Why Hudson didn't produce a V-8

hudsontech

The following excerpt from the April 1951 Hudson Newsletter, a newsletter for dealers, seems to show a bit of Hudsons thinking as to why they never produced a V-8 engine. Perhaps a little fuzzy, but there you have it.

"....... the acknowledged complexity of certain V-8 or "over-head-valve" engines (with extra askets, pumps, pulleys, bearings, plumbing, etc.) makes for noisy and more expensive operation when compared with quiet, simple, economical "straight L-head" engines—of which Hudson's Six and Eight are the industry's finest, having won more power-performance records than all others."

Probably not the only reason for not producing a V-8, but one of the most prevalent. After all, at the time, Hudsons were beginning their unbelievable run on race tracks across the country against mostly V-8's. The stability and cornering ability of the Hornets could be said to have given Hudson a false sense that the flat head six was the way to go at a time when V-8's were coming into popularity. V-8's were exciting, new and most everybody wanted one. Hudson could be said to have read the market wrong, much as did the Edsel and a few other makes/models that fell flat.


Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN

RL Chilton

That's at least the "published" version, anyway. If that was stated in April of '51, it was still a little early to really tell what the OHV was gonna be able to accomplish. I think they had a whole lot better understanding a year or more later. That first generation Oldsmobile actually put out less horsepower than the 308 (without Twin-H). It wasn't until the 2nd Generation Olds engines that came out in '53 that produced 160hp and were starting to take flight. A four barrel carb was a plus on those 2nd gen engines. The Rockets really were a fine engine.

Nevada Hudson

Hudson management was old and was reluctant to change. They needed to be replaced.

RonS

This is a nice discussion. Well, Engines are expensive to bring to the market. When Cadillac ( and Olds) brought out their V8s in 49, it began a new era in engines that would last 'till the 90s. But, Olds hedged its' bets and still offered the L-6 until the 1950 year end. Remember Hudson just brought out the 262 in 48 one year before Cadillac, and Hudson needed to get a few years sales out of it to recover their costs... at the sales of 150k per year. Hudson just never earned enough sales to ever justify the cost to retool for an V8. A consistent loss of market share was to blame. Losses can be self sustaining, ie , the lack of sales, more each year, would drive buyers to the competition and thereby forestalling for another year any technical advancements. Hudson could, on paper, turn a profit at, lets say 65k cars, but sales at that point do not make a large enough profit to do R&D. This is a primary cause of the UK losing its' nearly whole auto industry. You can't cut your way to prosperity, either. Then there was Studebaker, whose upper management never took a strike in over 100years, and even worse, continued to pay dividends( even raise them) when they should have reinvested more in their antiquated plants. By 1953 Studebaker sold its Champion for 10-15% more than a Chevy, not fooling too many buyers. There are many reasons for car manufactures to close, mostly it's market scale... the big get bigger and the small go out of business... or merge( M&A). Hudson, from a business analysts' point of view, was doomed from 1932. The War gave her shot in the arm for a while. Only George Mason saw that in 48. The Little Six should have merged : Packard, Hudson, Nash, Kelvinator (AC producer, like Frigidare), Studebaker in order for car sales. Kaiser overseas and Willys for Govt contract division( similar to AM General) and commercial sales ( truck division). Would have been one hellava company. Market share would have been big, permitting it to offer its' own financing division as well.

oldhudsons

I believe if you look at their sales, they topped in '50 so from '51 on declined (racing victories didn't sell that many cars.
I agree with Nevada, the upper management was "hide bound", esp. the Pres. (there was a story that when he got into the prototype Jet he insisted the roof line be raised as he couldn't wear his hat in it!).
I understood that what $$$ Hudson had in the way of cash reserves in let's say '52-'53 were put into the development of the Jet, a marketing flop, instead of coming out with what they desperately needed, and the buying public demanded, an OHV 8, which almost all leading manufacturers offered by '54.

oldhudsons

true life story: in the fall of '54 I was working at a Hudson dealership in no. Ind. As he had done in the past the owner went up to Detroit for the dealer showing of the new '54 Hudsons & drove one back.
He drove it into the back entrance of Wayne Love Motors, got out and walked into the office without saying a word to any of the employees. We (all 5 of us, LOL) walked over to the new '54 Hornet sd., one of the mechanics opened the driver's door, pulled the hood latch & the other mechanic opened the hood to reveal a big surprise, they'd painted the engine red!
Wayne "saw the hand-writing on the wall", without a V-8 he wasn't going to be able to sell many cars & he was right.
The hood was promptly closed, no one liked the rear fender treatment but we did like the new grille. Nicer hubcaps, better, or more practical, upholstery. After but a few minutes we went back to work ~

junkcarfann

I have often wondered why one of the engine manufacturers that supplied engines to truck manufacturers did not tool up for a OHV V-8 in the late 1940's to sell to the small car companies that lacked a V-8.

Continental, Lycoming, and others already had a long history of supplying engines to car manufacturers back in the pre-WWII days.

And car companies had a long and continuing history of our-sourcing things like transmissions, brake assemblies, rear axles (for pickups), etc.

In the late 1940's Hudson, Kaiser-Frazer, Nash, Packard, all needed a V-8.

An OHV V-8 could have been made in various cubic inch displacements, and easily made to look different for each car manufacturer by changing the design of the tin valve covers, the air cleaners, colors, decals, etc.

It would seem like a good business proposition all around.

Would it have saved Hudson? Who knows, Studebaker had a fine OHV V-8, but collapsed...there are a lot of different factors.

bob ward

"....... the acknowledged complexity of certain V-8 or "over-head-valve" engines (with extra gaskets, pumps, pulleys, bearings, plumbing, etc.) makes for noisy and more expensive operation when compared with quiet, simple, economical "straight L-head" engines—of which Hudson's Six and Eight are the industry's finest, having won more power-performance records than all others."

That's an interesting piece of management and/or marketing propaganda Alex. The real reasons for no stepdown V8 are as others have said a lack of money and conservative/complacent management. Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing.

IF the new 262 six had been a V8 or even an OHV 6 and IF they had mounted a new and more modern shell on top of the stepdown platform for 51 Hudson may have lasted a few more years as an independent, but I suspect not too many more.

I have seen a reference, I think in Richard Langworth's Hudson 46 - 57 that Hudson approached GM about buying their Olds V8. I have seen another reference, can't remember where that one of Hudson's engineers moved to Chev and played an important role in Chev's development of the SBC. Can anyone back that up?

oldhudsons

Hudson did buy GM's Hydromatic rather than trying to develop their own auto trans.
I was told that the V8 AMC came out with was designed by Hudson engineers.

50C8DAN

I think you need to look deeper in the thinking process of the various car makers after the war. You would have thought that Packard would have been one of the leaders in brining out a newly designed engine since they had all kinds of engine technology from the war, RR Merlin and PT boat engines, OHC engines nontheless! But after the war they went right back to building an L8, a fine one, probably the finest L8 ever made (I love my H8 but it was outdated after the war by a long shot - splasher technology was still being used) you bet but still pretty much pre-war technology. They had the money and the know how but seemed to hold on to the flat head technology when most already saw where things were headed. By the time they had one ready it was too little too late. Antique management also helped in Packard's demise as well.

Bob I think who you are thinking of at Hudson was Bernie Seigfried an engineer in the drivetrain department. He was working on an OHV 6 at Hudson when they merged. Working on this engine in his spare time! The story is that he took the engine and design when he left Hudson and it was the starting point and design guide for the Ford OHV 6. That prototype engine is rumored to still be around somewhere as it was put into a Ford truck by Bernie.

If you read some of the old WTNs when Bernie used to write a column he told some really interesting stories of what they were cooking up at Hudson. They actually did cast some updated L8 blocks and made I believe 3 of these engines. Pressurized oil system, better induction and cam design. He did not comment on the displacement but I am guessing it was bumped up as well. Per Bernie, the revised 8 would actually run away from the Hornet! There was nothing wrong with the Hudson engineering department but they were short of money and unfortunately headed down the wrong technology path - a dead end. The Jet absolutely was the end of the line, what a stupid mistake!!!

50C8DAN

If you read some of the details on the AMC V8 it was based on one of Kaiser's engineers designs that were still born there. I don't believe that Hudson had any input or very little in the AMC design.

RonS

Bob, thanks for the analogy from Richard Langworth. I highly recommend Hudson folks read his story Hudson: The Classic Post War Years.

Nevada Hudson

Packard was the only independent that designed and built their own automatic transmission.
Their own v8 would come out in '55. If they had their v8 come out in say, 1951 and worked out all the bugs before it was released, it would have really helped sales.
Hudson was one the last independents to have an automatic transmission, hydramatic in 1951.Even Nash had hydramatic in 1950 .I love my Jet, but it was a waste in resources. Really don't need 2 feet of space above my head! My dad never wore a hat, mostly old men did then. And a lot of people did not like the way it looked including all the car magazines.

oldhudsons

When I graduated from college in '59 I went to work in South Bend, Ind. for Newman & Altman who just gotten a Studebaker franchise; they had been the Packard dealers in S. B. (later built the Avanti II).
They still had a lot of Packard customers who came into the shop. We had one mechanic whose sole job was rebuilding the Ultramatic trans. which had been satisfactory with the old flat head straight 8 but could not handle the power of their big new V8; had a LOT of service problems.
The best straight 8s I ever encountered where the big 9 main bearing ones built by Stude. before the war, their "President 8" engines. One of my friends and later a neighbor, Daryl Dye, a professional mechanic & schooled by Stude. for the Avanti, had several of the big Stude. with that engine; really powerful & smooth. Stude. never built them after the war.
Daryl died at the grand old age of 57 of a brain tumor; changed my outlook on life ~

Nevada Hudson

You are right on with the Ultramatic, Pete! It was designed for the straight 8 and was fine with it.
The Nash OHV straight 8 was a fine engine too with 9 main bearings.

oldhudsons

Nevada - I think Daryl told me the Stude. President 8 had 328 cubes so a far bigger engine than the Nash Twin-Ignition 8.
In the early 30s I believe Stude. bought out Pierce, or merged with them, or ??? and that big 8 may have been originally a Pierce engine rather than something Stude. designed & built.
I know Stude. used that engine in cars run at the Indianapolis Speedway in '30-'31 (?) which is why they called it that in their advertising.

50C8DAN

Oldhudsons, I bought a 1955 1 Ton Stude truck from Daryl back in the early 90s. He was a wonderful and knowledgeable person. He restored a few prewar Stude Presidents and one was on exhibition at the Peterson Museum in LA. He and his Dad were both employed by Studebaker so you probably knew him in SB. I have a book with a picture of his Dad on the assembly line in the truck plant. When I bought the truck from him he had a either a '52 or '53 Hornet with a Buick 455 in it. It was a beautiful job and looked like it belonged in the engine bay. Something that Hudson would have done. I heard from Bill Albright before he passed away that that car is still cruising around in S. CA.

[Deleted User]

As I remember Hudson experimented with V8s and V12s in the very early years before developing the super 6 engine. Hudson advertised that flat head had 68 percent fewer moving parts than the V8s. What Hudson and others failed to realize is that you have to give the public what they want even tho you feel it isn't the best product at the time. Corporations are in business for one reason and one reason only to make money for their stock holders. Build what the public will buy or go out of business. Hudson had no money to develop a V8 because of the investment in the infamous Jet

Geoff

I have just come back from a weekend away in my Jet, and I have had this car for 42 years. In my opinion it is the best "all-round" car that Hudson ever made. Full six seater, large trunk space, economical, great performance, good riding and handling. Please don't knock the Jet as an inferior car. It was unfortunate that management had any input into it's development. It was just too late for another side-valve six, a compact, and of "dumpy" looks. But it was great car none-the-less.

50C8DAN

Geoff I don't think any Hudson person would say the Jet was a bad car, it just was not the right car and design for the time. As for failure due to not having a V8, there were other issues. Studebaker had a nice V8 in '51 but it did not save the company. Here are my hits:

1) Financial strength to weather downturns, product development, and marketing and sales support. Hudson made a fatal error with the Jet. It was like putting all of your chips on red and it came up black, it was Hail Mary pass and we know the outcome, but this was only one factor.
2) Forward looking management, both financially and product planning. It was just stupid that the independents kept paying dividends instead of investing.
3) Dealer network. The independents had relatively poor coverage and often very small or under financed dealers. Not saying this across the board but it was a serious problem when you don't have good customer support in the field.
4) Styling and engineering strength. Look what the stepdown did for Hudson and the '53 2 doors for Studebaker, but you can't be a one trick pony. You need to keep the hits coming, see #1 and #2 above. You must lead or lose. Hudson in '48 and Studebaker in '53 led but failed to keep things moving.

Ultimately, it also came down to pricing. Due to lack of volume and outdated manufacturing facilities the independents could not price their products with the big 3 and got crushed.

Also, win on Sunday and sell on Monday was marketing hype. I don't believe it really was that big of a factor in overall sales. It may have helped the image but did not really drive overall sales. If you look at the '60s it was the Corvette, Mustang, Hemi Charger, etc. that was the draw into the show rooms to sell the family cars.

oldhudsons

50C8 - my 1st wife & I got married in '62 and as a wedding present for ourselves, LOL, traded in both of our cars (mine a '56 Chevy Bel Air hardtop!) for a '62 Stude. GT Hawk. We got it from an agency in Culver City area of L.A. but we lived in Santa Monica where the big famed old Packard agency Simonson-Schatmeyer had gotten a Stude. franchise so I took it there for service. Wanting to see who was working on my prized possession I moseyed back into the shop, which you could do then, & began talking to the young mechanic doing the service, and that's when I met Daryl. In a year or so I moved out to the San Fernando Valley as that's where I worked so lost touch with him for several years but then bumped into him at one of Harrah's big swap meet events. He'd gotten into antique Studes & I into Hudsons & so our friendship blossomed & we eventually became neighbors & used to help each other with our respective car projects.

oldhudsons

By '51 Hudson styling passe'. Everyone was going to squared off rear fenders & Cadillac's taillights started the trend which would lead to big ugly "fins" by the end of the '50s. Look at a '49-50 Ford, straight line rear fenders which Hudson finally got around to in '54, years behind the trend.
I had a comparative road test between a '53 Hudson Jet, a Chevy, and a Ford & the Jet WAY out-performed them. The paint & bodyshop man in the dealership I worked at ordered a '54 Super Jet with Twin-H; it was really fast & he was able to out drag almost everyone around!

Aaron D. IL

Hudson's best looking final car IMO is the '54 Hollywood and if that had been given a V-8 at the time and them morphed into a more squared-off car that might have kept them going. I try to imagine what a big-finned 1960 Hudson might have looked like. Its funny about the Jet because as a compact the Ramblers and even in a niche the Metropolitains did fairly well but compacts were not really in style until the early 1980's after the gas crisis.

super-six

It was always my opinion that Hudson was about 3 years behind on their styling in the postwar years. When the stepdown appeared, it was about the last year that the "aero" styling was popular. The "3 box" styling was beginning at GM in '48 and Ford would follow in '49. I always thought that, although I like the looks, the '54 Hudson styling should have been in '51. The styling of the '54 Oldsmobile is much more modern than the Hudson, especially with the dashboard, low cowl, and wraparound windshield.

oldhudsons

Aaron - you'll like this story: one of he local Hudson characters in L.A. was one Pat Meehan who migrated to L.A. from Chicago (where drag-raced a Hornet-powered '33 T8 conv. prior to going to the Korean War). He got a '54 H cp. & put a Chrysler Hemi in it. At a local car show/swap meet he had it parked with some of the other cars & Hudsons & had the hood up. Some guy came by & said "I didn't know Hudson had a V8" to which Pat promptly replied, "Yah, it was an option in '54" & closed the hood - after the guy left we all had a great laugh, Pat was very droll & witty ~

Hudsonrules

An old Pontiac advertisement was " You can sell a young mans car to an old man, but you can not sell an old mans car to a young man" That to me was a good statement, as I think at the time Hudson was more or less an old mans car. Hudson was hurting on an old design, and I feel the '54's should have been out in '51 or '52 with a big v/8. The jet was, is a good car but looks like a downsized '52-52 ford with a headach. As was said before, Hudson management was behind times. What would Hudson look like today if they were still around? One of the cookie cutters that prevail on our roads today? Arnie in Nevada.

50C8DAN

Although I really like the 54s for several reason, when you set a 54 next to an earlier model say a '50 the lines of the earlier models just flow so much better.

oldhudsons

the '54s a less expensive car, stainless instead of chrome, plastic lenses instead of glass as a few years earlier but think they were trying to do whatever they could to stay in business.
I've always thought Spring a really good designer, forward thinking etc., but co. led by Barit, who at least in the case of the Jet, so I understand, nixed the lower roof line if what might have been a much sleeker & market-wise more acceptable product.
Hudson lovers been "breast-beating" ever since & as per conversation, still at it, LOL.

[Deleted User]

As stated by everyone Barit was the main problem. Next up was Baits who was still over engineering decisions that fool still believed in splash oiling. I have an internal booklet he wrote for execs that discusses Hudson engineering. He dismissed OHV, pressure oiling just about every modern advance was suspect. If those two had been replaced and magic unicorns had existed Hudson could have brought out a V8 of screaming power and survived. All moot as the big three had decimated the orphans with the price wars of 51-53 no way independents could survive that battle. Indies were not able to compete and the big three began the crazy change everything every model year. See how high the fins could go how many acres of chrome. That pricing battle really reshaped Detroit and the effects are seen to this day. New cars are a snore fest. If you are allergic to plastic you cannot buy a new car. Still to my way of thinking safer, cheaper more efficient could still have good styling. But no its all cad drawn nonsense. When you take the people out of the design the computer is just going to spit out low drag numbers and turbulence data. Have to look to the small independents (read super cars) for design and even that for the most part is awful. So we drive our old Hudsons and lament what could have been.

[Deleted User]

Sad story. The big three drove out the independent car companies and the imports are driving out the big three. If it hadn't been for Uncle Sugar and our tax money Ford would probably be the only one left and Im not particular a Ford person. I heard two cars run in to each other the other day in a parking lot and it sounded like someone had stomped on a cardboard box. What exciting times we live in. LOL

bob ward

@Bob Ward, Nevada Hudson - Please take your 'side' discussion offline, or continue it via PM.

I really can't see that the forum needs to be protected from a couple of guys discussing the merits or otherwise of a Hudson book??? Deleting posts???? Goodness me! PM me if you wish.

@50C8DAN "Bob I think who you are thinking of at Hudson was Bernie Seigfried an engineer in the drivetrain department. He was working on an OHV 6 at Hudson when they merged. Working on this engine in his spare time! The story is that he took the engine and design when he left Hudson and it was the starting point and design guide for the Ford OHV 6. That prototype engine is rumored to still be around somewhere as it was put into a Ford truck by Bernie."

No not Bernie, it was definitely someone who went to Chev and worked on what came to be known as the SBC. I'll have to do some digging.

@51hornetA "I have an internal booklet he wrote for execs that discusses Hudson engineering. He dismissed OHV, pressure oiling just about every modern advance was suspect."

I'd like to have a copy of that. Is it available as a hard copy or on line?