Large Dealer Buying Hudsons
Comments
-
But then your hat wouldn't fit. At one of the next club get togethers, I am going to have to bum a ride in a Jet. I have always been kind of curious, now I really am.0
-
davegnh1 wrote: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.
That's what they said about the Edsel....lol0 -
Pete,
What ever happened to that Hudson woody wagon you pulled out of the desert many years ago ? ( I was still in high school !)0 -
One of our Chapter members has a '54 Jet 4-dr for sale. It was sold new in Minneapolis and bought at the Nats in Wichita in '02. Spent most of it's life in western NE. Very, very little rust. The color is a cross between vanilla pudding and light fleshtone. Runs and drives, new rear engine seal, I think it has new brakes, too. Decent interior. Like I've said, they're ugly, and this is no exception! Might look good with a nice set of wheels and a good cleaning. It sits in a pole barn year-round, and stays dry. Heck, who knows? If I sell the TP at the Nats, could there be a Jet in my future???
BTW, I've driven the gold Jet that's been on ebay several times in the past few months, and they do drive nice, I have to give them that. That car came from an estate auction here, went to a few differnet owners and car brokers, then to Missouri.0 -
that was "rescued" by Carl Mendoza out of Death Valley.
Eldon Hostettler created a Commodore 8 station wagon out of it (none were made, they were all Super Sixes) so it now resides in Ind.0 -
There is a guy in my area that street rodded a Jet! Painted it black w/ orange flames, big wheels and tires. What a site doesn't look that bad!!!0
-
I was working at a Hudson dealership then. The owner drove back a '54 H sd. from the Detroit dealers showing & sneaked into the back of the garage so the public wouldn't see it prior to being announced.
He parked it in the garage, got out, & went into his office without saying a word to us employes. The mechanics went over & popped the hood, and there it was, not the hoped for V8, but old "tried & true" 308 six, now painted red. They shut the hood & walked away in silence, figuring correctly, "that was all she wrote". (we didn't like the styling changes either).
He became a very successful AMC dealer but was forced to move the agency to another larger town.0 -
oldhudsons wrote:that was "rescued" by Carl Mendoza out of Death Valley.
Eldon Hostettler created a Commodore 8 station wagon out of it (none were made, they were all Super Sixes) so it now resides in Ind.
Thanks for the update Pete, I saw it on John Fromm's Hudson video. Looks striking !0 -
oldhudsons wrote:that was "rescued" by Carl Mendoza out of Death Valley.
Eldon Hostettler created a Commodore 8 station wagon out of it (none were made, they were all Super Sixes) so it now resides in Ind.
Pete, an article on Eldon's woodie said it was originally a Commodore sedan whose owners had the woodie body installed when the car was new. Did you saw the car when it was rescued? Did it appear to be a Commodore then, trim-wise, etc.?0 -
Hey Niels--your message box is full --perhaps there is some visor info there for you.0
-
Park - my understanding was that he took the woody body off the ex-Mendoza/Death Valley woody & mounted it onto a '42 C8 sd. chassis.
The '42 woody was a few miles up a canyon road at an old mine property. After I went there & wrote up an article for the WTN he went there with a trailer & stole it! As he is now deceased, the "truth will out", LOL.
