We haven’t checked in with our friends at Over-Drive Magazine lately, so what’s up? Welp, they’ve got a third “issue” that doesn’t appear to be a magazine anymore — just stories posted on their website. If you scroll down the front page, you’ll find the article, “The Tale of Hudson’s Demise” (Over-Drive, 2023).
This piece doesn’t suffer from the bloopers that we found in a previous feature they did on Packard (go here). However, there are still some odd factual quirks that made me wonder whether artificial intelligence was being employed without sufficient human editing.
For example, they refer to the 1953 Hudson Jet as a “mid-size” car, which “competed with established brands such as Nash’s Rambler and Studebaker’s Champion line — both of which had the reputation of delivering solid lower-price cars” (Over-Drive, 2023).
Also see ‘1948 Hudson step-down was a brilliant car with tragic flaws’
The Jet has been commonly referred to as a compact because of its exterior dimensions, but I suppose you could call it mid-sized if you go by price and weight. Even so, I would be more inclined to give the larger Champion that label.
After Hudson merged with Nash-Kelvinator, the article states that “the Hudson became a badge engineered Rambler.” They are clearly not talking about the compact Rambler, which was sold at both Nash and Hudson dealers with minor changes. Instead, they are referring to the full-sized Nash body because they note that the 1955-57 Hudson was available with a “Packard supplied OHV V-8 and Rambler’s own V-8” (Over-Drive, 2023). They further note that V8 sales were “even” with sixes in 1955 and outselling them in 1956, which deviates from the production figures I have access to (go here for our take).
Ode to conventional wisdom
The article’s summary of why Hudson died sounds like a regurgitation of conventional wisdom: A unit-body that didn’t lend itself to frequent restylings, the Jet’s unpopularity, and the lack of a V8 engine. I wouldn’t reject that assessment, but it also doesn’t display a whole lot of nuance.
As a case in point, a unitized body did not keep Nash from fielding full-sized cars with fairly competitive styling. The difference was that while Nash redesigned its big cars twice after the end of World War II, Hudson did so only once.
The article quite rightly states that once Hudson committed to launching the Jet that it did not possess the “financial wherewithal to make the needed body style changes to the full size line.” However, the piece makes a debatable argument that the Jet “added no new buyers among the booming middle class — who in those days — bought full-size cars” (Over-Drive, 2023). If that was true, then why did the Rambler sell so well that by 1955 it had eclipsed the full-sized Nash?
All in all, the story isn’t bad but it doesn’t add anything substantive to the discussion about Hudson’s demise. With a bit more editing it might even read like a piece written by a human being.
NOTES:
Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Langworth (1993).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- 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.
- Over-Drive Magazine; 2023. “The Tale of Hudson’s Demise.” Accessed Oct. 27.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Hudson (1956)
Some intriguing questions. Hudson was stuck with a straight 8? Hudson kept the 2 1/2 box body long after everyone else gave up? And counterintuitively compared to the previous sentence it didn’t look like a Hudson?
As far as I understand it, the problem with Hudson’s body was not the fact that it was unitized with the frame per se, but rather the particularities of its design, which was rather quirky at best. Hudson’s load bearing side sills wrapped around the entire rear section of the body shell, effectively locking it into the teardrop-like shape of the original 1948 model, as well as making closed rear wheel arches all but mandatory – unless a major redesign of the entire body structure was planned:
https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/see-this-49-hudson-rust-bucket-turn-into-an-ls3-supercharged-custom-work-of-art-153717_1.jpg
Nash’s “Monobuilt” body, on the other hand, was more or less a “normal” car body, just with frame rails welded shut to the floor pan, instead of bolted. This design much better lent itself to regular styling changes because they did not affect anything structurally important. No wonder Hudson’s original body was discarded after 1954 and replaced with a Nash-derived shell.
I assume that the enclosed rear wheels were baked into the step-down’s design, which made a station wagon body style problematic. However, I would think that Hudson could have made a mid-cycle switch to a more notchback-style, four-door sedan somewhat akin to the two-door coupe.
To correct my first post, the Jet did not look like a Hudson. Hudson made a few step down pickups to use around the factory, and some enthusiast made a Hudson phantom station wagon. It could be done. Post WWII station wagons were barely moving from the more or less coachbuilt woodies and Studebaker, Kaiser, and the large Nash did not offer them in their lines at all.
Yeah, a station wagon could have been done. The problem was that the inboard rear wheels would have resulted in an unusually narrow cargo area.