Rob, I've always loved the Eights and have one now, but have to acknowledge that the design of these engines dates back to 1933, with only modest improvements to increase the power. They are indeed smooth, but then so is a properly tuned "stepdown Six." You're correct about rebuild costs being high for the Eights, and there are fewer and fewer folks around who know how to do so properly. While a properly rebuilt Eight will hold up under reasonable driving conditions, I'd go with a Six if you want the most worry-free driving. The stepdown Hudsons are made to drive, and the Sixes can handle stress and sustained highway speeds better, plus the engine parts are easier to find and work with. Yes, I drive my '47 Eight at 65 on the road, but I'm more worry-free with the Hornet at these speeds.

Thank you Park!

I'll pass on the eights then.

Rob

Park is right on the money......money being the operative word. The Super/Commodore Eights were the "top-of-the-line" cars back in the day before the pressure lubed Sixes came to be in '48. There were Super and Commodore models in the six cyl. cars as well. The "Splasher" eights lived on 'til 52 and were still represented as "TOL" because, in those days, if you didn't have an Eight, you weren't Poop. Fact was, the Six was a superior engine, put out more power (in spite of the factory HP ratings) , lasted longer, was more reliable, etc., etc. As I understand it, even the Hornet, in it's debut year, wasn't considered to be the Top Dog. The eight was a design that had long outlived its time (IMO). The eight cyl. engine was the same powerplant for either Super or Commodore cars as those names were a reference to trim level, not the engine.
I'm not anti-Eight, nor anti-splasher.....I have several and love 'em all, but they probably aren't the best choice for an entry-level Hudson guy. A proper rebuild is something only a true Hudson rebuilder has a good chance of doing successfully. They are a dying breed, I'm afraid.
Tip: Although you have apparently dismissed the Eight idea already, don't be fooled buy a seller that says it has just been rebuilt. That's your cue to walk away unless he/she can provide the rebuilder's credentials as one known to the Hudson "Community". (Another opinion).
Frank

Frank,

Thank you for your insight!

An entry level Hudson Guy I am!
I appreciate those of you who have been around the block a few times sharing your experience with me.
I've learned quite a lot in my short time here, and it has helped steer me away from a couple cars that would probably have been a poor choice at best.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to stay mainstream, to choose something that a lot more people are interested in.

Good advice; "rebuilt" shares the same misuse as "restored" in my book...
It would be foolish indeed to think someone selling a $5000 car would have just spent $10,000 on the engine...

Rob

Rob,
Several years ago, I was bitten hard from a '48 C-8 Hudson purchase. The seller provided receipts from a Detroit area machine shop indicating in excess of $5000 was spent on the rebuild (also the price of the car), including almost $1000 for the Babbitt work alone (not out of line for a good Babbitt job). The car had about 200 miles on it since the overhaul when I got it. The plan was to drive it home to Washington, but fortunately the head gasket had a few sizzling leaks apparent before we left so we opted to trailer it home (the seller hadn't noticed them.......really?). That engine didn't last another 100 miles before it had two quick & simultaneous rod bearing failures with the rest not far behind. The tear-down revealed some substandard work in the Babbitt pouring technique and some really stupid assembly work.
I won't be fooled again.
Frank

Frank-

You've got way more experience than me, when it comes to Hudsons, but my best guess on your De-babbitted 8, was that the machine shop had experience with pouring babitt in Ford engines, and not Hudsons. I understand the tinning process is very different in a Hudson and if the Ford method of tinning is employed, failure is sure to follow (doesn't adhere to the harder blocks). I'd like to know exactly what the difference is, but that may be some trade secret. Regardless, I would be very wary of anyone that "re-built" a Hudson 8 without thorough knowledge and a recorded history of past successes. I'm sure Geoff would know what the difference is.

Gee whiz, Frank. ". . .A proper rebuild is something only a true Hudson rebuilder has a good chance of doing successfully. They are a dying breed, I'm afraid.. . . " Your head knows better than that, and so does mine.

