254 lube system
254 Fans,
I've read a few comments here about the possibility or impossibility of a pressure oil system in the splasher "8". I'd like to ask what the proceedure would be in machining everything to accept inserted bearings and getting oil to all parts under pressure. I'd like to ask if someone could give me what has to be done, so I can show it to my machine shop guy. He'd like to look at the info to see if it can be done without an enourmeous expense. He builds race engines and likes a challenge. Thanks in advance,
Kim
I've read a few comments here about the possibility or impossibility of a pressure oil system in the splasher "8". I'd like to ask what the proceedure would be in machining everything to accept inserted bearings and getting oil to all parts under pressure. I'd like to ask if someone could give me what has to be done, so I can show it to my machine shop guy. He'd like to look at the info to see if it can be done without an enourmeous expense. He builds race engines and likes a challenge. Thanks in advance,
Kim
0
Comments
-
Briefly, you would have to drill the block, and run pressure pipes from an outside mounted pressure pump, into each main bearing and cam bearing, drill the crankshaft out to each con rod journal, grind off the dippers and block off the holes in the con rod caps. That should just about do it, but for what advantage I would have to ask? The 254's were pretty lightly stressed, and lasted a long time. You would be able to change over to shell bearings probably, but with the main bearings this is tricky because all the journals are a different size. You would either have to machine up sleeves to reduce the tunnel size, or bore out the existing shells to the largest diameter. Interesting exercise! I hope you have a good credit rating!
Geoff.0 -
Our Western Reserve Chapter president, Fred Lorenz, has had a presurized system in his 8 for quite a few years now. He is listed in roster in Ohio or email is fclorenz@yahoo.com.0
-
kamzack wrote:254 Fans,
I've read a few comments here about the possibility or impossibility of a pressure oil system in the splasher "8". I'd like to ask what the proceedure would be in machining everything to accept inserted bearings and getting oil to all parts under pressure. I'd like to ask if someone could give me what has to be done, so I can show it to my machine shop guy. He'd like to look at the info to see if it can be done without an enourmeous expense. He builds race engines and likes a challenge. Thanks in advance,
Kim
I have driven the Hudson splasher engines-,low on oil[teenager]start and go in REAL cold weather without proper warming up-[teenager],head gasket leaking,low on coolant,and driven with the mains knocking for awhile[several thousand miles]and still would only build a new splasher just as it was designed originally.I guess what I'm trying to say is that I personally have abused these engines and still would not fault the engine if it broke.I am familiar with the Jeep rod bearing install.If you read the shop manual,splashers also need to have the proper side to side clearence,and when you cut the rod to accept the insert bearing,this clearence is lost.Maybe the ones I've seen done were not done right??,I don't really know.I do know that the engines had a knocking sound and the rod side clearence was excessive,and I suspect this was the reason why.Also when the rods were cut to accept the insert type bearing,the insert makes slight contact with the rod bolts,I don't like this either.When the rods are cut to allow for the insert,the side clearence is now gone,and I believe it puts extra stress on the piston pin retainer rings.When a splasher engine is clean inside,it really does oil real well.This all seems like alot of work for something I think works well when done correct.0 -
It all depends on what you want to do. If you plan on a driver and want to run long distances and at fairly high speeds, Change your rear end gearing. A well built 254 will be OK, I have a 3.07 rear gear in my Terp 8 and I can run with the best of them. remembering that my car weighs about 1000# less than a stepdown. Just keep your oil clean and use a good oil.0
-
Here is some info I got from Fred some time ago about his converted Hudson 8 to pressurized Lube:
It wasn't easy, but as I said the guy is good. Builds
> race engines for the likes of Earnhart Jr. et al.
> Drilled out the crank from mains to rods for
> lubrication, (1/2 degree off and he would have ruined
> the crank) machined engine for Massey Ferguson main
> inserts and Chrysler Rod inserts. Welded crank and
> reground all mains to one size (for line boring)
> installed .040 over pistons. Machined block to accept
> Chevy small block rear main seal. Ran internal oil
> lines to all main bearings and external lines to all
> camshaft bearings. Installed segmented racing oil pump
> off front pulley with cogged belt. Installed external
> lines to full flow oil filter and dry sump oil pickup
> in crankcase. Installed stellite valve seats and new
> valves.
> The person that did the work is:
> Dale Francis Engineering
> 14233 Route 86
> Leroy Twp. Ohio 44077
> Phone # 440-254-4046
> He can be slow as if there is a race somewhere that he
> has a car or engine in all effort goes to that job.
> At the same time he figured out how to do all the work
> mentioned above, so he's not all bad.
> I don't want to discourage you but it did take a
> couple of years to get it done. I have no idea what he
> would charge as he did mine about 8 years ago. It's
> still going strong.
> Sincerely
> Fred Lorenz
>0 -
Considering that Hudson set many records by thrashing their straight eights at max revs continuously for hours on end if not DAYS I don't see why you would bother with pressure oiling eg 24 hours at 88mph, 5 hours in 2nd gear at 60mph or so. I have a test somewhere of the 1940 H8 which was driven flat out for many days. And remember yesterday's oil wasn't as good as today's oil!
Stuart Baits the Chief Engineer in the early 30's considered a "fully developed" splash system superior to pressure fed. Some of the reasons: Every rod bearing receives oil immediately on start-up, one loose bearing won't affect any other bearing by pressure loss, any grit won't go right through every bearing, the oil mist inside the engine cools the oil. There are other benefits that I cannot remember. Baits assured Reid Railton that the splash system was fully up to oiling the engine at maximum engine speeds..........Railton had a very high opinion of the straight eight and said something to the effect that it was the best engine of its type in the world as far as he knew. He was also quoted in a report of a meeting with the Rolls-Royce Chief Engineer as being "tremendously impressed by the qualities of the engine........"
I think pressure oiling is crazy for these engines as you would hardly be abusing them as hard as the factory did to prove their point.0 -
A great deal of engine wear occurs on start-up, when the bearings are relatively dry.
Pressure systems are superior in that they get oil under pressure everywhere rather quickly. The Hudson splash system gets oil to the rods right away, but it takes a precious few seconds for the oil to splash onto the interior walls of the block, then trickle down to the gutters, and finally run down the gutters to the mains.
Perhaps that is one reason why splashers rarely have rod bearing problems, but main bearing problems are quite common....on splasher 6's, anyways.0 -
In the November -December 2006 issue of the WTN, there is an add for a 1923-1926 'FULL PRESSURE' Super 6 engine. Maybe check with that person to see how he did it.0
-
I find all of your thoughts about splasers very reassuring. The reason that I created a separate thread about the characteristics of Chev sixes burning out rods at high revs was, first of all, to not high jack this thread for my own question, and, most importantly, to ask others if they had experienced any similar rod failure at freeway speeds with a 254. These engines are really expensive to rebuild. I'd hate to find out later that I should have been driving it at 60MPH because they can't sustain 70MPH.
Terraplane 8, how many RPMs do you reckon that engine was turning while doing 88 MPH for 24 hours? What size tires would you guess that car ran on?0 -
junkcarfann wrote:A great deal of engine wear occurs on start-up, when the bearings are relatively dry.
Pressure systems are superior in that they get oil under pressure everywhere rather quickly. The Hudson splash system gets oil to the rods right away, but it takes a precious few seconds for the oil to splash onto the interior walls of the block, then trickle down to the gutters, and finally run down the gutters to the mains.
Perhaps that is one reason why splashers rarely have rod bearing problems, but main bearing problems are quite common....on splasher 6's, anyways.
Might I ask what is the relativity of "quite common"? In my experience with all engines from F-head super sixes, Essex Fours, Essex super sixes, and Terraplanes, main bearing failures have been absolutely minimal, and the only catastrophic one I have come across was caused by foreign matter lodged in the centre bearing feed hole. The Main bearings in the original super sixes, and the 8's in particular are extremely long-living beasts. I rebuilt one 1930 8 cylinder motor, with .006" wear in the con rods, but all I had to do to the mains was remove a .003 shim from each bearing. As for the arguments for and against splash oiling, and the merits of "Instantaneous" oiling vis-a-vis pressure and splash systems, have you ever stripped an engine down that is in daily use, and seen the amount of oil that is still in each bearing? Probably the biggest disadvantage of splash oiling is the factor of the oil "troughing" at high speed, but a standard ratio rear end in a Hudson results in 3,000 r.p.m. at 60 m.p.h., which is well within the parameter of safety. More particularly now that we have modern multi-grade oils. My tuppence worth!
Geoff.0 -
Geoff, I am glad that your experience has been that main bearing failures in splashers are rare....I am referring to my experience.
Of the numerous 1940-onward splasher 6 cars that I have considered buying over the past 35 years... of the cars that ran, many had a main bearing knock, but only one had a rod knock. I recently repaired a 1940 engine that had excellent rods, but all main bearings were badly worn, especially the center. None of this, however is a scientific study, just my experience.
As for instantaneous oiling, I was referring not only to the main and rod bearings, but to the other internal engine parts that requrie oil. There is no question that a pressure-fed system will provide oil more quickly to parts of the engine beyond the crankshaft, such as the timing gears and valve stems. during the first few moments of running.0 -
You didn't hijack the forum, all you did was make for a good discussion on a neat subject. This same subject has been talked over by the Model A and T people quite a bit and I think the concenus is that it does not really make a hill of beans which you use, its all on how you use the car and how well you take care of it. Several years ago I had a discussion with a fellow who races a Essex 4 about pressure. His comments were that he spins his engine to 4500 rpm with no problem with stock system. Finally, Some of Hudsons Engineering has always been questionable to me. I.E. Splashers and oil clutches, when the rest of the world went the other way. Hudsons gone and the others for the most part are still here.0
-
James P. wrote:I find all of your thoughts about splasers very reassuring. The reason that I created a separate thread about the characteristics of Chev sixes burning out rods at high revs was, first of all, to not high jack this thread for my own question, and, most importantly, to ask others if they had experienced any similar rod failure at freeway speeds with a 254. These engines are really expensive to rebuild. I'd hate to find out later that I should have been driving it at 60MPH because they can't sustain 70MPH.
