hudson - please keep these things in mind. Make the area above the piston as thick as you can. I really believe there is potential in that engine beyond the traditional 7x relief. I may be wrong, but I believe it would respond to the dome better than most flatheads due to its valve canting and the valve's proximity to the cylinder's edge - relative to about any other flathead you can name.



If we're lucky, I can have some useful data on hand before somebody does a new head, and incorporate what I've found. That's about the sum of what I can contribute to the project. We may find out that the 232 is the superior head, you just never know. But that is the reason for all this, I want to know and suspect I'm not alone.



Mark

Unknown

`Hudsonator wrote:

This is all interesting stuff. I would really like to see a picture of that manifold as well. The hot rodder in me loves the two piece head, the road driver in me hates it. A real Love/Hate relationship. I would like to see it revived. Anyone can attest it would be more a labor of love rather than of "huge profits". If there were huge profits we'd be able to get our Clifford stuff on next day freight. That ain't the case.

I might be better produced as a one piece head. Anyone wanting a two piece could cut it in half themselves and modify whatever they wanted. We do need a new head. But, not as bad as a supply of headers and a new dual carb manifold.

Mark

In collaboration with Rudy Bennett I will be providing more information. A picture of the manifold is a part of a package of the information package I received today. This material includes letters from the man who is the source of these Hudson parts as well as information and pictures of the heads, manifold and installed engines. The volume of the material and the need to present it in a coherent manner will take some time to codify. So I am posting this commentary to wet your appetite. It will be a few weeks before this task will be completed. When finished these articles will be appended to my Stepdown web site.

Cheers

[Deleted User]

i am really interested in a manifold at least for now....

im guessing that any hard won results off the flow bench wont be given up so easily in an internet forum but some descriptions of findings would be great cos i wanna make my hudson fast and surprise the kids in their new cars. haha!