Tag Archives: Compression ratio

Engine Line Up – 1956 Hudson Part III (Packard Engine in a Hudson?)

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

I need to finish this one up so here are the V8 offerings for the 1956 Hudson.

Interesting enough one was called the Packard Eight and the other was the Hornet Special Eight.

The Hornet Special Eight was a V8 with overhead valves.  It was a cast iron block that displaced 250 cubic inches.  The bore and stroke were 3.50″ x 3.25″ and a compression ratio of  8.0:1 helped produce about 190 hp.  This was topped by a Carter WGD two barrel carb (Model 235S).

The Packard Eight, was it the really a Packard engine?

What I do know is that the Hudson engine was a V8 with overhead valves and cast iron block.  It sported a bore and stroke of 4″ x 3.50 (which means the bore was half an inch larger than the Special and the stroke was quarter of an inch larger.  This upped the compression ratio to 9.5:1 and displacement up to 352 cid.  Topped with a Carter carb WGD two barrel (Model 2231SA it produced 220 hp.

But was it a Packard engine?

It may have been.  In 1955 Packard powered some of its models with what they called the Clipper Custom or the Packard Line V8 (up until that date any Packard 8 cylinder was an L head).  This engine had the same bore and stroke, compression and displacement (352).  It had more horse power but that was more likely attributed to the 4 barrel Carter carbs that were used (models 2232S or 2284S).  Packard also used Rochester Type 4GC four barrel carbs on some of the models.  So I can’t conclude for certain that it was the same engine, but I believe it was.  I’ll see if I can find the answer with more research.

56 Hornet

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up – 1956 Hudson Part II

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

Next up we have Hornet Six and the Hornet Twin-H Six.

The Hornet Six was a cast iron power plant and displaced 308 CID.  Like all the Hudson 6 cylinders this was an in-line L-head.  This had 3 – 13/16 bore and 4.50″ stroke and a compression ratio of 7.5:1 and with a two barrel Carter carb (WDG Model 2252S) it would be the Hornet down the street with 165 hp.

Here a commercial image of the Cater WGD carb.

The Hornet Twin-H Six is basically the same engine, same displacement, bore and stroke, but this was topped with 2 WA-1 Carters (Model 2113S) one barrel carbs.  This set up helped it reached 175 hp.

 

1956 Hornet

Twin-H 308 CID Straight Six

 

Thanks for reading.   The V8’s are coming up!!

Tim

 

 

 

Engine Line Up – 1956 Hudson Part I

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

Think there was much of a choice of engines back in 1956?  Well there were a few for the 1956 Hudson.

As was custom back in the 40’s and 50’s, the engines were often named similar to the model of the car they powered.  For the 1956 Hudson, the company had the Hudson Rambler, Wasps and Hornet.  The engines followed suit for the most part.  There were 5 six cylinder versions and 2 V8s.

The first up is the Hudson Rambler Six.  This was an in line 6 L head with a displacement of 195.6 cid.  It was a cast iron block with bore of 3 1/8″ and stroke of 4.25″
and a compression ratio of 7.5: 1.   The four main bearings, solid valve lifters and 1 barrel Carter Carb (YF model 2009s) combined to produce 120 horse power.

’56 Hudson Rambler In Line Six

 

The Wasp Six was a In Line L-head 6 cylinder.  It to was a cast iron block same compression ratio 7.5:1.  Its bore and store was larger than the Hudson Rambler – 3.00 x 4.75 (vs. 4.25) and it manged to displace 202 cid without a change in hp still at 120.  The engine came from the factory with a Carter one barrel WA-1 carb (2009s).

 

The Wasp Twin-H Six was similar to the other Wasp except it managed 8.0:1 compression ratio with the help of the H carb configuration.  This consisted of 2 Carter single barrel carbs (WA-1 model 2013s) that helped the 202 cid engine produce 130 hp.

 

 

1956 Hudson’s Wasp Twin-H In Line Six

(from:  http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2011/10/better-than-twin-h-power-this-hudson.html)

 

Coming up The two Hornet 6 cylinders, the Hornet Six and the Hornet Twin-H Six.

 

Thanks for reading

Tim

hudson hornet

Hudson Hornet

The Hudson Hornet is an automobile that was produced by the Hudson Motor Car Company of Detroit, Michigan , between 1951 and 1954. …

 

Engine Line Up – 1957 Dodge Part I

By | | , , , , , , , ,
5 Comments

Fins and Wagons w/2 or 4 doors, pretty much sums up the style for Dodge in 1957.  With wheelbases ranging from 112 to 124.4 inches  and curb weights of over 4000 lbs what the heck did they power them with?

Dodges were available in three flavors, Coronet, Royal and Station Wagon series with the Coronet and Royal coming in 2 and 4 door configurations and each had a convertible available and the wagon had 2 and 4 door versions.

57 Coronet 2-Door Coupe….Tell me you don’t like the fins!?!?!??!?

Here is the Custom Royal Lancer Convertible

The smallest engine available was Dodges in-line L-Head 6 cylinder.  This was an iron block that displaced 230 cubic inches and had a bore and stroke of 3.25 X 4.8525 inches. It sported solid lifters and four main bearings.  This managed to produce a compression ratio of 8.0:1  and topped off with a Stromberg one barrel carb (WW3-159) it made 138 hp.

The popular V8 was the Red Ram.   This too was an iron block with overhead valves, displacing 325 cubic inches.  The bore and stroke was 3.69 x 3.80 and compression was 8.5:1.  Five main bearings, hydraulic lifters.   In the Coronet and Royal series it made 245hp.  In the Custom Royal it produced 260 hp.  Why the difference?  It might have been the carbs.  The lower hp cars had the Stromberg Two barrel (WW3-149) and the 260hp cars had the two barrel Webber (WCFB-2532S)

325 Red Ram engine for the 57 Dodges

So that a nice couple of engines.  But Dodge had a D-500 series which really wasn’t a separate series, just a set of high  performance engines.  Those are coming up next.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up – 1973 Ford – Mustangs

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

The engines for the 1973 Mustangs pretty well with the rest of the matched up the other models engines, but with some minor “tweaks”.

You couldn’t get a Mustang with a 4 cylinder (yet) but you could get with the standard 6.  This was the 250 version, (250 cubic inches of displacement) the bore and stroke was 3.68 x 3.91 also used in the Torino.  Topping it with a single barrel Motocraft carb and coupled with a compression ratio of 8.0:1 gave it a ground pounding horse power rating of 88 (Oh don’t worry, it gets worse in 1974).

302 remained the same for the Mustang and was the standard for the Mach 1.  The 351’s (Cleveland and Windsor were available and they really remained the same as those for the other models.

Now you might be saying, ‘Well Tim, seems like you typed yourself in to a corner here.  Those engines are the same.”  But here is what made the differences  – options!!!

With special intakes, valve springs, dampers, large 4300 D carbs, 2.5 inch diameter dual exhaust outlets and modified cam, you now talking increased breathing and exhaling capacity. Which we all know means…say it with me…..”MORE HORSE POWER!!!!!”   But how much? I’m glad you asked.

The 351 with these types of option produced between 246 and 266 horse power.  The 302 doesn’t show being configured with anything other than the stock options.

1973 351 Cleveland 2 barrel Intake

'73 351 Windsor 4 barrel intake.

Why didn’t they put the 400’s in the Mustang????

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1973 Ford – The 400s Part III

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Next up are the Ford 400’s that were available for 1973.

There were 3 options when it can to Ford’s biggest power plants in 1973, the 400 Cleveland the Thunderbird 429 and the Thunderbird 460. If you are thinking…YES!!! More Horse Power!!!! …you are going to be a bit disappointed, compared to today’s standard and the 1960’s standards.

The Cleveland had a cast iron block, over head valves and displaced 400 cubic inches. Its bore and stroke (4.00 x 4.00) and compression ratio (8.0: 1) were choked to death by the two barrel Motocraft carb. It produced only 163 hps

Wimpy - 400 2 barrel intake...needs a 4 barrel intake

Ford ' 73 400 in a wagon

 

 

The two Thunderbird engines (both cast iron with overhead valve) got the privilege of being topped with 4 barrel Motocraft carbs. The 429 displaced 429 cubic inches and the 460 knocked out..yup you guessed it 460 cubic inches.

They had a bore and store of 4.36 x 3.59 and 4.36 x 3.85 respectively and both had the same compression ratio of 8.0:1. The top hp for the 429 was just barely over 200 at 201 and the 460 out did that by 18 giving it a 219 hp.

Fords 460

 

429

 

Here is the twist with these and the rest of the Ford engines.  The horse power stated was changed depending what model the engine was used in.  Most of those in this series were the lowest stated.  For example the 302 was rated at 135 hp in the Maverick, but 138 in the Torino. (Yes, a whopping 3 more hp!!!)

The average difference was between 1 and 5 hps, so we aren’t talking about a bunch of hidden power as they were configured.  But we all know that you pop off  the that 2 barrel carb off any of these engines and plop on wide mouth Holley, and you were going to get much better numbers!!

Thanks for reading.  ’73 Mustang engines coming up.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1973 Fords Part II – 351s

By | | , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

Here is the second part of this ’73 line up for the V8.

There were 7 V8 in 1973 (not including the Mustang engines) and the ranged in numbers from 302 to 460 (big number to be sure). Just reading those you think..OH…THE …POWER…NOTHING BUT 100’s RUBBER BURNING, FISH-TAILING HPs!!!…right….uh…NO….these ain’t 60’s engine and they aren’t 2010 engines..nope..they the 70’s engines.  Here’s how they ponied up.

The 302 – Overhead valves, cast iron block with a bore and stroke of 4.00 x 3.00.  Compression ratio of 8.0:1 with 302 cubic inches displaced.  Top that with an awesome 2 barrel Motorcraft carb and you are knocking out 135 hp’s!!!!  Those are number only a grandma could love.  Compare that with the 302 sold under the hoods of Fords in 1970 which yielded 220 hp with a two barrel carb. (Take that 302 bore it .030, toss on a typhoon intake and a 4 barrel Holly you’ll have exactly what currently have in my ’70 Stang.)

My Mustang's Enhanced 302

 

Next up is the family of 351s, the Windsor, the Cleveland and the CJ Windsor.

All three had overhead valves, cast iron blocks and all displaced 351 cubic inches.  They shared the same bore and stroke which was 4.00 x 3.5 and the compression ratios ranged from 8.0:1 to 8.6:1 and the horse power varied by rpm 3800 to 4000 between 156 up to 177, the Cleveland and baby Windsor were choked with a 2 barrel carb while the CJ managed to steal a 4 barrel of the assembly line shelf and had a compression ratio of 9.0:1.   The 351 CJ was able to come in a little more respectable with 266 hp at 5400 rpm.

I will tell you this there were very few 351 CJ Windsor made in 1973 and 1974.  I owned a 1974 351 CJ  and my researched showed that less than 100 of these engined were produced that year.

All of these were used in the Torino, Montego, Mustang, Cougar and other Ford and Mercury models.  The 351 CJ was used in the Mustang and Cougar.

1973 Cleveland 351 2 barrel under the hood of a Mustang.

 

Up next the 400’s for 1973.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1973 Fords Part I

By | | , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

1973 was a good year, I was a still in high school and big engines weren’t extinct yet. Ford had a big assortment.  We are talking 10 to choose from if you didn’t count the Mustang engines.

Ford Pinto (this will be a parking log spot light coming up)

On small size 6 cylinder were still king but 4 cylinder was available for the Pinto.  For the larger engines displacement was large and the horse power small.

There was only one 4 cylinder available, reserved for the ill fated Pinto.  It sported an overhead cam and iron block.  It displaced a whopping 122 cubic inches and as one would expect had the smallest bore and stroke – 3.58 x 3.03.  The compression ratio was 8.2:1 and it tore up the street with 86 hps.  (No I didn’t for get the “1” in front of that.)  It was topped with a Ford/Weber 2 barrel carb.

