(EXPANDED FROM 1/15/2021)
The 1953 Hudson Hornet’s styling strikes me as being peak “step down.” As a case in point, this was the last year for the rounded rear end. It looked dated compared to the competition, but I think that its horizontal taillights and trim comes off much better than the 1954 models, with their awkward tail fins.
Meanwhile, the 1953’s front end was arguably the best looking of all of the step downs, which were produced from 1948-54. It still had the lovely arched hood line, but the grille had a cleaner, more horizontal quality than in previous years.
In 1954 the big Hudson was given a more squared off hood and grille. The goal seemed to be make the car more like the competition, but I think that it came off too ponderous, generic and severe.
Thus, the paradox: the 1954 facelift should have made the Hornet look more modern, but instead it accentuated the car’s age. A key reason why is that squaring off the front and rear fenders drew attention to the car’s aging body.
When the step down was introduced in 1948 it was daringly low, but now its cowl was unfashionably high and its deck was on the short side.
This was understandable. By 1954 the step downs were in their seventh year of production — and had the oldest body of any U.S. passenger car. Even the big cars of other independent automakers were at least three years newer. American car design was changing quickly, and Hudson was being left behind.
Hornet became best-selling Hudson without a V8
Our featured car is a top-of-line Hornet. As soon as this nameplate was introduced in 1951 it became the best-selling Hudson. By 1953 Hornet output overshadowed that of the entry-level Wasp by roughly 27,000 to 18,000 units.
Also see ‘1948 Hudson step-down was a brilliant car with tragic flaws’
Despite the Hornet’s popularity, the sales trajectory for the big Hudsons was inexorably down. Whereas in 1951 output almost reached 132,000 units, only two years later it had fallen by more than half to roughly 45,000 units.
Part of the problem may have been that the fastback styling on sedans had fallen out of favor. All other U.S. automakers had shifted to notchback rooflines.
Another common argument is that Hudson suffered from not having a V8 engine. For example, Richard Langworth wrote in his book about Hudson: “The importance of a V-8 in any automotive lineup around 1953 or 1954 cannot be underestimated” (1993, p. 126).
I suspect that this argument has been oversold. Once Hudson did offer a V8 in 1955, more buyers stuck with the six (go here for further discussion). Even so, the automaker did have the vibe of having seen better days.
In addition, given how independent automakers were increasingly struggling as the postwar seller’s market ended, potential Hudson buyers would have done well to ask: Am I willing to take the risk of owning an “orphan” — that is, a car built by an automaker which subsequently goes out of business?
To add to Hudson’s woes, in 1953 the automaker spent its meager resources on the ill-fated compact Jet. Only around 21,000 units left the factory that year.
Langworth (1993) argued that Hudson would have been better off investing in a V8. I suspect that updating the big Hudson’s body would have given the automaker a bigger bang for its buck. A V8 could have been added later, perhaps by purchasing it from another automaker.
However, regardless of what Hudson did with its lineup, its days were likely numbered unless it combined with another automaker (go here for further discussion). That gives our featured car a tragic, last-of-the-wine quality.
NOTES:
This was was originally posted on January 15, 2021 and expanded on March 4, 2025. Production figures and product specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Langworth (1993).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
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.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Hudson (1952); Hudson Jet (1954)
that’s my ’53 hornet at the lemay museum annual august event/auction – nice images! unfortunately, the hornet threw a rod shortly thereafter and needs an engine rebuild/replacement – hopefully, it will be back on the road soon . . .
Brad, that’s a terrific-looking car. Sorry to hear about the need for major engine work.
It’s difficult to understand why Hudson and also Kaiser, felt the need to build a compact car. There was no precedent for this and surely they must have known that any serious interest in smaller cars from the Big 3 had been quickly dismissed long before the Jet’s introduction. A glance at GM’s 1950 Buick, Cadillac and Oldsmobile should have informed Hudson and all other independents that accelerated styling cycles were about to change everything. Waiting until 1954 for a facelift was suicidal and the 1955 Nash-bodied Hudson’s were not what the marque’s customer base wanted. Quality and innovation had now become second to style but the only way to properly afford such expensive changes would have inevitably been a merger where it could be agreed that a common architecture was to be shared using different engines and sheet metal. But then, 1958 happened and had Hudson been able to offer a ‘new’ design and borrow a V8, would it have survived until 1960? It’s really too bad because the step-down Hudson was an impressive looking car and proved to be a hard act to follow.
As size and features drop faster than price, a compact with premium appointments would fit the bill well, as long as you can keep the price reasonably close to the big 3. I think however, that Hudson was circling the drain by then. In 1955 the big 3 would be releasing the 3rd postwar generation of cars. Another Hudson facelift which was planned would only put lipstick on an aging pig.