Stepdown weight

Walt-LA
Walt-LA Senior Contributor
edited November -1 in HUDSON
One of the comments I get at with my Hornet sedan at shows is "I'll bet its heavy!" My response has been that space isn't very heavy. But I was surprised to learn when I picked up one of the auto magazines in the barbershop the other day, that the new Shelby (Mustang) Cobra, weighs in almost 300 pounds more than the curb weight of the four door Hornet sedans for 1951! The Hornet was also a bit lighter than today's Pontiac GTO, and the Dodge Charger Coupe, At any rate, it got me looking at the weight difference between four door sedans and club coupes in the Hornet series, which comes down to 20 pounds in '51, with a slightly more even weight distribution in the sedans.



Soooo... Were the coupes "slippier", or frames stiffer? Was it looks? I know there is at least one sedan on the salt at Bonneville. Anyone ever see any drag coefficients for the two models?



Walt-LA

Comments

  • rambos_ride
    rambos_ride Senior Contributor
    Walt-LA wrote:
    One of the comments I get at with my Hornet sedan at shows is "I'll bet its heavy!" My response has been that space isn't very heavy. But I was surprised to learn when I picked up one of the auto magazines in the barbershop the other day, that the new Shelby (Mustang) Cobra, weighs in almost 300 pounds more than the curb weight of the four door Hornet sedans for 1951! The Hornet was also a bit lighter than today's Pontiac GTO, and the Dodge Charger Coupe, At any rate, it got me looking at the weight difference between four door sedans and club coupes in the Hornet series, which comes down to 20 pounds in '51, with a slightly more even weight distribution in the sedans.

    Soooo... Were the coupes "slippier", or frames stiffer? Was it looks? I know there is at least one sedan on the salt at Bonneville. Anyone ever see any drag coefficients for the two models?

    Walt-LA

    My guess would be the wheelbase...shorter wheelbase - faster turns and even 20-50lbs reduction in weight makes a difference on parts and over the course of a race.

    I laugh at new cars! Did you know the average weight of a new car is 4100 lbs? Just think what you could do with a Stepdown 2 or 4 dr by making weight savings a key?

    Fiberglass Bumpers, Hood, Fenders, Doors, and Trunk (Probably not too smart to do the quarters given the unibody construction) if done right could probably take another 200-300lbs out of the car...maybe more!

    We've got a couple of racers out here in forum - what are your rides weighing in at?
  • frank spring
    frank spring Expert Adviser
    I weighed my Italia, 2760# and its a good thing with only a 202 engine.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    frank spring wrote:
    I weighed my Italia, 2760# and its a good thing with only a 202 engine.

    The 202 is a much more efficient engine than the 308. It's only 31 hp less than a Twin H 308. 31hp for 106 cubes is not so great...

    And with the Jet's lower weight, the Jet (and the Italia) have a slightly better HP to Weight ratio than the Hornet.:cool:
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    royer wrote:
    The 202 is a much more efficient engine than the 308. It's only 31 hp less than a Twin H 308. 31hp for 106 cubes is not so great...



    And with the Jet's lower weight, the Jet (and the Italia) have a slightly better HP to Weight ratio than the Hornet.:cool:



    We race a 41 traveler coupe, that has a 308 engine, torque flyte trans, dana rear end. It is pretty well gutted (2 fiberglass racing seats) with aluminium wheels. It weighs in at just under 2700 lbs.



    Dany
  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    Must be the body's appearance. My Pacemaker 4 dr sedan is 3410 lbs. My '47 Commodore 8 sedan is actually 100 lbs lighter at 3310. Amazing that they havn't done better on modern cars... must be the added weight of all those electronics, the undersized spare tire and foam rubber molded panels. hahah



    The '32 Essex Terraplane had the best horsepower to weight ratio of any US domestic production car...better than the '32 Ford V8.
  • nick s
    nick s Senior Contributor
    rambos_ride wrote:
    My guess would be the wheelbase...shorter wheelbase - faster turns and even 20-50lbs reduction in weight makes a difference on parts and over the course of a race.



    Sorry Dan, coupe and sedan had the same wheelbase. The wheelbase was model dependent, not body. Had the short wheelbase been a factor, and you can view the Hornet as Marshall Teagues baby, they would have built the pacemaker up rather than the Commodore. I would guess the choice was made purely on handling. The coupe with less greenhouse would have a lower center of gravity than the sedan.


    Aaron D. IL wrote:
    The '32 Essex Terraplane had the best horsepower to weight ratio of any US domestic production car...better than the '32 Ford V8.



    aaron, better than the '33 Terraplane 8?
  • hudsontech
    hudsontech Senior Contributor
    Walt-LA wrote:
    One of the comments I get at with my Hornet sedan at shows is "I'll bet its heavy!" My response has been that space isn't very heavy. But I was surprised to learn when I picked up one of the auto magazines in the barbershop the other day, that the new Shelby (Mustang) Cobra, weighs in almost 300 pounds more than the curb weight of the four door Hornet sedans for 1951! The Hornet was also a bit lighter than today's Pontiac GTO, and the Dodge Charger Coupe, At any rate, it got me looking at the weight difference between four door sedans and club coupes in the Hornet series, which comes down to 20 pounds in '51, with a slightly more even weight distribution in the sedans.



    Soooo... Were the coupes "slippier", or frames stiffer? Was it looks? I know there is at least one sedan on the salt at Bonneville. Anyone ever see any drag coefficients for the two models?



    Walt-LA



    Walt,



    Drop me an email @ HEThester_nec@yahoo.com (drop the HET) and I'll be more than happy to send you a copy of the weight sheet from my General Info Handbook, plus Car Distribution Department Bulletin DL.51-1 - Shipping Weights Cars and Options "A" Series Cars.



    Hudsonly,

    Alex Burr
  • Uncle Josh
    Uncle Josh Senior Contributor
    My 40 Eight coupe has the same power/weight as the Hornet 145
  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    As impressive as the total weight of the Hudsons is, the astounding part is the weight distribution, especially in the case of the pre-stepdowns. According to Alex's data, my '47 C8 sedan has 150 pounds more weight on the rear axle than the front. What other American car in '47 had better than 50-50 weight distribution? I recall back in the early fifties when I stuffed a hot H8 into a '35 Terraplane coach, a weigh-in at the local truck scale showed that even with the 8 up front, the T still had more weight on the rear axle than the front. No wonder it was so darned hard to get rubber with those thirties Hudsons and Terraplanes! (though that 8-powered '35T would do a serious burnout!)
  • essexcoupe3131
    essexcoupe3131 Senior Contributor
    Aaron D. IL wrote:
    Must be the body's appearance. My Pacemaker 4 dr sedan is 3410 lbs. My '47 Commodore 8 sedan is actually 100 lbs lighter at 3310. Amazing that they havn't done better on modern cars... must be the added weight of all those electronics, the undersized spare tire and foam rubber molded panels. hahah



    The '32 Essex Terraplane had the best horsepower to weight ratio of any US domestic production car...better than the '32 Ford V8.





    Would you know what the 31 essex coupe was like in its weight to power ratio, though mine now has a small block:D

    thanks Mike
  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    MY earlier stat on the power to weight ratio of the '32 Essex Terraplane compared to the Ford V8 of the same vintage (they were released about the same time I think) was from Don Butler's "History of Hudson" book.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion