Splashers and prolonged high revs...

Unknown

James P. wrote:

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?

As the owner of an eight that has yet to be driven down the road, I have also found this thread and the one on lubrication fascinating reading.

Relating to the discussion on the Panamerican races, I was watching the Targa New Foundland road race yesterday. It was probably a repeat but when they showed two classic car entries, a 1957 Chevy and a 1975 Chevy II, I began to wonder how a Wasp or Jet would fair. A Hornet wheel base may be too long for the sharp turns.

Having neither the money or the time I will probably never know. Unless Someone is looking for a navigator then I will find the time.:D

Hudsy Wudsy

I think that maybe I should apologize for my remarks about destroked Hudsons in my most recent posting about an hour ago. When I read in the Butler book years ago about the destroked Hudsons racing down in Mexico, I assumed that the destroking was part of a grand strategy. I'll bet now that this was nothing more strategic than shoe-horning the cars into a different displacement catagory. If that's the case, I wish Butler would have just said so in his book. Perhaps he thought it would reflect negatively on Hudsons. I guess that I won't bother to delete my posting, however. There might still be a thought or two that someone might want share on the general topic of torque and HP.

Unknown

James P. wrote:

I think that maybe I should apologize for my remarks about destroked Hudsons in my most recent posting about an hour ago. When I read in the Butler book years ago about the destroked Hudsons racing down in Mexico, I assumed that the destroking was part of a grand strategy. I'll bet now that this was nothing more strategic than shoe-horning the cars into a different displacement catagory. If that's the case, I wish Butler would have just said so in his book. Perhaps he thought it would reflect negatively on Hudsons. I guess that I won't bother to delete my posting, however. There might still be a thought or two that someone might want share on the general topic of torque and HP.

There is absolutely no reason to apologize and no reason to delete your post:D Anything learned from your post is of benefit to all.



Have a nice day

Steve

Geoff

Torque is affected by many factors - connecting rod length, stroke, etc. One of the greatest torquers ever producerd by Hudson was the original super six, which had massively long connecting rods. The length of the rods affects the rate at which the pistons accelerate and decelerate on reaching the top and bottom of the stroke, hence piston speed comes into it as well! As to why a longer rod affects torque, ever tired pedalling a bike with the seat too low? However, to illlustrate a point, whilst I was rebuilding my Jet, I bought a Vauxhall Cresta. 3.3 litre (202 c.i.). This has a 3-9/16" bore and around 3-1/8" stroke, with very short rods, and is a virtually unburstable motor, but has to be thrashed to get any performance out of it. We used this to pull our 14' caravan, and it managed okay, but second gear had to be used a lot, and earyl change-down had to be made on hills to keep momentum. when I finished the Jet, the Vauxhall went, and the Jet was then the caravan hauler. This of course is 3" bore, and 4-3/4" stroke with longer rods, and still 202 c.i., and has real grunty pulling power, hauling the caravan mostly in overdrive, at 55 m.p.h. effortlessly, and a kick-down to top gear suffices on most gradients, except the really hilly stuff. Horsepower is the gross output, torque is more the usable force available, and generally speaking an engine will perform best when driven at maximum torque, and fail most at maximum horsepower!

Geoff.

Hudsy Wudsy

So what I've come to understand about the splash oiling system, with help from all of you, is that when it's designed properly it's more than effective and, with the right gears, up to today's freeway speeds. My concerns about whether the rod bearings could continue to be lubricated and cooled at high RPMs probably came from the shortcomings of another brand of car all together, and, I think also, the semantics of "splash oiling" itself. I think that the term splash oiling implies a randomness that really only applies to the lubrication of the cylinder walls and such. Understanding the role of the windage tray and it's troughs seemed for me to be the key to a better sense of what's going on in the rod bearings. In a rare moment of clarity I realized that the dipper on the bottom of a rod cap is being thrust into that pool of oil with tremendous force every time it makes a revolution. (Picture a fat kid doing a belly-flop off of a diving board). That sort of impact must serve to drive the oil well up into the journal cavity. Perhaps it would take an engineering Phd. to calculate the oil's psi as it's driven into the journal, nevertheless I'm sure that the force is sustantial and, when combined with today's oils, well up to keeping the rod journal lubricated at sustained higher RPMs in a healthy engine. My particular '50 C8 came with a Supermatic (Drivemaster) when it was new, so I've anticipated the likelyhood of changing the rear end gears. I haven't yet checked the ratio, but it's my understanding that I may find 4.59 gears in there. SamJ, thanks for reminding me of all of those endurance runs. I was thinking that they were ancient history regarding my post-war Hudson, but of course the engines had hardly changed at all over that period of time. You summed it up best when you said "The system works." Geoff, your thoughts are always regrded highest of all. Tombia, I once read of a man who raced Mopar sixes. For him the holy grail was the 264 ci that they made from '52-'54. Not many of them were available though. I always admire brand loyalty, but really why not just get a Hornet?

