Given the brawny new ohv V8s that the Big Three and Studebaker had by then, it might seem odd that the Hudson Hornet with an old school flathead six utterly dominated stock car racing, winning 64 out of 108 NASCAR races in the years 1952-1954, thus establishing itself as a legend and cultural icon. Sadly, that all would end with this ’54 Hornet, as a desperate Hudson merged with Nash that year, thus ending production of the step-down Hudson. Maybe just as well, as all those V8s were now sprouting four barrel carbs and such and by 1954 they were ready to take down the Hornet.
Motor Life tested a Twin-H powered Hornet to see for themselves just how hot it really was. They were not disappointed.
The reviewer reminds readers that Hudson’s prowess in competitions was not just a recent phenomena: “Hudson is the one which has been the most competition-minded for the longest period“. But it was Hudson’s recent string of wins on the stock car tracks that really cemented the company’s reputation.
How exactly did the Hornet dominate the tracks so thoroughly during its heyday? It’s important to remember that the ohv V8s from Cadillac, Olds, Chrysler and Studebaker were very mildly tuned in their first few years. Even the legendary Chrysler hemi was rated at 180 hp in 1951-1953, whereas the lighter Hudson with its 308 inch six made 170 hp with Twin-H Power (dual carbs). The Olds 88 was rated at 135 hp, and with its even lighter body made it the Hornet’s toughest competitor. The tracks back then were often dirt and short, favoring lighter cars. Of course all this changed with the arrival of the ’55 Chevy, which instantly dominated smaller tracks while the ultra-powerful but heavy Chrysler 300 was hard to beat on the big fast tracks. Hudson was doomed for 1955, in more ways than one.
The tested Hornet had the Twin-H engine and “Super Induction” (modified valves and hotter cam), GM’s 4-speed fluid-coupling Hydramatic, power steering and power brakes. Motor Life notes that the big six’ abundant low end torque really makes its impact felt on low speed acceleration, with an “exceptional” 4.2 second time from 0-30 mph. The sprints to higher speeds were not quite as impressive (0-60 in 12.2 sec.) but ML says “it will stand up favorably to any…US stock car on the market today“. As a frame of reference, the 230 hp 1954 Cadillac, which was widely acknowledged as the fastest car on the market, did the 0-60 sprint in 11.3 seconds in another review. It also weighed 850 lbs more, which is why one didn’t see many Caddys on the tracks.
As to top speed, the average of a number of runs was 106.54 mph. Again, that compares to 113 mph for the Cadillac. The quarter mile times were almost identical for both, at 18.5 (Hudson) and 18.4 (Cadillac). Of course the Cadillac was significantly more expensive.
Both of them would be utterly eclipsed by the new ’55 Chevy V8, which was two and half seconds faster to 60 than the Hudson and a good second faster in the quarter mile. The big cars’ heyday as the fastest ones ended abruptly that year.
The Hudson averaged 15.5 mpg in mixed driving, which was actually less than the heavier Cadillac, an exceptionally efficient car at the time.
Handling was the Hornet’s standout quality. The low center of gravity, thanks to the unitized body construction and “step-down” design combined with a relatively wide track meant that it could take corners at high speed without the usual lean and drama. ML’s testers took the Hornet over “an exceedingly difficult paved mountain road” at higher speeds than could be expected from other cars, all without issues and “almost a pleasure“.
Adding to the good handling was the almost-surprisingly positive experience with the power steering, which unlike other delivered adequate road feel.
The Hudson’s handling prowess did not come at the expense of its ride quality. It was deemed “smooth and bounce free…much less rolling and pitching“.
As to its exterior styling, given that this basic body dated back to 1948, the ML reviewers were generous. They noted the higher rear fender line and ML’s photographer said “It sure looks sexy”. Yes, it does have a fine rear end, but one that was clearly showing its age despite the butt lift.
Entry into the interior was extra easy, thanks to its doors opening to a wide 80 degrees.
No wonder Hudson and Nash merged; they had so much in common, like using single digit speedometers. Actually, that was about the only thing. ML thought the instrument grouping was good, although it too was not complete.
These cars were wide, making them genuine six seaters. ML points out that “the back of the front seat continues to carry the almost extinct robe rope“. The “robe” was lap robe or blanket hung there in the old days so that rear seat passengers could use it to help stay warm. This goes back to a time when car heaters were either not installed or not very effective, especially in the back. I suspect that was not likely in this case, although the heater was of course still an option ($75).
In summing up, the Hornet’s performance and handling stood out, as well as its ruggedness. These were solidly built cars, undoubtedly in part due to their unitized construction, which Hudson pioneered in the US.
But it was all to no avail; in 1955 the Hornet would be reduced to Hash; a Nash with with new front end, although still available with the Hudson 308 six along with a 320 inch Packard V8. The end of a storied road.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1952 Hudson Hornet – A Victorious Dead End
Curbside Classic: 1951 Hudson Pacemaker – My Fluttering Heart Needs a Pacemaker
Curbside Classic: 1955 Hudson Hornet Hollywood – A Step, Down?
Curbside Classic: 1956 Hudson Hornet – Waiting For Death In A Borrowed Four-Tone Suit
They described the feel of the brakes but didn’t mention the most important part. Hudson brakes were always there, even when the hydraulics failed. Nash continued installing the failsafe system on the 55-57, but even though they had the tooling and the parts, never added it to a Nash or a Rambler. The 55-57 Hash had one more safety feature, a standard padded dash, which Nash didn’t get until later.
Did AMC ever again field a car with the all-around performance cred of the 1954 Hornet? They eventually offered some cars with big engines (like the 57 Rebel or the 401-powered Javelin) but always put them into cars with undistinguished suspension systems.
Seems that the early 50s were still happy years for USA independent makes whereas the late 50s see the big cars disappear quickly.
From a big winner in the 1954 races to completely forgotten only 5 years later.
Love the step down Hudsons.
Here’s what Consumer Reports had to say about the ’54 Hornet.
I like how the Hudson accelerator pedal is “streamlined” like the rest of the car. The 55-57s should have kept that feature.
What advantage does the considerably more expensive 8-tube radio have over the 6-tube radio?
The accessories advert is interesting – fender skirts for cars dating from the mid-30s; twenty-year-old cars barely get notice nowadays, but 1935 models would have stuck out like a sore thumb in 1954 style-wise. My image of American roads circa 1954 is nearly all postwar cars; maybe it wasn’t really like that. Also, what’s a “Bermuda Bell”?
Here’s a video of a “Bermuda Bell” installed in a 1942 Packard
Nice. Maybe given the digital sound generators already installed in new EVs they could add a bell sound the driver could use to make clear they’re warning pedestrians of their presence, reserving the horn for warning other vehicles. But put the actuator on a steering column stalk please; I’d inadvertently hit the bell every time I get in the car if it were in the middle of the floor.
Inadvertently, I have a connection to Hudson. I was born the morning of October 8th 1954. George Mason died the morning of October 8th 1954.
One thing confuses me: in the article’s photograph, the brake pedal appears to be of the modern suspended type, whereas the car in the recent photograph has a pedal that rises out of the floor. Any idea why the difference?
That is curious. Presumably a mid-year change, but that’s a bit hard to imagine given the circumstances with the merger.
The article car had power brakes, which features a suspended pedal. Standard brakes had a pedal which rose out of the floor.
Thanks for explaining that.
Family friends had a Hudson which was replaced by a Cadillac in the early Sixties. I’d like to think I rode in the Hudson but honestly, I don’t remember. I did ride in the Caddy and even drove it when I was 16 or 17. The only Cadillac I’ve ever driven.
Were Hudson’s sold in Europe? I know that Ford, GM (Oldsmobile) and Chrysler competed in European touring car races in the early ‘50’s. Paul Frere, the Belgian racer and journalist, drove an Oldsmobile at Spa and won his class in a Chrysler at the 1953 Mille Miglia. I wonder if the Hudson would have been competitive in these road races … my guess is they might have been quite fast.
Were these cars allowed to be modified? I suspect so, and there were large power gains to be extracted quite readily from these very mildly-tuned V8s. Which is precisely why all the various performance/racing crowd used them so extensively.
NASCAR was truly stock back then, which favored the Hudson. But it had drastically less potential for being tuned than the V8s. My guess is that is the answer.
I just looked up Frere’s win at Spa: this race was based on list price of the car rather than engine capacity. The Olds 88 woas cheaper than the Hudson. And Olds had a significant presence in Europe then; I’m not aware of any presence at all there for Hudson.
Ah, so that’s what they’re called, “robe rope,” and that’s what they were for. I always assumed they were just were floppy Jesus-bars for non-believers, ie: not much help when you’re in a corner, although I see this car also has two hard Jesus-bars for the devout to keep upright. (Presumably, the smoker in the middle with the honking-great ashtray isn’t going to live long enough for it to matter and so gets nothing at all, but I’m digressing).
I wonder, just how did they get that rear transmission tunnel so low, given the step-down effect? Did these have a worm drive, perhaps?
The low driveshaft tunnel was probably in comparison with the then common torque tube driveshaft. An open driveshaft coupled with high offset hypoid differential would result in a low tunnel. Also, did the rear suspension have less vertical travel than was common?
The 1941 Nash 600 probably was the pioneer of monocoque construction in the US.