Jet writeup in Hemmings
Comments
-
A couple of "False facts". The Jet motor was not just an 8 with two cylinders lopped off. It was a completely newly designed engine, with inclined valves, insert bearings, and pressure oiling. And it did not have the fail-safe brakes, which were first introduced in 1936, and lasted through the Step=down years.
0 -
Geoff,
Ah! Thanks for the comments. I've been trying for years, mostly unsuccessfully, to get the world (at least our part of it) to stop believing that old myth that the Jet 202 was just an eight with two cylinders "lopped off". What a load of rubbish!! Apparently, back in '53 or so, a Hudson Radio Knob engineer made that comment in a Car & Driver magazine interview and it stuck because, I assume, most people had no better source for the facts.
I wrote a response to the Jet article in the "Recaps Letters" column of HCC immediately after the magazine came out, and was surprised to see that it got printed, apparently to the annoyance of Mr. Stern, the owner of the car and author of the article. It became a bit of a battle of words in the next few weeks, spurring a personal response from Mr. Stern. If you check the next issue (or maybe two more) you will see some of that "discussion".
He claims that his "mechanic" showed him the "Triple-Safe" brake system in his Jet when it was up on a hoist, a claim that I had suggested might be incorrect. He insisted that it was so equipped, citing that it was a Canadian built Jet and had different parts. I suppose that's a remote possibility but I have yet to see one equipped that way.
Gasoline, oil and a three-inch bore are the only things the 202 and 254 engines share. Anyone, as you and I, who has been inside of those engines would see that there are virtually no design elements that are common to them. On the other hand, the design similarities between the 202 and the senior Hudson engines is undeniable with a few components being identical and carrying the same part number.
It's refreshing to me that someone of your experience and knowledge is in my camp on this one. If we were to apply that same 202/254 logic, one could say that the Model T engine is just like a Bugatti engine and the 202 is just a Model T with two cylinders "lopped on".
Frank Hughes
0 -
I believe there was some discussion that the bore was the same on the 202 and 254 so the old 8 hones could be used on the bores.0
-
50 I'm sure there were some pieces of existing equipment that were readily adaptable, for use in manufacture of the 202 but it had no bearing on the design of the engines. Refixturing wouldn't have been a huge undertaking and there was no sense in abandoning those pieces of equipment.....although that just speculation on my part.
F
0 -
Deleted post.
F
0 -
As far as I am aware, there are no interchangeable parts between the 202 motor and the earlier 212 and 254, except for the timing case seal. The pistons are the same compression height, but the Jet pistons are considerably lighter and have no T slot. There is definitely no over-ride brake system. The only parts interchangeable with the Senior motors are the valve lifters, and the temperature sending unit. Another "False fact" in the article is that the 202 had the same stroke as the 8, which is wrong as the 8's were 4-1/2" stroke, which never altered from 1932 to 1952. That's my nit-picking for today!
0 -
FFFFFFFFFFFF
0 -
The Jet engine i am guessing was the last flathead designed and built for automotive applications? Just when everyone was coming out with their new OHV V8s Hudson introduces a new flathead!0
-
I think it's indicative of the resistance to change at "the top" of the Hudson management.
I hadn't given your point much thought previously, but I think you may be right in that it was the last "new" L-head design to come out of Detroit......and probably anywhere else. It's often said the Hudson put their development capital into the wrong project by not directing it to an OHV V-8. I'll bet they would have made a real great one, too.
F
0 -
Imagine a Quad-H, with 2 carbs for each bank of cylinders on a V8...0
-
I have to wonder why he has to adjust his valves every 5k? Something's haywire if that's true. Could his mechanic be stringing him along? Naaaaa. They don't ever do that.
F
0 -
I agree about adjusting valves. You just never have to do them once set.
0 -
Jeff & Frank,
Is not having to adjust the valves once set the same on the 212 engine? I have a 1940 212 that I have been working on for a few years. I just completed the brakes and brake lines and I have been thinking my next step is to properly tune the engine, including adjusting the automatic choke and I thought, adjust the valves.
Thanks,
Marvin
0 -
If the history of the engine is not personally known to you, a valve adjustment is part of prepping the engine for use. Don't pass up that opportunity while you're in "tune-up" mode.
The cam followers (lifters) in the 212 are of a completely different design but are no more prone to going out of adjustment than any other. Watch for wear in the adjustment screw end. The valve tip will create a recess that will give you a false reading when using feeler gauges.....true of most. So many things depend on how the engine was used, cared for, maintained, lubricated......the list goes on.
If you are working on an engine that hasn't seen use for some time (that could be 50 years, or more in some cases) be sure to drop the oil pan and dipper tray for a thorough cleaning. If you haven't been in there before now, you may be shocked at what you find in there.
F
0 -
I am presently working on a 202 out of my Jet. There is one thing that I found somewhat odd. It being a 6 cyl. , and having 10 port block. Most all 6 cyl. I have worked on were either 9 port or 12 port blocks. It is sort of odd that the two center cyl. (3,4) have individual ports. The other cyl. (1,2,5,6) are siamesed on the intake ports. Otherwords 1,2 cyl. share a intake port, so does 5,6. I wonder what they were thinking? Food for thought. L Hud0
-
Frank,
Thanks for the information. Dropping the oil pan and dipper tray was the first thing I did. The pan was filled with thick sludge.
Regarding the valve tip creating a recess in the adjustment screw; are those easily found so they can be replaced?
Marvin
0 -
Both the valve end and adjusting screw tend to get slightly warped over time. the valve stems were originally 5/16", and were the same diameter as the lifter bolt, hence there was not too much trouble. '36 and '37 were 3/8" valve stems, and '38 onwards were 11/32". These wore a slight pocket in the valve stem, and the only way to correct this is by grinding the stem. On the 202 and Step down motors, the lifter bolt is wider than the valve stem, so you have to grind the bolt heads if they have a pocket in them.
0 -
Invite Mr. Stern to our National in San Diego next August, and we can go over our Jets with him.0
-
Nev,
Being a Northeastern guy (unless he's moved since the article came out) I doubt that it would happen but it's a great idea. It would be interesting to see what he has there. It is a beautiful specimen and worthy of the attention it commands. And, there's nothing I enjoy more than a clunky transmission. I just did a rebuild on the clunky trans in our Jet and it's still clunky!
I'm sure Mr. Stern is a great guy and has a ton of car stories to tell, but I suspect he may have been mis-informed on a couple of "facts". We'd welcome him as we do all of our Hudson friends.
F
0
Categories
- 36.6K All Categories
- 85 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 11 Upcoming Events
- 73 Essex Super 6
- 28.3K HUDSON
- 511 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 989 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 170 The Flathead Forum
- 47 Manuals, etc,.
- 71 Hudson 8
- 40 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.7K CLASSIFIEDS
- 592 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 76 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos