(first posted 7/19/2017) Of all the thousands of Curbside Classics I’ve shot the past seven years, this is the one I really want. Well, at least for the moment, as I’ve probably said that a few times and will probably say it again.
Yes, I’ve fallen in love with Corvairs, VWs, a ’55 Chevy, a Porsche 356, and untold others. So many flings, so much passion and hot but brief affairs; but inevitably, when I asked myself if I was really be willing to take it on for the long haul, given what all that entails, the answer was inevitably no.
But that wouldn’t be for this Hudson. I’d take this long, low, brooding fat cat home in a heartbeat. I’m ready to step down, all the way.
As a kid, I was utterly obsessed with long, low, rounded and smooth fastback cars with six side windows, even though they had been out of fashion for a decade or more. As much as I loved all the latest rectilinear cars from Detroit upon our arrival in 1960, I instantly fell in love with an old Hudson I stumbled into on the way to school that fall, thanks to taking a shortcut through back yards and ending up in a dead end street.
It was already some twelve years old, and had been left to molder on the side of the owner’s driveway, where a newer car had usurped its role. The owner was the father of a girl in my class, so she said it was ok to sit in it for as long as I wanted; front and rear. I was in Hudson heaven, despite the itchy old mohair. One time when she said she wanted to come in with me, we opened the rear door and saw a bat hibernating, hanging from the window trim. That broke off what could have been a sweet imaginary ride. But I’m ready to pick up where I left off.
What is the source of my obsession with this shape and six windows? It’s pretty easy to pinpoint. A Tatra 600 Tatraplan lived down the street from us in Innsbruck, and I went by it every day on the way to and from kindergarten, which in Austria back then started at the tender age of 3 (preschool, in other words). There were a few other old cars that fit the mold, more or less, but none were as influential as that Tatra. It was the object of the kind of consuming desire that only a little kid can muster.
Of course there was the Volkswagen, a small-scale pretender and which was obviously a common sight as well as the source of my very first automotive memory of riding in a car. And as much as I bonded with the VW, to the point where I owned several later in life, there was something decidedly more compelling about the larger six-window four-door fastbacks.
One factor has to be their interior space. All the big old American sedans from the 40s and early 50s were generally very roomy inside, and their small windows and tall seats and high ceilings made it seem like one was inside a very safe and comforting space, big enough to be a kid’s house, really. I would have died to have that Hudson towed into my back yard, and just moved in. I wonder if I could have talked my mother into delivering the meals to my window?
I would have been happy to just spend my time behind that giant wheel, sitting up on some old Yellow Pages. Even then, seeing the road might have been a bit of a challenge. It’s a bit like being in a submarine in one of these. But then it would have been good practice for the cars of today, who are similarly sight-line challenged.
Hudson said their new “Step Down” cars for 1948 were the car “they said was years away“. How about 65 years ahead of its time?
It was the precursor of a shape that has become essentially ubiquitous in sedans: High belt line, six side windows, and a fastback. We just need to get back to enclosed rear wheels, which really are an aerodynamic aid. Who’s going to be the first (other than the gen1 Honda Insight)? `
The Hudson’s shape came out of war-time doodles of aerodynamic shapes by Hudson designer Frank Spring and his team. Stylists were all hard at work during the war anticipating the radical new aerodynamic cars of the post-war era, such as these models in the GM Studios. The pre-war aerodynamic era, as most fully realized by the Tatra streamliners, was presumed to be the dominant theme to come. The pontoon (slab-side) look combined with aerodynamic fastbacks had an aura of inevitability.
This was going to be the new 1948 Cadillac, until quite late in the game Styling Chief Harley Earl pulled the plug.
Instead, he went with a much more traditional look for 1948, with decidedly non-pontoon sides, although the fastback was of course there on the coupes. GM’s new 1948-1949 designs were very significant, because they signaled a wise awareness that the slab-sided and low pontoon-aero look was not going to be the way forward, as it lacked visual complexity, a key component in keeping folks happy to look at the same basic design for years.
Which they did, in the case of the GM cars; the Chevrolet went virtually unchanged through 1953. We covered that chapter if GM design here.
Yes, the slab sides came soon enough (in 1955, for the Chevy), but by then GM had learned how to make them visually interesting too; a bit too much so, by 1957-1958. This was not really ‘pontoon’ design anymore, as pontoons are unadorned and continuous, as well as rounder. And fastbacks were long gone by then. Design had entered a whole new era, and Hudson had been left stuck in 1948.
Hudson’s advanced unibody “Monobilt” body made any significant changes too expensive for a little company that was just barely hanging on, and obviously had no real long-term future (despite the endless conjecture and scenarios that are a fixture in the comments here at CC). For 1954, they tried to make the body sides look a bit more rectilinear, along with a new front end that looked too much like the ill-fated Jet.
By 1955, it was essentially all over, as the merger with Nash meant that Hudson would now share the Nash body, for the three painful years before the plug was finally pulled on poor old Hudson.
But back in 1948, America was cheering Hudson on! They put everything they had in their new Step-Down cars. It was all-new, except for the straight-eight engine in the Super Eight and Commodore Eight. There was a brand new six cylinder engine for the lesser cars, a 262 cubic inch flathead that 121 hp, only seven less than the ancient 254.5 c.ci. flathead eight. That was a bit awkward from the get-go, as Hudson was trying to cover a wide range of the market, but the eights weren’t really worth the extra money, as the lighter sixes could keep up or even out-run it. But even though it was a good performer, the idea of developing a new flathead six for 1948 was a bit odd. How about an ohv V8? The Hudson six had to be the last all-new flathead engine; certainly in the US. In the world?
But it was shockingly capable, when it was bored and stroked to 308 cubic inches for the Hornet, at least for a few years before the Chrysler hemi (and others) showed the way to go. It developed as much as 170 hp from the factory, and considerably more in the right hands, and became the terror of the NASCAR tracks. It is still revered and sought after.
So wouldn’t I rather have a Hornet instead of this lowly Pacemaker? Umm, sure, but I haven’t found one yet, but I did find this gem of a Pacemaker. The 1948-1949 models, which were identical, only came in 124″ wheelbase models. But in an effort to compete a bit more effectively in the lower price ranks, Hudson cropped the front end, reducing the wheelbase to 119″. At $2145, it was still significantly more expensive than say a Chevy sedan, which went for some $1600. But it helped prop up sales, which were otherwise already in a downward trajectory.
Hudson sold 117k cars in 1948, but that was a short year. 1949 was the peak, with 159k. 1950 dropped precariously to 122k. The Pacemaker boosted sales a bit in 1951, up to 133k. But that was a short-lived uptick, as sales collapsed to 70k in 1952, and a mere 45k in 1953 (not counting the 21k Jets sold, which was a dismal start, and probably the single biggest coffin nail in Hudson’s demise. 36k Step-downs were sold in their final year, 1954.
Although the 1951 Pacemaker came with a de-stroked 232 inch six, making 112 hp, because of its shorter wheelbase and lighter weight (3,460 lbs), it was still surprisingly peppy for its time, and would keep up with all but the Hornet. Works for me, if I couldn’t find a 308 to drip into it.
I wouldn’t exactly be taunting new cars into stop-light drags, but with some deft work on that long column-mounted gear handle and showing that rugged six the spurs, I’m sure it would keep up with traffic well enough.
With their relatively light weight, low center of gravity, and wide tread, the Hudsons had the best all-round performance, handling and roadability in their time.
The Hudson speedometer is not exactly a model of legibility, but who cares? Just need to turn that clock into a tach. Maybe it already has been.
The owner of this car has taste that seriously resonates with mine. This is how I like my old cars; authentic, with genuine patina. I was into patina long before it was cool. That old Hudson’s dashboard in 1960 was already well on the way to looking like this. Oh, and check out the turn signal handle that he welded on; it’s about two feet long!
This is a work in progress, obviously. My guess is that it was something like the classic barn find, and the owner has rightly focused on getting it road-worthy. The back seat was either gone, or is getting worked on; two folding seats are in its place, for now.
In the trunk reside a fuel cell; undoubtedly the tank is suffering from acute rustomytis. I would have to have that back seat back asap; it’s one of the best features of these Hudsons.
There was just nothing wider and more comfortable, at age seven or sixty four, thanks to the magic of Step-down design, and just being wide and long.
This was one of those rare instances when the artist didn’t have to shrink the passengers to pygmy size in the renderings. A genuine six seater. With a six shooter under the hood.
Well, I’ve prattled on long enough. So let’s just savor the nigh-near perfect degree of weathering this Pacemaker has developed over the decades since it left Detroit.
Here’s a bird’s eye look at the patina. What a shape.
Let’s see it in profile again, from the other side. Love that green fender, which is not from a 1951.
It’s from a Wasp, which replaced the Super Six Custom. Hudson nomenclature was a mess, as was their model line-up. When the Hornet appeared in 1951, it was priced identically to the Commodore Eight, despite having a vastly more powerful and larger engine. It’s hard to imagine anyone still willing to pay the same for the geriatric straight eight.
Let’s also take in that divine hub cap. Has there ever been a finer one, with that red triangle in the middle? Not in my book. I need to stop now, before I start having powerful urges again.
Hudson was the first of the independents to go under in the post-war era. Back in 1934, Hudson (with Terraplane) could claim the fifth place in the market with a mere 86k total units. 1950’s stellar sales put them back into ninth position, ahead of Nash, Studebaker, Chrysler, DeSoto, Cadillac and a few others. But Hudson couldn’t maintain momentum, despite its aerodynamic design. Or because of it.
But there’s no question that for me, at least, Hudson was the cream of the crop. And I’m ready to hop in this Pacemaker and set my heart beating to the rhythm of its big six. And show the rest of the world the finest ass of its time, and the best tail lights to boot.
In the immortal lyrics, sang by The King…
” My hands are shaky and my knees are weak
I can’t seem to stand on my own two feet
Who do you think of when you have such luck?
I’m in love
I’m all shook up”
That’s how I feel when I see Hudson, even on the picture…:)
I love it. I rarely get genuinely excited about American cars, but Hudsons are total dreamcars.
I always thought these looked odd looking compared to other cars. That was until you posted two late model cars under the Hudson photo. I can’t believe they compare in shape! At 64 years old, I vaguely remember seeing the occasional old pre Nash Hudson here and there, But by the 1960’s when I became a car crazy kid, these where few and far between. My fav is the red and white one you posted.
Paul,
I frequently have very different opinions about a car than you, however this is one case where our tastes match up almost perfectly.
The ’48-50 front end seems a little dull, and the attempt to update the ’54 got awkward, but the ’51-53 Hudsons are just about perfect. I must admit that as cool as those taillights are, I think I prefer the horizontal ones from ’52-53.
I shot this one in Ypsilanti in the late ’90s, long before Miller Motors became the museum.
Look at those teardrop rear lights – not some simple round lenses. This car is superb – Jack Kerouac at the wheel driving the endless US road.
I saw the movie “On the Road” recently, which had quite a lot of high-speed Hudson action
This Hudson is someone’s project in my neighborhood
Lovely shape. You can take this one Paul, while I sneak that grey ’50 Series 61 Coupe into my garage.
I look at all those proposed designs from the mid-1940’s, look at what Hudson and Nash actually brought out in 1948, and then spend a great deal of time muttering curses at Harley Earl for the direction he took automotive design into the late 40’s and 1950’s.
Like you, I’ve always been fascinated by Hudsons (and Nashes). And even after the death of the step down, I’ve found the 1955 Hudson quite attractive (as long as it doesn’t have the stupid Continental kit on the rear), probably the most underrated car of 1955.
Looking at those sales figures, though, it’s stunning as to how quickly Hudson crashed in the early Fifties. Then again, trying to stretch a fifth year out of a given style was a kiss of death back then. And if they only hadn’t done the Jet . . . . . .
These are interesting for sure. I ran across this one for sale a few years back in Woodruff, SC. This car helps me appreciate the independent automakers attempts to be innovative without the budgets of the big three. Pictures don’t do these justice – they are very striking in the flesh.
Truly outstanding cars and such a departure from the ’41 to ’47 Hudson.
Paul, this was quite a find and its encouraging to know a few old Hudsons are still on the road.
Oh, that speedometer: “These go to eleven.”
Especially when equipped Twin H Power! 😉
Steve McQueen had a Hornet, and it was one of his favorite cars. Used to take his kids to school in it often. I think son Chad still has it.
I wonder if the makers of the movie “Cars” knew about that? The main characters were Lightening McQueen and Doc Hudson (a Hornet).
There’s a heavily patinated but regularly driven Hudson I see occasionally in my town … I need to get a photo. These looked so dated to me in my childhood, but when I learned about the exploits of Tim Flock as a teen they piqued an appreciation which hasn’t faded over the ensuing 45 years.
I horse traded old cars when I was in college in the early 70’s. A ’61 ford, a ’50 Dodge fluid drive, and TWO Hudson Hornets come right to mind! I had a ’53 Hornet sedan with the 308 six and hydromatic, with a retrofitted power steering (still about 27 turns, but finger light!). and a ’51 Hornet convertible with hydraulic (!) windows and top. Also a 308, automatic. How I loved those cars! Of all that passed through my hands, I remember them the best.
HOWEVER! I have always questioned the claim of speed. Yes, mine were worn. Yes, the real speedsters had “Twin-H power” (dual carbs), which mine did not, but I often went out at night in Philadelphia to challenge the city buses at the stoplight Grand Prix. The bus ALWAYS won. Times, and a perception of speed, change.
I would suspect that these things’ real advantage on NASCAR tracks was their wide stance, low center of gravity and aerodynamic shape. Others probably beat them in the sprint, but once at speed those Hornets showed their stuff.
I would also bet that the twin carb setup was crucial to getting those flathead sixes to breathe.
In addition to the benefits that you mention, there were stories of Hudsons in the final curve of a race, that would ride the outside rail and pour on whatever they had. With the frame rails outside of the back wheels, they would be protected if contact was made with the rail.
You are correct about all of that, but left one performance item out: these cars were designed to be unibody, which was a first for Hudson (they called it ‘Mono-bilt’). However, without computer simulations the brass got twitchy about how strong they would prove to be, so they added a portion of a frame to them as well. These things are very rigid, and that helps handling as well. I have a ’51 Pacemaker, and I was shocked the first time I jacked it up (using said frame portion) — the car is 65 years old and was sold in Minnesota, and it still does not flex. With one corner jacked up, all doors open and close the same as they do when it’s flat on the ground. The car corners very well indeed!
The auto transmission is surely the biggest issue here?
Home ill from school aged 9 in ’77, my mum, unusually, bought a soft book called “American Cars Of the 1940’s”. The Hudson was my pick then. It still is. It looks like a film noir set. It looks like a swoopy plane fuselage from a time for glamorous air travel. It looks impermeable, cozy for winter travel, shady for summer. It has smoky, stripy mohair sofas on a flat floor. It has round instruments, glory be, the size of hupcaps, numerals in enormous deco permanence. It is private in there, a bar for plotting with the glamour blond behind the submarine windows. It is bulbous out, it is big, it is America as the winner. It even has the name of handsome film star, a New York river. It won races. It fell complete off the screen from a Hollywood Golden Age time I loved even then. I imagined it sounded like Artie Shaw.
And this one, which I can see now only through glasses and lots of experience since; with no whitewalls or blondes or shining chrome any more, faded and complete but still firmly in existence, it suits my age, my condition now. Not so much a beating heart as a warm feeling of home.
Well said.
Perfect
Neat article about a great car. There were plans at Hudson to restyle the step-down body one more time for 1955. I suppose the idea was scrapped due to cost – not to mention that the high beltline and slit-like windows would have been seriously out of date. This would have looked pretty good in 1950-1951.
The issue of Hemmings Classic Car I received this week has a ’56 Hudson on the cover. In it they talk about the Hash (Hudson/Nash) and how the front clip of the ’55 Hudson is nearly identical to what was planned for a 1955 update of the Step Down models.
In essence, it was scrapped for cost since Hudson and Nash could now share a body for 1955.
But Hudson lost the one standout thing they really had going for them: handling.
Yeah. It was actually Frank Spring’s work. I didn’t know that . Makes me feel better about the early Hash; it wasn’t entirely a badge engineering job.
One of my all-time favorites. There was a story from back when these were new cars, that a Radio announcer, emphasizing Hudsons wide back seat, said over the air, “You can lay a five foot two inch girl in the back seat of the new Hudson.” He was immediately fired.
Another huge fan of the stepdown Hudson here. I love the one you found! Two thoughts come to mind:
First, it was about 5 years ago and I was in Bloomington Indiana checking out Indiana University with my wife and daughter. We were walking along the street that borders the south side of campus (3rd street) and I heard an unusual sound behind me. I turned just in time to see a light green 54 Hornet sedan go burbling past me at about 35 mph. It was in slightly better condition than this one and I was in love just watching it oozing down the street. I have never seen it since.
Second, something is up with those Studebaker production numbers (129K) on the Wiki page, because I don’t think Hudson ever trounced Studebaker that badly after WWII. In a book I have at home, Studebaker’s 1949 sales were over 228K units. From the classic car database I can add up model by model and get nearly 184K in production (which includes the R series trucks). Looking at Wiki’s 1948 (almost 185K) and 1950 (almost 321K) I have to think Wiki got its number wrong, probably by missing trucks. The difference between sales and production is likely some kind of calendar/model year discrepancy – Wiki is not clear on whether it is calendar or model years it uses.
True, JP. Studebaker’s sales for 50 were their best year ever.
Didn’t Hudson sell trucks during this period as well ? Or was that just pre-war ?
I don’t think Hudson’s trucks made it into the stepdown era. There was apparently one prototype built with the new 1948 body, but that was as far as the project went.
FWIW, the Wiki numbers are for ‘automobiles’, so I assume all truck are excluded.
I love these. Always have.
I agree with Paul–the “honest wear” on this car makes it much more authentic and interesting. I was also into “patina” before patina was cool (and before I heard the word “patina”!) but no one else understood.
Growing up in the ’70s, this is what cars of the ’50s actually looked like; they were not Concours d’Elegance entries to be sure. While Paul was fascinated by 4-door teardrop shapes as a child, I was into the curved roofs, wraparound windshields, and fins of the ’59 Chevys et.al. Amazing how the things you see at age 3-5 affect your whole life!
Today, my three 1958-62 cars are all original, unrestored “20-footers” that run and drive well. And I like ’em that way!
Much like that 63 Monterey featured the other day, Poindexter. Fine original shape and patina, enjoyable just as it was.
And ohhhhhh, that old car smell !!!
Great point- today’s sedans and crossovers probably have more in common with this car than the Earl-Mitchell creations that followed. Longer-lower-wider, until regulations and common sense caught up.
Love the Hudsons, even the Hashes [especially the 56 with it’s “V Line” styling] .
I always felt the 02 Altima was inspired by the step downs.
Have seen a few Coupes from the early 50s great looking cars, my favorite is the super rare Hollywood 2 dr hard top. have only ever seen 2 that I can recall.
As a kid I lived a few miles from the well known Courtesy motors Hudson dealerships in Chicago owned by Jim Moran the Courtesy man, he was one of the top Hudson sellers in the USA. After Hudson closed shop he became a Ford dealer.
Later on just down the street a block or 2 away was the famous Mr. Norms Dodge store.
Back in the 60’s in our neighborhood, there was an old Hudson – or was it a Nash? I don’t know, but my buddy and I called it “the submarine” because it looked like one, six side windows and all.
Every time we drove by it, it looked like it never moved, so we didn’t know if it even ran. Sure looked like it was from another planet compared to the contemporary designs of that mid-late 60’s era.
No thanks, give me a ’57 Chevy any day.
Classic PN. I’m right there with you.
The profile view of the Hudson with contemporary cars reveals how raked windshields have become….almost shocking.
Paul, I assume your love of Hudson’s translates into an equal love of 1991-2 Chevrolet Caprices, right? Those cars are often either criticized or complimented as looking like a modern day step down Hudson. It’s all there: bulbous shape, six side windows, rear fender skirts, very wide interior. Heck, basically the same car!
Um, no. Lost In Translation.
Great piece – I have always been intrigued by the “step-down” (into) aspects of these cars. I also wonder how many were allergic to the mohair upholstery, but that back seat looks like a couch I’d be proud to call my own.
Here’s another forward-thinking 6-window sedan that hung around a little too long… it’s narrow compared to the Hudson, though.
The 1975 Hudson!
My favorite Pixar movie scene…that’s authentic Twin H-Power you hear.
That sound is amazing! Absolutely my favorite Pixar scene too.
Great article! I’m sold. I wasn’t previously aware of these cars, as I honestly cannot remember ever seeing a Hudson around here. Initially, the body shape seemed kind of……ungainly to me, but after reading what you’ve wrote here and extolling the merits, I’m down with anybody trying to innovate in the car industry. The power to weight and handing are impressive, but the body style, with it’s length, took some adjustment for me. I remember you posting an article on why the fastback look generally looks better on smaller cars–and I agree. But with the realization of what Hudson was going for…..and especially that back seat room–I can now see how cool this car was. Something tells me that Hudson had aimed this as a bit of a revolutionary car, on dwindling budgets……not unlike AMC’s Gremlin or Pacer. The solid slab sides were unique at the time, and I’m used to seeing the option for removable fender skirts. The mere fact that the more extreme 1948 Cadillac designs had reverted back to a traditional look, had indicated that GM, at least, weren’t about to put radical styling into motion. And like you say, the torpedo/ fastback look was going out of style by the end of the 40’s.
I’m not that familiar with Hudson, like I say…..is there any possibility that in a bit of a reverse fashion as with the Gremlin and Pacer (chopped off Hornet), that Hudson had something in their line at the time, with pre-existing tooling, that just allowed them to lengthen something that they already had, and solidify the removable (or cut out) fender skirts?
As far as the high belt line, it’s definetely cool. But as we’ve found with modern cars, visibility is an issue, and to a certain extent, I suppose lower beltlines are a safety thing in terms of being able to see (ie: current Camaros have poor visibility; so do the 71-73 Mustangs).
I always thought these looked best in two tone paint .
-Nate
Great catch Paul of a fine vehicle. Wonder how much the current owner paid for this Hudson? The new license plates and green fender sure are contrasting.
We have had some bad news here in flyover country. Eldon Hostetler died a little over a year ago and willed his Hudson collection to the city of Shipshewana. His wife died last May. In June, the city announced that it wants to cash in and auction off all the Hudsons.
I made a last trip to the museum a few weeks ago and spoke with Eldon’s son. There is a local group that is trying to raise the money to buy the entire collection and keep it intact. That is a tall order as the collection is valued at over $4M.
The city wants to hammer them all in September. .
Take your pick. iirc the front one is a Twin H Power Hornet sedan, a Wasp hardtop behind it and a convert.
How a Hudson interior was intended to look.
How about a parade car?
A custom pickup conversion?
This custom wagon, made in recent years from an original Hudson styling drawing, is at the Gilmore. The Gilmore has more than a dozen cars from the Hostetler collection. There is a dispute underway as the Gilmore thinks Eldon’s will give them title to the cars they have, while the city wants everything, including the cars at the Gilmore.
Of course, this is my favorite of the collection, and it has a 308 and Hydramatic, rather than the problematic Packard powertrain. I actually looked to see what Hashes were bringing…but my bank account is saved by the lack of a place to put it. All original with less than 10,000 miles on it.
A Hudson owner needs some decoration for his man cave too.
That really is a nice looking interior, and it appears to be well-optioned as well, it even has power windows!
! I know this car ~ in 1984 or so it got off the i10 freeway in Culver City next to me .
It was green and the paint was old but decent, green and sported Colorado license tags reading ” UNEEK1″ ~ it zoomed off and I have always wondered what happened to it ~ looking at the unrestored and over sprayed fender wells makes me think this is likely the same car ~ how many can there have been modified this way ? .
-Nate
Those are some classy chassis! 🙂
Thanks for posting them!
Wow, that is incredibly sad news. I saw part of the Hostetlers’ collection at the Gilmore Museum last year and hoped to go to the Hudson Museum soon. That’s really a tragic move by the Town of Shipshewana, but it’s my experience that property donated to Cities or Towns is more often sold instead of preserved. Municipalities want money, not cultural resources, so they tend to be poor conservators of valuable things.
…so they tend to be poor conservators of valuable things.
There are several moving pieces in the situation. The museum is in part of the city event center. The event center was supported by a county motel tax, as a lot of city event centers are. The county repealed the motel tax, which removed something like 80% of the budget for the event center.
The event center was recently sold. Eldon Junior told me the new owner wants the museum to stay. In fact, he would like it to be larger. Of course, he’s probably thinking about receiving a steady rent check.
I figure if the city really wanted to honor Eldon’s wishes, but without the tax the event center is unsustainable, they could move the collection into a smaller building. Alternately, they could approach the Gilmore about taking the entire collection, except I doubt the Gilmore has free space to take even 10% of the Hostetler collection on top of what they already have. But it looks like the city is really in a yank to get it’s hands on all that lovely money, moving on it only a few weeks after Eldon’s wife died.
This is the exterior of the building the collection is in.
That’s a lot of Hudsons! View from as far over my head as I could reach with the camera.
And an even shakier view from the other end of the room.
SAD .
FAIL .
-Nate
Uh?
That the City was given a wonderful gift and only sees dollar signs right now, not the long term cultural and monetary aspect of owning this museum .
I think you should go buy a Husdon Paul ~ there’s still plenty of cheap ones out there .
-Nate
So typical of vote buying jacka**es…..I mean politicians.
“We just need to get back to enclosed rear wheels, which really are an aerodynamic aid. Who’s going to be the first (other than the gen1 Honda Insight)?”
Six-window Honda Clarity is half way there …
The enclosed rear wheels on the Hudson was a result of the outboard frame rail, not merely a fender skirt. Changing a rear tire had to be fun! Remember that flat tires were common back then, not the rarity they are today.
This is one of the very few cars where this looks ok to me. I generally dislike fender skirts. Nash Airflyte enclosed front wheels look really bad, IMO.
GREAT point about changing a tire…..that should be an obvious thing, but I was only thinking aesthetically. How would someone change the rear tire on this? I would guess that you’d have to rotate the tire so that one lug would be at the bottom, but the problem with that is that with the car jacked up, it would be difficult to loosen the nut without the tire turning.
Not such a big deal as you’d think : jack from the front spring perch and the axle dangles far enough .
I have to do this for brake/tire service on my old Nash every few years, I don’t buy cheapo rubber for the car so I rarely have flats .
-Nate
The best tires in 1951 were terrible by today’s standards. Flats were a relatively frequent occurrence.
Do you know if the stock jack was a bumper type like I remember on older GM cars? That does let the axle hang down.
@Nikita ;
You’re so right about those tires ~ my buddy bought a new 356 Porsche in 1954 and wanted to race it , had to buy huge wide white wall tires to get decent quality……
I don’t know if Hudson used those ‘widow maker’ bumper jacks .
-Nate
I have a ’51 Pacemaker. Changing the rear wheels not as bad as you’d think — Hudson used lug bolts instead of lug nuts (with a dowel pin so you could position the wheel for mounting), so when you remove them the wheel just slides down off the drum (you position the dowel at the bottom). However, they left enough room under there that it wasn’t necessary — I have installed the rear end out of a ’76 Granada under mine (so I can do highway speeds) which is almost exactly the same width and has lug studs and nuts, and I can still get the wheel out without having to unbolt the shock. 205/70r15 tires, fwiw.
In 1985, I’d owned a ’65 Ambassador convertible for four years. A year after having bought it, I had new shocks put on the rear at the local Sears (Searstown Mall in Leominster MA) and the tech told me the OEM-spec were no longer made. but they used the recommended substitutes.
Fast forward three years, and one flat tire. Conveniently enough, it was at the Demoulas supermarket around the corner from the Sears. Jacking the car up with the bumper jack was good, but the shorter shocks didn’t let the wheel drop far enough out of the fender well. I ended up buying a piston jack at Sears…then back at the car, lowered it – unbolted the top hex nuts of the shock absorber – jacked the car back up with the bumper jack – then used the piston jack to raise the trailing arm enough to get the tire off the pavement. What a royal PITA. At least with the piston jack, I could raise the wheel assembly higher to get the shock’s upper end back home and get the hex nut and lock washer back on…then lower the entire car.
I betcha this Hudson could have been the same procedure, or darned close to it.
Love these. I used to regularly see one in Greensboro in the 90’s, often parked at the same upscale shopping center–my guess was that it belonged to a retiree who still worked part-time and chose to drive his classic to work in nice weather. It was a beautiful two-tone rose color and seemed a mile long in its six-window glory. Wonder where that one is now? It was in fantastic shape, and unless some tragedy has befallen it in the intervening years, is undoubtedly still around.
In college in the early ’70s–when anything older than a ’59 Chevy seemed “old,” and anything pre-1955 seemed ancient–I remember a grad student (Engineering) who had two of these in decent “driver” condition. He tinkered with them now and then, and I regret not taking him up on the offered ride. I wonder where the cars are now?
Paul, there’s a nicely-looked-after one (no trailer queen!) in Cali now that you could drive home for under 12K. Tempting….?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1949-Hudson-G90-Commodore-Six-/192249750548?hash=item2cc2fa6414:g:upwAAOSwhilZa4F4&vxp=mtr
@George :
That’s an amazingly clean unrestored car !.
CHEAP too ! .
-Nate
@Nate: I read the ad more closely and learned two things: (1) the car is Cali-sourced, but now somewhere near Indianapolis; (2) owner has done a admirable amount of work to get this into comfortable and reliable “driver” shape, at the least. If I was in the market, I’d think about this one rather than a Hudson for half the price that I’d end up putting countless hours and thousands into…I’ll hope it finds a loving next owner!
@George:
As a Journeyman Mechanic who did restoration works in the 1970’s I quickly learned that the best way to get a really nice driver is to buy a ten + year old restoration as there will be some cosmetic wear that hinders the ability to get top dollar, this same wear means the vehicle was used and enjoyed so usually properly maintained .
As much as I love survivors they’re normally chock full of deferred maintenance issues .
-Nate
I once entered some contest sort of “Photoshopping” with cut and paste a ’51 Hudson front end to a Dodge Magnum. I put some graphics on the side: “The Fabulous Hudson New Hornet”. And Chrysler (or Fiat?) owns the Hudson name. I have seen an old ad from the 1950s : Hudson Rules the Road and America Knows It! “Look for the White Triangle!”
Be careful with Hudsons – they get into your blood!
A teenage neighbour had one of these back in the seventies, a ’49. He proudly showed me his can of Hudsonite for the clutch; precious stuff. Then he got another, slightly later. Then a ’37 Terraplane showed up in his yard. And…
Last I heard Colin was official historian for the Hudson-Essex-Terraplane club down here.
I’m glad to see that Paul can still love a car openly and unashamedly! That’s the kind of infatuation that turned us onto cars in the first place.
I’ve always liked this iconic design. My only wish from a design perspective is if the front 1/3 of the car had a bit more sense of forward movement. As much as the rear of the Hudson manages. Front wheel arches that rake forward more, and a hood that leans into the wind. Appearing more streamlined overall.
Not as dramatically interpreted as say the shark-nosed Graham. More subtle. But with a greater sense of forward movement from the leading part of the design. Less static and massive looking up front.
The one in the first photo is amazing; needs to be restored to a glossy black finish.
Have seen a few shark nose Grahams equipped with factory super chargers.
A friend has a 2 dr. resto-mod, great looking rare model.
What goes around comes around as we can see from yesterday to today. Although I would say an early inkling of it, in more modern times, would be the 3rd gen taurus when looked at from the different angles. Take a look at one from overhead just like the Pacemaker here. Very similar. Another love it or hate it look at the time.
The “bathtub” cars, Hudson and Nash, did really look old to a car-obsessed kid by the early 1960’s. Dad was driving a ’59 Chevy (a style that only lasted two years). Even Grandpa’s ’53 Bel Air looked a lot more modern. As mentioned above, that basic Chevy body sold well for an amazing five years.
Step-Down Hudsons were still around in daily use when I was a kid in the late 1950’s, immediately fascinating to a car-crazed youth. In addition to a pair of licensed ‘51-’53 sedans, a ‘51 Hornet and ‘48-‘50 club coupe sat on a small used car dealer’s back lot. Others were occasionally seen on the roads, including a number of Pacemaker-Wasp, looking very much the older, run-down cars poor folks drove. A former Hudson dealer, by then successfully peddling Ramblers, still kept a few Hudsons around including a ‘51 Hornet convertible and a Hollywood hardtop plus parts sedans. Around 1963-64, my father did some work for a bachelor farmer who still drove the light blue ’51 Hornet sedan he’d bought new, with only 19K miles on the odometer by then. Twenty-five years later, I was delighted to encounter the car still in the hands of family members, maintaining, enjoying and showing it.
On the point of postwar L-head engine developments, Packard also introduced their last generation straight eights in the 1948 MY, the 288 and 327 cubic inch units. The pre-war 245 ci six and 282 ci eight Junior engines were replaced by the former, while the Super Eight received the latter. Only the Custom Eight continued employing the marvelous 356 ci Senior series unit. For 1951, the 356 was replaced by a nine-main bearing version of the 327 for the top-line Patrician 400.
As torque-y, quiet, smooth and bullet-proof an engines this last generation straight eight proved to be, it was technologically obsolete the day it was introduced. Packard was selling the majority of its cars in the Oldsmobile and Buick segment. The 1949 OHV Olds and Cadillac dawned the future, Buick rode its massive sales momentum, until the nail-head arrived. As lower-priced makes introduced their OHV V8’s, widespread acceptance changed buyer attitudes to consider that configuration superior. By then, it matter not how good the last L-heads were, they were out of favor, old news.
Paul, would you settle for a Hornet?
http://bringatrailer.com/listing/1951-hudson-hornet/
I have ALWAYS lusted after one of these!
My favorite “Driving Miss Daisy” car.
OMG, I just saw a car like that Hudson a few hours ago. It was sharing space with a 65 Impala 2 door hardtop. Only difference was that the Hudson I saw was “painted” completely in light grey primer.
Would have gotten a picture if I had remembered to carry my phone.
Came across this one in September 2013 on the California side of the southern end of Lake Tahoe. (It’s fairly high-resolution; click on it.)
I’ve been an admirer of step down Hudson’s for a very long time. Your picture is very nice but I’ve never seen a Hudson of this vintage with a split rear window. I suspect that it has been modified.
In ’49, my Uncle Fred bought a Hudson Hornet. My dad bought an Olds 88 in ’50, and thus started a friendly rivalry. Which was faster? Depends on who you asked. They both had pretty good stories. My memory of the Hornet is very foggy- I think I was only 3 when Fred traded the Hornet in on a new ’59 Catalina. Cool old cars, thanks for jogging the memory banks… again.
that red triangle on the hubcap. suddenly I have a craving for a Bass Ale.
Looks like I’m late to the Hudson party. Here goes: my older brother bought a 1951 Hudson Pacemaker which had been a Montana Highway Patrol car. It came equipped with the 308″ Hornet engine with overdrive on its 3 speed column shift.
To keep the story short, the Hudson engines would sometimes slip their rod bearings one on top if the other. Sure enough it happened. We found another Hornet engine and replaced the bad one. We thought about a better engine for the car and settled on a 1950 Olds 88 V8 which we bought. The Olds was the hottest thing going in the early ’50’s.
On a Saturday morning at about 10:30 AM the Olds engine was dropped beside the driveway. We set about pulling the Hornet engine out. We had to fabricate engine mounts and cut the driveshaft. By 5:30 PM we drove away in the Hudsmobile/Old son. 7 hours for the total engine swap.
What a machine! At the San Jose Little Bonneville drag strip in C Gas it ran off for trophy every week against a ’52 Ford F100 powered by a full house Cadillac V8 sometimes winning, but also losing more than winning. I could tell stories about times on the road, but I don’t want to encourage those kinds of driving.
Road handling was excellent, and I sincerely believe if Hudson had been able to make a deal with Oldsmobile for the Olds V8, they would still be in business.
The two Hornet engines were sold to Ed Sneva who raced Hudson’s in Spokane, Washington. Ed is the father of Tom Sneva who was an Indy car driver who won the Indy 500.
I forgot about the “Pacemaker” model name. Even though I just had one “installed” a couple months ago!
I remember several unusual details from riding in several cars probably only one time as a little kid in the 1950’s. One was a car with push button interior door openers. Another one (I was three years old so it would have been at my eye level) with a cool chrome piece on the door panel under the window that had a futuristic car shape in gold and silver in the middle of it. Another was a car you stepped down into past the door sill instead of the floor being level with the sill.
Only in the past couple of years I figured out from Google images and oldcarbochures they were a first generation Kaiser, a shoebox Ford, and of course a Hudson.
Fantastic car. It reminds me of the pic I took of a Nash Ambassador at a show years ago.
Can I just mention the Borgward Hansa 2400?
It looks weird in photos, but far better in the metal.
I think the source of inspiration will immediately become obvious.
To me, the Hudson story typifies the plight of the domestic independent auto maker. The problem is that, even in the best of times, one mistake can take the company down. The Ford and GM monoliths can make mistakes (in GM’s case, a whole lot of them) and get away with it, at least for a while (GM went bankrupt in 2009). Not so the small car makers.
Even then, the old industry adage “timing is everything” applies, with the futuristic Chrysler Airflow being an example. They were good cars, just far ahead of their time.
In fact, I might go so far as to classify the late, unlamented Pontiac Aztek in the same category. One of the first crossovers, it might have had a shot in today’s crossover-crazy market (especially with an electric drivetrain).
Instead, the Aztek is widely credited with being the final nail in the Pontiac division’s coffin.
Rereading the comments, of course the one thing that always comes up is how Hudson (and Packard) were foolish enough to bring out new generation flathead straight eights in 1948, because the engines were already obsolete which was proven by the introduction of the Oldsmobile and Cadillac OHV V-8’s in 1949. That’s true, but only if you’re looking at it with the benefit of hindsight ten to twenty years later. Hindsight is cheap and always correct.
(I’m extrapolating here, as this is a couple of years before my birth, much less before my time, but I’m taking what I remember of the car business mid-1950’s and working backwards, since the car business was roughly the same during that period.)
Go back to October-November 1947 when Hudson introduces the new car. Obviously, the two divisions at GM are working on radically different new engines, but given the industrial security of the time, these were industrial secrets verging on hydrogen bomb security, Nobody outside of GM had any idea what was coming, heck, I’m willing to bet that Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick divisions had some idea of the advanced new engines the other two were working on but had no idea of production schedule at this point. And some people in rather high places are taking calculated risks that these new designs will actually sell.
Of course everyone else is still happy with the flathead (other than Chevrolet, Buick, and Nash). It works, is cheap to build, widely accepted, and the L-head is especially the symbol of Ford and Hudson as much as OHV is of the above mentioned three. If Hudson (and Packard) were guilty of anything, it was not anticipating just how much General Motors was going to upend car design between the 1948-49 model years.
Makes about the same sense as blaming GM, Ford, Toyota and Volkswagen for not fully anticipating this company called Tesla back in 2011-12. And being foolish enough to wait five or six years at least before coming up with competition.
First off, the Hudson straight eight wasn’t new at all; it dated back to the 1930s. The 1948 262 six was “new”, and I assume you’re referring to it, not the eight.
You make relevant points, but the bigger overarching issue is this: engine making is not so much about the design, but the actual manufacturing. And while GM could afford to create completely new casting and most importantly, new line transfer (machining) lines for a totally new ohv V8 engine, Hudson could not, at least not without putting its precarious financial position further at risk.
The 262/308 side valve six may have been “new”, but it used the existing foundry and all/much of the existing machining equipment, which was of course all set up to build traditional flathead inline sixes. Easy-peasy. Low-cost, and quite effective, especially the 308.
The same thing applies to Packard, as their post war flathead eights were not exactly really “new” either, in the same way the Hudson six wasn’t. But Packard sort-of could afford to design and invest in the facilities to build a new ohv V8, because of the higher profits from their war business and defense contracts. And higher margins on their upscale cars. But it obviously didn’t solve their issues either.
Here’s one I spotted a few years ago in Lanesboro, Minnesota.
Thanx Griff ! .
-Nate