Terraplane 8, how many RPMs do you reckon that engine was turning while doing 88 MPH for 24 hours? What size tires would you guess that car ran on?
The standard rear end was 4.1:1 but these record breaking cars may have had 3.9:1. Tyres for the 8's were 6.25-16. With the standard rear end at 88mph the revs would have had to be approx 4,400 (which seems unlikely) and with the 3.9:1 around 4,200 which is the max. horsepower revs for these engines. Someone here may be able to clarify this point as to the ratio used. A pretty good testament as to just how tough these engines were when new.0 -
terraplane8 wrote:The standard rear end was 4.1:1 but these record breaking cars may have had 3.9:1. Tyres for the 8's were 6.25-16. With the standard rear end at 88mph the revs would have had to be approx 4,400 (which seems unlikely) and with the 3.9:1 around 4,200 which is the max. horsepower revs for these engines. Someone here may be able to clarify this point as to the ratio used. A pretty good testament as to just how tough these engines were when new.
Thank you very much for your clear and precise answer to my question. Even if these engines were cranking at an RPM less than 4,000 it's still just plain remarkable when you think of all of those hours and with the then available oils!0 -
Guys,
Being realtive new to the Hudson splasher 6 engine as I have owned mine for 3 years now I have seen one common problem to both of mine: the thrust main bearing in both were totally wiped out. By wiped out I mean both had worn so bad that there was .100" thrust clearance on one and .156" in the other engine.
Believe it or not they did not knock at idle or under load but only when the clutch was being released. The rod and main clearance was well within specs on both engines and both the 175 cid and 212 engines ran great. I really think that the thrust main in these 6 cylinder engines is the real weak link because of the splash oiling.
I am not totally sure of this but I believe Hudson was one of the few companies if not the only one that splash lubricated the main bearings in bigger multi-cylinder engines. By that I mean more than 4 cylinders, longer crankshafts, more torsional vibration & stress and more horsepower and torque per pound of engine weight than the other companies that used splash lubrication.
It appears to me that they (Hudson) was pushing the limit of the splash lubrication on these engines and they (the engineering department) had to know this.
How many main bearing sets have appeared on ebay without the thrust main? I personally have seen 2 dozen in the last 2 years and have run into many more at the Hudson swap meets at the regional meets alone.
I really believe once Hudson began building the bigger Invader engine during WWII they realised they needed to improve their product. Its too bad they didn't add the OHC HEMI cylinder head on the Big Six in 1948!
I really believe that adding a better oil pump and pressurising the mains bearings only would help these little splasher 6's live a lot longer in the harsh higher rpm (3800 rpm+) enviroment.
My feeling from a engineering standpoint since I am a engineer is that the Hudson engineering department was looking at friction losses and how to minimise these losses. Splash lubrication, no rocker arms for OHV, gear drive camshafts, raduised cam follows, light crankshafts with 3 main bearings vs 4 main bearings, high nickle blocks, long connections rods all contributed to these well designed engines. Lets face it when you engines have limited air flow due to the flathead port design you have to reduce friction to optomise the power to offer a higher performance product. Lower friction = increased horsepower & torque output.
This was the first thing I notices in the 308 Hornet engine when I tore into it.
The same was true when I dug into my first splasher. These guys were way ahead of the curve compaired to the other guy back then.
Optomise. Lighten. Use Qualtity materials. Machine to higher standards. Test and Improve. This is where Hudson exceeded the others in my book.
later,
PaceRacer500 -
That's an interesting angle, but I have not come across the problem of worn thrust faces, except on the early 4" stroke Essex motor, which was a bit of a disaster right from the start unfortunately. They soon increased the surface of the thrust face, and then increased the size of the mains in 1927, and the diameter of these stayed the same then right until 1947. The length of the rear main was considerable increased in 1932, with the first Terraplane. In a way Stuart Baits argument of "instant lubrication once the crank starts turning" was fallacious, as the mains took some time to get oil into them, but as I have mentioned, there is a considerable amount of residual oil left, and certainly more than enough to lubricate things until circulation does start. If you have ever had a blocked oil return pipe, you will be amazed at how much oil circulates throught that back bearing! When you look at figures right through the 1930s, Hudson engines always had the highest horsepower per cubic inch of all but two other cars, and they were the Duesenberg, and the supercharged Graham. So they got things pretty right really. Obviously it was cheaper for them to stick to a proven formula than change machine tooling. And remember the, 3 x 5 was just an evolutionary development of that first Essex six. The stresses on the centre main bearing were obviously at a marginal level, but on the earlier Super Sixes ('16-'29), and the 8 cylinder engies, they were well over-engineered.
Geoff.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 36.9K All Categories
- 102 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 16 Upcoming Events
- 90 Essex Super 6
- 28.5K HUDSON
- 554 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 992 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 172 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 73 Hudson 8
- 43 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 597 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos