(EXPANDED FROM 1/2/2021)
Hudson as been a popular topic with readers this week so I have expanded a story that takes a different angle: What might have happened if Hudson had managed to remain an independent automaker in 1955 and put into production a modest restyling of its lineup?
This question is interesting to me because the 1954 merger with Nash-Kelvinator to form American Motors would prove to be a dead end for Hudson. The Nash-dominated management of the new corporation switched all mass-produced Hudson models to thinly disguised Nash bodies.
As a case in point, the 1955 full-sized Hornet and Wasp used bits and pieces from the previous year such as the instrument cluster and door handles. However, the Hudson looked like a Nash with open wheel wells. Few Hudson styling cues were kept. And although the Hudson was given a slightly wider front tread than the Nash, the “Hash” didn’t rank with the step-downs in roadworthiness even with the legendary “Twin H-Power” six.
Despite a record-breaking year for the U.S. auto industry, the 1955 Hash sold so poorly that one can question whether it was viable even if the styling and engineering better reflected Hudson’s storied legacy. Output for the top-end Hornet and lower-priced Wasp dropped 44 percent to roughly 20,000 units — and fell even further after the cars were facelifted in 1956. This is yet another example of how badge engineering destroys brand DNA.
Also see ‘Was the ‘Ford blitz’ to blame for the collapse of independent automakers?’
So let’s explore an alternative scenario. For the sake of discussion, assume Hudson sales were strong enough in 1953-54 that the automaker could have avoided an immediate merger. I would argue that this could have occurred if the Eisenhower administration had stepped in to halt a take-no-prisoners price war between Ford and Chevrolet. Could Hudson have rebounded in 1955 with evolutionary changes to its existing product line?
How would a proposed 1955 facelift have fared?
Don Butler’s History of Hudson (1982) hinted at what Hudson might have done next with its full-sized cars. He included a photograph of a prototype Hornet four-door sedan. I have never seen mention of this prototype in any other Hudson history book, but Wikicars.org has an illustration that looks similar to the photo (Brokajo, 2009). Out of respect for copyright you will need click on that last link to view the image.
Three major changes were proposed: The grille was given an egg-crate pattern, side chrome was revamped and the fastback was converted into a notchback.
The grille was an improvement over the 1954 models, which had an overly flat, pouty look that accentuated the full-sized Hudson’s austere bulkiness. Butler noted that designers ended up using the egg-crate pattern in a Nash-based full-sized Hudson.
The Hornet prototype’s new side trim was not an improvement over the 1954 models. One reason why is that designers eliminated a lower-body chrome piece around the rear wheels that served to make the short deck look longer (particularly with two-tone paint). To make matters worse, the mid-level trim piece on the 1955 design had an odd zig-zag pattern.
Also see ‘1948 Hudson ‘step-down’ was a brilliant car with tragic flaws‘
The notchback was even less successful than the side trim because the rear-door frames were carried over. A huge, wrap-around rear window filled out the C-pillar. The result was so awkward that the car looked like it was penned by a rookie Eastern bloc stylist.
Proposed refreshening was too little, too late
The prototype Hudson was ugly enough that I am hard-pressed to imagine it boosting sales — even in a booming automobile market.
It says something about Hudson’s financial situation — and perhaps its penny-wise, pound-foolish management — that the prototype’s rear doors were not redesigned. A more conventional rounded C-pillar akin to the two-door hardtop’s would have given the full-sized Hudson a more contemporary look.
To keep costs down, the same roofline could have been shared by all two-door and four-door models in a similar fashion to the full-sized 1952-57 Nash. For example, a two-door hardtop could have been created by deleting the B-pillars from the two-door sedan. Under this scenario, creating a four-door hardtop would have been relatively easy.
Body style interchangeability would have worked best if the doors had been given thin window frames similar to those used on the Nash — and Hudson’s compact Jet.
Redesigning the greenhouse would have presumably been costly in light of Hudson’s unit-body construction. But if the automaker had been able to come up with the funds for a four-door notchback, redesigning the door-window frames would have been comparatively inexpensive.
Also see ‘One of Hudson’s fatal mistakes was the 1951-54 Hollywood hardtop’
Now add cleaner side trim and two-tone paint. A notchback Hornet would have looked dated, but at least it would have been inoffensive.
Could better styling have kept Hudson alive?
Of course, a still-independent Hudson would not have benefitted from the economies of scale that came with sharing major components with the Nash.
Nor would Hudson dealers have been able to sell the Rambler, which generated more than 24,000 units in 1955. That was less than half as many Ramblers sold through Nash dealers, but likely more than what Hudson’s compact — the ill-fated Jet — could have managed. In 1954 only 14,000 left the factory.
I am skeptical that in 1955 a still-independent Hudson could have reached its estimated breakeven point of 75,000 units (Langworth, 1993). So even if designers had done a much better job of freshening both the senior Hudson and Jet, the automaker would likely have not survived much longer.
Note that the lack of a V8 might not have been a key problem — at least in 1955. When AMC offered a Packard V8 on the Hudson it generated less than 31 percent of total full-sized output. This contradicts industry groupthink that a V8 was essential for survival. It’s possible that low sales might have at least partly reflected the high cost of V8 models. However, one could also argue that Hudson was more successful than commonly acknowledged in giving its Twin H-Power sixes a reputation for robust performance (go here for further discussion).
The full-sized Hudson’s aging design was the automaker’s single biggest problem. A well-designed notchback might have sold somewhat better than the Hash in 1955. Alas, “somewhat better” probably wasn’t good enough to save Hudson.
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story that was originally posted January 1, 2019 and expanded on Jan. 2, 2021. Hat tip to Stéphane Dumas (2013) for providing a link to the 1955 Hudson prototype illustration and introducing me to Wikicars.org. Production figures are from Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Brokajo; 2009. “1955stepdown.” Wikicars.org. Posted July 9.
- Butler, Don; 1982. The History of Hudson. Crestline Publishing Company.
- Dumas, Stéphane; 2013. Commentator in “Cohort Sighting: 1955 Hudson Wasp – Hash, Anyone?” Curbside Classic. Posted 10:59 a.m., April 22.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1993. Hudson 1946-1957: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Hudson (1954, 1955); Nash (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Hudson Jet (1954); Nash (1953)
I caught that 55 stepdown Hudson online. This would put Hudson 2 design cycles behind the big 3, and it showed. The 55 Hashes were so superior. I know Hudson had a test mule sedan based on the Italia. The design is somewhbat crude, but would be a better choice.
Agreed. An Italia-type compact would have been their best bet. Too bad they blew their last dime on the Jet. Apparently, earlier versions of the design were lower slung and sportier.
Meanwhile, the Hashes were pretty good cars — yet they sold poorly even in 1955. Part of the problem may have been the styling. They didn’t look like Hudsons. Then the facelift in 1956 killed whatever slim prospects the brand still had. I don’t think Romney saw Hudson’s value as a brand. His main interest seemed to be in absorbing its dealer network.
Coming back to this article, I’m looking at the 54 hardtop. Put a Mercury nameplate on it, they could have sold in the six figures.
The two-door hardtop’s notchback gave the Hudson a much more contemporary look than the fastbacks. One small quibble: The 1954’s grille has a rather severe look; I imagine that the eggcrate grille proposed for the 1955’s might have worked a bit better.
Mercury did fairly well in 1954 despite a recession. Production was down but market share up. I’d be curious to know more about how the “Ford Blitz” impacted Mercury.
The owner / operator of the Cities Service gas station in Whiteland, Indiana, owned a 1954 Hudson, a ’55 Hudson and a ’56 Hudson, all top-of-the-line models. As a youth, I liked the ’54 and ’55s the best. The ’56 was just plain weird. Beautiful cars, though, in terms of fit and finish. He had all three, I believe, until he passed. Anyway, I think Romney realized that Hudson had a body structure that was too expensive to restyle while restyling the big Nash. Once again, the economy, even in 1954-1955-1956, could not support the big Nash, the Hudson, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Mercury, Studebaker, Packard Clipper or Buick. By late 1957, Romney was proven right.
Here’s Steve’s suggested ’55 Hudson 4-door notchback shown as a hardtop with no B-pillar.
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/uploads/newbb/2060_514cc8a86c586.jpg
It assumes that the rear windows could have been articulated down, which might not have been the case. A 4-door pillared hardtop with a fixed B-pillar absolutely was doable and should have been added years prior. The B-pillar would have been much wider to allow the rear door glass to roll down.
If you look at the lower side trim on a ’54 Hudson 2-door you will see a break in the trim. This is where the 4-door’s cut line is, all body styles using the same trim pieces. So on the Hollywood visually imagine that cutline extending upward and slightly forward to the beltline. You will see that it intersects with the hardtop roof just aft of the C-pillar’s forward edge. This means that the rear door windows on a 4-door pillared hardtop would have been able to roll straight down.
What is unclear is whether the Hollywood’s rear legroom was the same as the 4-door. There is no published literature although it might be in a Salesman’s Data Book. If legroom were in fact a few inches shorter, then a 4-door pillared hardtop’s rear legroom would have been a bit tight.
The end panel between the backlight and decklid is fairly long, so there might have been an opportunity to move the backlight rearward such that the 4-door sedan’s rear seat position could be used. This would have required a new, longer Hollywood-style roof, with the curved C-pillar trim widened, giving the roof a nice look.
Steve, I am not getting notifications of any kind from your website.
Paul, thank you or doing the photoshop — that’s quite well done. Although the Hudson would have still not looked completely contemporary in 1955, it would have been a lot better than the prototype the story discusses.
You raise a good point about how the rear window might roll down. If Hudson had designed the greenhouse to accommodate a four-door hardtop, I could see them having to add a dummy rear vent window unless the B-pillar was inordinately thick and/or the C-pillar began a bit ahead of the back door’s edge. Even that may not have looked so great. Ideally Hudson might have extended the back doors so they intruded a bit over the rear wheels like on the Jet (and pretty much all other four-window sedans by the mid-50s).
You ask a good question about whether the two-door hardtop had less legroom. That body style was apparently based upon the coupe’s, which had a more close-coupled look. However, after having sat in the back seat of a four-door sedan model, I wonder if losing a few inches of legroom would have been okay. It’s a really big car.
Hudson could have done two other things to make the step-downs look more contemporary in 1955. To give the car a lower appearance, Hudson could have used two- or three-tone paint, with a second color covering the body sides below the mid-level chrome piece. They could have also carried over a version of the 1954’s chrome dog leg around the rear wheels; that would have made the deck look longer and served to visually minimize the rear-door cutline ending unusually far forward of the rear wheel.
Not sure what you mean about getting notifications; are you referring to being notified when I posted a response to your comment?
No. Just no. It looks like a ’49 Ford four door hardtop.
Great ideas on the glass and paint. Too bad they didn’t offer a 4-door pillared hardtop for ’54. Had they used Hollywood’s roof, the engineering and tooling would have been minimal. Hudson sales held up quite well in ’54 relative to Packard and Nash, and the Hornet was its top seller. A second 4-door model would have only helped, as would an optional Packard V8 in ’55.
Had they done the ‘ole Caribbean trick of adding a continental spare surrounded by extended rear fenders, that would have helped lengthen the car and increased trunk space without having to get into the Monobilt frame. The ’55 Hash could have offered it as part of the standard design given that they tooled new rear fenders anyway. Long decks, or the appearance thereof, were becoming the in-thing.
I am not getting email notifications for follow-up comments and new posts even though both boxes are checked.
Paul, when I wrote the initial version of a story about Hudson’s two-door hardtop I had assumed that it could have been an ultra-cheap way to make a notchback four-door body style. But then I reread portions of Richard Langworth’s terrific Hudson book. He noted that the Hollywood hardtop was essentially a convertible with a roof (and reinforcements) added. The convertible, in turn, was a coupe with the roof sawed off. They were essentially hand-built cars. This may help explain why both models were so expensive . . . and didn’t sell all that well.
If Hudson subsequently wanted to create a four-door notchback, designers could have plausibly saved some money by carrying over Hollywood components such as the rear window, but they clearly couldn’t get away with shaving off one roof and adding another. Roy D. Chapin Jr. stated that it was less costly to change sheetmetal above the beltline, so perhaps a four-door notchback would have been financially doable because of its much higher volume potential than a two-door hardtop or convertible.
With the deck, it sounds like Hudson was restricted to using optical tricks to make it look longer. As you noted, Dick Teague gave the 1955 Packard new rear fenders that jutted out from the trunk lid by a number of inches. A new bumper that wrapped up into the taillights accentuated the extra length. Yeah, a continental spare could have helped — and might have plausibly looked less weird on a Hudson due to its unusually tall and stubby deck.
The flip side to that: Teague had the advantage of working with a deck that was already lower and longer than Hudson’s. However, his general approach could have helped the step-down, particularly if the leading edge of the rear bumper was raised to almost trunk height. By the same token, an elevated front bumper could have given Hudson’s fascia a lower and less massive look.
I appreciate that you’ve told me about the notification system not working properly. I don’t have an immediate solution except to suggest playing with the buttons and seeing if that changes anything. I will see if I can do something on my side.
Will do Steve and thanks for the help.
Packard carried a similar additional cost making the Mayfair hardtop. It must have been an off-line operation too. The convertible was even more expensive than the hardtop. There was however, a not disimmilar strategy happening at Cadillac with its Fleetwood operation, where the made not only the 75 8-pass sedand and limousine and the ’53 Eldorado but also a long run of 60 Specials. That car appears to have had the 62’s rear fenders lengthened above the rear wheels, and longer fenders skirts tooled to take up the additional length. Of course, the 60 Special carried higher pricing, partly due to these body shop operations and partly becaue of the higher spec interior.
Packard could have benefitted from such a strategy by doubling down on off-line operations at Conner. Patrician’s rear fenders could have been lengthened, a longer hardtop roof for a 4-door pillared hardtop could have been either tooled or derived from Mayfair’s roof.
Today I worked up a Hollywood 4-door with extended fenders, rear mount and a longer roof. Was somewhat suprised at how good the proportions looked, a significan improvement over the Hollywood coupe.
I also compared Hollywood’s roof to the standrd Coupe Brougham, and concluded that they may well have shared the same roof, the Hollywood’s trimmed were around the new vent windows and in the rear, and a flat piece welded to the C-pillar sides and thin frames. This might be one reason why the hardtop cost less than the converible, there being no tooling outlay for the roof, only the backlight and other minor things like the vent windows.
Excellent analysis and love the links to the possibilities.
“Too bad they didn’t offer a 4-door pillared hardtop for ’54”
‘a longer hardtop roof for a 4-door pillared hardtop could have been either tooled or derived from Mayfair’s roof.’
Adding a pillar to a hardtop, makes it no longer a hardtop. Regardless of what MINI calls their whatever, or Ford called the Mustang II and full-sized sedans in the ’70s.They were not hardtops.
A hardtop mimics the openness of a convertible. With the top up. It has no “B” pillar. Like a convertible.
Adapting a 2 door hardtop roofline to a sedan and adding “pillars” makes it a…. sedan.
It is doubtful a facelift on the old Hudson body would have helped sales any better than Studebaker’s 56 overhaul.
Of course the early 50s Rambler had window frames and B pillars, but it was still a convertible as the top pulled back.
The “hardtop” is the outlier, whether 2 door, four-door or two or four-door station wagon.
No “B” pillars.