(EXPANDED FROM 5/31/2021)
A few years ago I stumbled across the Hudson Motor Car Fan Club. Its Facebook page didn’t offer much historical analysis but did have some cool photographs. I was particularly taken by images of 1953 Hudson Hornet coupes. That got me wondering: Why did the coupe get more attention than the two-door hardtop? After all, hardtops were the hot new trend back in the early-1950s.
Alas, not at Hudson. Its “Hollywood” hardtop, which was introduced in 1951, looked decidedly more conservative and generic than the automaker’s club coupe, with its semi-fastback roofline and lovely rounded rear-quarter windows. The coupe was sporty whereas the hardtop was rather frumpy — almost like a scaled up 1953-54 Hudson Jet.
My guess is that part of the problem was that Hudson tried to save money by using the door windows from the convertible, which appear to have made the roofline flatter. Designers may have also been under pressure to increase rear-seat headroom compared to the coupe.
Hudson’s hardtops cost more than the competition’s
Perhaps the biggest problem with Hudson’s hardtops was that they were more expensive than those of competing brands. For example, in 1953 a Super Wasp hardtop listed for $399 more than the equivalent two-door sedan and $346 more than the coupe. That was an unusually big price jump compared to other premium-priced brands:
- Buick Special ($98 more),
- Mercury Custom ($113 more),
- Nash hardtops (around $130 more),
- Studebaker Commander ($161 more),
- Pontiac Chieftain Eight DeLuxe ($244 more),
- DeSoto hardtops (around $270 more), and
- Oldsmobile Super 88 ($278 more).
To put this in perspective, the Super Wasp — which offered the lowest-priced Hudson hardtop — listed for $2,812 and the Hornet was priced at $3,095. In contrast, Buick’s Special hardtop listed for $2,295 and its mid-range Super went for $2,611. Only the top-end Roadmaster hardtop cost more than the Hornet at $3,358.
Hudson got out of its hardtop what it put into it
The Hollywood sold poorly. As a case in point, in 1953 only 590 Wasp and 910 Hornet hardtops were produced out of 45,000 full-sized Hudsons. Compare that to the Buick Special hardtop, whose output almost topped 59,000 units. Even production for the pricey DeSoto hardtops reached five figures.
Richard Langworth wrote that the Hudson hardtop was “built like the convertibles, rather individually, and beefed-up to absorb the stresses of a pillarless window line” (1993, p. 61). The convertible, in turn, was made by sawing off the roof of a club coupe.
Also see ‘How would a facelifted Hudson have fared in 1955?’
This may explain the hardtop’s high list price — and why the body style could not have generated high volume. Presumably Hudson took this approach because it resulted in much lower tooling costs than if the automaker had designed a hardtop from scratch.
Was Nash smarter in the way it designed a hardtop?
Hudson’s approach to hardtops stood in stark contrast to that of Nash. Instead of giving its hardtops a unique roofline, designers came up with a greenhouse that was shared by all two- and four-door models. This allowed Nash to price its hardtops much closer to its two-door sedans than Hudson did.
Of course, one could argue that the Nash greenhouse did not look sporting enough because it was primarily designed to be roomy. As a compromise, Hudson could have instead reconfigured its two-door coupe’s greenhouse so that it could be shared with a hardtop. That would have looked better, cost less and potentially sold in much higher volumes.
The latter approach would have followed in the footsteps of Studebaker, which in 1953 used the same greenhouse for its two-door pillared coupe and hardtop body styles. In the comment thread Stewdi noted that the added cost of a hardtop was $161 — which was almost half as much as the previous year when the when the hardtop used a distinct roofline.
I am not implying that a coupe-based hardtop could have single-handedly saved Hudson, but it might have eased the downward descent at least somewhat.
Much has been made of Hudson not having a V8 in the early-50s. Whatever the merits of that argument, I would suggest that the automaker’s lack of a competitive two-door hardtop is also worthy of debate. How did Hudson management think they could carve out a decent niche as a maker of performance cars without a high-volume hardtop?
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on May 31, 2021 and expanded on Dec. 20, 2023. Prices and production figures are from 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.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1993. Hudson 1946-1957: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Hudson (1954)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Nash (1953)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1953); Hudson (1953); Mercury (1953)
Were it not for the conservatism / complacency of Hudson’s management, was it within their capability to successfully carve out of a niche as a maker of performance cars powered by OHV Sixes and V8s had they made the right decisions to increase their profits with moves such as using the coupe’s greenhouse as a basis for a two-door hardtop?
Read bits of info elsewhere on Hudson looking at and dismissing OHV V8s in the 1930s onwards, with engineer or few moving to Chevrolet and other companies and in the case of the former playing a role in the development of the SBC V8.
That would made a interesting “what if?” scenario had Hudson had accepted OHV V8s.
Seconded.
Also read accounts saying the engineer who developed the Hudson 7x (OHV Hudson 6 prototype?), Bernie Seigfried, also engineered the Ford 240-300 Truck Six after he left Hudson and took his OHV Straight-Six designs with him whereupon many features became part of the Truck Six. Essentially it would have been the OHV 2nd Hudson Hornet engine had Hudson survived.
Interested in finding out more about the 1929-1933 experimental Hudson V8 as well as a stillborn 327 V8 from when Hudson approached Leroy engineering prior to the merger with Nash to form AMC.
So far the only Hudson engineer link found to the Chevrolet SBC V8 is Vince Piggins, unless there were other engineers who played a greater role during the development of the SBC.
https://forum.hetclub.org/discussion/166913/1933-hudson-experimental-v-type-engine
https://forum.hetclub.org/discussion/160736/hudson-v8
I wonder if part of the problem was management thinking, “It’s a hardtop, it’s one of our top-of-the-line models, so it can’t look like our basic two-door sedan.” Which resulted in compromises and decisions that locked in the hardtop’s price.
I will say that the hardtop roofline works better on the “squared up” 1954 models. Of course, by then it was too late for Hudson.
“What I wonder is whether Hudson might have been better off using the coupe’s greenhouse as a basis for a two-door hardtop.’
That’s a good idea!
The numbers tell the story. The Buick Special hardtop sold more than the entire Hudson full size production. IIRC the first generation hardtops of most manufacturers were pretty much steel roofs grafted to the convertible. Trouble was, the big 3 was moving into second generation post war cars that could incorporate hardtops into the car’s core design. As the article states, Hudson treated the convertible as a semi-custom design from the start, adding another layer of labor for the hardtop. This was compounded by Hudson’s unit design, leaving the hardtop and convertible with rigidity challenges. Significantly, Nash, the other unit body manufacturer did not offer a convertible in their full size lineup.
Okay, Hudsons were priced with Buicks and Oldsmobile 88s. I think the best-looking step-down was the 1954 Hudson Hollywood hardtop, regardless of the engine. Hudson should have merged with cross-town rival Packard in the late 1940s. I do not believe that an O.H.V. V-8 (or six) would have made any difference in Hudson’s survival, as the development costs of the Jet was money Hudson didn’t really have. Hudson was well past its expiration date when George Mason merged it with Nash. After all, it had by 1954, a platform that was over seven-years old by the time it became a Hash. The lack of Hudson sales in 1953 and 1954 was due more to the Ford sales blitz and the medium-price car surge of Buick, Olds and Mercury. Hudson was weighed down with an ineffective dealer network, too. All this begs a bigger question: Should Packard, Studebaker and Hudson waited until the 1949 model-year to introduce a post-war, restyled car ?
Steve, your 2 door vs hardtop roof design pricing thoughts are borne out in Studebaker pricing as well.
In 1952 when the Starlight hardtop design was unique, the price difference from a Regal 2 door sedan was $307. In 1953 when the the “C” and “K” “Loewy coupes” had the same roof lines, the difference between a coupe and a hardtop was down to $161.
Good point — I’ve added some text and Studebaker images. Thank you for the idea!