21st centruy hudson

russmaas
russmaas Senior Contributor
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Has been updated

Can also take credit cards verbally thru my other business





Thanks



http://www.21stcenturyhudson.net/

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Looks good....
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Russ,

    On the web site you list to contact you about the racing camshafts.



    Can you fill us Hudson Drag racers in on what grinds you offer?



    I am running your .402" lift 276 degree duration (242 degrees at .050"

    lift) camshaft and want to get something that will pull to 4500 rpm.

    My combination is .030 over 308, 2.10" intake and 1.675" exhaust valves

    ported-polished-relieved block, clifford head, 4bbl clifford intake with

    a 480cfm Motorcraft 4100 carb, clifford headers, 2600 rpm stall & 350

    B&M turbo tranny, 3.55 to 1 gears in a 3400lb 50 Pacemaker coupe

    body.

    Presently running 16.70's around 84mph in the quarter mile. There is

    more there that I am leaving on the table but I have not unlock it all.

    Tuning is pretty much where it wants to be on timing & jetting.



    The .402" lift cam pulls hard to 4000 rpm but falls off above that.



    I do like the driveability of this camshaft but with the looser converter

    I feel that a bigger camshaft would work better. Seams to just start to

    pull real hard then run out of cam.



    Any recomendations?

    thanks,

    PaceRacer50
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    PaceRacer



    You did not mention your CR--assuming it to be around 10 to 1 it should pull good to 4500-5000. Your intake valve is excessive at 2.100. You might try a 600cfm-borrow one if you can to see how it works. If that doesn't help, I think your problem may be in the relief area. I had a motor way back when I was experimenting that would not rev over 4200 It was the relief. I think you are running well with what you have.



    Randy
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    yeah, 16.70 at 84 mph, in a hudson is nothing to sneeze at. That's pretty quick. I'm impressed.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Hey Randy,



    can you explain the problem you saw with the relief? was it the way it was shaped. I am curious to what you saw and what the optimum shape and depth is in your experience.



    Thanks...Sean
  • super651
    super651 Senior Contributor
    Randy,seals and gasket are here,and they make the CHINA brands that are on the market look like JUNK which they ARE.

    Thanks Rudy
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    51HornetA



    I found the relief has to extend around the back of the valves, therefore the depth has to be deeper. I go down a depth of .350 at 7 degrees. This is measured on the piston side of the relief.



    Randy
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Thanks Randy for the info. I have seen guys make the front to deep without any consideration of the area around the back of the valves. Wondered what would cause engine to loose steam after 4200rpm. When I worked in my Dad's engine shop he would do the relief by hand and make sure the intake was rough to break up the mixture he polished the exhaust. He was always muttering about vortexing the fuel mixture. I am really starting to understand what he was on about as I age LOL.
  • 464Saloon
    464Saloon Senior Contributor
    Randy,

    I sent you an e-mail and a pm. Did you get either?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Rob.,



    Looking for a partial bottle for the brand name. Working on my belt drive this afternoon for the race motor. I'll look again.



    Randy
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Could the "behind the valve" relief be accomplished in the head rather than the block?



    Lets assume a certain engine has the rear circumference of the intake valve seat cut dead even with the deck.



    I had much rather swap heads to change this than recut a block. So, I'm hoping you say yes!



    Mark
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Hi Mark,



    Sorry, No. I had tried that on a block when I first started racing and motor would not rev over 4200 so I opened up the outside circumference and went deeper--solved that issue. I also found I didn't need but .020 to .025 valve to head clearance at total valve lift. Many feel you need at least .050. I've done both and found no difference. I'm also running 12-1 compression ratio which I'm told can't be done. Twenty years experience in R & D has finally paid off for me. Try what ever you think may work for you.



    Randy
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    maasfh wrote:
    Hi Mark,



    Sorry, No. I had tried that on a block when I first started racing and motor would not rev over 4200 so I opened up the outside circumference and went deeper--solved that issue. I also found I didn't need but .020 to .025 valve to head clearance at total valve lift. Many feel you need at least .050. I've done both and found no difference. I'm also running 12-1 compression ratio which I'm told can't be done. Twenty years experience in R & D has finally paid off for me. Try what ever you think may work for you.



    Randy





    Lucky for me this is to be a street engine, huh? Oh well, there will be others.



    Its hard to argue with 20 years cutting on these things.



    Pretty much proves the side flow vs. over the valve flow theories. At least for Hudson.



    I do need another piece of information, being as how my DeskTop Dyno has gone the way of the dinosaur.



    I'm considering a stationary engine, a Hudson 262, running at a governed 1850 rpm.



    What is the torque output, according to the simulation, for a 262 with the '56 mechanical cam and a 5" stroke? All I'm interested in is max torque and hp at 1850 rpm, or as close as you can get.



    My application is cubic inch limited to around 300 CID. I'm thinking a 5" stroke 262 will out-torque a stock stroke 308 at 1850 rpm.



    Any help is appreciated.



    Mark
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion