52 Twin-H vs. stock Olds, 7X & LS1

Unknown

Stock Hudson Twin-H TORQUE & HORSEPOWER RATINGS VS. stock Olds 303, Hudson 7X & LS1 HO Chevy/Caddy (364)



SOURCE is Wiki: The 303 was available from 1949 through 1953. 1949 through 1951 "88" 303's came with a 2-barrel carburetor for 135 hp (100 kW) and 253 ft·lbf (343 N·m). 1952 88 and Super 88 V8s used a 4-barrel carb for 160 hp (119 kW) and 265 ft·lbf (359 N·m)



SOURCE: The stock Hudson six-cylinder engine produced 145 horsepower. After Marshall Teague and Hudson engineer Vince Piggins were done with it, the engine had been modified to include a bigger bore, valves, modified combustion chambers, split dual exhausts, high performance cam, high compression head, and 'Twin H-Power' carburetors and manifold. The result was an increase in horsepower by 75 and over 275 foot-pounds of torque. To accommodate this increase in power, the suspension, brakes and axle where beefed up and reinforced. The low center of gravity, superb handling, and potent engine left the competition in the dust, from: http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...r/default.aspx



http://www.classiccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=24694



The Horsepower ratings are from a 1952 Hudson factory shop manual and are actual:

232 = 112 at 4200 RPM

262 = 123 at 4000 RPM

308 = 145 at 3800 RPM

254 = 128 at 4200 RPM

Note: the 1954-1956 308's were rated at 165 to 175 at 3800 RPM



52 Hudson, 52 OLDS (303) , 52 Hudson 7X...., 2006 Escalade (364), 6.0L, LQ9 (LS1-based, HO)



.....145hp.........160hp.............. .220hp......................345hp......



......?................283ft-lbf *..........275ft-lbf...................380ft-lbf.......



*see WALT-LA below:



...For the '52 Super 88, 160 hp @ 3600, 283 foot-pounds @ 1800



NOTE, even after the Hudson race engine work (7X) was done, it only had TORQUE of 275 v. 265 for the stock Olds, PLUS it IS 100 ft-lbf below a stock 2006 LQ9; in drag racing it is the TORQUE that is the ruler vs. horse power for sure.



NOTE; the LQ9 has lighter aluminum heads vs. cast iron, and the transmission is aluminum VS. cast iron (Hydra-matic), and the Mustang suspension is much lighter to boot (137% MORE HORSEPOWER such as more with the lighter LQ9 engine and 38% MORE TORQUE than the 7X, PLUS who knows what the savings advantage will be in weight reduction). The combination has to make my Wasp "SUPER" in the handling and performance departments.



364 / 308 => i.e., with only an increase of 18% in cu in, the GM LQ9 develops 137% MORE HORSEPOWER + 38% MORE TORQUE vs. 7X. Yes, 54 years does make a positive difference, hands down we Americans are making great progress in mechanical efficiency.



I am not expecting you to change your feelings OR your car (your business); I simply am providing "food for thought"; please don't get personal or off topic. Argue with the numbers-it's the numbers that might tick U off-not me.

[Deleted User]

I have 97 Ford Diesel with 500 foot lbs of torque. A drag racing truck it is not. We also have a V6 1987 GN buick that has a 245 hp horsepower rating but powered the quickest American production car in 1987. I believe Chrysler rated both their 66street Hemi and Race Hemi at 425 HP. Which was quicker? So I hardly think that posting numbers like HP and torque are in itself any type of evidence of who or what is quicker. I believe Hudson guys admire what Hudson did with what they had. They were the under dog and many times came out on top. Many here have them to perserve them. I truely believe that although you like the looks of a Hudson you really don't have the admiration or understanding of what they were and their place in automotive history. Or maybe you do. All in all wouldn't some of your posts be better discussed in the street rod section?

Unknown

This guy oughta take up fishing, a master at baiting. He's not a HUDSON FAN, but a speed fan. Why don't we just let him debate with himself ? BUD

[Deleted User]

Off topic I guess but at the HET meet in Orlando Fl about 7 years ago a VERY nice 46/47 pickup was there. Turns out it had a SBC under the hood. Well the fuel pump went and it took about half a day to find a close auto parts store and someone to go get it ect ect. Meanwhile about 2 dozens hudson fuel pumps were on the vendors tables within 50 feet. Oh the Irony.

Unknown

I love Hudsons; it's is my intent to build 3 a lot better than they were when I got them after all these years, and when new.



I intend to rebuild the Wasp's original, numbers-matching engine, all painted up pretty, get it running on a stand, break it in and then seal it so that some day it could be reinstalled if wanted. Things are reversible. If I didn't care about what Hudson made I would not even think of such a thing.



It is just that right now I want to build a couple Hudsons that the "bad" Hudsons w/6's want to steer clear of, and the numbers above are clear evidence that these upcoming cars are generating fear, my very reinforcing point. I believe also that I'll have the fastest Hudson in the world, the Super Jet; goals are sometimes not achieved, but w/o goals what is life all about? Sloane McCauley had the fastest Hudson (Super Jet) way back in the 50's & 60's so why can't I/someone have the fastest in the 21st Century?



It's just a thought, and a dream. Who knows what the future holds?



Carry on.

terraplane8

Why not super/turbocharge the 308, you could then leave the original engine block installed and you could develop as much power as your budget would allow. You can add water injection and nitrous as well. That way you could get at least 400hp without much trouble I would think so long as the engine was built right.

Unknown

terraplane8 wrote:

Why not super/turbocharge the 308, you could then leave the original engine block installed and you could develop as much power as your budget would allow. You can add water injection and nitrous as well. That way you could get at least 400hp without much trouble I would think so long as the engine was built right.

My plan is to single turbo-charge the LQ9 in the 2-door Club Sedan Super Jet; I'm talking 700-1000 hp and no flathead will do it, no matter how much money there is in the world to throw at it, apparently. Besides there is a weight differential to consider; the LQ9/Powerglide combination is much lighter!



NHRA, this year has added 100 #s to the weight of the funny cars to slow them down; and, added 50#s to the dragsters via similar rationale.



Ever heard of a Hudson engine-powered car necessitating running a Powerglide tranny to keep it from spinning the tires too much so it'll "hook"? Not me.



EXAMPLE: At the race shop a guy brought a single turbo-charged Camaro (12.5 sec car) with 6-spd tranny in for work; he hired them to remove the 6-spd and replace it with a 4-spd automatic (4L80E), and his quarter mile times dropped to 10 seconds.



I bought my "Powerglide" tranny yesterday; $100, and it's soaking (tank) now. Serious plans are in the making.



This is going to be one "bad", street/strip '54 Hudson SUPER Jet, running on drag radials! Just be prepared-it's coming; and, not even a hint of Cuckoo's Nest mentality will be able to reverse this momentous surge I'm feeling!



Signed,



(Hudson) Jet pilot

hudsontech

It is my understanding, figured out during my browsing thru several sources, that Hudson dyno'd their engines in what was called "loaded" configuration. Meaning with water pump, generator, and anything else that was supposed to be attached to the engine - which produced a certain amount of drag, which we all knows affects hp. This lowered the actual hp. So when they say a 262 developed 123 hp, it was actually, if tested like the other makers did, ie, "bare" block, produced at least 10 to 20 hp more.

Bottom line is it ain't the hp that moves a car at the stop lights - it's the torque - and Hudson engines, if nothing else, developed enough torque to move a house.



Hudsonly,

Alex Burr

HudsonTech

Memphis, TN

www.freewebs.com/hudsontech

Unknown

OK, Alex, what is the factory-rated TORQUE of a stock 52 Hudson with Twin-H? I need the factory rating so I can complete the chart. Also, what should the boost in TORQUE be? and your source?



PLUS, if you find a HORSE POWER source and it says 125, and you can find a reliable source that says the differential is 15 to make it comparable to the way the other manufacturers did it, I can update the chart to display as follows, for example:



125 (140 *)



* (with explanation about how the larger number was derived)



This suits me fine. The TRUTH is what we want to acquire here and post it. Nothing BIASED, PERSONAL or PROVOCATIVE about this analysis.



Thanks for chiming in.



John

Unknown

HP numbers for a 52 hudson are wrong. If they were pulled from the Shop Manual, from 52, it would not be indicative of a twin H equipped motor. Twin H was a late 52 option.



Further, Wikipedia is not a valid source for much. I can edit the listing all day, whereas you can or anyone else. If you think the people that write Wikipedia are experts on anything, then you have a long way to go in life.



Finally, I find this to be anything that an unbiased analysis, this is like a circus, if you ask me. You are comparing two apples and a grapefruit. There are 4 cylinder motors they put into Hondas and Toyotas that develop more horsepower and torque, than the original 303 olds, or 308 hudson.



The problem is, you are creating a "chart" to show the validity of your engine choice in your car. That's great. whatever. Sure a motor that has 50 more years of development will be better on paper, and if that's what you want, then go for it. Seems biased to me that you only have the three motors listed here. Was the escalade motor a random choice? or were you biased when you came up with it? I would be curious as to how a simple SBC, or a BBC would fit into this. How about a 440 mopar?



Why don't you do a cost analysis of this? maybe show everyone how much money you had to throw at this car so far, and it still does not run. You might end up with the fastest group of hudsons, but they will be the most expensive as well. What a great record to hold.



If nothing else, you are the BEST bench racer of all time.

464Saloon

hudsonkid wrote:

HP numbers for a 52 hudson are wrong. If they were pulled from the Shop Manual, from 52, it would not be indicative of a twin H equipped motor. Twin H was a late 52 option.

Further, Wikipedia is not a valid source for much. I can edit the listing all day, whereas you can or anyone else. If you think the people that write Wikipedia are experts on anything, then you have a long way to go in life.

Finally, I find this to be anything that an unbiased analysis, this is like a circus, if you ask me. You are comparing two apples and a grapefruit. There are 4 cylinder motors they put into Hondas and Toyotas that develop more horsepower and torque, than the original 303 olds, or 308 hudson.

The problem is, you are creating a "chart" to show the validity of your engine choice in your car. That's great. whatever. Sure a motor that has 50 more years of development will be better on paper, and if that's what you want, then go for it. Seems biased to me that you only have the three motors listed here. Was the escalade motor a random choice? or were you biased when you came up with it? I would be curious as to how a simple SBC, or a BBC would fit into this. How about a 440 mopar?

Why don't you do a cost analysis of this? maybe show everyone how much money you had to throw at this car so far, and it still does not run. You might end up with the fastest group of hudsons, but they will be the most expensive as well. What a great record to hold.

If nothing else, you are the BEST bench racer of all time.

Well put. I think we are all getting a little tired of this constant justification of this guy wanting to change around his Hudson's. It appears to me with these continuous postings that he is insecure about something. You want to go cut up your Hudson, go do it pal, I am not for it and most here aren't, but it's your car and you can do what you want. I am just as tired of seeing cool 30'and 40's cars all hacked up with SBC and Mustang front ends. Gee, I wonder why my 55 F-100, that I restored all original, gets 10X the attention at shows than the customized versions. My Hornet so far is proving the same way. IMHO it isn't the fastest Hudson in the world if all that is left of it is the shell.

Unknown

Hi hudsonkid:



this is what Jon wrote yesterday:



Jon B's Avatar

Jon B Jon B is online now

Northern Virginia



Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Northern Virginia

Posts: 2,012

Rep Power: 6

Jon B is on a distinguished road

Default Re: Hugging the Curves

The thread, "Hugging the Curves" has been moved to the Discussion area, and this new thread started in the "regular" area with just the initial post.



Any additional posts which are even slightly off-topic, or containing anything deemed by the moderator to be provocative will be deleted by the moderator at his whim.

---

Therefore, I ask that you do not get personal with me; I actually like you as you are a thinker, and I respect your ability to compare other engines; please do so herein. Simple copy the chart above, patch it down, and expand as many engines as you wish. If you have better sources of info, that is fine, we just want the TRUTH; GREAT going!



This discussion began as a comparison of the 52 Hudson Twin-H NHRA Super Stocker in case someone ever raced one, vs. a 52 Olds NHRA Super Stocker, National Record Holding. It was expanded to include the Stock comparison of hp, then TORQUE an even more critical number in drag racing. If you can help in this area, pls do so, OK?



I have built several engines in my life and I am not finished yet; don't know about you-your business! I won't criticize U one way or the other.



If I want to spend money to have the fastest Hudson and I run out of money I hope I can borrow some from you or the bank, because once I am gone, the money I might have left won't do me any good any way.



So, let's be friends from this day forward. I extend my hand to you in friendship, OK?



Have a great day.



(Hudson) Jet pilot in-the-making

oldhudsons

As far as drag racing, Jack Clifford was practically unbeatable in his class in NHRA for years, which I would think inc. Olds. He raced a '54 Hornet Special cp. so a little lighter than a std. cp.

Hudson won it's numerous NASCAR victories, not because it had the biggest & baddest engine, but because of superior handling & brakes (look at one of the videos avail.).

If you want to know what's the best that can be done with a Hornet engine I'd suggest contacting Ivan Zaremba who's been racing his '51 H cp. on the West coast in period road racing events for years. He's part owner of a restoration shop specializing in grand prix racers & should be able to provide you with the tech info you seem to want.

He & Buzz Stahl are working on a Hudson to run at Bonneville, perhaps this year.

oldhudsons

By the way Jack & his '54 cp. were doing great until he decided to "cook the books" by conning NHRA into believing, for a while, that Hudson made the Hornet engine an avail. option in the Jet. Once they found that out, after he'd been drag racing the Hornet-Jet, he & Hudson were banned.

Jon B

hudsonkid wrote:

If nothing else, you are the BEST bench racer of all time.

It's possible to disagree with a fellow without making snide remarks. (This is only one such remark, I'm not trying to pick on this particular person.) One person has the right to his opinion here at the Forum, another has a right to disagree. But one needn't add "digs" or be provocative.



Otherwise, I'll just have to toss this thread down into the Region of Rant with the other "discussions".

Walt-LA

Alex, what is the factory-rated TORQUE of a stock 52 Hudson with Twin-H? I need the factory rating so I can complete the chart. Also, what should the boost in TORQUE be? and your source?





Motor's Manual, 15th edition gives 145 hp @ 3800 rpm, and 257 foot-pounds of torque at 1800 rpm for the Hudson H-145 2bbl engine in both '51 and '52. That is the pre-Twin H adaptation which ws introduced in late '52.



Oldsmobile is given the following for the 88 A (51) and Super 88 (51) HP 135 @ 3600 rpm. Torque 263 @ 1800. For the 52's Deluxe 88 145 hp @ 3600, 280 foot-pounds @ 1800. For the '52 Super 88, 160 hp @ 3600, 283 foot-pounds at 1800.



Couldn't find a weight on the Olds' cars.



Walt-LA.

[Deleted User]

I am somewhat confused when you talk about "Super StocK" . Superstock in the 1960's was a class. As an example Chrysler's Max wedge engines ran Super Stock class. Hudson would have been down the list at L or M stock I believe. They NEVER would have been in SUPER STOCK class. I am sure someone here will recall what class Clifford ran in. Now with that said , Clifford was winning his "class" in the 1960's , long after Hudson was gone and the Big 3 had 10 years plus , and still had not produced a combo that would dominate the "class" Hudson did. Studebaker also did well in those years with their small V8. I believe Ted Harbit won his class many times. Isn't it true that NHRA eventually changed the rules enough that Hudson not longer could race in Stock class? Once you switch Old motors with NEW motors and fab in some chassis parts from the parts bin it is NO LONGER a stock class nor is even really the car the emblem say it is. Vega bodies were used in many drag applications and nobody seems to claim the that Vega was a world leader in speed and quickness. ***** ON EDIT** I am pretty sure Hudson NEVER gave an advertised HP rating for the Twin H till 54 which is probably why Clifford used a 54 as that was the only year the class rules would allow with that set up.

[Deleted User]

"Harbit raced his "Chicken Hawk" 1951 Studebaker and won his Stock class at the NHRA Nationals an incredible seven times in 11 tries. A retired teacher and basketball coach in the Frankton, Ind. school system, he has raced continuously in cars he's built himself for more than 50 years. Ted retired from class racing after the '72 U.S. Nationals and drove it occasionally until 1987 when he decided to see how fast it would go. With twin turbochargers and twin four barrel carbs, he's turned a best of 10.07 at 137.8 mph. In the Studebaker Drivers Club publication, Turning Wheels, Harbit explained why he still uses a Studebaker engine. "My own experience has been that it is not necessary to go to expensive extremes to develop over 500 HP in a Studebaker V-8. . . and that the engine is so basically sturdy that one need not fear immediate disintegration when higher horsepowers (sic) have been developed."

