rebuilding 175 splasher

[Deleted User]
[Deleted User]
edited April 2012 in HUDSON
Hi fellow Hudson enthusiasts! I'm a newbie on this forum and I'm hoping someone can help me with some engine rebuilding questions. I'm fixing up a 1941 Hudson Traveler 4dr. The 175 6 cyl. engine was seized up when I got it so I pulled it out and am in the process of rebuilding it. The manual is showing the length of the connecting rods to be 8-5/8" between centers. The rods that I have measure from .060" longer to .030" shorter than this dimension. Is this ok or should I try to find rods that are closer to all the same length? Anyone have some spares they would sell reasonable?
Another issue is the timing gears. The gears that were on the engine are the 14 degree style. I have found that the gear on the crankshaft has some large rust pits on the teeth and I would like to replace it. I have a NOS fiber gear (also 14 degree) for the camshaft. does anybody know where I could find a replacement crankshaft gear? Maybe I should just replace them both with a 20 degree set? And last question, why did Hudson change from 14 degrees to 20 degrees on the timing gears?
Thanks in advance to anyone that can help.

Comments

  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    Jay, the first thing you should do is join the HET Club if you're not already a member. Lots of good expertise and parts sources there, and likely some friendly Hudnuts near you who can offer some moral support if not more.

    Hudson did not have a reputation for timing gears failing, so I wouldn't worry much about using a fiber cam gear. As for the tooth pitch and crank gear questions, it might be best to find a good NOS cam gear, then look for a matching-pitch crank gear. I'd start with Dr. Doug Wildrick or Al Saffrahn; or a source responding to a "wanted" post here on the Forum. The later aluminum cam gears are certainly less likely to fail, but matched gear sets are virtually impossible to find, so you're almost certain to have some cam gear noise with an unmatched set if you go that way. Not usually that bad, but I like a quiet engine (I've not heard anything on why the pitch was changed --- maybe Walt M. will know).

    The connecting rod length variance is rather puzzling. Is the "cast in" part number on the rods the same on all? (157375, 157376 ---- 3 of each)
  • oldhudsons
    oldhudsons Senior Contributor
    if you haven't done so, & are contemplating doing so, if you hot-tank the block be sure & find cam bearings 1st as I found them very difficult to locate for the "splasher 6" engine.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Is'nt that one of the differances between the two motors the stroke? Therefore the crank and possibly pistons would be different. Maybe you have a newer piston in one cylinder from some past failure? Could check the part number against the book,
    roger
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    The only differences are the crank, head, and the rods. The 175 engine has 4-1/8" stroke, the cylinder head head has smaller combustion chamber, and the rods are longer. Everything else is interchangeable. The reason for changing the pitch of the gears is strength - the "root" of the gears is wider in the later gears. the older gears did tend to break off teeth, and sometimes the center section would start moving, retarding the valve and ignition timing. You cannot "Mix'n'match" these gears, if you get a mismatch of pitch they will be extremely noisy, and fill the motor with destructive filings. The 20 deg. gears were first used in 1941.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Thanks guys for all the information. To help clarify my questions, here is where I'm at on the engine restoration: I bought a "master rebuilder" kit from Dale Cooper for 1941-47 Hudson 6 (probably fits either the 175 or the 212 C. I. engine). The kit includes new pistons and rings, cam bearings, cam gear, valves & valve springs, valve guides, piston pin bushings, crankshaft spacer, thrust washer and complete engine gasket set.
    I took the block to a local machine shop to get the machine work done. They found some cracks in the water galleries on the top of the block. One of the cracks went into one of the cylinder bores. Another went into one of the valve seats (Knowing what I know now I would have tried to find a better block at this point but I liked the idea that the engine numbers matched the body numbers). I told them to go ahead with the machine work and they stitched up the cracks with plugs, sleeved the cylinder that had a crack going into it and put in new stainless valve seats which was supposed to take care of the crack that went into one of the valve seats (pressure test indicates water is seeping in underneath the valve seat). Not sure what to do here??? solder with 50/50 solder? They also bored the stock size 3" bores out to fit the plus .030" pistons from the kit. They installed the cam, pressed in the valve guides, and installed, seated and adjusted the valves.
    I have also had the crank ground .010" under so (aside from the water seepage problem), about all that's left to do is get the babbitt bearings done and assemble the engine.
    To be realistic, maybe I should cut my losses on this engine now and find a more suitable donor block?
    If I find a 1948 or later engine I won't have to go through the babbit pouring and boring process. If I understand right, these engines use replaceable inserts.
    I think I figured out the problem I was having with the varying rod lengths. Apparently, I was measuring them wrong. I thought I could just measure from the flat surface where the rod cap bolts on to the center of the wrist pin hole to get the length. This dimension was varying as much as .040" from the stock dimension of 8-5/8". After staring at them for a while I figured out that if I measure from the actual center of the big bore to the center of the wrist pin bore, they all measure the correct dimension. Aha!
    The cast in number is the same on all 6 of my rods (157381). As best I can tell, only the rod caps are left and right hand so that when 3 rods are installed one way and the other 3 are installed the other way, the rod dippers will all be pointing in the same direction. I'm guessing when these rods were new, the boxes probably had the numbers 157375 and 157376 on them, depending on the cap that was installed.
    I have sent in my application for membership and a check for payment to Charlotte.
    Thanks again guys. Jay

  • junkcarfann
    junkcarfann Expert Adviser
    "If I find a 1948 or later engine I won't have to go through the babbit pouring and boring process. If I understand right, these engines use replaceable inserts."

    Yes they do, but 1948 and later Hudson 6 engines are a completely different engine than the old splasher 6.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Welcome to the process! I speak from experience of rebuilding a 212 for my 41 Commodore 6 Sedan. It's still not back together after pulling the engine out in October of 2011. Waiting for parts and trying to figure out if it is or isn't suppose to be that way is a chore. If you have to have a matching numbers car people respect that. But if your keeping it original because your going to sell it and get the most money for a matching numbers car. FORGET IT! The best engine for your car is one that runs and you can enjoy driving down the road. I may be able to find you NOS splasher rods so you don't have to spend all the money on the babbit process.
  • barrysweet52
    barrysweet52 Expert Adviser
    If you are looking for an aluminum cam timing gear I have 4 of them for sale. Contact me at ozhudson@gmail.com
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    junkcarfann, Thanks for the heads up on the 1948 and later engines. I will be focusing on 1941-1947 splasher 6 engines then. I don't want to open another "can of worms" trying to fit an engine into a car that wasn't made to fit it.

    Ottobethere, I'm glad to run into someone else rebuilding a splasher 6. I was starting to feel like the "Lone Ranger". I'm not trying to build a car to sell or for show (my work isn't that pretty anyways). Just trying to get the old girl back on the road to enjoy driving. I'm trying to keep it as original as possible out of respect for the car and the guys that kept her out of the weather (and the scrap yard) for all these years. I'm pretty old but this car is from an era before my time. I figure that my reward for fixing her up will be, I get to find out what it was like to drive a car from back in those days!
    Thanks for your offer for the NOS rods and I might eventually take you up on that but first I'm going to try to do the babbit work myself. I've got an old Bridgeport milling machine out in the garage that's been taking up space for years that I can use to bore them. I found some babbit with a high tin content and I bought a Lee melter on eBay that's made for melting the lead for fish sinkers. I still need to make a fixture for pouring the babbit and one for boring the rods. If that works out I'm going to have a try at doing the mains too. I might find out that I'm spending a dollar to save a dime but the way I look at it, it IS a hobby car.
    Best of luck with your 212 and let me know if I can help in some way. Jay
  • Jon B
    Jon B Administrator
    Just a word of caution: unless you really know what you're doing, you may want to go to a reputable machine shop that does rebabbiting. The alloy is very critical and I have seen rod bearings have been repoured even by skilled machine shops, fail. It would be a shame to do all that work and then throw a rod. You might ask around the forum as to "recommended" rebabbiters.
  • corangerroadrunnercom
    corangerroadrunnercom Expert Adviser
    I know someone who rebabbited his own rods on a lincoln V12 and its been running for years. If you'd like I could ask him his procedure. He's just a shadetree mechanic like most of us. Jim
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    That is very cool that you have a Bridgeport milling machine. Being able to do the machine work yourself is half of the battle. The other half is finding the time. On my block where the throttle linkage connects to the block someone used the wrong bolt (screw) and tightened to much, it created a .0015 lump in the cylinder. Broke the piston from the 2nd compression ring down the bottom of the skirt 1 1/2 inches across. Had to use the Sunnen Hone Machine to get the lump out. Good thing I did not have to pay to have a machine shop do the work. Let me know how the job turns out.
  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    Jay, another negative with the '48 and later sixes is that they won't fit easily into a Traveler. Supers and Commodores have the longer hood and can accommodate the Eight or Big Six, but you'd have some engineering to do putting one in the Traveler. The 175 is a nice-running little critter, as are the 212s.

    Should you decide to have the rods and the main bearing shells rebabbitted by a professiional, I've used Harkin Machine Shop in South Dakota for three or four "splasher" engines. Harkin does nice work. Have you found a loocal shop that can line bore the main bearings once they're rebabbitted?
  • Jon B
    Jon B Administrator
    I guess at this point I'd suggest you stop for a reality check. The 175 was an anemic version of the old standby 212. You get 101 horsepower out of a 212, maybe 7 more HP if you put a high compression head on it. The 175 cid gets only about 85 hp. Do you want to spend all this time and money to restore an engine that weak? The 212 should drop right in, and (if you believe in authenticity) you can always replace it with the ''real deal" 175 at some future time, with no ill effects. Sure, your Hudson won't be authentic, but 95% of the population won't know that, and the 5% who are Hudson-savvy will forgive you your sins. And as you have already discovered, 212 parts and expertise are way more common than they are for a 175. You may even be able to find a decent used 212 ready to drop in and use, at a thrifty price.
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    However, the 175 was, like the later 232 motors, quite understressed, and therefore much more reliable. Also an extremely sweet running motor. Another advantage, if at any stage the timing gear gives way, as can happen, it does not have the potential to wipe out the motor as can happen with the 5" strokers. I say stick with the original! Did you know the British market had a small bore version of 194 c.i., which also was considered to be "weak", but in fact was a stolid performer and stood up well. "If it aint broke, don't fix it"
  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    Another point for installation of a 212 ... that was an option in '41 for the cars otherwise equipped with the 175.

    Geoff ... surely you're not saying the 212 was an "interference" engine. Why would a 212 be damaged by a failed timing gear and a 175 not? Educate me.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Jon B, thanks for the word of caution but I've already purchased everything I need to do this phase of the project. You're right about the alloy being very critical. Hudson found that out in 1941 when they tried to get away with using a cheaper "lead alloy" for their bearings. They switched back to "Babbitt" in 1942. Ford used babbitt on their Model T bearings but I believe they also tried using the cheaper "lead alloy" when they came out with the Model A. They thought it would be ok because of the larger bearing surface. They found out this resulted in early bearing failure.
    Real babbit contains a high percentage of tin and is much more expensive. I purchased babbit for my engine from Rotometals (rotometals.com). I purchased 5 pounds of #3 babbitt from them for $18.99 per pound (cheap compared to other sources I checked). #3 has a high tin content and is recomended for automotive applications. I bought more than I needed so would feel free to experiment and re-do any bearings, if needed. One of the interesting things I learned about babbit: You can easily distinguish lead alloy from babbitt by scratching it with your fingernail. If you can scratch it with your fingernail, it is lead based alloy. If you can't then it is probably babbit. I tested this on my '41 Hudson and yes you can scratch it with your fingernail (lead based alloy as Hudson did try using in '41).

    Jim, thanks for your words of encouragement. I did a lot of reading through forums on the internet. Model T's and Model A's have poured bearings too and there's a lot of ideas on their forums about how to proceed. There are many conflicting ideas there too. I just had to sort through the information and pick out the ideas that made the most sense to me. I have a lot of experience in machine shop work too so I have a good idea of the geometry that's involved.

    Ottobethere, Glad you got your "lump in the cylinder" worked out. I never thought that could happen with cast iron! Someone was probably trying to save time by bottoming the bolt out rather than spending 2 minutes shortening it up or adding a few washers. I'm finding the Bridgeport useful for this project but it wouldn't be much use for boring a cylinder. the stroke of the spindle is much too short. Works good for drilling out broken head studs though! I'll keep you posted on the progress.

    Jon B, According to Hudson specifications, The 175 develops 92 Hp at 4000rpm, not 85 hp and the 212 develops 102 hp also at 4000rpm. That's .525 hp per cubic inch for the 175 to the .481 hp per cubic inch for the 212. If it was a good idea to put the 7.25-1 compression head on the 212 do you really think Hudson would go to the expense of manufacturing a separate head with 6.5-1 compression to go on it? If I were you, I wouldn't try this idea, probably pop the head studs right off!
    I don't know if I would call the 175 engine "anemic", in 1941 Ford had to build their flathead sixes with 221 cubic inches just to make 90 hp!

    Geoff, "If it aint broke, don't fix it". I'll go along with that idea and I would also add: "Bigger ain't necessarily better".
    I didn't know about the British 194 c.i. engine. is that a "splasher engine" as well?




  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    Yes, it was indeed a splasher, and was a special casting with smaller bores (2-23/32") which had water jackets between the cylinders, hence suffered none of the distortion for which the 3" bore engines were renowned. It was this distortion and hence unseating of the rings that led to the rings being pinned in position so that they could not turn in the groove. Park, the 212, and this smaller bore engine, if the timing gear gives out, the clearance is so tight inside the crankcase that the connecting rods collide with the cams. Doesn't happen in the 175 engine, or the 254 (8 cyl), because the shorter stroke means there is more room inside, and thus nothing to collide. I have seen camshafts broken, and punched out the side of the block after cam gear failure. Normally what happens though is the teeth get thin start to flex, retarding the timing, and causing just a glancing hit of the cam and rod, which of course leads to a mysterious knocking as the engine speeds up. This knocking cannot be altered by shorting out plugs one by one, which is what you do to detect a loose connecting rod bearing. However, if the gear fails dramatically, and sheds several teeth at high speed, then this collision of parts does indeed lead to very destructive activity, not unlike a modern engine losing it's timing belt. Another possibility is the alloy center and the fiber section of the timing gear moving at the join, leading to the timing being retarded, causing this mysterious knock. This is why the alloy gears are recommended. However, these can only be used as matching pair of crank and cam gears, as used from '41 onwards.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    The more pictures the better!
  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    Geoff, thanks for the education on the 212s. Fortunately I never had a cam gear fail back in the fifties when I was abusing a series of two Terraplanes and a '40 S6, all with 212s. I did see a horrific example of what "parts conflicts" can do though ... the fellow who rebuilt my first H8 engine ran two Hudsons, a 212 and an eight, on our fast, 5/8 mile high-banked track. In the middle of a race, apparently one of the tappet-cages on the eight got turned a bit, and you know what happened next. Departing pieces of cam, rods and crankshaft literally exploded the oil pans downward. Wish I'd taken a photo of that mess. Pretty spectacular!
  • SamJ
    SamJ Senior Contributor
    I have the original 175 cI in my '40 and have been driving it for 28 years. Al Saffrahn installed the '40 overdrive I purchased from OldHudsons in the early '90's, also Dr. W 10 inch clutch. The car will run all day at 55 mph without apparent strain. That's enuff for me...if you need more, this may not be the right engine for you. The center of the timing gear did break loose a long time ago, and it was hard to diagnose since the car ran ok sometimes, depending on where the center caught. Then, the center main bearing needed to be replaced, which we did w/o taking the engine out of the car (it's never been out of the car). This failure may have been caused by fragments of timing gear blocking the oil gallery which leads to the bearing. The oil circulates thru a hole in the block at the bottom of the crankcase cover. The gallery was certainly full of junk, which can be removed with a bent coat-hanger. If it sounds like I've had lots of problems with this engine, I haven't...I don't consider the repairs major, and I've had no problems for years.
  • SamJ
    SamJ Senior Contributor
    ...oil circulates through a hole in the block at the bottom of the TIMING GEAR cover...some editor!
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    SamJ, that's a really beautiful car! I think it's amazing that you've been driving it for 28 years. I noticed you have the ribs on the running board rubber running in the original direction. That looks good I think. Most Hudsons I've seen have the ribs running lengthwise.
    Yes, I've decided to go ahead with the 175 engine. I live in a rural area and traffic speed shouldn't be a problem. I think I will eventually be looking for an overdrive unit though.
    Pretty sure I already ran a wire through the oil galleries but I think I will double check that before re-assembly. Thanks for the picture of your car. Take good care of that beauty!
  • Marconi
    Marconi Senior Contributor
    For your water seepege under the valve seat, try K&W block seal. This stuff works great for minor leaks in castings. The engine has to be running and follow the directions on the can to the letter. You can probably find it at NAPA or other REAL parts stores.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion