Hudson innovations good and/or bad

Unknown

Since the 'wood in Hudson bodies' discussion got a little wayward and the subject became the survivability of the smaller makes as well as innovations by Hudson and others, let's get another thread going on the subject



Hudson engineering really had many 'firsts' in the industry and as Alex Burr stated that people bought independent makers for innovation and the big 3 for cheap. My vote for the worst innovation Hudson engineering started was the 'idiot' light for oil pressure and ammeter. Usually by the time either came on it was really too late and the damage had been done.



Let's see where this one goes!! :eek:

Unknown

backtohudsons wrote:

Since the 'wood in Hudson bodies' discussion got a little wayward and the subject became the survivability of the smaller makes as well as innovations by Hudson and others, let's get another thread going on the subject



Hudson engineering really had many 'firsts' in the industry and as Alex Burr stated that people bought independent makers for innovation and the big 3 for cheap. My vote for the worst innovation Hudson engineering started was the 'idiot' light for oil pressure and ammeter. Usually by the time either came on it was really too late and the damage had been done.



Let's see where this one goes!! :eek:

Was the idiot light really a Hudson invention? You're right, idiot lights have been a thorn in my backside forever! Worst innovation, by far. But on a more positive note, I'd have to say the back-up mechanical brake system was a great one.



Russell



Russell

Unknown

I'd say the counterbalanced crankshaft has to be at the top of the list.



Have a nice day

Steve

Unknown

I remember in the 50's that people wouldn't buy Hudson because they were known as being unreliable, Clutch problems, bearing trouble with the splashers being what I heard most, Caused by weak dealer network and not being able to maintain them. People didn't want a vehicle that needed the clutch fluid changed every 5k miles, also people used too heavy weight oil in the splashers. Then the wide block 6's had timing belt problems as well as head gasket and wear on the oil pump drive gear problems. I also think that the counterbalanced crank is the formost thing that Hudson did.

Geoff

I disagree on the so-called "idiot lights". How often would you look at an oil pressure gauge when you are driving? Not often enough to pick up a drop in oil pressure I bet, but if you have a light all of a suden come on, you take notice instantly. I had occasion many years ago, when the oil pipe to the gauge cracked on my Essex, and the oil pumped out on to the road, resulting in a bearing going. Normally I would have noticed oil on the floor or something, but I was on a long trip at the time, driving at 45-50 m.p.h., so it didn;t take long for something serious to happen. You can bet if I had a good bright light show up for loss of oil pressure, either I or one of my passengers would have noticed. And in a splash feed motor, oil pressure is irrelevant, so there is no benefit in a gauge, except to show that the oil is curculating. The generator system is another thing however, and I agree that an ammeter is a handy device to show if the system is working properly, but again, if a light comes on you are going to notice straight away. I have a "belt and braces" in my Hornet and Jet, I have wired an ammeter into the system. My '28 Essex and '29 Hudson have instruments in the dash.

Geoff.

terraplane8

The philosophy behind the design of the Terraplanes was very significant at the time, light weight and a good power to weight ratio resulting in great performance. It sounds obvious now, but at that time it was a new look at this type of thinking that Hudson had first focused on way back in 1916. They saved around 500 lbs of weight compared to older models. The British car magazines admitted that in the US "a new type of car had been created" along these lines, with light yet strong design and powerful compared to their offerings.



The ultimate expression of this using a Hudson chassis was in the Railton Light Sports Tourer of 1935 which weighed 2140 lbs which with 120 horsepower gave a power to weight ratio of around 17lbs/hp and a 0-60 in 8.8 secs, SS1/4 in 17.4 secs on a 3.3:1 rear axle ratio. That was incredible performance in 1935 as was 80mph in second and around 107 in top.



Another innovation was splayed rear springs to stop body roll.



The 30's gearboxes with their dog engagement were another innovation that allowed very quick and light gearchanges, although they had problems with durability.



The 1936-39 radius rod located front axle was another, giving high stability, anti-dive braking by separating out the suspension forces from the steering and braking forces.



The alligator bonnet was a terrible idea with access to the engine worse than bad.

[Deleted User]

In a 1951 Popular Mechanics road test and review of the Hudson Hornet they did a customer satisfaction survey and reported that owners really like the Hudson Fluid clutch as it was and I quote "A real toughie, and will take a lot of abuse". The fluid change was not really a problem as the dealer did it as part of every second oil change so most owners did not find this a problem. The triple action safety brakes were cited as being very nice. 68% of Hudson owners said they would buy Hudson again. Dealer service was rated at industry level or better. 78% of the owners interviewed stated they prefer inline engines which the reporter thinks was due to Hudsons promotion of its racing victory's. On the big six's the timing chain was weak but replaced by a better performing type in later years. The oil gear problem was overated Jack Clifford suggested it be replaced every 45,000 miles. I replaced my original on a 84,000 mile engine. The head gasket problem was fixed by Hudson releasing a new type gasket and telling dealers to torque the head bolts to 75-80 Foot Ibs.



The 54 review of Hudson owners showed owner satisfaction still at 68-70% with 13% having owned 5 or more Hudsons. It goes to show Hudson owners were as fanatical then as they are now. The Hudson reliability and satisfaction figures were usually higher than the industry norm.

SuperDave

Having owned and worked on many different brands of cars from the twenties on up ..The one thing that stands out to me is that Hudson always seemed to be trying to IMPROVE it's car. So many other brands changed things to reduce production cost when Hudson tried to make the car more functional or reliable. Hidden things that the typical owner wouldn't see or notice. A small example is the 54 door lock and latch assembly. Hudson could have used the same one they had been using since 48, but redesigned a better and most likely more expensive unit. At a time when they argueably should have been cutting costs. For many years my tool box had a label on it that read "Tools for repairing Hudsons and lesser vehicles". There was some truth in that. The Hudsons most likely needed an adjustment when the Brand X needed a replacement.

Dave w.

rambos_ride

The 49 is my first Hudson. So far what has impressed me the most is the thought that went into the 'Monobilt' construction.



Although I don't think Hudson was the first manufacturer to use this type of production methods - they definitely perfected it as well as it could have been for the era and given the size and relative low weight of the vehicles were decades ahead of the big 3.



There is no car on the road today with the dimensions of my Commodore that weighs less than 4000 lbs.

Aaron D. IL

51hornetA wrote:

In a 1951 Popular Mechanics road test and review of the Hudson Hornet they did a customer satisfaction survey and reported that owners really like the Hudson Fluid clutch as it was and I quote "A real toughie, and will take a lot of abuse". The fluid change was not really a problem as the dealer did it as part of every second oil change so most owners did not find this a problem. The triple action safety brakes were cited as being very nice. 68% of Hudson owners said they would buy Hudson again. Dealer service was rated at industry level or better. 78% of the owners interviewed stated they prefer inline engines which the reporter thinks was due to Hudsons promotion of its racing victory's. On the big six's the timing chain was weak but replaced by a better performing type in later years. The oil gear problem was overated Jack Clifford suggested it be replaced every 45,000 miles. I replaced my original on a 84,000 mile engine. The head gasket problem was fixed by Hudson releasing a new type gasket and telling dealers to torque the head bolts to 75-80 Foot Ibs.



The 54 review of Hudson owners showed owner satisfaction still at 68-70% with 13% having owned 5 or more Hudsons. It goes to show Hudson owners were as fanatical then as they are now. The Hudson reliability and satisfaction figures were usually higher than the industry norm.

Anyone who wants to see a compy of this 1951 Popular Mechanics owners report can do so at the Chicago Milwaukee HET website or click on this link:

http://members.tripod.com/hudnut19/Owner/





I know this wasn't a Hudson innovation but the hardened chrominum alloy blocks, the centerpoint steering, and the monobuilt frame were all good innovations to have in the same car. Chryseler may have brought the first uni-body to market with the airflow but Hudson did it successfully. Part of the reason they went out of business is because they put their profits back into developing their cars even better. Expensive tooling costs such as when they tooled up to make the Jets....that sort of thing.

[Deleted User]

I think a good topic for discussion is why Hudson was not a stronger brand within AMC. Oh, I know as part of the merger a lot of the Hudson managers were let go but enough of them were left to have done better. Baits got a good position with AMC, of course we lost Spring in a car accident. I mean no offense but what the heck happend to the 55 Hudson the grill was horrendous. I guess when we lost that core Hudson style and Engineering team we lost the car. Could have been different though if enough of the team kicked ass and the world had been a different place and oops my rose colored glasses fell off.............sigh.....

terraplane8

That is a great report. I see on the last page he refers to the 1937 AAA records for 500,1000 and 2000 miles being at around 103mph this must be wrong as I have read elsewhere that the averages were around 87-88mph. In any event a 1937 H8 would not go this fast.



http://members.tripod.com/hudnut19/POPMECH13.JPG

Aaron D. IL

WHAT?! You think that's not true ?! HERESY !!!! LOL Winners get to write the history and no one challenged Hudson's AAA records.