Just a thought

So, I have a car I'm putting an LS1 into. It'll be fast and all that stuff. But I just though, wouldn't it be cool to put an LS1 into a Hudson Hornet? What a sexy car!

Just random thoughts.

I look at pretty much any late 40's and 50's car and say, "I'd like to put an LS in that..." Especially a '49 Caddy. I'd keep the exterior and interior as close to original as possible, but stuff a modern drivetrain and HVAC system inside.

Why not bestow the greatness of that LS1 on one of the plain-Jane Hudsons, and leave the Hornets with the (then) high-performance Twin-H Power Six?

If you had no Hudson engine laying around, how about something at least in a similar layout, like a Ford Big Six 4.9L?

Just random thoughts, like you said ...

In a ute style, right?

and for your viewing pleasure

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/hudson-chev/60396/page1/

Please no. Don't do that to a Hornet.

Probably ultimate sacrilege, but I would rather see a 2JZ-GTE or RB26DETT in a Hornet than a modern V8.

Just seems important to keep an I6 in it.

aussiesmg wrote: In a ute style, right? and for your viewing pleasure http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/hudson-chev/60396/page1/

Yes, a ute haha. And your thread is what made me post it. I was working on a Hornet restoration at the last shop I was at. Ever since then I've wanted to do that. The Hudson on your post is a beaut as well.

OMG they exist.

1939 Hudson (Note: RHD)

LS's are boring and ugly. I'd use this:

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/11/20/edelbrock-announces-new-700-horsepower-coyote-5-0l-crate-engine/

And if you want it to look vintage, you could build it like this (sans SC obviously):

bravenrace wrote: LS's are boring and ugly......:

Don't say that.

bravenrace wrote:

That is pretty. As we've mentioned in other threads, the draw of the LS is the ease of installation. As cool as it is, the cammer is freakin huge. I don't care so much how the engine looks under the hood. Just leave it shut. I wouldn't be trying to build a sports car or even a hot rod. I just want an efficient, reliable and easy to service drivetrain inside a cool looking body. Unless I could figure out how to make a column shifter work a T56, I'd go with an automatic as well.

Gasoline wrote:

bravenrace wrote: LS's are boring and ugly......:

Don't say that.

I just did.

Ian F wrote: That is pretty. As we've mentioned in other threads, the draw of the LS is the ease of installation. As cool as it is, the cammer is freakin huge. I don't care so much how the engine looks under the hood. Just leave it shut. I wouldn't be trying to build a sports car or even a hot rod. I just want an efficient, reliable and easy to service drivetrain inside a cool looking body. Unless I could figure out how to make a column shifter work a T56, I'd go with an automatic as well.

I agree about packaging. But if I had an old car with a large engine compartment and wanted to put a modern engine in it, I'd pick something, anything other than an LS. Because, like I said, they're boring and ugly.

A Hudson likely has a relatively narrow engine compartment since it was designed around a straight six.

I've seen a few early fifties Ford sedans on the local CL in the last few months that would be great fun with a cast iron 302 & driveline from a 3rd gen Explorer. Leave the body alone, fix the interior decent and usable, and drive it all over.

Maybe one day...

ReverendDexter wrote: Probably ultimate sacrilege, but I would rather see a 2JZ-GTE or RB26DETT in a Hornet than a modern V8. Just seems important to keep an I6 in it.

I would be more tempted by the BMW S54. Not only sexy looking, but really sexy sounding. And generally a lot easier to get ahold of

Thats Purrdy!

But I wouldn't put in a Hornet, They need an I6.

stuart in mn wrote: A Hudson likely has a relatively narrow engine compartment since it was designed around a straight six.

Exactly. I was surprised just how narrow that bay was in relation to the body itself.
And if I had the money to do that twin cam, I'd do a 6.4L Hemi.

I have no problem with an inline 6 in a car like that, but by saying it should be a certain type of engine implies that the look of the engine needs to match the character of the car, which then automatically rules out an LS. BTW, that Ford OHC engine above is in a '32 Ford, and the hood closes. I'm pretty sure there's more room in the engine compartment of a Hudson Hornet. They had pretty wide engine compartments, and were built in a time when the size of the car wasn't determined by the engine configuration.

bravenrace wrote: I agree about packaging. But if I had an old car with a large engine compartment and wanted to put a modern engine in it, I'd pick something, anything other than an LS. Because, like I said, they're boring and ugly.

The problem is a lot of old cars don't have the large engine compartment the overall size of the car would lead one to believe.

A BMW inline 6 would be more plausible if they were easier to convert to an upright orientation.

$1000.

Tryna help .....

http://fortwayne.craigslist.org/cto/3534422120.html

bravenrace wrote: I have no problem with an inline 6 in a car like that, but by saying it should be a certain type of engine implies that the look of the engine needs to match the character of the car, which then automatically rules out an LS. BTW, that Ford OHC engine above is in a '32 Ford, and the hood closes. I'm pretty sure there's more room in the engine compartment of a Hudson Hornet. They had pretty wide engine compartments, and were built in a time when the size of the car wasn't determined by the engine configuration.

I don't know, there's lots of inner fender under that hood.

When I was working on that resto, I was looking alot. I don't think a big-head motor would fit, or not very easily.

In reply to DrBoost:

Anything fits anything if you want it to badly enough! I see your point, but I'm not sure you'd know until you took some careful measurements.

Wow that's one of the tighter engine bays I've seen on an FR-layout car.

This is interesting. According to at least one source:

A Coyote 5.0 is 28" long, 26" high and 27-1/2" wide.
An LS1 is 28.75" long, 28.25" high and 24.75" wide.

So the Coyote is wider but the LS is taller, not something I would have guessed as far as height. The Coyote isn't that much wider either. Of course, where those dimensions are situated also plays a part, but if you listened only to interweb opinions, you'd think the Coyote was massively bigger than the LS.