wet clutch vs dry clutch

Kdancy
Kdancy Senior Contributor
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Why did Hudson go with the "oil clutch" instead of the dry type?

Comments

  • RL Chilton
    RL Chilton Administrator, Member
    Because of quality . . . in the beginning and at the end. Wet clutch is infinitely smoother than a dry clutch, takes less pressure to operate. In the late 40's, or early 50's Bernie Siegfried suggested to his boss, the chief engineeer, (Mr. Toncray, if memory serves), to go to a dry clutch. He was informed that there were two things that engineering could not alter or change, one of which was the wet clutch. According to the Ivy Tower (upper management), Hudson built their reputation on quality, and the wet clutch was but one example.

    It's important to remember that the independents had to work hard to offer more, or something extra than the big three. In essence, they had to build a better mousetrap, mainly because they couldn't compete with quantity. Quality had to be the driving force. Even though the wet clutch was long gone by industry standards, due to the added expense, Hudson thought it important to it's customers for a certain amount of quality to remain.
  • Ol racer
    Ol racer Senior Contributor
    I echo RL Chilton comments regarding Hudson's rationale to retain the Smooth Wet Clutch. Believe me that wet cluch would reliably hold all the power a stock Hornet could give. However, when modifying a Motor with stroker crank, cams, multiple carbs, etc, racers adapted a dry clutch set-up, but the weak link then became twisting the input shaft. Some adapted a Ford clutch & trans behind the Hornet at that point.
  • junkcarfann
    junkcarfann Expert Adviser
    RL Chilton wrote:
    He was informed that there were two things that engineering could not alter or change, one of which was the wet clutch.

    I don't mean to hijack this thread, but what was the other thing that could not be altered?
  • MikeWA
    MikeWA Senior Contributor
    I won't argue that the wet clutch is superior, and I'm reminded of that every time I put in new fluid. Then a few months later, I'm reminded of the drawback- when mechanical things get old, they tend to develope leaks.:(

    I've got a Chevy bellhousing and Borg Warner T-5 five speed overdrive transmission, and, with the help of Wilcap, my '48 will get a transplant as soon as I get a round tuit.
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    I believe that one of the reasons Hudson went out of existence was that they lost sight of the fact that their primary objective was not to make quality cars, but to make money. Yes, the wet clutch was superior in some ways, but I'm willing to bet that the average car buyer didn't give a monkey's toss about what sort of clutch their car had. I understand they could have saved at least $10 per unit by buying in dry clutches. On a run of 100,000 cars, that's a saving of $1,000,000. Go figure!
  • RL Chilton
    RL Chilton Administrator, Member
    From Geoff: " . . . their primary objective was not to make quality cars, but to make money."

    That is my thinking, exactly. Too many examples from Hudson in the 50's point exactly to that statement.
  • hudsontech
    hudsontech Senior Contributor
    edited January 2011
    Geoff C., N.Z. wrote:
    I believe that one of the reasons Hudson went out of existence was that they lost sight of the fact that their primary objective was not to make quality cars, but to make money!

    That was one problem they had - you can't survive by selling $3000 cars for $2500. IMHO another problem was they had "outdated" leadership. Most of the officers, like Barit, were locked into 1930's thinking. The 1950's were 20 years later and a lot different than the 1930's.

    But, with Ford and Chevy literally giving cars away by 1952 trying to become dominant in the industry, I really don't think younger ideas would have helped. The money wasn't there to fund V-8 engines (if the company had been healthy with good cash reserves I think they could have developed a V-8 and the Jet.) The Italia was probably a bigger mistake than the Jet. A V-8 and a somewhat different styled Jet may have kept the company going for a few more years, but in the end, like American Motors, I think they would have gone under. Look at Chrysler - they're struggling and have been, and a lot of their problems are the same as Hudson had, re leadership.

    Hudsonly,
    Alex Burr
    Memphis, TN
  • RL Chilton
    RL Chilton Administrator, Member
    junkcarfann wrote:
    RL Chilton wrote:
    He was informed that there were two things that engineering could not alter or change, one of which was the wet clutch.

    I don't mean to hijack this thread, but what was the other thing that could not be altered?

    I knew someone would ask! The "other thing" was pinned piston rings. Mr. Siegfried was informed by Mr. Toncray that pinned piston rings and the wet clutch were "long-standing Hudson trademarks" and that he was " treading on sacred ground", which top management would have none of.

    I have to echo Geoff's sentiments in that I don't believe your average Hudson buyer would give one iota towards either of those two items, much less know what kind of benefit they would have, or even care, for that matter. Regardless, those two out-dated items remaiined with Hudson until the merger, strictly because of top management. I'm sure most of us are glad they did, but it surely cost them money in the long run.
  • 50C8DAN
    50C8DAN Senior Contributor
    I guess I will take exception to the thought of quality vs. making money. If GM and the other US car companies remaining after the demise of the independents had worried more about making a quality car than making money they may not be in the state they find themselves today! Hudson’s problems were costs and poor planning, but also many other marketing issues as has been kicked around here many times.

    I will give you a perfect example of cost vs. quality. About 15 years ago Delco Remy, then a part of GM, contacted our company to come up with a solution to prevent the premature burn out of their alternators, a major warranty issue. As the demands on the alternator increased over the years the original design resulted in thermal expansion fatigue of the diode assembly. The assembly was comprised of an aluminum heat sink on top of which a copper contact was soldered and a silicon chip. Anyway our company made thermal expansion matched materials. Our solution would have added about $2 per alternator, but would have eliminated a lot of the warranty claims. The engineers pushed the proposal up to management and the comment was that it was too expensive, end of story. Yes, it would have added a lot of money overall but it would have resulted in lower warrantee expenses as well as fewer unhappy customers.

    For another view of this, take a read in the Feb. 2011 Hemmings Classic Car magazine about the guy that was a GMI student from ’69 to ’73 and how GM milked the assembly process and worn out equipment for the sake of making the most money, while sacrificing quality.
  • drivergo2
    drivergo2 Expert Adviser
    The old expresion Penny Wise and Dollar Dumb comes to mind. John
  • bob ward
    bob ward Senior Contributor
    Kdancy wrote:
    Why did Hudson go with the "oil clutch" instead of the dry type?

    In the early days of motoring there was a lot of experimentation with clutches and the oil clutch was one of the valid contenders, but by the mid to late 20's the dry clutch was pretty well sorted out and reliable. That Hudson was still using the oil clutch in the late 30's was an anachronism. That they introduced a brand new car with a new engine in 1948 and still with an oil clutch beggars belief, they were 20 years behind the times at that point.

    As to why, all I can think of is that someone with a lot of influence in the company wanted oil clutches and that was that, no more discussion.
  • dougson
    dougson Senior Contributor
    [quote="Mike (WA)"

    I've got a Chevy bellhousing and Borg Warner T-5 five speed overdrive transmission, and, with the help of Wilcap, my '48 will get a transplant as soon as I get a round tuit.[/quote]


    Me to. I have the kit and am waiting for the #$%#@ builder to finish the engine so I can see how it goes together. I do know that the 10.5" clutch they built for the S10 T-5 fits perfectly.
  • StillOutThere
    StillOutThere Expert Adviser
    If the oil filled cork clutch was such a holy grail that could not be given up, then someone needs to explain here the fact that Hudson Jets all have dry clutches.
  • dougson
    dougson Senior Contributor
    Regarding the Jet, it had a completely different engine and by the time the Jet was conceived the cork clutch was on its way out. My guess anyway.
  • 53jetman
    53jetman Senior Contributor
    Yes, most of the problem of keeping current with the latest technology would have to be laid at the feet of the man in the big office of the "Ivory Tower" - Mr. Barrit. As is mentioned above, he was still living in the late 20's to early 30's. What's worse, no one in the immediate management pool had the guts to draw his attention to better ideas. As mentioned above Bernie Seigfrede was told by middle management not to try to promote unpinned piston rings or a dry clutch! Most of us could not believe Barrit signed off on the Step-Down, Monobuilt body design of 1948, and the revamp of the 1954 model was something else. He maintained for too many years that the outward appearance of the step-down could not be changed - but when his back was to the wall, he did authorize the necessary changes to at least try to bring the look of 1954 cars almost up to date. Now, if they could only have gotten the V-8 engine idea implanted in his head they might have been able to hold on for a couple of more years.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    edited January 2011
    The adherence to these engineering practices are directly attributable to Stuart Baits. Pinned rings and wet clutch are his standards. He promoted these and in his role as Vice President and General Manager at Hudson he ensured they were kept. A.E. Barit looked to Baits for these decisions. Baits was a extreme proponent of splash lubrication. In his internal book written for Hudson staff he stated that "Hudson's Duo Flo lubrication is superior to pressure lubrication in every way, when one of our engines is started up, the very first revolutions pick up the oil from the troughs and throw it on the bores, assuring ample lubrication to these important parts" kind of crazy looking back on it. But he had the ear of Barit and most of these practices were put in place when he was head engineer. The fact Hudson entered the 50's with a splash oiled eight is testimony to his influence.(of course by that point they did not have the funds to re-engineer the eight anyway) He even pushed for the new sixes to be splash oiled luckily the engineering team held out for pressure oiling. Shown in the engineering docs are splash oiled sixes that were set up on the test bed turning bearings and snapping cranks due to inadequate oiling. He could not argue with this.

    In the same book he outlines the need for pinned pistons stating they do not move in the bore and contribute to lower oil consumption and longer engine life between rebuilds. He further states the wet clutch provides a smoother shift and better operation than any of our competitors offerings.

    He really was set in his ways and sadly influenced a lot of engineering decisions he should not have had anything to do with.
  • SamJ
    SamJ Senior Contributor
    The oil bath clutch in my '40 works well enough, and I'd rather focus on Hudson's virtues than shortcomings,since IMHO the virtues are what makes them interesting. However, I would point out that the Hudson drivetrain lasted well into the era of the reliable automatic transmission, which uses a torque converter, a kind of (gasp!) wet clutch...:cheer:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion