It’s a bit special when one can find three running representatives of long-dead makes in the same place; all the more so if they are contemporaries of each other. It was as if I’d stumbled into some alternate universe where the era had become uncertain, kind of like the Gotham City of the Batman flicks. So gaze ye on this conglomeration of late ’50s design excess, spotted at the 1940 Air Terminal museum at Houston’s Hobby airport on September 19, 2015.
The occasion was the museum’s monthly fly-in/drive-in event, which in this case featured a number of vendors of vintage clothing, old radios, advertising art, and the like. Nostalgia-infused hipsters were out in force; most, it seemed, wearing Hawaiian shirts (if male), and wrap dresses or Capri pants (if female). Imprints of hibiscus flowers abounded. Several of the visitors brought along cars fitting their fashion sensibilities, and so here we are.
1959 Metropolitan Hardtop
The Nash/American Motors Metropolitan has always struck me as the closest automotive equivalent to a toy poodle, but everyone else seems to love them to pieces. This one, a series IV (note the externally-accessible trunk lid missing from earlier models) is nicely restored, albeit with a somewhat non-standard paint job, and its owner certainly looks the part. Assuming it still has its original 1500cc engine, it seemed to possess surprisingly spritely performance, judging from a glimpse I had of its departure down Telephone Road as I left the event.
Related reading:
Paul Niedermeyer takes on the Metropolitan here.
Jim Grey weighs in on the same subject
1956 Nash Ambassador Super 4-door Sedan
Subtle as a flying mallet, this example of the penultimate year for big Nashes seems like one of Bruce McCall’s Bulgemobiles come to life. I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve ever seen one of these in the wild; it’s not as though one would ever forget a face like that. And wild it is, from its characteristically shrouded wheels to the tri-tone paint bordered by massive lashings of chrome. Check out the double-torpedo hood ornament. The ‘V-Eight’ badge on the boot lid I guess means that it could be powered by a Packard-sourced 352 or American Motors’ own 250, introduced late in the model year. I rather like it, though I’m not entirely sure why.
Related reading:
Here’s another ’56, from the Cohort
1961 Studebaker Hawk Pillared Hardtop
Aaaand here we have one of Studebaker’s last, desperate attempts to seduce buyers into a showroom full of Larks. I much prefer the cleaner styling of the original Starliner on which the Hawk series was based, but there’s no denying that this one is a sanitary and relatively tasty example, and the 289 V-8 under the hood apparently was fairly hot stuff for the time. You certainly won’t see yourself coming the other way; fewer than 3700 of these were sold in ’61 and it seems unlikely many are left.
I somehow neglected to get an interior shot of the Hawk: this one courtesy of bringatrailer.com.
Related reading:
Orphans all, and (with the possible exception of the Metropolitan), mostly ignored when they were new. Yet here they are, carrying the torch for the Phabulous Phifties, and more vividly, maybe, than the usual Chevies and Fords. Salutations to the owners for keeping this trio out of the junkyard.
Now, the big question: if one was going to have one of these in their garage as something for a weekend cruise night, which would it be? For me, hands down it’s the Hawk, but I could be swayed in favor of the Nash. What say you?
1956 Nash Ambassador Super 4-door Sedan:
“To great to be changed, to changed to be great.”
(c:
I too would choose the Hawk, though it would be a close call between that and the Ambassador!
However, for those wishing to attract attention, the Metropolitan is the way to go. I happened to see one (below) last weekend parked in front of a shopping center. While I was there, a steady crowd of people walked over to admire it. Of course, any 1950s-era car will attract attention, but people actually stopped and gawked at the Metropolitan, as if it had just driven in from another planet. It was very amusing to watch.
This was the automotive choice of Lois Lane. Just so you know.
Actually, she drove a Nash Rambler convertible.
I really like the Nash Ambassador. It looks like a rolling Wurlitzer jukebox.
It’s an amazing example of wacky 1950s excess! What’s even more amazing is the Pininfarina prototype that Nash/AMC rejected in order to build it…
Heh, those gold wheel covers are a bit too third-world dictator for my tastes, but otherwise a handsome machine.
In order to field a production version of the Pininfarina would have required an all-new body, something AMC could no long afford to tool. Even if you strip all that excessive chrome trim off a ’56 Nash, paint it solid color, it still doesn’t look anywhere nearly as good as the Pininfarina prototype. The production Nash body simply has too much section height in the sides and too much of a dome to the roof shell.
The aesthetically best version of the 1952-57 Nash Airflyte body is the ’55 Hudson Hornet! Make mine a Hollywood hardtop, Twin-H Power Hornet six, stick with overdrive, air conditioning, full power options, and two-tone turquoise blue!
Yes, AMC was stuck with the old body for budgetary reasons, but the ’52 Ambassador was a much cleaner design than what it ultimately was turned into.
The original ’52 body had some Pininfarina touches, and was credited to Farina, but designed mostly in-house by designer Edmund Anderson. (Pictured below is the 1952 Nash Ambassador “Super Pininfarina Golden Anniversary” edition. What a difference between that and the jukebox ’56!)
’55 Hudson Hornet! Make mine a Hollywood hardtop, Twin-H Power Hornet six, stick with overdrive,
Not going with the Packard powertrain with the no oil pressure engine and clutch burning tranny eh?
Ponder this: if Mason had turned his lust to South Bend, instead of Detroit, so the Ambassador could have had a supercharged Studie 289, and the Statesman a 259, rather than that wheezy 196.
The Hudsons used the 54 Nash front clip with a different grill. The eggcrate grill has a bit of a Chrysler look to it, but what really improves it is the opened up wheelwells. This is the angle that convinced me that the Hornet was using the 54 Nash front clip. The 54 Nash had the headlights extending forward of the grill. On the Hudsons, the grill was flush with the headlights. Most pix don’t show it, but from this angle you can see how they faked the transition from the new grill to the old hood.
“Not going with the Packard powertrain with the no oil pressure engine and clutch burning tranny eh?”
No, just a “Hash” rather than a “Packa-Hash!” Come to think of it, a ’55 Hornet sedan with Packard V8 and Ultramatic in a dramatic cream-cicle orange/cream combination would be good too! Just have to deal with the mechanical issues as they arise!
Creating the ’55 Hudson on the Nash shell required recycling prior tooling with modifications, i.e. the ’52-’54 Nash front fenders with the wheelhouses opened, as well as opening the rear wheelhouses somewhat. The fill panel in front of the Nash hood does look a tad jerry-rigged. But then they even went so far as to weld in a fillet stamping in the C-pillar to give it a different shape, requiring a unique rear window. The taillights look like a recycled ’51-’52 Imperial design. The widened track width is a big improvement.
Opening the wheelhouses on a ’52-’54 Airflyte completely changes the look of the styling. A local Nash/AMC collector had a hardtop on which the front fenders were changed to the ’55 Hudson units, the rear wheelhouses opened and surrounded with the metal sections from another pair of ’55 Hudson front fenders. With the clean sides and wire wheelcovers gave that hardtop the look of a Packard Caribbean, very sporting and elegant!
Packard V8 and Ultramatic in a dramatic cream-cicle orange/cream combination would be good too! Just have to deal with the mechanical issues as they arise!
I made an interesting discovery not long ago. The 55 Nash and 55 Studebaker used the same Borg Warner manual tranny. Fab some engine mounts, use the stock Studie bell housing, and a blown 289 might drop right in to an Ambassador.
The taillights look like a recycled ’51-’52 Imperial design. The widened track width is a big improvement.
It looks like the 55 Hash used the same rear fenders as the 55 Nash, with slightly different taillight bezels. In 56 Nash got new rear quarters and taillights while Hudson carried on with the recycled 54 Nash parts.
Here is the 55 Hudson
Here is the 55 Nash
These rear views also show the different rear window treatment you were talking about.
Thing is, clean. low, “Eurodesign” was not the thing in the mid 50s, as Studebaker demonstrated in 53, when sales fell compared to 52, which was a refreshed 47. I don’t blame Nash for shying away. The one feature Nash did pick up was the headlights in the grill, which made their 55 models look like chipmunks.
The Hawk’s interior is refreshingly simple like an old Brit sports car, with little of the “Googie” kitsch of contemporary Michigan products (“Googie” was a modern architecture fad, examples including the LAX Theme Building & the Jetsons cartoon sitcom).
I like the Hawk but I always have I found a stash of three near Windsor NSW a long way from home the Metropolitan comes off as cute these days certainly not as out there as its big brother, were they just having a laugh in the Nash styling department for the final offering ensuring there would be no more.
To me, the Metropolitan is living cartoon car and would have been right at home in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
I love them all. with these 3 cars you have all your bases covered. The Metropolitan is your sub compact commuter car. It is a Mini Me of the early 50’s Nash. With it’s 1500cc engine it gets good gas mileage, although too bad no overdrive which would make it even better. The Studebaker Hawk is your sports car with the 289 V8, 4spd and Twin Traction rear axle. Put on a later Paxon supercharger and you have a little powerhouse. The Nash Ambassador is your luxury cruiser/town car. With a Packard 352 it was probably no slouch either. A classic trifecta.
I live about 20 minutes away from the 1940 Air Terminal Museum. It hosts a Wheels-n-Wings show every third Saturday of the month. In addition to some great, and not-often-seen cars, there is usually an array of interesting aircraft; both commercial and civilian (and sometimes military too).
If you are in the area and go to the show (the museum is something to see also) prowl around the nearby industrial area. You may see some interesting CCs in the parking lots or behind the fences of those warehouses and aviation support facilities. I have seen an Edsel, a Simca, a Corvair or two and an early 1990’s Dodge Dakota convertible among other things.
All three are great cars, but I like my classics over the top, so it would have be the Nash for me. Love the 3 tone paint & all that chrome, what a beauty.
The Hawk, no contest. The other two just don’t appeal to me. De gustibus non est disputandum.
I think the appealing thing about the Ambassador is that it’s so deliberate. You may not know exactly what sartorial statement it’s trying to make, but it’s all very coordinated. The Met is cute, but it relies heavily on its proportions, while the Hawk suffers from trying to disguise its original 1953 shape in various heavy-handed ways. (The GT Hawk accomplished that much more artfully, I think.)
The Hawk does it for me. I never liked the Metropolitan, and the Ambassador is just too much. I like the front end, and a small V8 with a 4-speed does the job, and if it has the supercharger…even more so.
BEEP BEEP ! =8-) .
I really like the tri tone Ambassador but I drive a lot and typically as fast as the vehicle will go most of the time so the Metropolitan gets the nod , I have one and it has little troubles leaving others in my dust .
FWIW , AMC cobbled up at least one Metropolitan Nash with dual carbys and a MGA Laycock (hydraulic0 over drive , it’s still going strong in Puerto Rico…..
BTW : yes , they _are_ cartoon cars , so much so that Warner Brothers used one as Granny’s car in the Sylvester and Tweety Bird cartoons .
Driving toy cars keeps you young at heart ! .
-Nate
I would prefer the Nash, but I would prefer a 57, like the one I snapped at the Orphan show in Ypsilanti a week ago. Moving the headlights to the fenders eliminated the chipmunk look, wheelwells opened up a bit more, and the 57s had the more robust AMC 327 hitched up to the more robust Hydramatic.
Can’t help but wonder if the crashing sales of the senior Nash was entirely due to people preferring something else, or if the frailty of the Packard V8 and Ultramatic had damaged their prospects as badly as it damaged Packard’s.
Think I would pass on the continental kit tho.
“Can’t help but wonder if the crashing sales of the senior Nash was entirely due to people preferring something else, or if the frailty of the Packard V8 and Ultramatic had damaged their prospects as badly as it damaged Packard’s. ”
That certainly contributed to their demise to a degree, though the corporate troubles of the independent carmakers was much in the business news. No one wanted to buy what could shortly become an orphan, with the attendant lose of resale value.
Nash and Hudson had been losing sales momentum for a number of years by those later models, obvious re-hashes of cars customers weren’t crazy for before. The broader segment was full of truly new, appealing cars from Mercury, Pontiac, Dodge, Desoto, Olds, Buick, Chrysler, all flashy with new V8’s and power accessories, why settle for an old, over-decorated Nash or ‘Hash’?
Its a shame AMC didn’t carry over the vertical stacked headlights for the ’58 Ambassador, just to better differentiate them from the regular Ramblers. After all, they had to make separate tooling which only had to fit at the cowl interface, nothing to stop them from giving the Ambassador a unique look, what better way to do it?
That certainly contributed to their demise to a degree, though the corporate troubles of the independent carmakers was much in the business news. No one wanted to buy what could shortly become an orphan, with the attendant lose of resale value.
I have sifted some sales data by model from classiccars.com, but there were so many crosscurrents in the industry right then, it’s hard to determine cause and effect: Studebaker and Nash sales both grew in 55, after the Ford/GM price war: Rambler up 60%, Ambassador up 67%, but the Statesman was down 30%…the Statesman was hopelessly underpowered with the 196. So were Ambassador sales up because of the end of the price war, or because of the V8 availability? In 56 Ambassador sales fell 57% and Rambler sales fell 21%. Did Ambassador sales fall because word got out about the fragile Packard powertrain? Did Rambler sales fall because the 56 was so much larger than the 55? Were they both off because AMC, like S-P was on the brink of bankruptcy? Studebaker sales in 56 were off 39%, in spite of the restyling.
The thought has crossed my mind, the 56 Rambler was a roll of the dice. In 55, the little Rambler was half of Nash’s volume, with the Statesman and Ambassador combined being the other half. iirc, when I toured Kenosha assembly in 75, there were two assembly lines. The body plant in Milwaukee had two lines. AMC might not have been able to build three different platforms.
Romney may have had a choice of what to replace with the new 56, that was sized between the Rambler and the Stateman: drop the little Rambler (50% of sales), or drop the Senior platform (50% of sales). He axed the little Rambler, and the senior cars received a light restyle.
In the back of my mind is the thought that 58 was a do over. Romney realized the new 56 should have been the new senior platform, so he axed the old senior platform, revived the little Rambler and stretched the 56 platform to make a new Ambassador.
In doing sales comparisons for a specific brand from year to year one also has to keep in mind the changes in the overall market. 1955 was the biggest year ever, and one that wouldn’t be topped for some time. 1956 was lower across the board.
…keep in mind the changes in the overall market.
This is true. An incredibly turbulent period in the industry. I decided to see how much I could learn about the industry, particularly the independents, a couple years ago. A fascinating read from a business standpoint.
“The thought has crossed my mind, the 56 Rambler was a roll of the dice”
Yes, but the ’56 Rambler wasn’t a complete roll of the dice. Analyzing the market response to the ’54 four door Ramblers over the existing two door models, showed an instant preference for the former, comprising the majority of sales. Gut common-sense told Romney buyers would find more utility and convenience value in the four door models. Although a modification of the existing two door Nash Rambler, the four door 108″ wb platform was the newest unit he had to work with. They simply built from that platform up to create what looked to be a brand-new car, though mostly a clever re-body.
The Senior Nashes and Hudsons both needed a thoroughly updated body which AMC could not only not afford to do but promised little potential to regain viable market volume. It may have been a difficult emotional decision to end those makes but the only realistic course given their precarious financial circumstances.
The Senior Nashes and Hudsons both needed a thoroughly updated body which AMC could not only not afford to do but promised little potential to regain viable market volume.
The senior platform actually was better positioned that Studebaker’s. Cars were growing wider. By 55, Studebaker had the narrowest body in the industry, while the senior Nash was the widest. The little Nash Rambler was wider inside than a “full size” Studebaker, while the senior Nash was wider inside than a Cadillac. 5″ makes a lot of difference when you put three people in the seat.
They simply built from that platform up to create what looked to be a brand-new car, though mostly a clever re-body.
The 56 was far more of a rework than the Lark, as it was totally unrecognizable. They had a limited number of presses in Milwaukee, and limited production space. The timing of the retirement of the small Rambler, then, 2 years later, it’s revival and retirement of the senior platform, makes it look like they only had capacity to produce two platforms, not three.
It may have been a difficult emotional decision to end those makes but the only realistic course given their precarious financial circumstances.
Precarious indeed, as they were trying to get the 56 Rambler in production, and the V8, and the OHV conversion of the 196, all at the same time. Nance was in the same position at Packard, trying to bring the styling up to date, and the powertrain, and get Torsion-Level in production, all at the same time.
As for dropping the Nash and Hudson brands. I gathered from some reading that Barit had extracted a promise from Mason to keep the Hudson brand alive, and Barit resigned from the AMC board in protest when Hudson was killed. Dropping Nash at the same time may have been a ploy to sooth ruffled feathers over Hudson being dropped. It could have been that, the 56 being introduced as a Rambler, would have made it awkward to rebrand it as a Nash to clear use of the Rambler name on the revived small car. The name change certainly cost the company, and dealers, plenty in new signage and letterhead. Then they did it again when they dropped Rambler and sold everything under the AMC badge. I had to laff when I first got my driver’s license and I looked at the examiner’s form. Under “make of car” she wrote “Ambassador” as the only other badge on the car was the tiny AMC tricolor.
It has occurred to me that Mason got the merger wrong. While the Hudson deal only provided dealers, while all the Hudson product and facilities were thrown away, Studebaker would have provided the OHV V8 that Nash desperately needed. Not only would access to the Studebaker V8 save Nash something like $20-25M spent getting the Potter V8 in production, it might have cleared enough footprint in Kenosha to build a body plant, so only stampings and trim would need to be trucked from Milwaukee, rather than the 40 trucks that were making that hour long drive every day hauling assembled bodies.
Tough call. The Hawk, with a floor shift, is clearly the driver’s car. But I’ve always had a major soft spot for the big ’56 and ’57 Nashes. They were very uncommon already back in the early 60s, and were a find already then. And a friend found one to buy, in 1972, and that was a fab car to go tooling around the Iowa countryside in on a summer’s evening. It was a car that absolutely did not inspire any thought of driving it fast. A real cruiser, from day one.
A real cruiser, from day one.
Nash agreed. This was on the window of that 57
Another great Curbside Classic post, you guys are really on a roll this week.
I just found this photo of the rear of a last-year, 1957 Nash Ambassador. And here’s a link to a full album of photos I shot of this car, for a Cars and Parts feature many years ago. Curiously, I have no front three-quarter view of the car.
http://automotivetraveler.fotki.com/from-the-archives-6/?view=roll
But I do have a detail shot of the front grille and headlights where you can see the evolution from the 1956 Ambassador shown in this post.
Just found the front three-quarter view of the car, missing from the album. I had posted it to my Facebook page some months ago.
Absolutely brilliant design IMHO, so completely over the top. Note how the look changes with the opening up of the front wheel wells compared to the red/white/black 1956 model shown in the post.
And who can forget the fully reclining front seats, unique to Nash (and Hudson from 1955) that turns the interior into a motel on wheels.
The Hawk is my favourite, the Ambassador comes close to giving the 58 Lincoln a run in the ugly car contest.
While Metropolitans are cute they’re just too small for an Amazon.The Austin version was often seen in the UK til the rust monster got them.
I have a major thing for the 61 Hawk. It was *the* first with that classic 60s must-have combo of a V8, bucket seats and four on the floor. This was the opening act of Studebaker’s performance era that would sadly be over by 1964.
Is there something that made the ’61 Hawk superior to the ’57 edition? The styling is pretty much the same but I’d prefer the non-pillared version…
I’d take the Metro any day, all day.
All pretty cool, this is quite the trio but the edition of a 50s Hornet would have made my day.
The Met. I have fond memories of a bunch of us cramming into a convertible in high school.
Awesome article! I’d buy all three cars if I could afford them. 🙂
This.
Thank you for all these comments. I own the 56 Nash Ambassador w/Packard V8, which I bought in Diamond Bar, CA in 1999. I drove it (80mph) to Phoenix where it got the high quality paint job that it still has. Other work was done in PHX on the rear suspension, transmission, and fuel delivery system (added an electric fuel pump). Later, drove it to LCCI Invitational in Albuquerque, then had it transported to Houston. Just this year, the new upholstery was installed and the dash & steering wheel refinished. It is a great road car! The Cessna 310 in the back ground (aka Sky King). was like an aircraft that I owned in earlier years as a Commercial Pilot. What a treat to have both in one picture.This Nash has power brakes, but no power steering. A/C was available in 56, but this car did not get it.
Well, thank you, Patrick, for keeping that rarity on the road. She cuts a fine figure.
+1
For what its worth.Many, many, many years ago, a Metropolitan owner in Brooklyn, NY made a wind up key out of thin sheet metal and stuck it to the Metro`s trunk with a suction cup. It made the Metro look like a toy car, and produced many laughs as he drove by. At least some people did have a sense of humor.
Lots of those around Phil ;
J.C. Whitless sold them for decades , some of the fellas in my local Met Club still use them .
-Nate
I rather like that Nash. Over the top, but in an endearing sort of way. The Hawk would probably be the best drive of the bunch, but I think I’d be a fan of just cruising the proverbial boulevard in the Ambassador.
Nice to find all three together though!
I also spy an ’81 New Yorker in the background. In the photo of the tail of the Ambassador, where it is first visible, it took me forever to figure out what the heck it was. Hidden headlights? In 1981? But not a Lincoln or Imperial? Hmmm…
I guess it’s the permanent boy-racer in me, but the Hawk speaks to me more than the others. However, I understand the long distance driving/cruising characteristic of the Amby, I found a similar spirit in big FWD Buicks in the last 15 or so years.
I agree. I like the *”Amby”* for long distance road trips and for family driving. 🙂
To Nash’s problem under the hood: found a 1956 Nash training video about the Statesman and Ambassador. The film is consistently defensive about the engines.
-Statesman had the new OHV conversion of the 196, but was still down on power to the competition so the film cautions against salesmen getting into a discussion of power and performance.
-The price premium for the Packard sourced engine and transmission was steep, so steep that salesmen are cautioned to not try to sell an Ambassador 6 prospect up to a V8 because the price premium will probably lose the sale.
-The film admits that the Packard sourced powertrain had been a reliability nightmare in 55, but promises all the “bugs” have been worked out of it for 56.
The film points out that sales trends at the time were toward more expensive cars. Nash’s expensive cars failed. The styling was different than what GM or Ford offered, but not necessarily worse. I think the story would have been very different if they had produced the Potter V8 in 55, or merged with Studebaker to get access to their V8
Filmstrips, lol