Large Dealer Buying Hudsons

[Deleted User]

I know for a fact that this guy is buying a number of Hudsons for resale. Some may recall I went to look at a 54 Hornet sedan in Los Angeles a month or so ago. The seller mentioned this dealer by name. He's asking strong money to say the least.



http://ww2.collectorcartraderonline.com/searchresults.php

[Deleted User]

I just love the $19,950.00 Jet. I guess nobody told this guy that most Hudson people hate Jets.

Doesn't he know that's the car that "ruined" Hudson:rolleyes:

I should offer to liquidate that "ugly" car for $5000.00:D

464Saloon

I thought you had a Jet?

[Deleted User]

464Saloon wrote:

I thought you had a Jet?

Yeah, but mine's a '53, his is a '54. Gotta have a matched set!

[Deleted User]

Ouch, that really sucks when a dealer would leave you high and dry. I know firsthand that it's easy to misplace a title, especially when you move (I'm still looking through boxes for my Buell motorcycle title) But when a dealer is involved they should be more on top of things.

53jetman

For what it's worth royer, the Jet didn't ruin Hudson - the management team is what ruined Hudson. The Jet was really quite an automotible, way ahead of it's time and certainly superior to some of the other competive compacts of that time. If the management had not insisted on the chair-high seating and some of the other styling querks it would have sold much better than it did. Frank Spring's original design was quite good looking and much better perportioned. Also, if you compare the styling of the Jet to that of the '53 & '54 Chevy, Plymouth & Ford, it really is not that far out of the main stream! And above all, it would definately out perform any of the three plus it's main competitors. Since I haven't seen a good picture of a Jet on this forum lately, I'm going to try to show you all my Jet. I've also included a pic of the new interior. 53jetman (Jerry)

[Deleted User]

Jerry,

I guess my sarcasm didn't translate that well through the computer keys... I know well enough the Jet didn't close down Hudson (BTW I drove my Jet to work today). I wouldn't even say it was management that closed Hudson. I attribute the sales decline to the sales war that Chevrolet and Ford were having at the time. When dealers were selling Fords and Chevys for under wholesale just to move product off the lot, it didn't make sense to alot of people to pay close to sticker price for the other brands.



I made the sarcastic remarks for the benefit of the people on the forum who hate the Jet. (Read the thread on the Jet convertible)



Matt

Unknown

53jetman wrote:

For what it's worth royer, the Jet didn't ruin Hudson - the management team is what ruined Hudson. The Jet was really quite an automotible, way ahead of it's time and certainly superior to some of the other competive compacts of that time. If the management had not insisted on the chair-high seating and some of the other styling querks it would have sold much better than it did. Frank Spring's original design was quite good looking and much better perportioned. Also, if you compare the styling of the Jet to that of the '53 & '54 Chevy, Plymouth & Ford, it really is not that far out of the main stream! And above all, it would definately out perform any of the three plus it's main competitors. Since I haven't seen a good picture of a Jet on this forum lately, I'm going to try to show you all my Jet. I've also included a pic of the new interior. 53jetman (Jerry)

you'll get no love on this board...



the Jet ruined Hudson. The large capital investment that should have went into building a V-8, went into a car that the American buying public didn't want for another 20 year, IE, the Jet is what killed hudson. Look at what was made for 20 years, by the entire line of automakers, and what sold.... definitely did not see sub-compact cars thru the end of the 50's, just shows you that big boats with V-8's is what the American car buyers wanted. Hudson, and the management team were truly out of touch with what they needed to stay afloat. While hudson financially was a sinking ship in the early 50's, the Jet was not the life raft that was going to save hudson, rather the lead anchor to finally do the make in.



While we can argue what if's as far as styling queues, and what was on paper to what actually got produced, guess what, the Jet was built as what it was, end of story. The car never bailed hudson out, and never sold well, Essentially driving the final spike into the hudson coffin.



People love hudsons because of the way the car handled, the styling, whatever, may be the case. I find it hard to beleive that very many people accept the Jet and love it because it was a product of Hudson. simply put, it's like comparing apples and oranges.



I bet a lot of other hudson lovers out there feel the same way.



But I still think a 308 powerd Jet coupe would be cool, albeit an ugly monster of a little car. Figure it better be fast....

[Deleted User]

hudsonkid wrote:

People love hudsons because of the way the car handled, the styling, whatever, may be the case. I find it hard to beleive that very many people accept the Jet and love it because it was a product of Hudson. simply put, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Ever drive a Jet? Wanna race?

A Jet with Twin H is a fast, nimble car with a hp to weight ratio that's slightly better than the Hornet's.

Plus it's easier to park.:)

53jetman

Yes royer, mine has Twin H, OD trans. and 4.10 rear end. All this adds up to 27 to 28 MPG on the road @ 70 MPH. Lets see the Hornet boys come close to that! ! ! !

53jetman (Jerry)

rambos_ride

hudsonkid wrote:

you'll get no love on this board...

the Jet ruined Hudson. The large capital investment that should have went into building a V-8, went into a car that the American buying public didn't want for another 20 year, IE, the Jet is what killed hudson. Look at what was made for 20 years, by the entire line of automakers, and what sold.... definitely did not see sub-compact cars thru the end of the 50's, just shows you that big boats with V-8's is what the American car buyers wanted. Hudson, and the management team were truly out of touch with what they needed to stay afloat. While hudson financially was a sinking ship in the early 50's, the Jet was not the life raft that was going to save hudson, rather the lead anchor to finally do the make in.

While we can argue what if's as far as styling queues, and what was on paper to what actually got produced, guess what, the Jet was built as what it was, end of story. The car never bailed hudson out, and never sold well, Essentially driving the final spike into the hudson coffin.

People love hudsons because of the way the car handled, the styling, whatever, may be the case. I find it hard to beleive that very many people accept the Jet and love it because it was a product of Hudson. simply put, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

I bet a lot of other hudson lovers out there feel the same way.

But I still think a 308 powerd Jet coupe would be cool, albeit an ugly monster of a little car. Figure it better be fast....

I do agree with the V8 statements Hudsonkid made and now I'll step back a bit and state some blasphemy...

It was the Stepdown monobilt construction that was the true culprit for the demise of Hudson.

Now...let me qualify...


There is no doubt the Jet with it’s high roof line in comparison to it’s overall size made the proportions odd and its styling was not as clean and flowing as the earlier stepdowns had been.

But the reason the monobilt construction methods were a big factor in strangling the Hudson company was that the technology for the toolings made back then was way too expensive to change... meaning no significant structural changes could be made which meant no real changes in the outward appearance of the cars.

BrandX with a full frame underneath was able to change their body style yearly and respond faster to market changes – they also built a but-load of cars in comparison as pointed out earlier – which meant Hudson had a losing proposition of trying to compete with lower priced cars.

So in summation I propose that if Hudson built their cars today – with todays cold-drawn stamping technologies and flexibility of manufacturing, given their quality and looks they would do well. Hudson was just about 20-30 ahead of the curve and it bit them in the a@@!

[Deleted User]

What REALLY put them under(along with nash/studebaker/packard/) was economic collusion between the BIG 3, gm/ford/chrysler

[Deleted User]

Never said I hated Jets, just stated they're butt-ugly!!! LOL!

Unknown

just as I had suspected, a conspiracy......those commies lol

Unknown

royer wrote:

Ever drive a Jet? Wanna race?



A Jet with Twin H is a fast, nimble car with a hp to weight ratio that's slightly better than the Hornet's.



Plus it's easier to park.:)

yup, get around Lancaster, PA, i'll take some of that action. Matter of fact, anyone that is around, I would love to line up with a Jet... Would be fun!

[Deleted User]

Has anyone ever chopped one? Lay the windshield back a little, and the rear window and b pillar forward a bit, fenderskirts, and laid on the ground?

Jay

bob ward

rambos_ride wrote:

But the reason the monobilt construction methods were a big factor in strangling the Hudson company was that the technology for the toolings made back then was way too expensive to change... meaning no significant structural changes could be made which meant no real changes in the outward appearance of the cars.

W'ere getting off the subject here (what was it again?), but I have to strongly disagree with the 'monobilt is to blame' school of thought.



The Big 3 had a girder chassis to which they BOLTED a superstructure, Hudson had a sheetmetal floor/chassis to which they WELDED a superstructure. But that did not mean it was any more expensive for Hudson to change body styles than it was for the Big 3.



At any time during the life of the stepdown, Hudson management, had they had the foresight/wisdom/money, could have retained the floor pan/chassis and welded a different styled superstructure to it. (What is a 64 Mustang but a Ford Falcon with a different superstucture?) That original 48 floor pan/chassis was a good design and with different superstructures and engines could have soldiered well on into the 60s without being disgraced by the competition.



In the past I've picked apart a dead stepdown to see what the construction sequence was, it turns out that just like everyone else they started at the bottom and worked up. They made a platform then welded on the scuttle, the B pillar and the C pillar. No reason why they could not have welded on a different shape scuttle, a different shape B pillar and a different shape C pillar. And on top of the different scuttle, B pillar and C pillar you weld a different roof. Hey presto! New Stepdown!



The simple fact is, Hudson could have welded different sheetmetal on top of their floor pan any time they chose to. Monobilt did not preclude them from making changes, it was management.

Unknown

All these things were contributing factors to Hudsons demise:



Tooling costs to produce the jet (wrong product at the wrong Time)

Lack of a V-8

Very Conservative management team

Difficulty in changing the monobuilt chassis (Although they did a decent job in 54 on a limited budget.



Bottom line was lack of sales (meaning profit and $$ ) and using the capital available to produce the jet, instead of a V-8 or updating the product they should have. They did not respond to the market

50C8DAN

Look at the X-161, looks like they could have changed the monobuilt it if they had not blown the money on the Jet!

davegnh

You guys who have never driven a Jet should, they really are nice driving and handling cars. They may look a little odd, but they are good cars.

Unknown

I've never driven a Jet, and would not dispute they may be well built and perform well. In the mid fifties it was V-8s, styling and chrome that sold. I believe you could buy a full size base model Ford or Chevy for less than a Jet. And most people did. While I don't care for Jets, The 2 doors are interesting (maybe with an engine upgrade)

Unknown

I believe what caused Hudson to fail was the price of Hudsons. A 49 super six sedan we had as a demonstrater cost over $1900.00. That was dealer cost. A 49 Chevy, the highest could be bought retail for less than $1100.00.

Unknown

Weren't Hudsons really competing in the Oldsmobile and lower end Buick size and Price range. They were a high quality automobile and most people did not realize this or recognize how well the cars were built

[Deleted User]

50C8DAN wrote:

Look at the X-161, looks like they could have changed the monobuilt it if they had not blown the money on the Jet!

Does any know where there is a pic of the X-161?

Jay

Aaron D. IL

Billy K.TN. wrote:

I believe what caused Hudson to fail was the price of Hudsons. A 49 super six sedan we had as a demonstrater cost over $1900.00. That was dealer cost. A 49 Chevy, the highest could be bought retail for less than $1100.00.

Fron what I've read, for the same price as a Jet you could have a full-size Ford or Chevy. I also read that Ford and GM had a price war trying to knock eachother out of the market but only ended up knocking out the independants. All that, among other factors contributed. Perhaps Hudson should've moved upmarket instead of trying to offer a lower priced car as they had always done, but then that formula had worked for Hudson in the past with the Essex Terraplanes. Hudson had very fiercely loyal customers and repeat buyers....still does (hehe)... but they were way ahead on some things despite a conservative management. If you consider all the environmental market factors at that time I don't know that such decisions would've been so black n white if you put yourself in managments' shoes.

oldhudsons

There was a major article done on it in a WTN some years ago written by my HET buddy Elliot Myerson, who with my help, dragged it out of the slums of LA.

There is/was nothing intrinsically wrong with a Hudson Jet. They were quite fast, easily outperforming a '53 Chevy or Fraud, but were "pricey" & because Baritt wanted to be able to sit in a car with his hat on, he had the "glass area" raised (rearranging Frank Spring's design) so they weren't eye appealing let's say.

As you may know Frank saved the X-161 from being scrapped by AMC. After purchasing it, he & his wife drove it to LA where it was their "daily driver" (LOL). After his untimely death, Clara sold it. Elliott & I had several meetings with her at her yoga studio - she had a trunk full of Frank's mementos. Thru her we were able to track the car down & save it.

464Saloon

Obviously there were several reasons Hudson went down, and they may have lasted longer if they changed the stepdown and come out with a V8 as would have been better for the times, but they still would have failed eventually as only the big three exist now. What goes around comes around though. The big three forced all the independents out and now they are being forced out themselves slowly but surely.

harry54

Yes that's true , but they're being forced out for different reasons. They Got Fat and Lazy and let the Japanese have the market on a platter. They built poor quality cars and overcharged. THe Japanese made better quality and more economical cars for a better price. As the Big three started to lose mkt share the Japanese kept taking more and more. By the time we woke up , the cost of UAW in today's mkt killed there bussiness model. We will never again be able to compete unless the UAW is disolved and the playing field is once again even. The foriegn cost of labor is much cheaper and there is no way around it. It's like trying to swim with a ball and chain around you legs.....

That wasnt' Hudson's problem . THey made to good a product for faddy Design Driven mkt. They had limited capitol and no Marketing.

[Deleted User]

The big Hudson was not a competitor against Ford, Chevy or Plymouth...they were competing against Buick and DeSoto.

464Saloon

True. It is not for the same reasons, I was just making an interesting point of what goes around come around if you believe in the theory that the big three put them out. I believe it was a combination of things.

[Deleted User]

jsrail wrote:

Has anyone ever chopped one? Lay the windshield back a little, and the rear window and b pillar forward a bit, fenderskirts, and laid on the ground?

Jay

I've not seen one chopped, but I think that flattening the roof would improve the looks a good bit. There's a good 4 to 5 inches above the top of the window channel that could be eliminated.