anyone seen Chevy 350 in 54 Super Wasp?

There's no accounting for taste.



Would a Stanley Steamer be a Stanley Steamer with a small block Chevrolet under the bonnet?



First of all, I'm younger than probably 98% of the people in this club, and I've got a 77-year-old stocker. I'm an AACA member. And I'm not the exception to the rule. I've got several other young guys here that appreciate the value of a true classic as well as enjoy modified vehicles. Take a good friend of mine, for instance, who loves to tinker with my dead-stock 29 Hudson but also has a 98 Chevy S10 with a 11:1 aluminum 388 screaming about 530 ft-lbs of torque out the rear end.



Yes, you can put a GM V6 or V8 in a Hudson and have a fine driving car. You can take it anywhere you want. Yes, the body and chassis will be Hudson. No, the drivetrain, or engine at least, won't. I think if I was going to seriously drive the car a lot, I'd go with a GM overdrive transmission and keep the Hudson engine. And I'd dress that 308 up. The 308 is a reciprocating piston engine just like the GM 4.3 and when properly prepared will make just as much power just as reliably. What's wrong with blueprinting and balancing that gennie drivetrain and upping the compression and making it breathe a little better; lend it some of the same technology that built that 4.3? Nothing. For me, there's a mystical experience about getting in one of my old cars and motoring down a two-lane road just as it was meant to be back in 29, or 50, or 65, or whatever. My Hudson is a piece of history and I think after nearly 80 years she deserves to be treated as such. If I want to go fast, I'll go drive our 01 Corvette. My 65 Sport Fury sports what is referred to in the Mopar community as Poly 318. It's a big heavy slab-headed 400-odd-pound behemoth of an engine that has often been referred to as a boat anchor. I could have put in a 383 or a Wedge or a Hemi. Or a late 5.9. Or an engine from another make. But mine is running around 300 horsepower, reliably. It's slightly modified, in that it has period-correct speed parts on it. It's got a custom cam, an intake and AFB on it that it didn't come with, a set of headers, a Pertronix kit, and a few other things. Its drivetrain is numbers-matching and the little bit of 21st-century technology I've added to it isn't visible.



There is work involved either way. In restoring a car to near-stock appearance, you're going to often have to do a lot of research and parts hunting and have a lot of dedication. I'm in the History business and that's what I enjoy. I think of Rick with his '38 pickup. When you're building a modified, that research is significantly less, as you don't particularly care how the factory did it-- you're going to do it your way. The emphasis then is on craftsmanship, not authenticity. At carshows I pay much less attention to modified cars, because frankly many of them just don't suit my taste. I appreciate the work and craftsmanship involved in making a nice modified. I've built many of them. But I am a minimalist in my modifications, especially when it comes to appearance. Styles change. You don't see any 1980s style modified rods at shows anymore; they are out of style. You're not going to see many cars out right now painted pink and sea green with tweed interiors. On the other hand that '54 Wasp looking like it just drove out of the Hudson dealership was in style in 54, 64, 74, 84, 94, and 2006. In the years to come, will it be more appreciated as a nice, near-original car or as something someone modified back in 2006?



Personally, I think that sometimes people who are in such a hurry to discard the OE drivetrain have never really seen it perform. How many cars have been bought in derelict condition to restore, someone has looked at that "old boat anchor" in the engine compartment and removed it without even attempting to start it first? Go see Doug Wildrick, Bill Albright, Geoff Clark, or some of our other venerated members. Come to my house. I was watching the History channel not long ago and a special was on about bootlegging, and one of the cars mentioned was a 1929 Hudson. I almost cried when they opened the hood to revel a rusty, junkyard-fresh "Corvette" 327. The owner said when he got the car, the six didn't run and it wasn't worth fooling with. WHAT? This is the HISTORY CHANNEL! Shouldn't we be featuring authentic cars when talking about the past? This was the highest year of Hudson production, can't we find an original car to feature? Or, if you're going to show a modified, how about one that doesn't look like a 60s model C10 pickup puked its motorvational guts out and landed under the hood of a 29 Super Six? I have been fooling with prewar cars for years now and have never had one leave me stranded. I've driven home knocking rods all to hell, with one gear functioning, tires unraveling, head gaskets spewing water, and everything else. But these were all failures that, had I gone through things beforehand, wouldn't have happened. With a few tools in the trunk I'll drive my 29 Hudson anywhere. I'll drive 50-55 on the highway all day long and many weekends I do, with wedding parties in back. I've been through it mechanically and I trust it to perform.



"You can't find parts". Bull****. You can find any part for any car ever made, period. If it's a consumable part or something likely to break buy a couple of them. To me, changing clutch fluid, polishing the points now and then, adjusting the brakes, setting valve lash, and the like is part of the fun of owning an old car. As is looking around for literature to figure out just how they did things back then, and hunting parts to make them go. If you're not that type, that's fine. If you'd rather change the car so it's more modern and 'easier to drive', that's fine. But do me a favor, before you go cutting on a good original, call me first.



Best Regards,

Modified Hudsons are indeed a growing part of our club. While obviously I have strong opinions as to major modifications, in no way would I, nor most of the other members of this club intentionally do anything to make a driver of a modified car feel unwelcome. I also would not rule out the possibility of purchasing a modified car if it struck my fancy, or modifying a Hudson if the original drivetrain was not present, terminally ill (read: not restorable), or too far gone to justify a stock restoration. I would much rather see these cars driven than scrapped, gennie drivetrain or not. However, as per my comments I would encourage someone before making a decision to make major, often irreversible modifications, get all the information. For you that's going to mean information about what you're putting in AND what you're taking out. Go drive a nice original car before you do that swap, and see what you think. Cost benefit analysis here, machine work costs no more for a Hudson than it does for a 350 Chevrolet. Parts prices are up and down from the Chevrolet reference line, depending on what you're talking about. And get a real world dollar number for doing that swap-- then add about 50%. [If one of you dares to argue with me on this point, drop by and I'll show you the binders full of receipts I have from previous builds.] Geoff, I agree with you about some of the detail parts. I don't understand the fetish for certain original things while the rest of the car came from a catalog. Terry, I'm sure you have a nice car, and I congratulate you for driving it. If I was going to engine swap a Hudson it would most likely be to Chrysler drivetrain, as I have a lot of experience with Chrysler motorvation and a Hudson is after all, Chrysler by marriage.



Best Regards,

54 HSWH wrote:

OK, has anyone seen a CHEVY 262 in a Super Wasp?

YUP, that's a Chevy 262 cu in, V6, 4.3L; some were via car and some truck; some had a roller cam (YUP), and some had roller cam & TBI (YUP), and most have aluminum heads and intakes.

I now have to determine if a V6 will physically fit. The V8 is TOO long! I suspect the V6 is workable, and much, MUCH lighter!

Anyone seen a V6 in a 54 Super Wasp?

TIA

When are you guys going to learn that this discussion is exactly why we have a sub-forum. When you post here you just invite a lot of criticism and not a lot of substance. For every guy trying to help you, you get 4 or 5 idiots ranting about how you are ruining a Hudson, blah blah blah! Geez guys its getting pathetic. Wake up to the real world.

These threads get old quick. You know, us rodders do not rag on you guys for putting/or leaving those flatheads in your cars, and there are plenty of reasons not to want a flathead, yet you seem to feel we all are fair game. In the future, if someone posts rodding questions here instead of the sub forum, I will no longer stick up for you, in my opinion, you will get exactly what you asked for. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm in a mess of pain and the meds don't work for very long.

Jay

It doesn't look like the thread is gotten to the point where its people attacking others, people are giving their and backing it up Looks like there's a good discussion going on. I'm happy to see that



(The Model A was from 1928 through 1931, 1932 would be a Model B )

I have been a member of this forum for a while but have not posted anything. In 1956 my dad and I put a 55 Buick engine and Dinaflow trans in a 48 commadore 6. With the high geared hudson rear end it made a screaming car that would hold the road good. While i was in the army my dad wanted the engine for his milatary command car so he put a 55 Pontaic engine in a 52 Hornet for me when i got home. My point is you can put any engine in anything if you want to. Between 1955 and 1967 I Owned 8 Hudsons and am curently restoring a 50 Commadore 8. At this time i would never consider altering a hudson from stock.

LJ