175ci engine

Compression figures are usually warm engine at (starter) cranking speed. I'm surprised you got that much!

I TOO HAD A 175 ENGINE I HAD IN MY 1939 112 I CHANGED THE CRANK SHAFT AND THE RODS SO I COULD MAKE IT A 212 I HAD DROVE MINE BEFORE I REBUILT AND IT WAS OK BUT NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT WHEN I DID THE REBUILD WITH THE DIFFERENT CRANK AND RODS THE ENGINE RAN SO MUCH BETTER I HAD A FRIEND WHO WENT THE ORIGINAL RUTE ( 175) HE COULD NEVER KEEP UP AFTER THE REBUILDS  FROM THE OUT SIDE WHO KNOWS BUT YOU ?? 

 The Hudson 112 was a very popular car here in N.Z., particularly as taxis.  They were nimble, fast, roomy, and economical.   And they had a higher top speed than the bigger motor, paradoxically, probably due to less friction with the lower piston speed.  Compared to similar cars like the Studebaker,  Graham, Plymouth, and De Soto they were better performers.  And though they had less power they were less troublesome, much like the Pacemakers turned out to be in the Step-Down years.   Detuning does have some benefits.  And if the timing gear gave out the internals did not self destruct like the 5 inchers. 

A 175/212 conversion involves a few other parts (carb, manifold, dipper tray, etc.) but is very doable, esp. if you have a donor engine. AND, you get to smoke the competition while retaining your original S/N. The power cranked out by our '47 C-6 never ceases to impress/please me. I once beat a Small Black Chevy with it. Sweet.
GC...Aluminum cam gears rule! I wouldn't put a 212 together without one.
F

One of the most confusing errors made back-in-the-70's, or so, was the serial number list.  Hudson put out a reference sheet that gave serial numbers from 1910 thru 1927, I think it was.  Trouble is they only dated the entries up to (and including) the 1916 Model G Six-40.  The 1916 Model H Super-Sixes did not carry a date.  There is also some sources from Hudson that says the 1916 Model H was considered by the factory to be a 1917 model even tho it was produced from late 1915 (there are speed records dated in Dec 1915) to mid-1917.  Then it becomes a Model J / 4J and so forth. 
So many outside sources say that the 1916 Model H was a 1917 model bumping up everything else to around 1920.  Further confusion comes with the models - ie, 1917 J & 4J,   To further confuse things I recently got my grubby little hands on a 1922 Hudson Super-Six parts list.  This lists the Model H, Model J, Model 4J, Model 5M, Model 6M, (and this is interesting) Model "O" to 9 "O", Models 10 "O" to 12 "O" and Series 100,000 up.
So now we're wondering what the "O" to 9 "O" is - it would be 1919 with 5M and 6M being 1918 models and J / 4J being 1917. 

For you 1919 Model O fans out there there is a note in this parts list that says there two different styles of side members used on Model "O".

Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN

There was indeed a smaller engine for the British Market.  This was 2-23/32" bore and 5" stroke.  Unlike the 3" bore motors, it had water jackets between the cylinders, so was a stronger  block, and less prone to distortion, therefore had no oil consumption problems. It was of course less well performing, so they fitted the 4.55 rear ends to these cars, which gave them the same  performance as the bigger motors, albeit at higher r.p.m.

The reason for the small bore was the infamous "Horsepower tax" in Britain which was based solely on bore diameter, and  brought the  horsepower to 16.9 R.A.C. rating.   This meant it was cheaper to register each year.

So it is not an error, you need to research before you jump to conclusions.  Some of these cars must have come to New Zealand, as a while ago in a V.C.C. parts shed I came across a heap of small bore gaskets.

Geoff

Interesting. That means the English 112 performance could be significantly different from the US 112 which had a wider bore and shorter stroke. I am guessing that the US configuration would be the better performer due to the wider bore giving perhaps better breathing and of course lower friction from the shorter stroke.

What say I send the reports to Sam for inclusion in  the W.T.N.?