So where are all the 39's then

PaulButler

Talking (in the virtual sense) with Rick Clark he mentioned that there wasn't a '39 of any shape to be seen at the the Nationals and they seem to be generally thin on the ground in terms of being discussed.

So where are they then?

PaulButler

I think the '39 has a look all of its own. I often look at my 112 and appreciate the form of it

oldhudsons

right, not a '39 present.
Here's a '39 CC8 club cp. I restored.

RL Chilton

Paul-

Keep in mind that while the '39's in general were/are not the most popular, you could pile manure up on the front bumper of the Woodie and it would still be gorgeous . . . .

Rick
Soneff used to have a '39 PU, have you seen pictures of it? I think all the HUD pu's were good lookin'!

hudsonsplasher1

The 39's for sure are few and far between. I had mine at the 09 national and the last two central regional meets. I personally like the looks of the 39.
Gene.

RL Chilton

Thanks, Rick. Both of those are real sharp.

RL Chilton

And Gene, your '39 tops all of the 39's out there (ragtops are the best!) LOL!

Jon B

In my opinion, Hudson "got it right" in terms of marketing in 1938 and 39. After a period of several years in which the senior and the less-expensive Hudsons looked similar to one another, in '38 and '39 there was at least some differentiation in the front end design. (Different grilles, different headlamp location.)

Consider how similar the '37 Terraplanes and Hudsons looked. Why would someone want to spend more money buying a Hudson in 1937 when he could buy a similar-looking Terraplane for hundreds less? This was unfortunate for Hudson, because they (and all car companies) made a greater profit per car on their more expensive models, not their cheap ones. But the aura of the Hudson nameplate was cheapened by the availability of the look-alike, budget priced Terraplane. In '38 and '39, the two series looked different from one another, to Hudson's advantage. Then, once again, all models began to look similar to one another.

Hudson had a good idea when they introduced the lower-priced Essex, which was a separate nameplate (so the Hudson name could be kept as a medium high-priced car). But this ended in 1939 when they dropped the lower-priced nameplate (Terraplane, by then) and simply referred to the cheaper car as a Hudson (112).

Packard cheapened its name in the late 1930's by introducing a less-expensive car under the Packard nameplate. It saved the company for the time being but undermined the nameplate. In the early 1950's the company introduced the "Clipper" nameplate in order to keep the Packard nameplate more upscale. But it was too late.

hudsonsplasher1

Thanks Russell. Hope to see yours one day.
Gene.

oldhudsons

the 1st '39 PU shown, with Colo. plates, was John's, into which he put a new Jet engine with new Jet o.d.; I think he also put in P. S.
the 2nd one is the one I did; it was restored correctly & has the original engine.
Both of these are long w.b. Big Boy PUs & the only ones I've seen or heard of.
John drove his to the National in S. D. a few years back.

PaulButler

I'm doing a condensed post here guys :-)

Russell,

Have to agree about the Woodie ; it's on my Hudson Bucket List :-)

Rick,

As you know I have a fondness for the '39 Hudson of any sort with the 112 at the top of that list. A PU is also on my Hudson Bucket List as well.

Gene,

Have to agree with Russell ; any ragtop is good indeed and yours is sharp indeed!

Alex,

Your remarks about marketing are spot-on I think. In '38 & '39 there was a distinct range going on and the demographics were nicely covered.

hudsontech

PaulButler - that was the other Mr. B's (Jon) comments on marketing.

Hudsonly,
Alex B
Memphis, TN

[Deleted User]

PLEASE DONT SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!! I was told this through the years by the people that sold them and repaired them , that the 38s and 39 Hudson were very hard to sell. They had to practially give them away to get rid of them. They were under powered compared to their predicessors with puffy looking bodies etc. Of course these people are long gone so cant confirm any of this. I personally thought the big Hudson in 39 was nice looking. Ford had a v8, Chevey had a overhead 6 with lighter bodies. I was also told that the P series Hudson was so under powered that it was as we say--Hard to pull a chicken off its nest with them. I dont know because I have never driven a 38 or 39. I still would like to own one, but to late in life for that.

hudsonsplasher1

I don't know way they said they were under powered. They have the same drive train as 37 in both the 6's and 8's excluding the 175 traveler engine. The Ford V8's of the day were 85 hp. My 37 Terraplane and 39 Hudson are 101 hp. It used to irritate the hell out of the Ford guy's when they would get beat by a Terraplane. LOL.

RL Chilton

Well, I don't know about being under-powered, as I am yet to drive or ride in a '38 or '39. In regards to the "stump-pulling" feature, until the engines got "squarer" and utilized that long stroke, they were going to be torque monsters and lacking in horsepower. A little deviation between the two power factors can be a good thing, but the huge difference in the Hudsons meant that their power curve wasn't what it could be. No offense, Gene! Now, for the day, I agree, they were some of the fastest cars on the road. Comparitively speaking, for the modern day . . . not so much.

The '38's are still one of my favorite years, but ever since I saw Gene's '39, they have really grown on me. Too bad there's not more of them around. Seems like it would be nice if I end up with one someday, I'd take that . . . *ahem*, boat-anchor of a 175, re-build it and put it on a display stand so the car could one day go back to original and I'd stick a 308 in it and burn up the roads. Those late 30's convertibles have got to be lighter than a step-down. Then again, I'd probably get my license revoked for sure then!

RL Chilton

Rick-

The Pick-Up that never was: Why is that, because of the integrated headlights and the sidemount? Was this model based on the model 92?

Didn't it turn out that the commercial models for '39 were based on the 112's?
Was it also true that in '39 you could get 1/2-ton or 3/4 ton? Which one is yours?

PaulButler

Jon,

My apologies - it's age you know :-)

Alex,

Thanks for the correction

oldhudsons

RL - the Big Boys had the 212 engine as std. equip. & were 3/4 ton whereas the 1/2 came with the small engine - not sure about '39 on that but do remember in '40-42 era with the small truck you could order it with the 212 engine & if so there would be an "L" stamped on the door post; think this applied to the Traveler series cars too

oldhudsons

here's a few photos of a very rare '39 Hudson Six convertible brougham I bought a few years ago (later splasher 6 engine put in so they had "stuffed" the firewall to do so, otherwise completely original)

oldhudsons

still had shards of original top - one photo shows the original snap in quarter windows & top rear window

RL Chilton

oldhudsons-

That's too cool! You said you bought this one a few years ago? Do you still have it? Also, is there any cool Hud in the club that you didn't once own? LOL! Sometimes, I think if I ever do find out who the original owner of my ragtop is, I'm gonna find out it was PB!!

Kidding aside, that's very sweet. So was this one a 92 or 93 series possibly?

Any chance you could e-mail me these pics for my file? The ones here on the forum are too small.

Russell
HETrlchilton52@gmail.com (drop the HET)

Aaron D. IL

Why not put in a Jet 202 with OD instead of shoehorning in a 232 ?

If memory serves I thing Butler's book said Hudson had like 40 different model/bodystyle combinations in '38 including the Hudson-Terraplane then they cut back but still overall did not have a large production run. It would not surprise me if some of those '38-'39 Model/Bodystyles were in fact extinct with no surviving examples.

RL Chilton

"If memory serves I thing Butler's book said Hudson had like 40 different model/bodystyle combinations in '38 including the Hudson-Terraplane then they cut back but still overall did not have a large production run. It would not surprise me if some of those '38-'39 Model/Bodystyles were in fact extinct with no surviving examples."

56 different models and 16 different commercial models in '38 and no doubt about it (some extinct models).

Aaron D. IL

@ RL Chilton Yeah and that's the kind of thing the club should want to try and prevent if possible.... extinct models of Hudson's It would be nice if nothing else that one example of each exists for historic preservation. I don't know how possible that is. 56 cars is too many for one person to keep and take care of.

oldhudsons

RL - it's a model 92 of which I believe there is one other.
I bought it from the original owning family in the Bay Area & sold it to a guy in L.A., not sure what he did with it (this was between 5 & 10 years ago).
I'll try to get around to forwarding the photos to you but if you'd e-mail me at: oldhudsons@aol.com then I'd have it right in front of me to remind me + have your address "in memory".
I didn't keep it as was exerting all my time & $$$ on restoring a '33 T8 conv. + the firewall had been battered in to put the later spasher 6 in (have distributor at the back of the engine).

oldhudsons

this is the '33 T8 conv. "in progress" at the time

PaulButler

@oldhudsons

I'm not seeing the image of the '33 T8 and I'd love to! All I see is the box with "image" in it ; even a right click and "Show Picture" doesn't bring it up

Uncle Josh

My friend Bill D. bought a 46 212 from me, painted it up then bought the 39 CC I rescued. Has it on the road and drives it everywhere. He's a mild hot rodder but it's not in the junkyard, he's having fun and showing it.

I didn't notice there were no 39s at Gburg but did notice there were no 40s. My bad, I got distracted with a building project and didn't get my 40 Victoria eight 5 pass coupe done. Later this summer maybe.

oldhudsons

Paul - me either, will try again

oldhudsons

trying again

oldhudsons

nada - 1st tried using "image" then "attach a file" & all I got was "Uploading" for several min. but no pic!?!?!?!