X-161 OK Where's the Pics?

rambos_ride

Jay was asking what the X-161 was?

I want to know why there are no pictures? Anywhere?

Wikipedia About the Italia...

The car's $4,350 price tag, combined with Hudson's dashed prospects as a stand-alone independent marque (Hudson & Nash merged in May of 1954) spelled the end for the Italia after a mere twenty-five vehicles. A single 4-door sedan prototype (dubbed 'X-161') was also constructed to study production possibilities.

I found this one site on italias that had a cool pic of an alleged convertible italia

http://www.americansportscars.com/italia.html (watch out for the cheezy music though...:o )

hornet53

That windscreen looks like a Miss America tiara.

rambos_ride

hornet53 wrote:

That windscreen looks like a Miss America tiara.

I was pondering that styling que - must be the Hudson triangle.

oldhudsons

The X-161 was built on a '54 Hornet sedan chassis with an alum. body by Touring of Milano - the rest used the Jet chassis.

The illus. of a conv. Italia is just that.

After Elliott semi-restored the X-161 he sold it to Elwyn Muzzey, one time HET Treasurer, & Elwyn eventually sold it to the current owner in N.Y.

dave s

Nov/Dec 1991 has article on X-161

[Deleted User]

The convertible would have been even uglier than the ones they did produce. This of course is my opinion.

Bob

Jon B

Here it is. I just need a WTN reference to find these, as I have 35 years on file.

oldhudsons

thank you Dave & Jon - think I'll dig out the article & read it again

Pete

50C8DAN

I think a version of the X-161 would have been a hit, and on the track it would have been great. Now for the V8 needed, well? In my opinion it looked a lot better than the HASHES that came along.

[Deleted User]

For the times, actually not a bad looking rig. I'm impressed, though that front wheelwell is a bit long for me. That back quarter/rear window and rear door set up reminds me of the Caddy's of the times.

Was the Italia a body on frame or unibody?

But agree Hud blew it by not coming out with a V8.

Jay

50C8DAN

Lets see no Jet, Hudson V8, and X-161 based cars for 1955. Looks like Frank Spring and the boys could have pulled it off.

464Saloon

Well it is better than the Hashes but it ain't a stepdown. I think they were on the right track with the 54. Should have kept going down that path but with a V8. Unfortunately when the changes came on the 54 which gave it a much more 50's look, Hudson was already branded so the car never had a chance. It really is quite a bit different than the earlier cars. Not necessarily better ( depends on your taste) but less 40's looking and more 50's.

[Deleted User]

I think they were going to have to do major body style changes, as the '54 wasn't going to make in into the late fifites/early sixties styles, you can see how the styles were changing from the early 50's to the late 50's, on into the 60's in all the other brands. I think the stepdown (though I like the style) style would have had to be extremely reworked to extend its life. I think they needed to get that frame rail tucked inside the rear wheels, this would have made for easier style changes I think.



Jay

[Deleted User]

You can see a hint of Packard in the quarters, and a definite Hudson corporate hood line and front fender lines. Caddy appearance is there, as well. Only real drawback to that car, style-wise, is the Italia fake exhaust pipes/taillight housings, along with the period GM-style dash intrusion into the front door opening (the knee-basher).

[Deleted User]

Here is a photo comparison of the X-161, the drawing of the proposed '55 stepdown by Spring, and the actual '55 AMC Hudson. It appears to me that the real '55 is a mix of the X161 and the proposed '55 stepdown. You can really see the similarity in the rear window treatment beween the X161 and the AMC.

Thanks to all those websites I took the pics from!

Unknown

well, the X-161 is no exception to the rule. I guess my thoughts are that it's good italia's are so rare, and the X-161 is even rarer. THey have got to be some of the ugliest cars to ever wear the hudson nameplate. Just because something is rare, doesn't always translate into demand. Personally, the X-161 was the waste of a perfectly good Hornet sedan. Keep in mind, that's my opinion....



I kind of wonder what really might have been produced, if hudson was able to pull thru 54, stay out of the nash merger, and manage to facelift the line. I bet the car might very well have been similar to what is shown above, with the exception of maybe being more low slung, more similar to the 54's.... The roof line is the only problem I see...



can anyone even conceive what a 64 hudson or even a 73 hudson might have looked like? Not to mention even today....

[Deleted User]

Hey Royer,



where did you get that 55 Spring design?

[Deleted User]

Today, it's either the Chrysler 300 or the Dodge Magnum. Those are what look closest to what stepdowns looked like, IMO.

464Saloon

Interesting. I have never seen the X161 or Frank Springs drawing. As for my comments on the 54. I agree there is no way that would have worked into the late 50's and early 60's. I just think the changes were on the right track and would have been a nice lead into what the Spring drawing has here or something like it. Maybe the 161 would have worked with some changes. Front wheel well adjustment and something different with the rear end treatment. If this is a Hornet sized car with a Jet drivetrain as I think was mentioned, that would have to change. This car must have been a slug.

[Deleted User]

51hornetA wrote:

Hey Royer,

where did you get that 55 Spring design?

http://groups.msn.com/HudsonMotorCarCompany/9amchudsons19551957.msnw

Posted by the great Alex B!

50C8DAN

From Automobile Quarterly Vol9 #4. The X-161 was made after the Italia project has started. It was based on a '54 Hornet frame, engine (not a Jet engine) and instrument panel. It had an aluminum body. It differed from the Italia as follows:



1) Two piece windshield

2) conventional doors on one side and roof cutout on the other (styling concept)

3) ventilation slots above the rear window ducted to the interior allowing for air circulation with the windows up and avoiding compression when the doores were slammed with the windows up.

4) 2 and 1 front seation (driver bucket, passengers in separate bench



Even with the 308 performance was impressive due to the lower weight and frontal area.

rambos_ride

Jon B wrote:

Here it is. I just need a WTN reference to find these, as I have 35 years on file.

Seriously - That could be the first picture EVER posted on the internet of the X-161!

I spent some (I won't admit how much...;) ) time doing some exhaustive searches and other than some casual mention NOTHING BUT THE SOUND OF CRICKETS came back from my search inquiries...NOTHING!

Has anyone ever done a good write up on the car?

50C8DAN

Not sure about WTN but Automobile Quarterly was where I first learned about the X-161. Rumor had it that it had a Hudson experimental OHV 6, but Bernie Siegfried, who was quoted in the article said that was wishful thinking. Hudson did have an outside company with a 320 cuin V8 that was close but the company did not have the capital to expand to meet Hudson's requirements. The AQ article was well written with a nice color pictures of the X-161

bob ward

jsrail wrote:

I think they needed to get that frame rail tucked inside the rear wheels, this would have made for easier style changes I think.



Jay

I don't know that the frame rail that runs around the outside of the rear wheels is a major part of the support structure. Most of the load is carried by the main beam that carries the rear leaf spring.



The main purpose of the outside frame rail is brace the bottom of the rear fender.

Unknown

50C8DAN wrote:

Not sure about WTN but Automobile Quarterly was where I first learned about the X-161. Rumor had it that it had a Hudson experimental OHV 6, but Bernie Siegfried, who was quoted in the article said that was wishful thinking. Hudson did have an outside company with a 320 cuin V8 that was close but the company did not have the capital to expand to meet Hudson's requirements. The AQ article was well written with a nice color pictures of the X-161

Dan

The stories about what Hudson planned to do or folks who look back at that time think should have been done. One thing is for sure. There was an overhead 6 cylinder motor design and prototype available for the 54-55 model year run. That engine was designed and prototyped by Bernie Siegfried. As you may know, Bernie was turned down by Hudson engineering managers when he proposed that the engine he was building with Hudson R&D dollars be used. Later when Bernie realized Hudson would be merging with some other company... pre American Motors. He asked and was given permission to take the prototype ... I last saw that engine at his Liberty MO workshop in the late 70s. Near the merger time, Bernie decided to peddle his talents to the other auto manufacturers. He found a match with Ford. The prototype engine was the basis of the Ford 300 6 engine. Until he was no longer able to drive, Bernie drove his trusty Ford pickup powered by a 300 overhead valve 6... that was the NEVER TO BE new Hudson 6 engine.

Jon B

To answer Rambo's Ride: yes, an article about the X-161 appeared in the Nov.-Dec. 1991 White Triangle News. Several photos, plus a description of how the car was saved by intrepid H-E-T'ers (while rusting in the back of a Los Angeles tenement or something).

oldhudsons

Jon - Elliott & I interviewed Clara Spring at her home in Hollywood. She told us she sold the X-161 after Frank's death to a doctor (as I recall) who owned a building in downtown L.A. {have a vehicle parked in front of file cabinet where all my old WTNs are so couldn't get to article last night, but will ASAP}. He replaced the Hornet engine with a Cad V8 & subsequently GAVE it to a janitor who worked for him.

The janitor lived in a poor area in downtown L.A. & when the X-161 would no longer run parked it outside under cover where it languished 'til Elliott tracked the guy down. As I recall Elliott traded a running Hudson + some cash for the X-161.

I don't believe Elliott changed engines but did repaint it as it had been when Frank had it with racing stripes down the middle.

Elliott told me just before I left for Hershey that he wanted to sell it. At the HET dinner party that year at Carlisle, Doc asked me to give a report on activities on the West coast & I mentioned that Elliott wanted to sell it & as soon as the meeting ended Elwyn (who I knew well as he'd recruited me to be his successor as HET Treasurer) approached me on it & soon consumated a deal with Elliott.

I'm not sure if Elwyn put a Hornet engine back in it or not.

When Elwyn went "busted" most of his "holdings" were purchased by the current owner, who as far as I know, has never brought the X-161 to a meet (he's owned it for many years now).

harry54

With all that has taken place this year in the Hudson World, it would be wonderful to try to see the x 161 at a Hudson Meet. Is it possible to reach the present owner and coordinate . It would be great to get a photo session....

frank spring

The Italia was the Jet unibody.

frank spring

The Italia is the Jet unibody

PAULARGETYPE

I Was At The Sale Elwin Muzzy Had Before He Passed Away I Have Some Photo's Of The X161 While He Had It He Sold It To Hal Denman Who Still Owns It Still Today I'll Get Them Out And Scan Them And Get Them On Line This Week So We Can All Enjoy What Frank Spring Had In Mind For 1957