54 Jet Convetible prototype

Unknown

Ken Page sent me an email of this 54 Hudson Jet Convetible prototype. It would be a major project but its for sale. One method of restoration ,due to the extent of rust and damage of this car , would be to obtain a good 2 dr jet chassis and transfer the fire wall, windshield, top stack and mechanism to the donor car. You can contact ken at cell: 616-723-5151 . I've taken a Hornet Hollywood chassis and a rusty convertible and have done the above. Gook luck! Fred

PAULARGETYPE

The Man Who Owns The Car ' I Will Not Give Out His Name 'had Great Hopes Of Restoring It) He Has A Good Jet Parts Car As A Donner Car I spoke with harry mills to day he is the man who owns the car he has put it in the care of his broker KEN PAGE and it will be on ebay shortly most likey

I Would Love To Do This Car And Do It Right Make A Aaca Winner Out Of It

Unknown

I think that someone with the enthusiasm as Paul has for this project deserves to have this car.



I think it looks quite gone, but for some of the other convertibles out there that the boys around Pittsburg fixed, I bet they collectively could make this one real nice!

PAULARGETYPE

There Are 5 Photo's (there Being Sent) I'll Post Them When I Get Them Jack Miller Has A Tape Of The This Jet Driving In A Feild In 1966 It Don't Look Good Then I Was Told It Sat Out From Around Then Till Around 1990 When It Was Put In A Storage Container I'm Afraid That After Talking With Ken Page The Reserve Price On The Car Will Not Be Cheap And The High Bid Is Going To Have To Be Big Also He And The Owner Know The Car Is Ruff But They Also Know How Rair The Car Is Being A One Off Factory Orignal Proto Type I'm Going To Be Out Of The Picture It's Going To Take Alot Of Owner Hands On Resto Work To Get This One Done And Then It's Going To Cost $25,000 To $35,000,just For Materails The Top Will Have To Be Strictly Custom As Will Any Bow Work AND ANY ONE PAYING A RESTO SHOP TO DO THIS CAR WILL BE IN TO BIG BIG BUCKS

Jon B

Another perspective:



While I agree completely that the most logical method to restore this car would be to transfer the 'convertible' portions to a solid Jet coupe, I get the feeling that something would be lost, here. When you only salvage only a small portion of the car, the resulting restoration is not, technically speaking, the original thing; it's a replica.



And that's fine for most of us. Because the Hudson you're reconstructing -- by combining two or even three cars -- was 'anonymous' to begin with. It may have had a desirable body style like a convertible or station wagon, for example. But it was an exact copy of other convertibles or station wagons that were produced that year.



However, is this vehicle not the sole Hudson-built Jet convertible? I had heard that, anyway. If so, it is not 'anonymous' and it's not 'any old' Hudson! It's a unique factory prototype.



If one removes the convertible-only components from this car and splices them to a solid Jet coupe, then one will have a unique and wonderful vehicle. But it won't be the same one that Hudson stylists and engineers worked on.



To try to bring this rusted car back from the dead, as it sits, would be ruinously expensive. So, I agree with Fred that it makes perfect economic sense to transfer the unique parts from the original, onto a better 'foundation'. I'd probably end up doing the same thing myself. But then, when it comes restoring to old Hudsons, what do "logic" and "perfect economic sense" have to do with it? LOL!

[Deleted User]

PAULARGETYPE wrote:

There Are 5 Photo's (there Being Sent) I'll Post Them When I Get Them Jack Miller Has A Tape Of The This Jet Driving In A Feild In 1966 It Don't Look Good Then I Was Told It Sat Out From Around Then Till Around 1990 When It Was Put In A Storage Container I'm Afraid That After Talking With Ken Page The Reserve Price On The Car Will Not Be Cheap And The High Bid Is Going To Have To Be Big Also He And The Owner Know The Car Is Ruff But They Also Know How Rair The Car Is Being A One Off Factory Orignal Proto Type I'm Going To Be Out Of The Picture It's Going To Take Alot Of Owner Hands On Resto Work To Get This One Done And Then It's Going To Cost $25,000 To $35,000,just For Materails The Top Will Have To Be Strictly Custom As Will Any Bow Work AND ANY ONE PAYING A RESTO SHOP TO DO THIS CAR WILL BE IN TO BIG BIG BUCKS

I doubt he is going to get a "million" bucks for it because most Hudson people don't seem to spend money like the Brand X restorers. The condition of the car is pathetic. No offense to Jet owners but a Jet is a less popular and less attractive car than other more desirable Hudson models, especially to a Brand-X enthusiast or a guy on the street who would want to invest in a car.

Unknown

Since we are on the tangent of One offs... I would be very pleased to find and restore one of the Hudson sedans that had 2 doors on one side and one on the other... aka styling model. Or even a Hudson Woody Stepdown Station wagon... how intriguing...



While the Jet does not have the styling of the Stepdown, it is nevertheless and core part of the last years of the Hudson Motor Company much like the Edsel was a Core part of difficult albeit survived times at another automaker.

[Deleted User]

It comes down to one thing: Just because you have a rare item, or even a "one-of-one" of something, does NOT make it valuable solely because of it's rarity. Yes, it's a Jet prototype. Yes, it's one-of-one built. Are Jets desirable? Only to a few select fans of a make that few select fans are enthusiasts of.



A Hemicuda convertible was available in 1970 and 1971 only. This car's (in auto and 4-speed) total production is fewer than 30, period. Real Hemicuda convertibles sell for seven figures. Reproductions/tributes/clones sell well into the six figures. Why?? This is a very rare, extremely desireable car that few see outside of photographs. You'll never see one on the street. This car qualifies are rare AND desirable by nearly everybody that breathes air.



The Jet? Few people outside the Hudson community even know what a Jet IS, much less want one. You Jet fans may get mad at me, but face it, there's a REASON Hudson built these only for two years!



Which brings us back to our original point: rarity versus desireability. The total potential buyer market for this Jet ragtop as-is can probably be measured with one's fingers. If it weren't so dilapidated, it might bring some money, maybe. Is the seller looking to retire to Tahiti from the sales proceeds? He has a rude awakening if he thinks that. The car appears so far gone, that to "save it" would require cutting a coupe, putting the convertible components on it, and passing it off as the prototype. There is no way there is enough of the original car there to be considered AS the original car to restore to new. It would require a coupe (converted) to be the end result. It could in no way, shape or form be considered the original platform Hudson built the car on. To pass off the end result as the "prototype" would be considered "fraud" in most states. If it were presented as a "tribute" or "clone" as a representation of what the original prototype LOOKED LIKE ORIGINALLY, then that's another story. With that, the convertible VIN number could not be used on the coupe, because that, too, is fraud, because you're renumbering a car to be something it is not.



It's rare - one-of-one is as rare as it gets. Is it worth $250K to restore? No. And $250K is probably a conservative estimate. Do YOU have the talent and the tools necessary to do this car yourself, any of you? Probably not, A local friend who recently sold his '71 Hemicuda coupe in Houston for one million dollars (yes, $1M!!!) spent $225K on the professional rotisserie restoration on a nearly rust-free car. And this was on a complete, numbers-matching hemi 4-speed Sassy Grass Green exterior/white interior (one-of-one like that built - his!).



This Jet will likely end up being a rebodied coupe that will be displayed to the world as the prototype. And way too much money will be asked at auction for what's basically a top frame, rear windows and regulators, cowl, w/s glass and frame, VIN tag, title, and rear seat springs on wheels. The rear body sits six inches over the spring mounts! The car will likely pull apart getting it on or off the trailer. That's the blunt reality of this car.

rambos_ride

While I agree that the condition of the car is absysmal, and it will cost a fortune to do the car right with any build option a) fix-the-original or b) patch-to-donor-car

I would also agree that this jet doesn't have the "wow" styling of later brandx prototypes built in the 50-60's that are bringing the big $$ at auction.

That all being said I still think it deserves a #1 restoration effort at any cost and if done correctly would probably become a 250-500k+ car - IF - and only IF documented history is available that goes along to prove chain of ownership, authentication of 1-of-1 factory prototype status and the rebuild of the car

otherwise with little to spotty documentation...I think you would still end up with a neat 1-of-1 car but probably not be worth much more than a dollar-for-dollar swap...meaning that it would be worth only as much as what it would cost to restore...which I would hazard a guess at around 150-200k worth of time and parts...

Of course what really "GRINDS MY GEARS" looking at that picture of the JetVert (what about that 331 Hemi?) andmakes my blood boil is seeing cars that will never get touched - just rotting away when there are willing people with cash, time and desire to put them back to glory and yet the cars rot while the greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner thinks they will eventually get to it or finish it after 20 years...then they croak and the siblings send the cars to the crusher not realzing what they have - or better yet they sell them to some other greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner who will continue the demise of the car by neglect and ignorance!

OK - sorry for the rant...now I'm stepping off my soapbox and sorry for stealing the thread!

[Deleted User]

rambos_ride wrote:

Of course what really "GRINDS MY GEARS" looking at that picture of the JetVert (what about that 331 Hemi?) andmakes my blood boil is seeing cars that will never get touched - just rotting away when there are willing people with cash, time and desire to put them back to glory and yet the cars rot while the greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner thinks they will eventually get to it or finish it after 20 years...then they croak and the siblings send the cars to the crusher not realzing what they have - or better yet they sell them to some other greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner who will continue the demise of the car by neglect and ignorance!

I hear ya Dan.........I remember when I was a kid and my father worked as an auto mechanic in town, he had an elderly woman customer that had a beautiful 56 Olds 2 door parked in her garage with the keys still in it. In ten years (until she died) my father was never able to convince her to sell it. Seems her husband parked it in the barn one night after coming home from a dinner, shut it off and had a massive heartattack and died in the car. I was already moved away when she died and therefore, never learned what happened to the car, but it is nonetheless a sad tale. This woman also had various cars parked in her pastures (i.e. 40's chevys, fords, etc.) as well as a '23 Chevy Cabriolet (which the aluminum headlight buckets were rotting off) in a horse stall.

What an utter shame................

Jay

Jon B

Dan, that "G-S-G-S-P" owner is what Geoff Clark calls a 'gunner'. As in: 'No, that old Hudson in the field ain't for sale...I'm gunner fix it up some day!'

MikeWA

But even though you've been turned down by every other one you've looked at, you should always ask. Remember once at church when I was a senior in high school- the prettiest '50 Ford coupe- shiny black, just gorgeous. I lurked around til I saw the sweet little old lady who owned it- lost my nerve and didn't ask if it was for sale (she's obviously been driving it since new, and will til she dies, I told myself)- later that week, she sold it to another kid for $125, and within another week he had wrapped it around a tree and totalled it.

russmaas

66patrick66 wrote:

The Jet? Few people outside the Hudson community even know what a Jet IS, much less want one. You Jet fans may get mad at me, but face it, there's a REASON Hudson built these only for two years!



Which brings us back to our original point: rarity versus desireability. The total potential buyer market for this Jet ragtop as-is can probably be measured with one's fingers. If it weren't so dilapidated, it might bring some money, maybe. Is the seller looking to retire to Tahiti from the sales proceeds? He has a rude awakening if he thinks that. The car appears so far gone, that to "save it" would require cutting a coupe, putting the convertible components on it, and passing it off as the prototype. There is no way there is enough of the original car there to be considered AS the original car to restore to new. It would require a coupe (converted) to be the end result. It could in no way, shape or form be considered the original platform Hudson built the car on. To pass off the end result as the "prototype" would be considered "fraud" in most states. If it were presented as a "tribute" or "clone" as a representation of what the original prototype LOOKED LIKE ORIGINALLY, then that's another story. With that, the convertible VIN number could not be used on the coupe, because that, too, is fraud, because you're renumbering a car to be something it is not.

I would not consider this fraud by using another chassis. Just ridiculous. Ever had the front end of a car get wreck and they put in new fenders, hood, trim etc... I would not consider this fraud. This front end is the same as any old jet, the fenders and trunk back are just the same off any old jet. Basically the factory took a jet that was already a coupe and turn it into a convert. Same would have to be done here. And I would consider it one of one, because it could not have been done without the "one" Almost 85% of this car is the same as the coupe

[Deleted User]

In either case, you no longer have the original car. The resulting converted coupe would be a reproduction/tribute/clone, NOT the original. If that's correct, what you're saying is I could take a 340+6 AAR Cuda that has only the fender tag, cowl numbers and other stampings, transfer these to the new 318 donor car, put the AAR-unique parts on it and have a real AAR Cuda. This is fraud, because you're taking something that was not and making it into something it IS not. Either way, this is fraud, plain and simple. I sure as hell wouldn't buy the Jet ragtop if the numbers and rag parts were transferred to a coupe and represented as the real thing...it is most certainly NOT the real thing!!! People go to jail every day for misrepresenting things that aren't as they seem...



Buyer Beware either way.

russmaas

So you are saying if you ever change the windshield or sideglass or taillite it is fraud and not the original car That is...your definition. How far do you take it? So a if a windshield is okay why not a fender or top mechanism? How do you set the limits and and if there are some limits who set them?

[Deleted User]

Seems to me the the issue is directly in the replacement / "repaired" chassis and the legal ability to keep it matching number to the original. Some states are more liberal on this than others.

Strange, it is easier to get into this country than it is to register a car...

TwinH

My $.02. With just a picture to judge from I would think transfering parts to a cleaner

coupe would be the only reasonable way to save this car. How much different is that

than what Hudson did when they built it?



I personally helped butcher a 1 of 50 Hurst SS AMX,yet it lives on today

although the only original pieces are the tags,scoop,and dash. Same deal

with a 69 427 Camaro (COPO), somebody paid big $$ for a bare shell because

I still had the original bill of sale with the VIN# on it. That piece of paper is

the only thing that made it rare,all the original driveline was gone...

Can't believe I sent that rear axle to the junkyard under a junk Chevy II.





I'm not to picky about how the Jet gets saved just as long as it gets saved.

russmaas

I know a lot of people cut out the rear frame section because it is rusted then replaced it from a donor car. Basically using 1/3 of another frame. Is this legal? We may have a lot of hudnuts going to jail... I personally think orange looks good on Hudnuts



But actually if you wanted to get technical there a 4 items that would make this car a prototype agian . A title, vin on engine, vin number on side post, and vin number on the chassis. You could cut the front frame out (has vin) and weld it to donor frame. Transfer the front cowl/pillar onto the frame. If you have the good title that car is original. Now this could be done or the whole thing can be taken to the crusher and disposed of. Now if you still think this is fraud about 25% of the hudson out there are illegal.

Unknown

I think it would be best to carefully cut the sheetmetal that holds the vin plate and then weld it into a carefully cut hole in the donor coupe. Just joking, but fraud?



What if I have a beyond repair rustbucket Porsche and transfer the engine and transmission, all the interior and suspension and brakes and the data plate to a rust free body shell? Is that fraud? I'm not misrepresenting it because everyone knows what I did and I sold it as a Porsche with a rust free body transplant.



Is there in fact a standard? I know the AACA has some guidance as to what is a restored car versus a recreation. I'm just thinking that to use a donor car for body parts is by no means fraud if you represent it honestly.



Have a nice day

Steve

[Deleted User]

I think Paul has it right that this car needs to be restored by someone who can do the work himself. To sink over $50,000 into restoring this would be flushing a lot of money down the pipes - I don't think this would ever sell for a higher price than a comparable condition stepdown convertible. A lot of Hudson folks look down on the Jet as a subpar auto, or as the car that "ruined" Hudson. It may be this attitude that caused the current owner to let the car sit outside and rot away, he probably got tired of hearing "That's an odd little car, too bad it's not worth anything....take $500 for it?"



I wish I had the time and the money to take on that project. I'd love to see the car when it's completed.



BTW - AMC discontinued the Jet because the Rambler was cheaper to build and therefore more profitable.

[Deleted User]

Russ, apply some common sense. A windshield change or even a front clip does not alter a car. When you restore a car around a VIN tag and some glass, or worse yet, take those parts and put them on another and represent that car as original, that's fraud. Period. Rationalize it any way you want, but unless the original car platform itself is being restored, you are not restoring the original car! Very easy to understand, I don't see the grey area here! Tranferring the few good parts off an unrestorable car TO ANOTHER CAR is building a clone. Passing it off as the original is fraud.



TwinH, if all you did was transfer numbers and options over to a donor car, you did not restore the car, you created a clone with the original car's numbers, therefore, it's NOT one of the 50 in anything but the VIN. That's my point with the AAR example. If you guys have no problem with doing these things, I know who not to buy a car from then.



Royer, Jets are ugly. People didn't buy them, and Ramblers are what saved AMC in the day.

russmaas

Thats is warp thinking!! A front clip does change the platform. You cant have it both ways Pat (thats 1/3 a car). I would not sell you a car I know the your type...I see you didn't use the original valve stem... What does everyone else think? Im sure Paul had more than 50% new metal into his frame. According to Pat this car can not be restore ethically as a original car

[Deleted User]

66patrick66 wrote:

Royer, Jets are ugly. People didn't buy them, and Ramblers are what saved AMC in the day.

Hell yeah! Jets are ugly, but they are fast!

Unknown

OK, now I get it. If I park the rusty Jet convertible in the right stall of my shop and the solid donor coupe on the left side of my shop, it is fraud (in most states) if I move parts from the right to the left. If I move parts from left to right, it is OK, totally legal, and I have an original rarity.



Makes total sense to me!



Honesty does matter and it is a fraud to represent a "restored" car as "totally original."



Have a nice day

Steve

[Deleted User]

You guys aren't getting it!!! The original platform is the basis of the car. You still have the original car IF you restore the rusted hulk. Transferring the hulk parts TO a donor car makes a repro/clone/tribute. Tranferring the numbers/VIN makes to the repro it a fraud. How simple can I make this???

PAULARGETYPE

Russ

Thats Right I Was Not Thinking About What Was Ethicall I Was Just Trying To Save Another Hudson Convertible

2 New Front Fenders, 1 New Hood, 2 New Inner Fenders, 1 New Deck Lid, 2 Doors From A 51 Hollywood, New Leather,2 Used Vent Windows, All New Glass, Rebuilt Hornet Engine And All The Stuff That Goes With It Twin H Dual Exhstrebuilt Carbs, Rebuilt Water Pump,rebuilt Fuel Pump Gen, And Starter,, 3 Speed Trans Out Of A 49 Com 8 Sedan, A 1951 Rear End Carrier With A 307 Diff, 5 New Wire Wheels, 5 New Bf Goodrichtires, Another Front And Rear Bumper That I Had Recromed,a New Cv Top, A Gas Tank Out Of Another Car, New Front Springs , New Tie Rod Ends, New Center Steering Pin And Bushing Kit, New Floor Pans From Ken Amman, Rear Floors I Made Up Myself,not Sure How Much New 12,14,16,18 Gauge Steel For Other Rframe Repairs, A Dash Out Of A 50 Com That I Had Woodgrained,new Rugs, It Has A Elect Fuel Pump To Keep The Vapor Lock Away. But It's And All Orignal Hudson Car That Has And Aaca 1st Jr And Sr. Awards And Will Be Going To Dover Dl In 2 Weeks Trying For A Grand National Award Good Thing I Don't Want To Sell The Car I'm Not Sure 'now' What To Call It ???? Lol

[Deleted User]

Patrick,

I cannot see where you are coming from on this. It cannot be fraud if you completely document what you are doing. I have seen cars win concours that have had every single body part and interior piece remanufactured by hand. I know that the AACA is ok with this practice if the restoration is documented and you can prove the paperwork and provenance of the car is legit. This type of reconstruction is done all the time. I have seen wooden framed cars where every frame piece was replaced every body panel was hand built to replace the rotten ones and nothing happens to the value.

When you are finished you do not have the original car that rolled off the factory floor you may not have the exact metal but you have a Hudson Jet convertible with the correct vin plate and the correct look of the original.

It is only fraud when you do this work and lie about it. Arguing its not the same car because its not the exact car with no repairs does not hold up unless it is a pure symantical argument saying its not the same because donor parts were used. And yes alot need to be used but I have seen worst brought back with full documentation of the restorations and no one has questioned those.

rambos_ride

51hornetA wrote:

Patrick,

I cannot see where you are coming from on this. It cannot be fraud if you completely document what you are doing. I have seen cars win concours that have had every single body part and interior piece remanufactured by hand. I know that the AACA is ok with this practice if the restoration is documented and you can prove the paperwork and provenance of the car is legit. This type of reconstruction is done all the time. I have seen wooden framed cars where every frame piece was replaced every body panel was hand built to replace the rotten ones and nothing happens to the value.

When you are finished you do not have the original car that rolled off the factory floor you may not have the exact metal but you have a Hudson Jet convertible with the correct vin plate and the correct look of the original.

It is only fraud when you do this work and lie about it. Arguing its not the same car because its not the exact car with no repairs does not hold up unless it is a pure symantical argument saying its not the same because donor parts were used. And yes alot need to be used but I have seen worst brought back with full documentation of the restorations and no one has questioned those.

Well said... I second your opinion~:D

[Deleted User]

It's not the reconstruction aspect of this that I have a problem with, if it's represented as a tribute, clone, or repro when swapping parts from the real ragtop to the coupe donor. It is TAKING NUMBERS OFF OF ONE CAR AND PUTTING THEM ON ANOTHER, then saying this is the prototype. This is fraud, period. Even if you say you swapped the numbers, by that act, you are committing a crime in every state in the Union. Show me a place where VIN swapping is allowed.

Unknown

Ok, everybody's right to some degree. To take the numbers, and just the numbers off of a rare car and putting them on a plain jane donor car is not appropriate. That's why I haven't sold a set of VIN plates, fender tags, title and radiator core support to a 1969 Plymouth Road Runner with a Hemi (J code) that I have in my desk. If I was to sell them, I would require a statement from the buyer that they would not be used for recreating the car.



That being said, replacement of the majority of the tin (excluding cowl) does not necessarily constitute fraud. Each state has it's own licensing and titling laws so anybody doing this should be extremely careful. The cowl (with the VIN tag) should be the determining factor in whether the vehicle is a restoration or re-creation. In a lot of states, there is specific language in the statutes as to what can be done and what cannot. The reason for this is the car theft rings that legally buy total loss vehicles at a salvage auction and then transfer the numbers to a stolen vehicle to pass off as the original car.



The last point is, even if the person who did the work tells his purchaser down the road what was done (let's face it, we're all just caretakers anyway), what is keeping that person from misrepresenting the car later on? As this is a really rare prototype vehicle it should be saved. I would use the cowl and inner rear quarter panels (with the factory modifications) at least and ultimately as much of the original car as possible. Well, I guess that's my soapbox, enough for now.

[Deleted User]

I have to say you are seriously pushing the limits of credulity now. Its a 50 year old prototype. You would have zero problems with this car unless you were thinking of it as a daily driver and even then probably none. A crime? you are kidding me. You would have absolutely no problems registering this car as a restored classic. When you finish you will have one car not two. So the other car does not exist anymore and you certainly would not be driving the donor since you have spliced it into this restoration.

This is not vin swapping its a complete restoration of an original car which has its own vin. Get me a document that says you can't do a complete restoration of a car using a donor and be able to register it. My friend restored a 32 Packard from the ground up using a donor car and he has it registered as an antique. Zero problems its over 70 years old.