Joe Handley Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 I've been searching for pictures of kustomized Hudson's of late and keep running across these things and for some reason the same thing keeps coming to mind................................ "Hi, I'm Norm!"
Chuck Most Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Love the '56 and '57 Hudsons! Why? Because they're so garish! Those years, like all '55 and later Hudsons, were simply badge-engineered Nashes. That's actually the '54-era Nash body 'redecorated' as a Hudson.
62rebel Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 pare off most of that chrome baggage and that car starts to look pretty again. then again, i'm of the k-i-s-s school of style. not to say i don't like the car as is, i do, actually.
Dr. Cranky Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 I like the car as it is . . . I like the fact that an industry went out of its way to make vehicles as unique as this one, which is why I'm still in love with the Falcon and the Dodge Dart. They might not be everyone's favorites, but those cars were built to last and made you stand out. Well, it all went to hell after the Gremlin and Pacer, but that's another story. LOL!
Harry P. Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 At least it's not a '57 Chevy or '69 Camaro. Right!
Harry P. Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Notice how they tried to ride the late '50s fin fad by tacking on extra fins on top of the existing ones?
Guest Johnny Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 I don't know why I really like that car but I do!
Junkman Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 I don't know why I really like that car but I do! It's this ugly duckling sort of liking. More like in pittying it. If you manage to look past all this festooning, they probably were darn good cars.
84vanagon Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 There was a magazine article once that challenged readers to count the number of "V"s you could find on them.
Dr. Cranky Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Harry, I find that pretty cool though. At least they were trying to keep the fins going!
crazyjim Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 You guys can love it all you want. I think it's ugly and can see why Hudson's aren't made anymore.
Harry P. Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 You guys can love it all you want. I think it's ugly and can see why Hudson's aren't made anymore. Hudsons aren't made anymore not because they were ugly, but because Hudson/Nash/Kelvinator and who knows what else all got smushed together to form American Motors, and the Hudson and Nash nameplates were dropped in favor of the Rambler name.
Chuck Most Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Hey, Pontiac made more ugly cars than anybody (especially in the '80's and '90's) and still managed to last until 2010.
Craig Irwin Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hudson is gone because of the Hudson Jet and Ford's aggressive 1954 discount sales drive to out sale Chevy. It didn't hurt Chevy, (they just discounted too) but it really hurt the inpendants .
Guest Johnny Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hudson is gone because of the Hudson Jet and Ford's aggressive 1954 discount sales drive to out sale Chevy. It didn't hurt Chevy, (they just discounted too) but it really hurt the inpendants . I can imagine the phone call between GM and Ford planning that one out!
Joe Handley Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 Just finally looked up the Jet, no wonder that thing failed, it looks like a small, ugly version of the post war-'54 GM cars
Craig Irwin Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hudson spent their limited budget on tooling up the Jet, which was the answer to a question no one asked, a small car that sold for as much as a full sized car. This left Hudson with no cash to replace the aging step-down models. Ford wanted to out sale Chevy and be first in U.S. sales again, so they stepped up production and forced dealers to discount. Chevy simply did the same, which priced the cars where the indpendants couldn't compete. This forced the mergers that killed Hudson and Packard, and the big Nashes.
Craig Irwin Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 It also didn't help having a flathead 6 when everyone was switching to OHV V8's.
Art Anderson Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hudson spent their limited budget on tooling up the Jet, which was the answer to a question no one asked, a small car that sold for as much as a full sized car. This left Hudson with no cash to replace the aging step-down models. Ford wanted to out sale Chevy and be first in U.S. sales again, so they stepped up production and forced dealers to discount. Chevy simply did the same, which priced the cars where the indpendants couldn't compete. This forced the mergers that killed Hudson and Packard, and the big Nashes. Two other things that most never think about: First, Hudson never developed a V8 at the time when V8's were sweeping the industry (I was a youngster in 1953--turned 9yrs old, and even I knew the sales and popularity power of a V8 engine). Second, and while behind the scenes was their loss of the only outside body supplier left in the industry, when in 1954, Chrysler completed their buyout of Briggs Body Company, who had built Hudson bodies since the early 1930's (the buyout of Briggs by Chrysler also hastened Packard's move to buy up Studebaker, with similarly disastrous results). Hudson simply lacked the capital to build their own body plant--they'd shot their wad on the Jet, which went nowhere fast. Art
charlie8575 Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Hudson is gone because of the Hudson Jet and Ford's aggressive 1954 discount sales drive to out sale Chevy. It didn't hurt Chevy, (they just discounted too) but it really hurt the inpendants . What Craig has said is absolutely correct. Ford's sales blitz was really what killed all the independents, and, believe it or not, almost did in Chrysler, too. The flood of unordered cars that starting showing up at dealers in the early spring of 1954 forced Ford dealers to give massive, loss-inducing discounts just so they'd have enough room for inventory they actually wanted. General Motors, not about to let Chevrolet lose, retaliated likewise. And the blood-letting began. The independent companies, already in a weakened position, simply couldn't keep up with Ford or Chevy (both of which were already less expensive to start with than most independent makes,) and all ended up circling the drain. Charlie Larkin
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now