Jet Horsepower ratings

Nevada Hudson
Nevada Hudson Senior Contributor
edited November -1 in HUDSON
According to my records the Maximum Horsepower of the 1953-1954 Superjet and Jetliner with Twin H and aluminum head is 114 Horsepower. The same engine is listed in the 1955-1956 Wasp as 120 horsepower. What modification was done?

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Gross Horsepower ratings were always kind of vague. I've heard that Hudson listed their HP on the conservative side, maybe AMC "boosted" the number a bit when they put it in the larger AMC body. I'd be interested in any modifications that have been done to the 202 motor. The standard answer to "How do I get more power from my Jet?" seems to be "Squeeze a 308 in it!"



    I'm not complaining, my 114hp Jet keeps up with the crazy highway traffic pretty well.
  • Nevada Hudson
    Nevada Hudson Senior Contributor
    Maybe cut some more relief in the block-super induction style, or have headers or a split exhaust manifold.The stock Hudson Jet could beat a flathead Ford v8.
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    A.M.C. posted gross horsepower, Hudson used net figures, that's the difference. there is no difference in the motor fitted to the Hash Wasp, apart from a longer water pump shaft and the thermostat housing.

    Geoff.
  • 464Saloon
    464Saloon Senior Contributor
    It is quite amazing the power of the Jet out of 202 inches. The stock Ford Flathead was 239 and peaked at 106 horse in 1953 before it was replaced with the Y-Block. The Mercury version of the flathead V8 was 255 cid due to a 1/4 longer stroke and it was rated at 112. Another thing I have found amazing is the legendary first OHV V8 Olds Rocket was 303 inches and 135 HP and the Hornet at 308 inches AND A FLATHEAD ranged from 145 clear up over 170 in stock tune.
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    You are right about the performance of the Jet. In fact, one of Hudson's advertising claims was that the only car that could keep up with a Jet was a Hornet! They were ostensibly built with the same performance factor - how true this is I have no idea, but where the Jet was let down was it's abysmal cornering ability compared to the Hornet, due to it's narrow track and high centre of gravity. However, among contemporary cars it had few equals for sheer get-up and go. My brother had a 53 Ford customline, and this was an absolute slug compared to my Jet, much to his consternation. And my Jet is not a super Jet either, just the standard Jet Liner, with single carb and iron head. Have had it 35 years now. Just been on a 500 mile trip this weekend, cruise at 60 m.p.h. in overdrive and the engine only turning over at 2000 r.p.m. and returns 25 m.p.g.

    Geoff.
  • 464Saloon
    464Saloon Senior Contributor
    I would think a Super Wasp would be a good run. I understand that was the 262 in the short wheelbase, some claimed could run with a Hornet. As for handling though I have driven my Hornet much yet, it is pretty wallowy. Seems to roll and plow alot for a stepdown, but then it doesn't seem to let go and the skinny tires hardly squeal.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I had a buddy of mine blow my doors off in a 54 Jet liner. I was driving a new 55 Ford. Over the years I have had Hornets, Commodore,s and Wasps. I think the 52 Wasp Hollywood I had was the best as far as handling and it ran real good too. Had a 50 Pacmaker coupe with overdrive and it was nice also. I like the short wheelbase cars best.
  • Nevada Hudson
    Nevada Hudson Senior Contributor
    Geoff C., N.Z. wrote:
    You are right about the performance of the Jet. In fact, one of Hudson's advertising claims was that the only car that could keep up with a Jet was a Hornet! They were ostensibly built with the same performance factor - how true this is I have no idea, but where the Jet was let down was it's abysmal cornering ability compared to the Hornet, due to it's narrow track and high centre of gravity. However, among contemporary cars it had few equals for sheer get-up and go. My brother had a 53 Ford customline, and this was an absolute slug compared to my Jet, much to his consternation. And my Jet is not a super Jet either, just the standard Jet Liner, with single carb and iron head. Have had it 35 years now. Just been on a 500 mile trip this weekend, cruise at 60 m.p.h. in overdrive and the engine only turning over at 2000 r.p.m. and returns 25 m.p.g.

    Geoff.

    Hi Geoff,

    I wonder if gas shocks, radial tires (tyres ) (be nice if they made wide whites this size), and stabilizer bars would help much. Cheers!
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    Yes, they probably would, but I have a stock of cross-ply tyres that I am too scotch to throw away, so using those up first! I think a sway bar at the rear would be a big improvement as well. I have one that I may adapt at some stage. The way the rear shock absorbers are mounted doesn't do anything for body roll.

    Geoff.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    The Jet is a good candidate for a little lowering. I would drop the stance about 2 inches and add the sway bars plus maybe change the shock mounts to help the cornering.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    When I got my 54 Wasp it was pointed out to me that there was no SWAY bar in ther rear (forget what you call em now) Wasn't able to find out if the Wasp came with them from the factory or not, but since it was set up ti install one I put one in...Also installed NEW SHOCKS..........Made a BIG DIFFERENCE in the roll on the car...It handles much better now with these improvements
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    My Jet came with P215/75 radials that I'm going to switch out A.S.A.P. They rub the fenders in the back and the suspension in the front. I haven't decided if I'm going to get radials or bias ply.
  • 53jetman
    53jetman Senior Contributor
    I converted my '53 SuperJet to 14 x 6 wheels like used on the '67 Dodge Cornet. This widened the track about two inches, and with 6.50 x 14 bias ply polyester tires (wide whites) from Universal Tire it helped the roadability considerably. Have not experienced any rub problems, and it got rid of the road wander that I had experienced before with the 6.40 15's. I would have to agree, I think the car would look better if it were dropped about two inches, and I may work this into my schedule of things to do to it in the near future. Right now I'm finishing up installing a new interior. Couldn't find material anything like the original, but did find some that was very close to the '53 Hornet and was able to use it. Really will look good when done.

    It's a great automobile - I thought so when it came out in 1953, and still think so today. Ive owned this one since 1966!



    53jetman
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    Strangely, I have no wander problems at all with the Jet on cross-plies. I did try it with radials but it was too harsh, and you heard every bump, so I changed back. Perhaps the tyres were the wrong specs. My Hornet or Essex do not have wandering problems either, but the '29 Hudson will act like a tram if there are any longitudinal ridges in the road. I am currently running 6 ply light transport 600-15 tyres on the Jet which are the same height as the original 640/15's, and it handles really great. However, the suply of cross-plies is rapidly diminishing, so I'll have to bite the bullet eventually. Depends on how many miles I do I suppose, with my motoring pretty evenly divided between 3 cars now. Being semi-retired, I no longer do the travelling I used to. Clocked up over 150,000 miles on othe the Essex and Jet whilst I was working. Jet is faster and certainly performs brilliantly, but I think I like driving the Essex better!

    Geoff.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion