Engine Cracks

drivergo2

Do 308 Engines Crack Easier Then A 262 ,or Are They Both About The Same Under Normal Running Conditions. John

Park_W

I've not heard of any history suggesting the 308s are more prone to cracking. Main differences I've observed are that the 262 has fewer head gasket problems (seepage, blowout), and the 262 runs noticeably quieter. With the same lower end as the 308, of course, the 262 is less stressed. For a non-Hornet car, I prefer the 262.

Unknown

How about the 254 Straight 8 - or was that built like a tank and not subject to the cracking issues?



BST RGDS

GARY ( happychris )

Geoff

Unfortunately the good old 8 cylinder was not that strong in the castings, and if bored out over .040 becomes a little fragile. They tend to crack between the cylinder wall and the studs if over-torqued. This applies to all 3" bore Hudson engines, although the 202 blocks tend to crack along the line of stud and water holes between 2 & 3, and 3 & 4. Strangely, there was special small bore engine produced for the British market, fitted optionally to all models '34-'47, and these had a 2-13/32" bores, with water jackets between the cylinders, unlike the siamesed 3" bore motors. These were much stronger, as there was a lot more "meat" between the cylinders. they had the 5" stroke, and a 4.5 ratio rear end, so the bottom end performance was as brisk as the larger bore motors, but they were high-revvers> Imagine the piston speed at 60 m.p.h.!!! I came across a heap of these small bore gaskets last year. They can't be used on the bigger bore motors, so I guess they will languish forever unless someone ever finds one of these oddities. Just another piece of useless information about Hudsons.

Geoff.

Hudsy Wudsy

Geoff, 2-13/32" x 5"! Just plain remarkable - what an unusual little engine. A bore / stroke ratio like this seems quite contrived to me. Would such a configuration maximize effective power while minimizing the actual horse power rating? They were taxed on horse power, weren't they? Flywheel weight notwithstanding, an engine like this would wind up qiite slowly, wouldn't it?

Geoff

Oops, I typed the figure wrong it's actually 2-23/32", whiich is just very slightly bigger than the orginal Essex Six cylinder dimensions of 2-11/16. This was a contrived dimension to get around the dreaded horsepower tax, which was calculated on the "R.A.C." rating of cylinder diameter x the number of cylinders divided by 2.5, which of course has absolutley nothing to do with horsepower at all! Only a Pom could have derived such a formula, but then with 16 oz to the pound, 1760 yards to mile, 22 yards to a chain, 14lbs to a stone , 112 pounds to a hundredweight, etc. etc. it probably makes perfect sense! The stroke was kept to 5" to give it the torque necessary for good performance, and they did perform extremely well within their limitations of reduced top speed. Roads in Britain were not great, so high speed was probably not considered a top priority. Acceleration, according to contemporary reports, was outstanding for a car of such size. I don't know if the 8 cylinder models had such a smallbore option available.

Geoff.