ClassicCar

Nevada Hudson

Heart Of Texas wrote:

Jon... taking no exception to your missive... I can tell you Hudson made a very good and sound decision to retool the Hudson body near the end of WWII. But there were other circumstances many forget or never knew. The USA was suffering with very large shortages of essential materials, engineers were not available due to the loss of men during the war, Korean came and was still impacting the ecomony of the US and the World and the US government had borrowed all the available cash to support the war. If you take a look at the construct of the Hudson management during 1944 and then again in 1952 there is a major change in the risk taking attitude . I for one believe the lack of V8 engines being responsible for killed Hudson is absurd. The reality of sales in our world is how the public recieves a product. Public opinion about new Hudsons in 1953 was akin to throwing ones money in the trash. The design was old and the car was nothing more than a fixed up 1949 Hudson. When challenged by public opionion most folks do not take well to the social pressure. When speaking with people from that era you will find many were very frugal and when they spent thier dollars, it was a complete experience. If the neighbor is scoffed at your NEW car as a fixed up old design then you will more than likely not buy that product again. In the grand scheme of things ... Hudson is and was a fine automobile as are many of todays automotive offerings... but if the buying public hangs a ...stink... on your product.. more than likely you will not sell that product.

And so it went...

Cheers

Studebaker and Packard both had v8's and look what happened to them ! Jet bashers, a v8 would not have saved Hudson !

nhp1127

JP wrote:

Hey Niels--your message box is full --perhaps there is some visor info there for you.

Cleared it up. No visors though.... thx

nhp1127

I for one am happy that the 54 was a nice Hudson I have always liked the design and I do not consider the Nash years Hudsons. Its my own opinion but the Hudson badged Nashs and Ramblers are the ugliest cars on the road.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree with this and the market does aswell. The hotel lobby at the national event in Reno had a 55 Hash displayed since it was the year being honored. Sorry to those who own and like them, but I was disappointed that it represented the Hudson company to the public. I would have put something else in there that was universally accepted by members as being visually stunning.

jsrail

I for one will not bad mouth Jets! I may be stuck on the side of the road (probably driving my RR) someday and need a lift! I don't believe in karma, but better safe than sorry!

Jay :-)

boothguy

By 52/53 there wasn't anything the independents could have done except try to postpone the inevitable. I think the only thing that could have changed Hudsons fate would have been if the stepdown had been introduced with an OHV V8 in 48. As great as Hudsons racing history was, imagine it with an Olds rocket or Chrysler hemi under the hood. By the end of the fat postwar market Hudson could have been a legendary supercar, an American Porsche, Ferrari or perhaps Bentley and maybe the marque could have survived as a limited production luxury exotic.

37 CTS

In additon to all the above ideas. Mr. Barit had to be thinking that each time Hudson brought to market a smaller car they had great great sucesss.

The Essex and Terraplane each had saved Hudson when it was troubled and the Jet was a hope save HMC in 1953

My friend who worked in Hudson styling in 1951 said it was a viable company , they were working on future concepts for the Hudson and the Jet was mostly completed. There were no signs of what another 3 years would bring.

29 Vic

jamcoats

As a professional historian I am cautioned and will caution others to avoid "IF History", as it is all to easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. But personally, I think the 308 had a good reputation in the fifties with its racing successes, and although an OHV V8 would have been more in-vogue, I believe the six could still sell cars if the styling was updated. I have a 1965 Plymouth Fury, which came out in 1956, and look at the styling - every single model year is completely different from the previous or next. You can not tell that a 1960 and a 1963 Plymouth are from the same continent, much less the same manufacturer. This is only one reflection of the mass consumer culture that developed after WWII and new was in vogue, and that meant every year something new. By 1954 the stepdown design was TIRED. There is no single factor that killed Hudson, but if I had to list them, that one is at the top of my list. The Jet was and is a good car it was just the wrong business decision at the time, that money should have been spent re-tooling the Stepdown. But I don't fault Barit for putting the cash cow in the Jet and sending it down the road -- that strategy, as it has been said, worked for Hudson before.

ArkieJazz

51hornetA wrote:

Its my own opinion but the Hudson badged Nashs and Ramblers are the ugliest cars on the road.

___________________________________________________________

[:)There are TWO uglier......the '51 Frazerand the '54 Italia /B]

oldhudsons

as an adjunct to your comment in re V8s. I was working in a Hudson dealership in '54 (75 cents a hr. "flunkie", LOL) in Ind. The owner went to the Detroit showing of the '54s, returning with a '54 H sd., & entered thru the back door of the garage so potential customers wouldn't see it. He got out, didn't say a word to us, and went into his office. We employees went over, one of the mechanics opened the driver's door, pulled the hood latch - there it was, same old flathead 6. The owner & the mechanics all felt that without a V8 Hudson "had had it" - the hood was closed, we all went back to work. All they had done was paint it red! (We weren't too pleased with the new styling either, all thought the taillight treatment left a LOT to be desired - why didn't they "French" them?).

hudsontech

29 Vic wrote:

In additon to all the above ideas. Mr. Barit had to be thinking that each time Hudson brought to market a smaller car they had great great sucesss.

The Essex and Terraplane each had saved Hudson when it was troubled and the Jet was a hope save HMC in 1953

My friend who worked in Hudson styling in 1951 said it was a viable company , they were working on future concepts for the Hudson and the Jet was mostly completed. There were no signs of what another 3 years would bring.

29 Vic

Unfortunately, it was the out-dated 1930's thinking at Hudson (Barit's small car thinking - and, in the case of the Jet it had to have a high enough roof line so a gentleman could wear his hat) that had a large part in the final demise of the company.

There were many factors in the early 50's - among them Ford and Chevy nearly giving cars away in a fight to be first in sales. When the elephants start fighting the mice get trampled.

Hudsonly,

Alex Burr

hudsonguy

For what it's worth, I always tell people when asked 'Why did Hudson go out of business?' , that there are lots of reasons (as listed above...V8, Jet, Big 3 price wars, etc.), but the one that jumps out at me was that their integrity was too high to succeed in the auto business. They used the best materials, and refused to make 'cheap' cars. They wanted the Hudson name to stand for quality. They also made very little profit compared to the competition, so as a result they didn't have big piles of money to overcome some of the other events that took place (V8, Jet, competition, etc.)

hoosiercrosley

I Own three Jets, And 5 Crosley's. I will admitt that the Jet is not the best looking one on the block, ( and the same for the Crosley!) But I have them because I LIKE THEM! I Like all old cars! I look at it this way, at least we are saving some automotive history, Dosen't matter to me what kind of car you like, Would you guys stop loving your wife if somebody said she wasn't as attractive as somebody elses wife? Beauty is in eye of the beholder.

Hoosiercrosley

Martin200

Again, Im jumping in on this a little late, but I couldn't resist...

From everything I've read, the major reason for Hudson's demise could be summed up in three words: ABRAHAM EDWARD BARIT.

Apparently, the man was a former bean counter with the imagination of a wart. Frank Spring had that step-down prototype since 1941 and could have beat Kaiser-Frazer to the punch with an all-new postwar car in late 1945!! They had the physical plant and the means right there, which K-F didn't have until August of 1945 and even then Henry and Joe had to rush like hell to get everything into place at Willow Run to build cars. Instead, the damn prototype sat on the factory roof throughout the war until Spring finally cajoled Barit into taking a ride in the thing.

Just imagine if Hudson would've unveiled that step-down in late '45 or even January '46. Take a look at a '47 Kaiser or Frazer, put yourself in that time period, and ask yourself which you would rather have had. Henry and Joe STILL beat Hudson to market only because they were able to get then out there first, knowing there would be a seller's market like the industry had never seen. Can you imagine if Hudson would've capitalized on that with a Step-Down model before anyone else even had a car in the showroom? They would've wound up the #1 independent, possibly even challenging Chrysler for the #3 spot. AND they would have had plenty of capital for some serious R&D in preperation for the seller's market's collapse in '49.

If Hudson had had a CEO with a real imagination and a finger on the pulse of the public, under my scenario they would have stayed the top independent, had a V-8 along with the six in '49 or '50, beat the @$$ off the other independents, including Nash--K-F wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell--and had enough capital to ride out the war between Ford and Chevy as Chrysler did. They also would never have taken a chance on the Jet, at least not the way it looks now. They would have either let Nash experiment with that niche market, or come out with a much sportier, sleeker-looking product that didn't look so stodgy, and with a V-8 would have been a muscle car 12 years ahead of time! (Entry/exit would've been made easier for a man with a hat by cutting the doors into the roofline, as Tucker and the Gen II Kaiser did.) Who knows--they might have still been around today.

Oh well, hindsight is 20/20, as they say. Just goes to show you that you don't hire for CEOs unimaginitive bean counters that are poster boys for the Peter Principle (i.e., in every organization, some will eventually rise to their level of incompetence).

ClassicCar

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

We'd love to hear from you! info@classiccar.com