Unknown

James P. wrote:

So what I've come to understand about the splash oiling system, with help from all of you, is that when it's designed properly it's more than effective and, with the right gears, up to today's freeway speeds. My concerns about whether the rod bearings could continue to be lubricated and cooled at high RPMs probably came from the shortcomings of another brand of car all together, and, I think also, the semantics of "splash oiling" itself. I think that the term splash oiling implies a randomness that really only applies to the lubrication of the cylinder walls and such. Understanding the role of the windage tray and it's troughs seemed for me to be the key to a better sense of what's going on in the rod bearings. In a rare moment of clarity I realized that the dipper on the bottom of a rod cap is being thrust into that pool of oil with tremendous force every time it makes a revolution. (Picture a fat kid doing a belly-flop off of a diving board). That sort of impact must serve to drive the oil well up into the journal cavity. Perhaps it would take an engineering Phd. to calculate the oil's psi as it's driven into the journal, nevertheless I'm sure that the force is sustantial and, when combined with today's oils, well up to keeping the rod journal lubricated at sustained higher RPMs in a healthy engine. My particular '50 C8 came with a Supermatic (Drivemaster) when it was new, so I've anticipated the likelyhood of changing the rear end gears. I haven't yet checked the ratio, but it's my understanding that I may find 4.59 gears in there. SamJ, thanks for reminding me of all of those endurance runs. I was thinking that they were ancient history regarding my post-war Hudson, but of course the engines had hardly changed at all over that period of time. You summed it up best when you said "The system works." Geoff, your thoughts are always regrded highest of all. Tombia, I once read of a man who raced Mopar sixes. For him the holy grail was the 264 ci that they made from '52-'54. Not many of them were available though. I always admire brand loyalty, but really why not just get a Hornet?

Because if it pops, bangs,moves or makes noise, I like it. I have had 232,s, 262,s and Hornets, BUT have always been partial to Hudson 8,s. They are smooth, quiet and run well.

Hudsy Wudsy

tombia wrote:

Because if it pops, bangs,moves or makes noise, I like it. I have had 232,s, 262,s and Hornets, BUT have always been partial to Hudson 8,s. They are smooth, quiet and run well.

Actually, the question was more of a rhetorical one than the way you took it. It was also meant to be a little sarcastic. I just meant why would the man in question search high and low for a 264 cid Mopar flathead to "soup -up" when there were lots of Hornets to go fast in!

SamJ

James P. wrote:

I think that the term splash oiling implies a randomness that really only applies to the lubrication of the cylinder walls and such. Understanding the role of the windage tray and it's troughs seemed for me to be the key to a better sense of what's going on in the rod bearings. In a rare moment of clarity I realized that the dipper on the bottom of a rod cap is being thrust into that pool of oil with tremendous force every time it makes a revolution. (Picture a fat kid doing a belly-flop off of a diving board). That sort of impact must serve to drive the oil well up into the journal cavity.

When you drop the pan on a splasher to take a look, you can see how efficient the oiling system is. Rather than "random" oiling, the entire engine cavity is filled with flying oil...the faster you go, potentially the greater the "storm" of oil is in this cavity. The oil pump which moves the oil from the sump to the top trough is a miracle of Hudson engineering...it only has 2 moving parts, and it hardly ever fails. If it does, you could overfill the pan to keep oil in the troughs until you drove a short distance to a suitable repair opportunity. :cool:

Unknown

I thought your reply was fine. BUT wait till you get your 8 on the road.