Sleeving a Hudson engine

KTRON

Has anyone on here sleeved a Hudson engine for either longevity, larger bore/more power or better thermal conductivity? I have and have had sleeved many of my air cooled 2 and 4 cycle engines, and am wondering what if any benefit sleeving a Hudson engine would do in regards to building a longer lasting engine. I have read on here that Hudson used high nickel alloy blocks, and that they last forever, and almost in the same breath, you hear that they typically do not last 100,000 miles before necessitating a rebuild. Is cylinder wear an issue on high mileage engines, or is it more or less weak rings, stretching valves, eroded valve seats, stretched timing chains and not enough lubrication which attribute to the engines short life? For how slow these engines spin, you'd really think that the engine would last 300,000 miles without a hitch. The mean piston speed is nowhere near that of more modern engines cruising and accelerating at much higher rpm. I am very comfortable building engines and can do everything but boring a cylinder and grinding a crankshaft in my home shop. I do have a great machinist who bores and sleeves engines on a daily basis. I am thinking about building my own "hot" 308 before buying a Hudson to put it into,

Chris

RL Chilton

In addition, Chris, Ken didn't mention it, but Hudson blocks are not cast iron, as you would often find in many ICE's, but, rather they are a chromium alloy.  I don't have the figures in front of me, but they are something like half again as hard as cast iron, in case you were looking to add a harder sleeve, for better longevity.  

As Ken pointed out, there's not enough meat between cylinders to sleeve it much, and there's no really need to anyway.  

Geoff

The only reason for sleeving in my opinion is if the bore is scored badly.   In the older splash-fed motors there is too little meat between the cylinders from '34 onwards to get a good result with sleeving.   I have had two engines fail after sleeving, because there was not enough metal around the original bore for structural integrity, and cracks developed between the sleeves and the  head studs.  The main reason modern engines last so long is because of infinitely better air and oil filtering. 

Geoff 

Uncle Josh

Last week II took a 308 crank to clean up the rod pins to a guy whose father ran the Hudson dealership in Amsterdam, NY. and runs Haberick machine shop.  They do engines including large diesels.  We got t'talkin Hudsons and he told me about a guy from CA who wanted him to fix a 308 that someone sleeved and put valve seats in..  Well, they got into water with both of them and ruined the thing so he couldn't  to fix it.. 

He asked 'why would anyone put seats in a Hudson unless one was worn too bad, because this modern fuel stuff is just a scare.  There is no seat degradation.  And furthermore, why would anyone sleeve a Hudson.  Just bore it a little (up to .040) if you have to, and build it stock'.

Kdancy

Uncle Josh, I've worked on two engines that had severe valve seat recession after running on "modern" fuel for a few years. One was a Studebaker V8, also a very high content chromium alloy block and heads. Most of the Stude guys were saying the same thing that guy said. . The other was a 66 mustang with 6 cylinder, valve seat recession so bad we were barely able to put new seats in it.

RL Chilton

Well, I think the modern fuel stuff is considerably more than a "scare" in Brand-X engines.  That said, on my last Hudson rebuild, I did put in hardened seats on the exh. valves, simply because I thought it to be one of those, "It can't possibly hurt, and it very well might help." kind of things.  However, I still would like to see an Hudson engine that has suffered from seat degradation.  I still don't know if such an animal exists.  

Frankvintagefullflowcom

I suspect that what is characterized as "seat recession" is the result of repeated valve jobs over the past gazillion years, and not always jobs done correctly. I've only installed seats to restore valve height to original. I agree that the supposed necessity of inserts is largely (if not entirely) BS, esp. in a Hudson.
F

KTRON

Thanks for all of this great information. I did not know that Hudson blocks were chromium alloy. If that is the case, the engine would have to have aluminum pistons and cast iron/steel rings. I have not had the luxury to work on and teardown a Hudson engine just yet, I am just throwing ideas out to see and hear what you guys have run into. I am very familiar with sleeved gasoline and diesel engines. Its actually one of the deciding factors for me upon how "good" an engine really is and if it is worth rebuilding. I tend to only rebuild engines with sleeved cylinders, or engines with removable/replaceable cylinders. Should the bore be bad, and the block cracked, has anyone gone through the extensive process of pinning and welding a block, or spray welding a cylinder so that it can be bored to standard or slightly oversize? What is the standard now for building a new Hudson engine? Forged Alcoa pistons, steel rings? How many rings on the piston? 3 compression, 1 oil control ring? 