I have a friend who rebuilds engines - any engine. He says "We do Fords and Chevrolets so that we can do whatever may come in the door." For examples: early 1900's Autocar 2 cyl opposed, numbers of Packard 6, (1920's and later) Packard 8 (1930's up to 1954), 1930's MG's (including installing a new current production replacement block in at least 2 cases. Don't peek, the replacement blocks have to have a lot done to them to be useful.), Chrysler Red Head 8, and most recently a Stutz DV32 (supposedly Stutz built "about a thousand of these engines") Auburn 6-85, 1920's Amilcar (tiny cycle car engine) , Lincoln K, and endless Model A and T Fords. No Hudsons yet.

For all these, the key is to get the factory or best available literature. It's all written down somewhere and all available, and someone who doesn't get it is a bonehead talking through his hat. Geoff in NZ will tell you that. It's not secret priestly knowledge. It's just facts peculiar to a particular case. I'm surprised to hear an experienced man like you say that a shaman (who are a dying breed) is needed. Any intelligent mechanically inclined person can do it. He just needs to know what to do.

Thanks for the use of the soapbox. You are still an object of my respect, and I hope a friend.

I'm duly beaten up.....I certainly don't mean to say that there aren't any left, but they are getting more difficult to find so those seeking the services of experienced persons may have to look a little harder than just your local machine shop.
Maybe I was a bit too harsh but one usually only hears the tales of woe while the success stories go untold. The vast majority of conversation is griping about [i]something[/i] and I guess I'm, no different.
Frank

Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore Russ. If I understand it correctly, the Fords (at least the early ones) had Babbitt poured directly into the iron block whereas the Hudsons to which we are referring have the Babbitt mat'l poured into the removable brass bearing shells, if you are talking about mains. I believe that adhesion of the Babbitt to the shell should be less challenging than those poured directly into iron. The iron alloy issue is beyond my ability to even express an opinion. Proper tinning is the critical element in the process for any job, I'm sure.
Rods are a different story for Hudson splashers, since the Babbitt is cast directly into the forged steel rod, which, I'd guess, is much the same process as any other "poured Babbitt" rod. This is where the failure occurred in my engine.
Aside from a poorly set up line boring job (the crank and cam gears were an interference fit) the re-Babbitt job on the mains appears to have been OK.
It's a project for somewhere in my future.
F

Frank,

I understand both sides of the conversation, so no need for me to comment other than to say that I understood the point you were trying to make; 🙂 Thanks.

My most recent experience with poured babbitt engines was with my 28 Ford Roadster.
The babbitt went bad on one of the rods;

The unbalance that caused it was I believe, a fluke, or poor welding somewhere down the line, or maybe it was just run too hard (before I got it of course... :whistle: ) but since the counterweight weld that failed was an aftermarket weld, well...

Tearing down that engine wasn't in my plans, but once that chunk of babbitt fell off, it wasn't any fun to drive.

Rob

This a chestnut that comes up for roasting repeatedly. I'm not an expert on re-babbitting, but I know for a fact that original Hudson rods were all centrifuged. The rods were heated and tinned, and this is the key to a good bearing if the tinning is not done properly, then the bearing will fail. The heated rod was then inserted in the centrifuge which spun the molten metal into the rod, and this gave a much denser grain than gravity pouring can do. I have seen original 1929 Hudson rods that have done hundreds of thousands of miles without failing, or wearing to any great extent. Then there is the question of the type of babbit. I have come across people who have said they used "Diesel grade" babbit, but this is harder metal and could cause crank wear. There is a lot to discuss in this topic. Metal density, composition, hardness, the amount or heat applied - too much and you burn the tin out leaving the bearing brittle. If you know a good machine shop it is worth paying extra to get a good job done. Rods are not too critical, but if line-boring the main bearings then is absolutely critical to get it done exactly on centre, with the correct shims installed. as this ensures correct mesh of the timing gears. I had one job many years ago where the shims were removed, and the crank built up with hard chrome,. and the bearings re-bored on the raised centre line, and the timing gears chewed out. Okay, that's the can of worms opened. Having said all that, if the bearings are done properly there is no reason why you cannot get a good hundred thousand miles out of an 8, providing the oil is changed regularly.
Geoff