(UPDATED 11/25/2022)
For 1956 the Big Three were on relatively good behavior. Only one of their products was outrageous enough to be nominated for Indie Auto’s Ugly Car of the Year Award. All the rest of the nominees were from independent automakers.
The panicked executives of the surviving independents apparently decided that their best hope of competing against an increasingly dominant Big Three was to go for outrageous styling. You can smell the desperation in the air.
With such ferocious competition, selecting a winner was extraordinarily tough. Here are the nominees, in alphabetical order.
Hudson: A face you’ll never forget (alas)
To be fair, any designer assigned to facelift the 1955 Hudson would have had trouble. Management apparently wanted a new look that was more distinctive but refused to spend money on sheetmetal changes.
This was a particularly big problem up front, because the Hudson was stuck with an unduly tall hood from the 1954 Nash. For 1955, designers added a strip of sheetmetal between the base of the hood and the top of the grille. It looked like a roll of fat on an obese person’s belly.
Also see ‘How would a facelifted Hudson have fared in 1955?’
So for 1956, independent design consultant Richard Arbib instead pushed the grille almost all the way up to the hood’s base. This was dubbed “V-Line” by Hudson marketeers (Hamlin, 1992).
Arbib deserves points for originality. The 1956 Hudson was one of the first mass-produced American cars that partially integrated the grille with the headlights. The problem with his approach was that it made the fascia look too tall and massive. Adding a V shape to both the top and bottom of the grille reduced its visual bulk but also injected a large dose of weird.
Arbib then threw on a number of doodads. Gunsights were positioned at the top of each headlight. An insignia was placed in the grille top’s oddly deep cleavage. And a curious hood ornament broke up the Hudson lettering.
The overall impact of these doodads was to shift the visual center of gravity to headlight level. This was the opposite of the rest of the U.S. auto industry, where one’s eye was usually drawn well below the headlights. Lower grilles gave the illusion of a lower and wider car.
The rest of the Hudson suffered from similarly awkward detailing. Inartful tailfins were created by slapping on chrome pieces that housed the taillights. Meanwhile, side styling was dominated by trapezoid-shaped trim that clashed with the body’s pontoon curves.
The sheer ugliness of the 1956 Hudson masked an equally big problem: American Motors threw away pretty much all of the Hudson’s traditional styling cues. For example, a variant of Hudson’s side sweapspear could have worked quite well on the Nash body.
Arbib may have been given the assignment from hell, but he still managed to make a real hash of it. Not surprisingly, Hudson production dropped in 1956 to under 11,000 units — almost half of the previous year’s already dismal output. The Hudson brand may have already been on life support, but Arbib’s redesign arguably went a long way toward killing it.
Imperial: If more is better, how about a lot more?
The good news is that the 1956 Imperial was an improvement over the previous year. Chrysler’s luxury brand received a reworked rear end that was much less bizarre.
That said, the car’s proportions were still off-kilter and its stylistic details overwrought. The Imperial looked like its designers were trying too hard to make it competitive with Cadillac.
The best way to see this is to compare the car with its premium-priced sibling, the Chrysler. Whereas the latter had decent proportions, the Imperial looked excessive. This was because both the wheelbase and length were stretched to 130 and 230 inches, respectively. This made the Imperial the biggest of any mass-produced American luxury car. Sheer size seemed to matter more to the Chrysler Corporation’s management than good taste.
The body style that looked the worst was the two-door hardtop, where the greenhouse was too small relative to the rest of the car.
I grant you that the Imperial was at a disadvantage to its luxury car competitors in having to share some sheetmetal with the Chrysler. However, Packard managed to make its 1955-56 high-end models look distinctive without going overboard (except for the curved-nail headlight hoods on the 1956 senior Packards).
Also see ‘1955-56 Chryslers: The Forward Look wasn’t as successful as sometimes assumed’
Some might blame the Imperial’s unfortunate styling on Virgil Exner’s penchant for the neo-classic look. For example, I’m not a huge fan of the outboard taillights, but they worked okay on the 1956 models. So too did the fairly vertical grille. The problem was the car’s length. Was that championed by Exner or product planners?
It’s hard to say how the styling impacted sales because the Imperial only became a stand-alone brand the previous year. However, for 1956 production almost reached 11,000 units. That was only slightly down from 1955, but both Cadillac and Lincoln saw increased output.
Nash: When armadillos roamed the highways
George Mason may have been an outstanding automotive executive in many respects, but he had questionable taste in styling. Arguably the worst design that came out under his leadership was the 1955 Nash.
A big part of the problem was Mason’s apparent fixation with inboard headlights. They may have worked acceptably well on a low-slung car like the Nash-Healey, but they did not on a tall Nash. To make matters worse, the 1952 body had unusually bulbous fenders. That gave them far too much prominence relative to the narrow and tall grille.
Mason also clung to enclosed front wheels for too long. The wheel cutouts were slightly higher for 1955-56, which was an improvement. However, they did not go well with the inboard headlights and thrust-forward fender edges.
The saving grace of the 1955 Nash was that it had understated trim. The same couldn’t be said for the 1956 models, some of which had strange two-toning around the outboard front turn signals.
The Statesman suffered the most from the new styling. The armadillo shape accentuated the car’s already short-hood, long-deck proportions resulting from a wheelbase that was seven inches shorter ahead of the cowl than the higher-priced Ambassador.
The styling of the rest of the Nash wasn’t a whole lot better. The fender trim below the C-pillar had some odd zig-zags and the taillights were slathered with too much chrome. The backup lights may very well be the largest ever installed on an American passenger car.
The tragedy of the 1956 Nash is that it was a solid family car whose over-the-top styling may have scared off some buyers. Output fell 43 percent to under 23,000 units. Although the Hudson did somewhat worse, Nash was also clearly a dead man walking.
Studebaker Hawk: No good deed goes unpunished
The nomination of the Golden Hawk is a product of two sins by Studebaker. First, the top-of-line Hawk was one of the tackiest cars of the mid-50s. Second, Studebaker ruined what had been one of the most beautiful designs of the post-war era.
The 1956 Hawk must have been a difficult car for Raymond Loewy to restyle. His team developed the original version of the low-slung coupe for 1953. The car’s sales did not meet expectations in 1954-55 and management blamed it on an unusually clean and “European” look. Loewy was thus ordered to take a different tack for 1956 (Langworth; 1979, 1993).
All Loewy coupes received three changes that made their styling busier: A radiator grille, front turn signals attached to the top of the fenders, and a new trunk lid with a ribbed raised center section.
Also see ‘1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk: A match made in hell’
The Golden Hawk received an extra helping of tackiness. The most obvious — and unfortunate — additions were tail fins. They were admirably small but poorly integrated with the rest of the car. Why did designers think an incongruous zig-zagging line below the C-pillar could possibly work? As a point of comparison, the 1957 model’s tail fins may have been too tall, but they curved into the fenders much more gracefully.
Designers also slapped on overly large ribbed trim near the rocker panel. Similar trim was used on the President Classic. Was the trim first approved on Studebaker’s top-of-line family car and the Golden Hawk was required to follow suit? If so, that would be more understandable than if the idea originated with the Golden Hawk, where it gave the coupe an overly busy look — and served to highlight the awkward curve of the upper-fender chrome trim.
Golden Hawks made up a fourth of the roughly 16,000 Hawks that left the factory in 1956. Total coupe production was down 45 percent from the previous year, when they were still were designated by the same nameplates as the family cars. However, the latter saw a less steep drop of 13 percent in 1956. Of course, Studebaker’s sedans also received more substantial sheetmetal changes than the Hawk.
And our winner is . . .
The 1956 Imperial was arguably most deserving of the Ugly Car of the Year Award because Chrysler had the deepest pockets — and thus the greatest ability to come up with a competitive design. However, truly bad styling deserves recognition regardless of the automaker’s financial circumstances.
From that standpoint, the winner is clearly the Hudson. For all the limitations Arbib had to work within, he still could have come up with a new look that was inoffensive . . . and actually resembled a Hudson. That George Romney approved such a terrible design was one of the biggest black marks against his fairly successful tenure as head of American Motors (go here for further discussion).
Of course, it’s not always easy to gain agreement among automotive historians and their readers on a topic like this. So if you have friendly (or not so friendly) amendments to this award, do share.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted April 30, 2021 and updated Nov. 25, 2022. Production data was from Richard Langworth (1993), John Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- ——–; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Hamlin, George L.; 1992. “Richard Arbib: Specialty Designer.” Collectible Automobile. Published October: pp. 41-45.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- ——–; 1993. Hudson 1946-1957: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- ads.aacalibrary.org (Antique Automobile Club of America): Studebaker Hawk (1956)
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Hudson (1956)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Imperial (1955); Nash (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chrysler (1955); Hudson (1955, 1956); Imperial (1955, 1956); Nash (1955, 1956); Studebaker (1953, 1956)
While I do not think the 1956 Imperial was the worst, it could have been better, although I think it looks better in darker colors. I think the product planners stuck the styling team with the long wheelbase / long body. Exner did his $ 100-million-dollar look by styling the Parade Phaetons, which were, if I recall correctly, updated from 1952 Imperials limousine chassis. Frankly, Studebaker could only function with tack-ons for the Hawks except for the sedan / station wagon restyles, but I agree the 1956 Hudson was the worst, followed by the Nash. One of my newspaper route customers whom owned the local Cities Service gas station in Whiteland, Indiana, owned a 1955 Hudson, which I thought was a good looking sedan with its tri-color paint (white over black over a metallic champagne) back in the early 1960s. Color combinations may help or hinder, but I rarely recall all-black 1956 Nashes or Hudsons.
What are those tiny lights inboard of the taillights on the Stude? They seem adjustable. Are they aftermarket backup lights?
Kim, my guess is that they were factory designed and fixed backup lights. The redesigned trunk lid would seem to have precluded continuing to attach them there, as they had been on the 1955 Loewy coupes (go here). The outboard look was echoed in the front, where the turn signals were now perched on the fender tops.
The Imperial was one of the better looking cars of that year imo. Yes, it was too cab-forward but then again, so was CdV. It’s biggest problem was the same as so many of Exner’s cars: lack of fender skirts. He preferred to celebrate the wheel over the body.
The Hudson was not nearly as bad a design as historians have claimed. The Nash version however, was miserable. So was the Metropolitan. And not too far behind, the Rambler.
I would say that taking everything into account including expectations of greatness, it was the Packard Patrician that claimed the 1956 Ugly Car of the Year award.
I think this column is a bit unfair to the independents because ’56 was a high point for all the big 3 other than perhaps as you say the Imperial, and I might also add the Pontiac.
I believe the Nash’s headlights within grille concept had is source in the consulting agreement with Pinin Farina. You can see it on the beautiful 1955 Nash Pinin Farina Speciale prototype. It would also find its way into Farina’s highly influential Florida show cars around the same time, though those had vestigal parking lights on the fender tips. Obviously as a styling device it works much less well on Ed Anderson’s body styling. But it was forward looking. That said, I would rate the overall detail execution of the ’56 Nash at the bottom of this grouping (though I would rate the Rambler lower still).
People always hate on Arbib’s ’56 Hudson restyle, but I’m not sure why. I might prefer Frank Spring’s ’55 take on the Ed Anderson body over Arbib’s, but both of them I would rate as an improvement over the ’52-56 Nash both for the exposed front wheels and the horizontal beltline, which makes Anderson’s body look less upright. The full length trim on Arbib’s even more so. And the grille and taillights are much less out there than what was to come on Edsels and Mercurys.
Out of all of them, I’d choose the Hudson.
And not because it’s “ugly”. It hits every button. Love the grille, the tail lights, the gun sights over the headlights.
There’s outrageous purity going on here. ’57 mucked it up just by changing a few details unfortunately.
But out of all of them, this is what I would have bought. Or a Studebaker sedan.