Unknown

Jon B wrote:

It's possible to disagree with a fellow without making snide remarks. (This is only one such remark, I'm not trying to pick on this particular person.) One person has the right to his opinion here at the Forum, another has a right to disagree. But one needn't add "digs" or be provocative.



Otherwise, I'll just have to toss this thread down into the Region of Rant with the other "discussions".

I thought it was a compliment.



I'm not surprised you only saw my remark, when there are plenty of others of choose from....



I guess what amazes me though, Jon B, is you are so quick to come to the defense of this, but yet for two years, you let me hang out to dry. Continual digs, and smacks, and I even brought them to your attention, you did nothing. If you want I will find specific examples, I saved them all. I doubt you will say, show me the evidence.



what is the sudden change of heart? :eek:

Unknown

nash4088 wrote:

I am somewhat confused when you talk about "Super StocK" . Superstock in the 1960's was a class. As an example Chrysler's Max wedge engines ran Super Stock class. Hudson would have been down the list at L or M stock I believe. They NEVER would have been in SUPER STOCK class. I am sure someone here will recall what class Clifford ran in. Now with that said , Clifford was winning his "class" in the 1960's , long after Hudson was gone and the Big 3 had 10 years plus , and still had not produced a combo that would dominate the "class" Hudson did. Studebaker also did well in those years with their small V8. I believe Ted Harbit won his class many times. Isn't it true that NHRA eventually changed the rules enough that Hudson not longer could race in Stock class? Once you switch Old motors with NEW motors and fab in some chassis parts from the parts bin it is NO LONGER a stock class nor is even really the car the emblem say it is. Vega bodies were used in many drag applications and nobody seems to claim the that Vega was a world leader in speed and quickness. ***** ON EDIT** I am pretty sure Hudson NEVER gave an advertised HP rating for the Twin H till 54 which is probably why Clifford used a 54 as that was the only year the class rules would allow with that set up.

In those days, summarizing:



STOCK:



pistons may be over-sized by .060" in both Stock & Super Stock (SS)



camshaft may not have higher lift that from the factory; SS there was some allowed changes, maybe higher lift and increased duration, but I don't recall



exhaust must be stock manifold; SS could use headers



intakes must be stock both in S & SS



differential must be stock; SS could use posi



long list of differences.

[Deleted User]

You mention many times in your Posts "super stocker" correct? Hudson's do not fall into "super stock" class. So unless I missed something (possible) , I was looking for how you were comparing the OLDS and Hudson. Did the Olds Fall into the same Class as Hudson?

[Deleted User]

"Before founding Clifford Research in 1967, Jack Clifford raced a 1954 Hudson 308 flat-head 6 cylinder and became undefeated NHRA L/S champion in 1963. In 1964 he designed his 264 duration camshaft and broke his NHRA world record by a full second.



The reason Jack chose a flat-head 6 was that Hudson Hornets started NASCAR racing back in the early 1950s at Daytona Beach, Florida. The Hudson flat-head 6 cylinder outperformed all overhead V-8s including Chrysler hemis in 1954, taking 27 out of 29 grand national races. Hudson then merged with Nash and that was the last of the champion 6s.



In 1963 Jack saw the potential of the 6 cylinder engine over V-8s in the stock NHRA drag classes. His Hornet powered Hudson with 450 ft lbs of torque at 3,300 rpms, won the L/Stock class at the Winternationals with a speed of 85.65 mph and c.t. of 15.77, a record that held for ten years until the class was outlawed. Amazingly, all of Jack's NHRA races were done BEFORE HEADERS, and all engines were PURE STOCK!" This type of thing interests me. Putting different Engines and drivetrains and boat loads of money into something like this does not interest me. I can see it interests you.

[Deleted User]

For what it is worth I googled the Olds and it seems that it fell into D stock with a 303 V8. Hudson seemed to fall in L stock.

Unknown

nash4088, pls post the source; thanks



I think I found the source => Olds oiling systems aren't as bad as most would think. My race engine builder Danny Lattimore, (who is the one that has a 10 sec Olds in D/Stock class, 70 SX with a 455 in it)



this is about a 455, not a 303. I suspect you won't find anything on the internet QUICKLY from the 50-60's about the 303 in Stock or Super Stock. they were outlaw'd



John

[Deleted User]

google 54 D/stock oldsmobile. I already told you Hudson DID NOT have an advertised HP rating for 1952 or 1953 using a Twin H. That is why you can not find one. SO lets use 1954 ,Clifford could have ONLY used a 54 if he planned on running the twin H in stock class as NHRA would NOT allow the the pre 54 Hudsons to run using the twin H. OK ? So google Cliffords Hudson and google the 54 oldsmobile D/stock. The 2 cars were in Different classes.

Unknown

The National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) got the ball rolling by creating so-called Stock Classes for production cars. As long as the car came off the assembly line, it would fall into one of the many stock classes, based on shipping weight divided by advertised horsepower.



The top class was Super Stock and the "S/S" symbol became an easily recognized logo.



SOURCE: http://www.funfordevents.com/index.php?src=news&prid=67&category=Rules

---

here are some S/S rule updates (OTC performance heads are acceptable vs. factory Stock heads)

Super Stock

Page 68 (12/03)

Cylinder Heads: Replace fourth and fifth sentence with "Grinding and polishing in combustion chamber permitted. Welding and/or applying epoxy in combustion chamber prohibited. Spark plug hole must maintain the stock location, size, and angle as machined by the OEM. Valve guide centerlines must maintain the stock lateral and front-to-back location as machined by the OEM. Valves must maintain stock angle; valve stem angle must remain stock, +/- 1 degree. Cylinder head must be able to hold combustion chamber, intake and exhaust runner volumes per NHRA Specifications." Replace 12th sentence with "Any valve job accepted."



Page 76 (2/04)

Engine: Add new fifth sentence "Truck engines prohibited."



Page 85 (3/04)

Weight: Add to end of first sentence, "; may be under posted minimum weight."



Page 86 (4/04)

Cylinder Heads: Replace second sentence with, "Effective 4/20/04, cylinder head must be or have been commercially available over the counter from the OEM source and must conform to specifications as provided to NHRA by the OEM manufacturer with year and model optional. NHRA may use a cylinder head provided by the respective manufacturer to determine whether a cylinder head conforms to the specifications.



Replace third sentence with, "Any size valves permitted. Valve guide must be in stock location and angle as cast in OEM cylinder head. Spark plug holes must remain in the approved location. Angle milling permitted."



Page 86 (4/04)

Cylinder Heads: Replace second sentence with, "Effective 4/20/04, cylinder head must be commercially available over the counter from the OEM source and must conform to specifications as provided to NHRA by the OEM manufacturer with year and model optional. NHRA may use a cylinder head provided by the respective manufacturer to determine whether a cylinder head conforms to the specifications.



Replace third sentence with, "Any size valves permitted. Valve guide must be in stock location and angle as cast in OEM cylinder head. Spark plug holes must remain in the approved location. Angle milling permitted."



Page 88 (2/04)

Wheelbase: Replace second sentence with "Minimum 96 inches.



Comp

Page 98 (6/04)

Transmission: Add to end of section, "BRT drive unit and transbrake are permitted as manufactured; no additional wiring or plumbing permitted."



Page 101 (7/04)

Carburetors: Replace third sentence with "D/ED, E/ED, F/ED, and G/ED: any standard OEM carburetor(s) permitted. Carb manufacturer must be represented in NHRA Blueprint Bulletins."



Page 102 (3/04)

Cylinder Heads: Add new second sentence with, "Effective 4/1/04, cylinder head must be or have been commercially available over the counter from the OEM source and must conform to specifications as provided to NHRA by the OEM manufacturer. NHRA may use a cylinder head provided by the respective manufacturer to determine whether a cylinder head conforms to the specifications. A/ED: hemi, canted-valve, splay-valve, or wedge head permitted."



Replace fourth sentence with, "Any size valves permitted. Valve guide must be in stock location and angle as cast in OEM cylinder head. Spark plug holes must remain in the approved location. Angle milling permitted."



Page 111 (1/04)

Cylinder Heads, Altereds: Replace first two sentences with "Any type 2-valve head permitted in A through D and J; V-8 splayed valve prohibited in E through G."



Page 111 (3/04)

Cylinder Heads, Street Roadsters: [see above: Page 102, Comp, Cylinder Heads] Add to section, "Splay-valve head prohibited."



Page 114 (6/04)Transmission: Add new eighth sentence, "BRT drive unit and transbrake are permitted as manufactured; no additional wiring or plumbing permitted."



Page 114 (6/04)

Body, Full-bodied Cars: Replace fourth sentence with "Maximum front-end overhang is 45 inches or OEM +/- 1 inch for all 2001 and newer cars. All 2000 and older vehicles must retain stock overhang +/- 1 inch."



Page 119 (6/04)

Transmission: Add to end of section, "BRT drive unit and transbrake are permitted as manufactured; no additional wiring or plumbing permitted."



Page 124 (7/04)

Carburetors: Replace fourth sentence with "F/EA, and G/EA: any standard OEM carburetor(s) permitted. Carb manufacturer must be represented in NHRA Blueprint Bulletins."



Page 124 (3/04) Carburetors: Add new sixth sentence, "Weber or Weber-type carburetor restricted to 55mm Weber or equivalent."



Page 125 (3/04)

Cylinder Heads: [see above: Page 102, Comp, Cylinder Heads] Add to section, "Class A; hemi, canted-valve, splay-valve, or wedge head permitted."



Page 127 (6/04)

Body, Full-bodied Cars: Replace fourth sentence with "Maximum front-end overhang is 45 inches or OEM +/- 1 inch for all 2001 and newer cars. All 2000 and older vehicles must retain stock overhang +/- 1 inch."



Page 131 (3/04)

Cylinder Heads: [see above: Page 102, Comp, Cylinder Heads]



Page 132 (6/04)

Transmission, Manual: Add to end of section, "BRT drive unit and transbrake are permitted as manufactured; no additional wiring or plumbing permitted."



Page 139 (6/04)

Transmission: Add to end of section, "BRT drive unit and transbrake are permitted as manufactured; no additional wiring or plumbing permitted."



SOURCE: http://www.nhra.com/revisions/rules.html

Unknown

Lots of NHRA hhistory reading here: ...........The first thing that NHRA did was to add additional stock classes, from top to bottom. In 1960, Super Stock was everything from 0-12.59 lbs. per advertised horsepower. In 1961, Super Stock only went to 10.59 lbs./hp. A/Stock was now 10.60-11.29, B/Stock was 11.30-11.88, and C/Stock was 11.89-12.49. Additional classes were added from D/Stock through K/Stock, for a total of 12 classes....................



SOURCE: http://www.cartechbooks.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=2964&CATID=4&chapter=4628



http://www.cartechbooks.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=2964&CATID=4&chapter=4628

[Deleted User]

Great stuff. Now tell me again what class the 54 Olds was in and what class the 54 Hudson was in? Why are you interested in stock Drag racing? Nothing your building has anything to do with StocK? That isn't a slam that is just fact.

Unknown

nash4088 wrote:

great stuff. Now tell me again what class the 54 Olds was in and what class the 54 Hudson was in?

Initially, I focused on the 1952 Oldsmobile Super 88 S/S car from Metairie, LA, since I knew the car/driver and it was because of this dominating car (11.83 best et ever) that NHRA rewrote the rule book to stop it from racing.



Don't know the class, but I may call the owner, Randy, and see if he remembers; I have his tele # and have made a note. Today he races an A/SA 69 Camaro.



As far as a 52 Hudson in S/S, I don't know if one ever raced in S/S; sorry.

Unknown

Our moderator has shown FAR FAR more pateince than is deserved on this trash talk. We've been warned before and a few days later it gets cranked up again and it keeps up untill he has NO CHOICE but to wipe it out. The Hudson forum has the rep of being the freindleist and most helpfull on the net and this sort of thing allowed to be put on here is going to destroy it. This started with a great video clip that all enjoyed and somebody trashed it. TRASH AWAY JON CAUSE IT AIN"T GONNA NEVER END. both places,-- BUD