At the time these engines were built, what did they use for valves? Were they stellite, "induction hardened" or??? Did they have valve rotators? What was the size of the valve stem? 5/16"? Most of my engines are air cooled, and typically run 3x hotter than a water cooled engine. I've noticed that when it comes to valve in block engines, thin stem valves tend to have a very short service life, compared to those with thicker valve stems, regardless of the length of the valve, nor the width of its face. Obviously port design and flow can make a huge difference, but I tend to like engines which are overbuilt from day 1, with large face valves for better breathing, and wide valve stems for increased thermal conductivity, so the engine can enjoy a flatter torque curve and longer service life. Are the valve seats in the Hudson block replaceable? If not, I can completely understand why so many Hudson owners are in a debate over replacing valve seats or not. In my book, replacing valve seats and guides is not a question of whether or not clearances are satisfactory, its based around its overall working height relative to the block and flow of intake and exhaust gasses. A recessed valve seat and shorter "ground" valve will not flow, operate or run as cool as one operating at the correct height.  

Perhaps this thread should be changed to; "How to build a Hudson engine"

Chris

lostmind

How many hundred thousands of miles do you plan on driving this rebuilt engine?

Rings , bearings , timing chain and valve job, oil pump gear , is usually good for another 100K on a Step Down engine.

I never did anything about the cracks around valve seats, didn't seem to effect performance or reliability.

I know a lot of guys " need to do it right" , but right in the 50's and 60's was diiferent than today.

RL Chilton

KTRON-

I think lostmind is onto something, in that, the best recommendation is not to "over-do" it with these engines.  Without hurting anyone's feelings, Hudson engines are basically tractor engines, with a little more advanced engineering.  They are really relatively simple, built to last, over-engineered, fantastic powerplants for the Post-war (and before) period.  

With modern-day oils, you can drop the 4th ring and go with 2 compression and one oil ring, UN-PINNED.  These engines max out at 4800-5000 rpm, so really, other than some 7X mods, which aren't really for everyday running, the best effort you should apply is to adding sound, quality parts, properly balanced and then concentrating on making it BREATHE better.  And by breathing, I'm referring to making it flow better and run properly on the new fuels, (which I won't get into here, for fear of backlash, but feel free to call me or drop me an email if you want to delve more into that particular aspect  210-380-9709, or see my email on the bottom of my post).  

A 2bbl carb is a good addition, or the Twin-H, which costs more, but is more fun to have and show.  These engines develop so much torque and overall sound performance, that really, not much extras is needed.  If you are used to other post-War marques, I assure you, the Hudson is just in a different class, performance-wise. You can go to the 2" intake valves and larger exh valves, but it's not really necessary for a solid cruiser with plenty get-up-and-go.  

You're right about the height of the valves.  On a side-valve configuration, the biggest weak points (my opinion) is the configuration of the combustion chamber.  It's hard enough to take steps to improve on it, and making it any bigger is flat-out detrimental.  Valve heights should be maintained, if for nothing else, than just not to lose any potential hp unnecessarily.  

53jetman

Before further fantasizing on the rebuild necessary  of a Hudson 308 CI engine, I'd suggest that you wait until you actually own such an animal and understand what we are all suggesting above.  The stamina and service of these engines as they exited the factory is unbelievable for the age in which they were manufactured. 

My father was a Hudson Dealer for 27 years between 1933 and 1955 (just after the merger) and you would be amazed  at the service we witnessed,  especially during the WW II years from cars that had to run - such as rural mail carriers, doctors, etc.

KTRON

Russell, I did notice how simple these engines were, and talked with Charles Salvato a bit about them. Last summer I built up a "hot" Waukesha 190GLB for our 1949 Oliver farm tractor. At that time, a majority of tractors were 2 cylinder (John Deere) or 4 cylinder (Allis Chalmers, IH/Farmall), but Oliver brought the automotive engine to the field, and were advertised as 6 cylinder smooth, with the right gear for every job. That engine just purrs like a kitten. 175rpm idle and 2100rpm governed speed. We pulled the 3-1/8" bore sleeves for 3-3/4" bore sleeves, increasing its displacement from 216 to 265. We cut new valve seats into the head, and ported the block for better flow. We glyptal sealed the block and shimmed the oil pressure bypass for more running oil pressure. She now makes 72hp @ 1600rpm instead of just 44. Its about as simple of an engine as you can get, but unlike Hudson, Waukesha built heavy duty industrial engines. Low rpm sleeved wet liner engines that is. The 262/308 Hudson engines ran roughly 2x the speed of the Waukesha in our farm tractor, and likely have a completely different lubrication and spark advance setup. I believe we replaced the 18* spark advance in our engine with a 21* spark advance for higher rpm. I would imagine the Hudson engines have variable vacuum advance. What does the Hudson engine have for lubrication, piston squirters, rod squirters? If and when I get a Hudson, I will be rebuilding the engine regardless of whether it runs or not, because thats simply what I do. It doesnt matter if I run it 500 miles a year or 100,000 a year, I am very particular about building my engines, and want to squeeze the most reliability (despite a slight bump in power), as physically possible,

Chris

Jon B

I'd go along with Jetman.  Wait until you own one of these engines before you plan a lot of improvements.  By 1948 (when the new six came out) Hudson engineers pretty much "had it right" and except for not being on OHV, this engine was state of the art.  I've never heard of a "weak point" in the engine unless you're talking racing engines or the problem with high compression heads. 

The old splasher sixes and eights -- now THERE's something that could stand a bit of improvement, and a number of upgrades have indeed been performed by owners over the years in order to make them a bit less quirky.  For example I installed bronze silicone valve guides hoping to forestall the valves hanging up if the engine sits for long periods of time.  And a lot of guys don't replace the pinned piston rings.  And I soldered a sort of "dam" of angle iron across the middle of the dipper tray at the suggestion of a certain Hudson engine expert on Long Island, who said that it would help raise the level of oil in the dipper trays and assure I wouldn't starve the bearings on steep hills. 

But again -- for a 308, I don't think it's worth trying to improve on what the Hudson engineers had perfected.  You'll spend plenty of time improving the OTHER things on your Hudson, instead!

50C8DAN

Between Hudson (6s) and Packard (8s) the flathead reached its final evolution.  Could other Improvements have been made? Perhaps, but the technology was not there yet.  Fuel injection and computerized design of combustion chambers among others would make these engines even more efficient and powerful, but basically the flathead had reached the end of the line.  Nonetheless I still love them and think they represent a long run of engine design that served the entire automobile industry.

Per

Chris,

     Thank you for your detailed description of your work on your 1949 Oliver farm tractor engine.  The engine speeds you mention for that 4.7 inch stroke engine are comparable to the engine speeds of 6 cylinder Hudsons. For example, a 1952 Hornet with hydramatic has an engine speed of about 2000 rpm at 50 miles per hour.  A Hornet with overdrive and the axle ratio that was common in cars equipped with overdrive (4.56) has an engine speed of  about 1900 rpm at 50 miles per hour.  The maximum power, at 3800 rpm, was good for the racetrack!  More relevant was the maximum torque, at 1800 rpm.

     It would be nice if you could drive a couple of Hornets (since you mention power, I am suggesting the Hornet, 308 engine) just to see how you feel about the performance.  For hydramatic, I suggest a 1952-54 because of the 3.07 axle these usually came with.  (The 1951 came with a 3.56 ratio.)  For standard shift, I suggest a car with the most common axle ratio, 4.10.

     If you feel that the Hornet has enough power without doing any improvements, to have fun you might consider a 232 or a 262 instead!  You might start with a car that needs an engine.  If you really like to work on engines, but not so much on other aspects of a car, this can be an economical way to  get a car in above average condition, where you won't have to spend so much time on those "other" things.

     In case you end up with a car that has a running engine, I'd also suggest that you check its oil pressure. 

If the oil pressure stays the same, when fully warmed up, at idling as it is when the engine is turning faster,    I would recommend that you do not change the bearings, because the fit is already excellent.  I once changed connecting rod bearings in a Packard, just because I happened to have a set of new bearings. Before I changed the bearings, the engine had perfect oil pressure.  After, it had less at idling than at higher rpms. 

Per