Splashers and prolonged high revs...

Hudsy Wudsy

They used to say of the old splasher Chevy sixs that you could drive all day long at 60 MPH, but drive at 65 MPH and it was only a matter of time before you burnt out a rod. Hudson splashers were a better breed of engine by far. My question for you more experienced gents is what exactly is their tolerence level? How many RPM (approximately) will a Hudson splasher sustain for a prolonged period of time assuming that it doesn't have excessive clearances? Or put another way, what speed will a Hudson healthy splasher (six or eight) coupled to a 4:10 rear end safely tolerate? Are they up to modern freeway speeds for long distances?

Jon B

My '37 will do 60 all day, but it's coupled to an overdrive and 4-1/9 rear. Have driven to a national, 10 hours straight at these speeds. I've no idea how much faster I might have gone but with something of that age one doesn't want to experment, 600 miles from home....

bob ward

At the other end of the scale to Jon's experience, I know of a terraplane engined single seat race car, and absolutely flat out it might do 3 maybe 4 laps before the big ends start to rattle.

SamJ

In several years, but notably in 1940, Hudson set speed and endurance records at Bonneville with both the 212 6 and the 8 factory spec'd but completely stock cars. BUT believe it or not, the 175 ci 6 proved phenomonal...it ran 30,000 km (about 18,000 miles) averaging 70.2 mph. (Special Interest Autos, Nov/Dec 1970). Hudson success in these trials was unprecedented, and exceeded the records they set a Bonneville in October, 1936 with the 1937 Hudsons and Terraplanes, when they set 40 separate records for endurance and economy. If everything is working properly and all the oil galleries are spec, I don't see why poor oiling would cause Hudson engine failure. The system works.

53jetman

My son in his '46 pickup always drove at least the speed limit on the interstate highways for long periods of time - meaning 65 to 70 mph. His truck had the 4 5/9 rear end with BW automatic overdrive. Over a period of 20 years he put over 40,000 miles on that truck, and it ran like a new when he sold it in 2001. If you maintain those old splasher engines with regular oil changes and tune ups, they will run forever. My dad was a dealer in a small Ohio town, and 6 out of 7 rural mail carriers owned Hudsons from 1935 thru WW II. After the war they all traded up to the step-down model.

However, the old splashers delivered the mail all thru those years without a major break-down on any of them



Jerry

53jetman

Unknown

James P. wrote:

They used to say of the old splasher Chevy sixs that you could drive all day long at 60 MPH, but drive at 65 MPH and it was only a matter of time before you burnt out a rod. Hudson splashers were a better breed of engine by far. My question for you more experienced gents is what exactly is their tolerence level? How many RPM (approximately) will a Hudson splasher sustain for a prolonged period of time assuming that it doesn't have excessive clearances? Or put another way, what speed will a Hudson healthy splasher (six or eight) coupled to a 4:10 rear end safely tolerate? Are they up to modern freeway speeds for long distances?

Curious, Why do you say the 3x5 splasher was a far better engine than the Chevy Six?

PAULARGETYPE

I Would Not Push It Past 60 With Out Overdrive With A 4:10

Geoff

tombia wrote:

Curious, Why do you say the 3x5 splasher was a far better engine than the Chevy Six?

In original mode, the Chevy 6 of 1937 onwards (The stove-bolt) produced 85 b.h.p., had cast iron pistons, and was anything but a free-revver. In contrast, the Hudson 3 x 5 was a free-revving motor with alloy pistons, producing 100 b.h.p., in spite of being smaller in capacity. Back when I had a '35 Terraplane sedan, and a mate had a '39 Chev Master, I used to delight in accelerating past him going up the 6 mile hill south of where we lived. The Chev was a good and reliable car, don't get me wrong, but for performance, it was no match for a Hudson 3 x 5.

Geoff.

Clutchguy

Geoff C., N.Z. wrote:

In original mode, the Chevy 6 of 1937 onwards (The stove-bolt) produced 85 b.h.p., had cast iron pistons, and was anything but a free-revver. In contrast, the Hudson 3 x 5 was a free-revving motor with alloy pistons, producing 100 b.h.p., in spite of being smaller in capacity. Back when I had a '35 Terraplane sedan, and a mate had a '39 Chev Master, I used to delight in accelerating past him going up the 6 mile hill south of where we lived. The Chev was a good and reliable car, don't get me wrong, but for performance, it was no match for a Hudson 3 x 5.

Geoff.

Well put Geoff !!

53jetman

In the tale of the rural mail carriers above, the seventh was a Chevy. He managed to wear out seven Chevys during the period of '35 thru the end of WWII. The reason he stuck with the Chevys was he supposedly owned stock in GM. Sure helped keep their gross national product on the move anyway.



Jerry

53jetm,an

Hudsy Wudsy

tombia wrote:

Curious, Why do you say the 3x5 splasher was a far better engine than the Chevy Six?

I can remember occasions when "stovebolts" would throw rods when I was a kid. I didn't mean to condemn Chevie's reliable splasher sixes out of hand, it's just that, in regard to sustained high revs, they had enough of a reputation for failure that a phrase describing their shortcoming ("You could drive them all day at...") was common. I owned several Chev sixes in years past, including a couple of splashers. I got good service out of all of them although I've always disliked the sound of them. Being overhead valve engines, the little bit of vavle train noise was acceptable enough, but the wrist pin knocks as the engines got older made them sound like junk to me.

Unknown

Now thats what I like, Good response by fellows who have had experience with both engines. Its just that I think the OHV is a much better design. Makes you wonder why Hudson dropped the design when they had such great winners in the Essex 4 and the OHV Hudson Super Six. Economics can't be the reason as Hudson was on top of the world in this period in sales and other manufactors were able to continue with OHV.

Hudsy Wudsy

The lower quality fuels and lubricants available in the twenties (when many engine designs were developed that would last far into the future) probably played a big role in the industry's general preference for valve in block engines. The valves in flatheads easily disipate heat into the large, relatively cooler block. OHV (overhead valve) engines, on the other hand, have a harder time with this task because the valves are directly over (and project down into) the combustion chamber--the hottest part of the engine. Head temperature is invariably higher than block temperature in both engine designs. However, the lead and other additives in fuel which help cool and clean valves were more critical in OHV. Also, the additional number of moving valve train parts in an OHV required more of lubricants. Inadequate lubrication of valve stems in OHV engines could cause valves to hang up, resulting in bent push rods. Rocker arm and rocker shaft wear were problems unique to OHV engines, as well. Lastly, the increased valve train noise had to be at least something of a negative when a manufacturer considered which of the two designs to develop. While I complained earlier about Chevrolet engine noises, Buick engines that I knew were always quite quiet. I don't recall when Buick developed their hydraulic valve lifter, but I think that it mid have been as early as the mid-thirties. In time engine design refinements would begin to show the superior breathing ability of OHV engines and at that point time would begin to run out on the flathead... but you all know that story, don't you?

Hudsy Wudsy

A bit of a post script on the subject of flatheads and OHVs: As is true for many of you, I'm not a "Hudson only" sort of guy. Hudsons are my favorites, but I've owned and liked flathead Mopars as well. I currently have a '36 Dodge coupe. Those sturdy, littlle bullet-proof flathead sixes were wonderful (if underpowered) warriors. Chrysler made that little flathead six for industrial use all the way up to '71 (if I recall right). Any of you ever hear of a Chev six industrial motor? I didn't think so...(lol)

mars55

tombia wrote:

Now thats what I like, Good response by fellows who have had experience with both engines. Its just that I think the OHV is a much better design. Makes you wonder why Hudson dropped the design when they had such great winners in the Essex 4 and the OHV Hudson Super Six. Economics can't be the reason as Hudson was on top of the world in this period in sales and other manufactors were able to continue with OHV.

If the engines are running low compression and low RPM like what was the norm in the thirties and forties there is no performance adventage to an OHV design. The Chevrolet six developed 85-90 horsepower from 216 CID and the Hudson six developed 102 horsepower from 212 CID. The flat head has the adventage of being cheaper to manufacture and has lower frictional losses.

Unknown

mars55 wrote:

If the engines are running low compression and low RPM like what was the norm in the thirties and forties there is no performance adventage to an OHV design. The Chevrolet six developed 85-90 horsepower from 216 CID and the Hudson six developed 102 horsepower from 212 CID. The flat head has the adventage of being cheaper to manufacture and has lower frictional losses.

Hey remember that HP figures are really a product of the marketing dept. As Geoff said Chevy had cast iron pistons as opposed to alum. pistons in Hudson which made Hudson a quicker reving engine. Jamesp . I can remember a 256" Chrysler that really flew on the drag strip in 1954, Blew the doors off a big time Chevy builder.

mars55

tombia wrote:

Hey remember that HP figures are really a product of the marketing dept.

And the Chevrolet horse power figures are not a product of the marketing dept? Here is a question would a pre-war Chevrolet beat a short wheel base 212 CID Hudson in a drag race?

Unknown

mars55 wrote:

And the Chevrolet horse power figures are not a product of the marketing dept? Here is a question would a pre-war Chevrolet beat a short wheel base 212 CID Hudson in a drag race?

Didn't say that. It goes for all manufactors. As far a a race. Both would be slugs, but I would think the 3x5 would win because of lighter weight internal componets I.E. quicker revving engine. I will add this tho, I remember many Chevy 6 racing engines in race cars, sprint cars, boats and such, turning fairly high revs,I don't remember any 3x5 racing engines that I ever personally saw.

SamJ

I know you guys are talking about splashers and 3 x 5's (I have the awesome 175 cid Hudson myself), but it is interesting to note that most people forget that in the early 50's a car that would do an honest 100 mph stock off the dealer lot and run at high speeds all day was rare. Tom McCahill wrote that between 100 and 105 the Hornet would be pulling very slowly away from an Olds. '54 Chyrsler Hemi? Maybe. The rest? Fuggedaboudit. It would take a lot of aftermarket work to get a shoebox Ford to 100, just so you could watch it overheat. The only way you could get a '51 Chevrolet to 90 mph would be to drop it out of an airplane...:eek:

terraplane8

James P. wrote:

A bit of a post script on the subject of flatheads and OHVs: As is true for many of you, I'm not a "Hudson only" sort of guy. Hudsons are my favorites, but I've owned and liked flathead Mopars as well. I currently have a '36 Dodge coupe. Those sturdy, littlle bullet-proof flathead sixes were wonderful (if underpowered) warriors. Chrysler made that little flathead six for industrial use all the way up to '71 (if I recall right). Any of you ever hear of a Chev six industrial motor? I didn't think so...(lol)

A friend had a 1940's Dodge Fargo tiptruck with the flathead six. Man that thing took some abuse, screaming up steep hills in low gears with full loads. Eventually the crank broke, not surprising but it gave a lot of good service before that happened.

Unknown

!!!GOSH!! You guys let me down. I was hoping for some talk about modified splashers. I DO remember reading about several sprint cars with 3x5 splashers in them and was hoping someone knew something. Sam, One you forgot was the Chrysler Saratogo in 1951, Small Chrysler body with 331" hemi. I saw a profile several years ago on a coupe used in roadracing.

Unknown

tombia wrote:

!!!GOSH!! You guys let me down. I was hoping for some talk about modified splashers. I DO remember reading about several sprint cars with 3x5 splashers in them and was hoping someone knew something. Sam, One you forgot was the Chrysler Saratogo in 1951, Small Chrysler body with 331" hemi. I saw a profile several years ago on a coupe used in roadracing.

I think that Chrysler won the Carrera Panamerica race with the early hemi coupe. That is a lot of iron to push around!



On the topic of flatheads though, Chrysler marine used almost the same engines as the MoPaR cars. It was normal to run a Chrysler Crown/Ace marine at WOT all day long. Of course, they had pressure lubrication and oil coolers, but that is still pretty incredible. There are enough differences between the marine and the car engines that I don't think many parts are interchangeable. One item to seek out and snatch up is the Chrysler marine distributor. These have a tach drive and are sought out by motor heads.



Have a nice day

Steve

[Deleted User]

The only real differences between the Chrysler Industrial/Marine Hemi engines and the engines used in the cars and trucks is the block itself (the Ind/Mar block has a very large flange on the rear of the block, but it can be cut down) and the crankshaft flange, along with the water pump and housing.

SamJ

smcmanus wrote:

I think that Chrysler won the Carrera Panamerica race with the early hemi coupe. That is a lot of iron to push around!

Chrysler and Lincoln did well in the Carrera Panamerica race, but the highest American car to place in any of those races was Marshall Teauge in a Hornet. He finished behind two specially built Ferraris. Ak Miller (who died a year or so ago and was a founder of NHRA) from Whittier, CA won in a purpose-built hot rod with a Buick OHV engine in the last race of that era. He drove the car from California to Mexico and back, too. I took that car to Goodwood in England in 2004 and did a couple of demo laps. It is owned by the Wally Parks NHRA Museum in Pomona, CA. In the modern Carrera Panamerica, a gentleman from Mexico has been doing quite well with a very colorful Hornet.:cool:

SamJ

Modern Hornet...:cool:

SamJ

Historic Lincoln...:cool:

Unknown

Did not our own Gus Sousa run that race in a Pacmaker coupe, if my memory serves me?

[Deleted User]

that hornet has a very tough stance!

Unknown

SamJ wrote:

Chrysler and Lincoln did well in the Carrera Panamerica race, but the highest American car to place in any of those races was Marshall Teauge in a Hornet. He finished behind two specially built Ferraris. Ak Miller (who died a year or so ago and was a founder of NHRA) from Whittier, CA won in a purpose-built hot rod with a Buick OHV engine in the last race of that era. He drove the car from California to Mexico and back, too. I took that car to Goodwood in England in 2004 and did a couple of demo laps. It is owned by the Wally Parks NHRA Museum in Pomona, CA. In the modern Carrera Panamerica, a gentleman from Mexico has been doing quite well with a very colorful Hornet.:cool:

Sam



I'm not arguing with you on the carrera thing. You may very well be correct. I got his from the internet and you know how accurate the press is. I don't know fer sure what the truth is but from Chitown sumtimes:



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040614/ai_n12549315



"Chrysler's first Hemi debuted in 1951. It officially was called the FirePower V-8, but eventually got the "Hemi" nickname. Chrysler initially put the Hemi in its most prestigious autos, and later in its Imperial, DeSoto and Dodge cars. A 1951 Chrysler Saratoga Hemi won the Stock Class and finished third overall behind a Ferrari in that year's grueling 1,900-mile Le Carrera Panamericana (Mexican road race)."



On the Hemi marine engine, I don't know much about them and I never worked on them. I have worked on a lot of early hemis, but not the marine variety. The flathead Chrysler marine engines, while similar in design and appearance, are mostly marine only parts. They use timing gears instead of chains and have different stud layouts. I have one laying here in my yard. Maybe I should haul it to the scrap man.



Have a nice day:D

Steve

SamJ

You're right, Steve, a specially built Chrysler place 3rd in 1951 and Teague won his class. The results are confusing for the 5 years of the original race (1950-1954) because of the classes changed each year. Lincoln dominated in 53-54, because they made an all-out effort to win with cars like the one shown, all very non-tock, built by famous builders like Bill Stroppe...:cool:

Hudsy Wudsy

This has been a fun thread to follow. Like all good converation, it's meandered around a bit. I've enjoyed the postings about splashers a great deal. I've come to some conclusions that I'm pleased with. Also, the Panamerica races have always been of interest to me. What an incredibly grueling ordeal for both car and driver! I remember reading once about destroked Hudsons doing well in this type of race. Perhaps these engines were the ones someone mentioned a while back as being 308s with 262 crankshafts. I'm not sure about that, though. I know that if you shorten the stroke of an engine you diminish the torque, but you also quicken the rate at which it will accelerate to to it's maximum RPM. (LIghtening the flywheel will do this as well). While I don't find torque the mystical and abstract concept that some people do, I have to admit that I'm sometimes puzzled at the relationship between torque and horsepower. It seems that torque can almost be the inverse of horsepower. If the bore of an engine remains exactly the same, in what predictable way does decreasing the stroke change HP? Yes, I know that there is marketing HP, but there is also real HP, even if we never get to know the true numbers. (lol) I always found it interesting that GM marketed four different 350 cid engines in the seventies. I don't have the time now to refresh my memory as to their exact numbers, but they ranged from the Chevrolet 350 having the shortest stroke / largest bore, through Pontiac (with a longer stroke and a smaller bore than the Chev), Oldsmobile and lastly Buick having the longest stroke / smallest bore of the four. My recollection is that in standard form, with 2-bbl carbs, as torque went up the HP went down, while the stroke incresaed in length as the bodies in turn became heavier. Nowadays it's a "one size fits all" policy at GM. My question is, what about this grueling, tortuous road race might have favored a destroked engine? Do you think that flat dessert lands played a role?