2.0 Pinto Engine

The six cylinders came in 2 varieties  and were used in the Maverick and Torino.  The first was dubbed the Maverick 6 cylinder. It was configured with overhead valves and a cast iron block.  With the bore and stoke 3.68 x 3.13 it was able to displace 200 cubic inches.  The compression ratio was slightly higher than the 4 cylinder at 8.3:1 but it was fitted with a 1 barrel Motocraft carb resulting in only 84 hp.

The second ‘big brother” six cylinder was called the Maverick/Torino.  Again it had the overhead valves and cast iron blocks, same as its little brother, but it had a greater stroke 3.91 (3.68 X 3.91) compared to the its sibling 3.13.  The compression ratio was lower (8.0:1) and topped with the same single barrel carb it managed 88 hps.

The Torino was not a small car so it really need those 4 extra hps!!!

Ford 6 cylinder - nicely restored!!!

V8s  for 1973 coming up and then the Mustang engines.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1964 Mercury

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

These are some of the best styled cars for that year. ( I really like the convertible for 1963 Merc as well).   The ’64 Comet looked like it was moving, while standing still.

1964 Mercury Comet Cyclone

The engine line up for the 1964 Mercury came in 3 flavors.  The Comet, the Cyclone and Mercury versions.

The Comet engine was a 6 cylinder, overhead valve with a cast iron block.  170 cid with a bore and stroke of 3.50 x 2.93 and combined with a compression ratio of 8.7:1 it produced 101 hps.  Well not actually a powers house with the one barrel carb, C3YF-9510E.

Now the Cyclone engine was a bit of a bump.  It was a V8 with overhead valve and a cast iron block displacing 289 cubic inches. The compression ratio 9.0:1, bore and stroke of 4.00 X 2.37 and hooked up to a 2 barrel carb (C5MF-9510A) helped produce 210 hps.

The 3rd option was the most powerful, producing 250 hps and matched up to the cyclone engine, except where it matters.  Displacing – 390 cubic inches with the bore and stroke 4.05 x 2.37, 9.4:1 compression ratio and topped with  the Ford C4MF-9510D two barrel carb.

Fords 2 Barrel C4MF-9510D Carb

1964 Mercury Colony Park Station Wagon - carried the 390.

 

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line-Up: 1960 Edsel

By | | , , , , , ,
3 Comments

The Edsel.  Name sake for Henry’s son.  Touted as “ugly” and a failure.  I disagree.

I think they were great and I plan on own one at some point. ( I was pretty close earlier this  year – just missed one at an auction.)  There is just something about tooling around in one of those  large and long 4 door land yacht.  Anyway..one day I will, if I just borrow one for a week.

So in the last year of the Edsel what engines were available?

The car came in 4 configuration, body-wise.  A 2 door sedan, a 2 door convertible; a 4 door sedan and 5 door wagon, but only two engine options.

Your two choices were of the V8 and straight six variety.

Ford‘s 292 was the V8 power plant .  It sported overhead valves, an iron block and hydraulic lifters.  The compression was ratio 8.8:1 and with a bore and stroke of 3.75 x 3.60.  It came with a 2 barrel carb – model B9A9510-A.  Interesting the block and heads were painted black and the value covers and air cleaner were red.

There was the option inline (straight) 6 cylinder.  That too had overhead valves and an iron block.  Bore and stroke was 3.62 x 3.60 and compression ratio 8.4:1. It displayed 223 cubic inches with 145 horse power.  It was topped with a 1 barrel carb, model B9A9510F.   It had the same paint scheme as the V8 but was considered a “delete” option in the Rangers series.

223 Straight (Inline) 6 cylinder with the proper paint scheme

Add 2 more cylinder and buy an extra can of paint for additional valve cover and you'll have this 292 with the proper paint.

Thanks for reading.

Tim