I'll check with Richard Griffith as he seemingly kept track of Carl's "fleet" as best as possible (his Italia is still "in hiding" in San Jose!).0 -
Hello Pete
Carl was always fun... as U know he knew where most of the Hudson's in Northern Ca were resting, hiding or out in the sun. I miss the opportunity to go to Bobs Big Boy and the San Jose Coffee Shop and tell lies and tales about Hudsons. Charlie Ackel and Carl M were great fun in the 80s when I was traveling to the Bay area every month. What happened to Carl's 54 Hornet Convert? Hope all is well in AZ0 -
If you nice folks don't mind I think I'll add my two cents worth to often revisited post-mortem. I admit, though, that I have little new to say. I feel bad for Jet lovers who are offended by this line of discussion. The Jet was a wonderful car, I'm sure. After all, it was made by Hudson. You would expect it to be incredibily well built, be powerful and handle well. The quality of the Jet should never be questioned. In short, the car was great, but the decission to use limmited recources to build it was dreadful. The market called (loudly) for a V8 -- that's a given. I'd also like to say that I've never read anything at all about the companie's plans to evolve to a leaner, more modern body style. I don't mean away from mono-built necessarily, and perhaps stylists and engineers could have squeezed a couple of more years out of the existing platform, but by then surely a new body would have been much needed. I only mention the body issue to emphasis that this, too, was a much higher priority than a compact car. Lastly I'll say this, if Hudson had lasted several more years the Jet would have been dicountinued anyway. How many more years could it have survived such market indifference? At the risk of offending Jet lovers, I firmly beleive that it wasn't the wrong car (although as wrong cars go, it couldn't have been any wronger looking), it simply was the wrong idea.0
-
James P. wrote:If you nice folks don't mind I think I'll add my two cents worth to often revisited post-mortem. I admit, though, that I have little new to say. I feel bad for Jet lovers who are offended by this line of discussion. The Jet was a wonderful car, I'm sure. After all, it was made by Hudson. You would expect it to be incredibily well built, be powerful and handle well. The quality of the Jet should never be questioned. In short, the car was great, but the decission to use limmited recources to build it was dreadful. The market called (loudly) for a V8 -- that's a given. I'd also like to say that I've never read anything at all about the companie's plans to evolve to a leaner, more modern body style. I don't mean away from mono-built necessarily, and perhaps stylists and engineers could have squeezed a couple of more years out of the existing platform, but by then surely a new body would have been much needed. I only mention the body issue to emphasis that this, too, was a much higher priority than a compact car. Lastly I'll say this, if Hudson had lasted several more years the Jet would have been dicountinued anyway. How many more years could it have survived such market indifference? At the risk of offending Jet lovers, I firmly beleive that it wasn't the wrong car (although as wrong cars go, it couldn't have been any wronger looking), it simply the wrong idea.
great reply, and well written!0 -
I think that what prompted the Jet was desperation on the part of Hudson management. They could see the writing on the wall: independent auto manufacturers simply didn't have the resources to stay in business, given the incredible power of the Big Three, and the fact that 'the rich get richer and the small go broke'. It was an uphill battle no matter what they did. Just look at how many car companies there were in 1929 and how many were left by the early 50's (and what a meager percentage of the market they commanded by 1951). The only ray of sunshine was the 'niche market' -- the demand for some product that the Big Three didn't bother to build for. The miniscule Willys company was staying alive with their Jeep, and over at Nash the new "Rambler" compact car had essentially created a new small-car market by itself.
It wasn't a very big market, and no one could then have predicted that the Rambler would eventually (in the late 50's and early 60's) become number three in U.S. sales. But by 1951 it was at least selling modestly for Nash, and that's all Hudson needed to know. They noted this new small-car market and hitched their wagon to that star, hoping for some modest return on their investment. Unfortunately, the market wasn't large enough to support the four 'little' cars that finally competed in it (Rambler, Jet, Willys Aero and Henry J). Plus, by the time Jet entered the foray, Nash had a complete range of Ramblers: 2- and 4-door wagons, a convertible, a coupe, hardtop and 4-door sedan. Jet only offered a 2- and 4-door.
If you were running Hudson, having no idea of future trends, would you have invested your limited resources in a new engine for an aging body, or would you have looked for customers in a new and apparently-emerging market?
We shouldn't be too harsh on these folks. They made a decision, given what limited knowledge and money they had, and unfortunately it proved not to be the right one. When you're a GM, you can survive a bad decision without blinking. When you're a Hudson, you can't.0 -
Jon... taking no exception to your missive... I can tell you Hudson made a very good and sound decision to retool the Hudson body near the end of WWII. But there were other circumstances many forget or never knew. The USA was suffering with very large shortages of essential materials, engineers were not available due to the loss of men during the war, Korean came and was still impacting the ecomony of the US and the World and the US government had borrowed all the available cash to support the war. If you take a look at the construct of the Hudson management during 1944 and then again in 1952 there is a major change in the risk taking attitude . I for one believe the lack of V8 engines being responsible for killed Hudson is absurd. The reality of sales in our world is how the public recieves a product. Public opinion about new Hudsons in 1953 was akin to throwing ones money in the trash. The design was old and the car was nothing more than a fixed up 1949 Hudson. When challenged by public opionion most folks do not take well to the social pressure. When speaking with people from that era you will find many were very frugal and when they spent thier dollars, it was a complete experience. If the neighbor is scoffed at your NEW car as a fixed up old design then you will more than likely not buy that product again. In the grand scheme of things ... Hudson is and was a fine automobile as are many of todays automotive offerings... but if the buying public hangs a ...stink... on your product.. more than likely you will not sell that product.
And so it went...
Cheers0 -
Well said.0
-
Isn't it a contradiction to talk about buyers of the era being frugal and, in the same breath, saying that they would bow to outside influences if their choice of cars was not in vogue? In the 1950's, the adults in my family bought practical cars they could afford. I can only speak for myself, but my fifties era parents put the kids first, not cars or fashion and they certainly didn't give a flying hoot what anyone though of their decisions. The decisions of weak minded people are influenced by others. As for why Hudson failed, I'll leave that to the historians to ponder.0
-
Styling decisions, V8's aside the number one reason Hudson died is that in 52-53 Ford and GM had a price war. They slashed prices and Ford at the time would over deliver cars to dealers telling them to move them or else. When the dust settled from this deep pocket fiasco the writing was on the wall for the independents. At the same time GM changed the rail spur that allowed Hudson to ship their cars by rail so Hudson had to resort to trucking their cars out. I even have some pics of the trucks carrying Hornets.
The big three were in a price war and it was really the big two as GM and Ford were in a heated battle for the market.
Hudson, Packard and the rest were really innocent bystanders. Hudson made some stupid decisions and really Barit should have been replaced but even if they came out with a V8 55 with nice styling they still would have been killed by the price war. I have seen a lot of writings which support the idea that Ford and GM had access to more raw materials because of the size of their companies and the political allies and influence they had.
I for one am happy that the 54 was a nice Hudson I have always liked the design and I do not consider the Nash years Hudsons. Its my own opinion but the Hudson badged Nashs and Ramblers are the ugliest cars on the road.0 -
Studebaker and Packard both had v8's and look what happened to them ! Jet bashers, a v8 would not have saved Hudson !Heart Of Texas wrote:Jon... taking no exception to your missive... I can tell you Hudson made a very good and sound decision to retool the Hudson body near the end of WWII. But there were other circumstances many forget or never knew. The USA was suffering with very large shortages of essential materials, engineers were not available due to the loss of men during the war, Korean came and was still impacting the ecomony of the US and the World and the US government had borrowed all the available cash to support the war. If you take a look at the construct of the Hudson management during 1944 and then again in 1952 there is a major change in the risk taking attitude . I for one believe the lack of V8 engines being responsible for killed Hudson is absurd. The reality of sales in our world is how the public recieves a product. Public opinion about new Hudsons in 1953 was akin to throwing ones money in the trash. The design was old and the car was nothing more than a fixed up 1949 Hudson. When challenged by public opionion most folks do not take well to the social pressure. When speaking with people from that era you will find many were very frugal and when they spent thier dollars, it was a complete experience. If the neighbor is scoffed at your NEW car as a fixed up old design then you will more than likely not buy that product again. In the grand scheme of things ... Hudson is and was a fine automobile as are many of todays automotive offerings... but if the buying public hangs a ...stink... on your product.. more than likely you will not sell that product.
And so it went...
Cheers0 -
JP wrote:Hey Niels--your message box is full --perhaps there is some visor info there for you.
Cleared it up. No visors though.... thx0 -
I for one am happy that the 54 was a nice Hudson I have always liked the design and I do not consider the Nash years Hudsons. Its my own opinion but the Hudson badged Nashs and Ramblers are the ugliest cars on the road.[/QUOTE]
I certainly agree with this and the market does aswell. The hotel lobby at the national event in Reno had a 55 Hash displayed since it was the year being honored. Sorry to those who own and like them, but I was disappointed that it represented the Hudson company to the public. I would have put something else in there that was universally accepted by members as being visually stunning.0 -
I for one will not bad mouth Jets! I may be stuck on the side of the road (probably driving my RR) someday and need a lift! I don't believe in karma, but better safe than sorry!
Jay :-)0 -
By 52/53 there wasn't anything the independents could have done except try to postpone the inevitable. I think the only thing that could have changed Hudsons fate would have been if the stepdown had been introduced with an OHV V8 in 48. As great as Hudsons racing history was, imagine it with an Olds rocket or Chrysler hemi under the hood. By the end of the fat postwar market Hudson could have been a legendary supercar, an American Porsche, Ferrari or perhaps Bentley and maybe the marque could have survived as a limited production luxury exotic.0
-
In additon to all the above ideas. Mr. Barit had to be thinking that each time Hudson brought to market a smaller car they had great great sucesss.
The Essex and Terraplane each had saved Hudson when it was troubled and the Jet was a hope save HMC in 1953
My friend who worked in Hudson styling in 1951 said it was a viable company , they were working on future concepts for the Hudson and the Jet was mostly completed. There were no signs of what another 3 years would bring.
29 Vic0 -
As a professional historian I am cautioned and will caution others to avoid "IF History", as it is all to easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. But personally, I think the 308 had a good reputation in the fifties with its racing successes, and although an OHV V8 would have been more in-vogue, I believe the six could still sell cars if the styling was updated. I have a 1965 Plymouth Fury, which came out in 1956, and look at the styling - every single model year is completely different from the previous or next. You can not tell that a 1960 and a 1963 Plymouth are from the same continent, much less the same manufacturer. This is only one reflection of the mass consumer culture that developed after WWII and new was in vogue, and that meant every year something new. By 1954 the stepdown design was TIRED. There is no single factor that killed Hudson, but if I had to list them, that one is at the top of my list. The Jet was and is a good car it was just the wrong business decision at the time, that money should have been spent re-tooling the Stepdown. But I don't fault Barit for putting the cash cow in the Jet and sending it down the road -- that strategy, as it has been said, worked for Hudson before.0
-
51hornetA wrote:Its my own opinion but the Hudson badged Nashs and Ramblers are the ugliest cars on the road.
___________________________________________________________
[:)There are TWO uglier......the '51 Frazerand the '54 Italia /B]0 -
as an adjunct to your comment in re V8s. I was working in a Hudson dealership in '54 (75 cents a hr. "flunkie", LOL) in Ind. The owner went to the Detroit showing of the '54s, returning with a '54 H sd., & entered thru the back door of the garage so potential customers wouldn't see it. He got out, didn't say a word to us, and went into his office. We employees went over, one of the mechanics opened the driver's door, pulled the hood latch - there it was, same old flathead 6. The owner & the mechanics all felt that without a V8 Hudson "had had it" - the hood was closed, we all went back to work. All they had done was paint it red! (We weren't too pleased with the new styling either, all thought the taillight treatment left a LOT to be desired - why didn't they "French" them?).0
-
29 Vic wrote:In additon to all the above ideas. Mr. Barit had to be thinking that each time Hudson brought to market a smaller car they had great great sucesss.
The Essex and Terraplane each had saved Hudson when it was troubled and the Jet was a hope save HMC in 1953
My friend who worked in Hudson styling in 1951 said it was a viable company , they were working on future concepts for the Hudson and the Jet was mostly completed. There were no signs of what another 3 years would bring.
29 Vic
Unfortunately, it was the out-dated 1930's thinking at Hudson (Barit's small car thinking - and, in the case of the Jet it had to have a high enough roof line so a gentleman could wear his hat) that had a large part in the final demise of the company.
There were many factors in the early 50's - among them Ford and Chevy nearly giving cars away in a fight to be first in sales. When the elephants start fighting the mice get trampled.
Hudsonly,
Alex Burr0 -
For what it's worth, I always tell people when asked 'Why did Hudson go out of business?' , that there are lots of reasons (as listed above...V8, Jet, Big 3 price wars, etc.), but the one that jumps out at me was that their integrity was too high to succeed in the auto business. They used the best materials, and refused to make 'cheap' cars. They wanted the Hudson name to stand for quality. They also made very little profit compared to the competition, so as a result they didn't have big piles of money to overcome some of the other events that took place (V8, Jet, competition, etc.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 37K All Categories
- 106 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 19 Upcoming Events
- 91 Essex Super 6
- 28.6K HUDSON
- 561 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 994 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 174 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 78 Hudson 8
- 44 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 602 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos