The Jet and What Were They Thinking?

Unknown
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Seeing the post with the Jets got me to thinking.. What was Hudson thinking in 1951 when they decided to spend the money to tool for this car?



I don't really know if they're a good car or a bad one, I have no experience with them, but to me they've always looked like a '52 Ford that was left out in the rain and shrank. Is that purely a coincedence or intentional? They would have had to have been fairly well along in the design process by the fall of '51 when those Fords came out.



I just wonder if they'd have been better off to spend that money to retool some of the components of the Step-Down design to update it. Particularly by 1954 the design, especially the rooflines, was somewhat dated (did anyone else offer a fastback roofline in 53-54?). It would have been interesting to see this body changed to a flatter hood, wraparound windshield, and sqaurer deck lid like other 55-57 cars - or with fins as a 58-59 car. (a "1955" or "1959" step-down would be an interesting customizing project from a design standpoint).



I have to wonder if they would have sold another 40,000 of the big cars those years with some major retooling instead of the barely that of the Jet (21,000 or so in '53, 14,000 or so for '54).





Then again, Hudson was always ahead of it's time; the Jet might have sold better had it been designed and introduced as a 1957-58 car - AMC did pretty good with the small Ramblers and no "big" car at all, those years, and Stude sold a lot of Larks as well. But in 53-54 the compact market was a lot smaller and Nash pretty well had it covered. It was ironic that the newer Jet was essentially replaced with a rebadged, older design Rambler.

Comments

  • Come on now, a Jet is a fine Hudson product, albeit an ugly one IMO. In response to what were they thinking, they weren't. Hudson should have spent the money on body styles and engines. Look at what they milked from a 6 cylinder and, in doing so, turned NASCAR on its ear. Just think what they could have done with a V-8. The high end car auctions now would be selling high powered, multiple carb V-8 Hornets and Wasps for 100's of thousands of dollars. Given what they had to work with, the 54 redesign was pure genious. If they would have applied the money and effort to modernize the large cars, Hudson might still be around in some form.



    BTW, no offense intended to those who own and/or like the Jets. The little buggers do look great with skirts and are supposed to be a quick and fine handling car. :D
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    Briefly, the Jet was too small, too high, and too expensive. As a car, it was a great performer, economical, roomy, and reliable. But it didn't need to be built like a brick outhouse! Over-engineering is great from a construction and safety point of view, but they forgot that they were in business to make money first! Incidentally, I understand the reason for the "Ford look" at the rear was purely and simply economic, paradoxically, as the usual supplier of glass had suffered a fire in the factory, and the replacement suppliers said they could supply the Ford shape quicker and cheaper than making one to the original design, so the body dies were built accordingly. the tail lights were almost a direct copy of the Oldsmobile, because Ed Barit like them. Nothing wrong with the cars, just an unfortunate event that cost the company dearly.

    Geoff.
  • 54Hollywood
    54Hollywood Senior Contributor
    pontiac59 wrote:
    Seeing the post with the Jets got me to thinking.. What was Hudson thinking in 1951 when they decided to spend the money to tool for this car?



    I don't really know if they're a good car or a bad one, I have no experience with them, but to me they've always looked like a '52 Ford that was left out in the rain and shrank. Is that purely a coincedence or intentional? They would have had to have been fairly well along in the design process by the fall of '51 when those Fords came out.





    Well, here we go again! LOL! Hudson, or rather A.E. Barit, began to think small car shortly after the Nash Rambler came out in 1950. He was being pushed by the press, dealers, distributors and customers who were wondering what Hudson's answer to the Rambler would be. Barit didn't jump into the small car market right away because he wanted to wait and see how well it sold before he committed Hudson to building one. I'm sure he also knew that the stepdown needed a better facelift/redesign but the Rambler issue evidently seemed more pressing to him. That would explain why we got a big 6 in '51 instead of a V8 and mere facelifted models because Hudson was building up the treasury in order to finance a new, small car.



    He was also influenced by a big Hudson dealer in Chicago, Don Moran (sp?) who was selling about 5% of Hudson's output at the time. Moran loved the '52 Ford and evidently implied to Barit that if the new Hudson looked like the Ford, it would really sell. With the Ford coming out in the Fall of '51, Hudson had ample time to design a similar looking car. There was a great article about him in a WTN some time ago. Others have said that Barit was also influenced by the dimensions of a little Fiat of the time. And since Barit wasn't pleased with the original drawings from Frank Spring, he needed an alternative design, so a Ford + Fiat = Jet kind of evolved into what we got.



    BTW, my father's first ever new car was a '53 Super Jet. He liked the small size that also had a roomy interior, good economy plus sound Hudson engineering. Good car, just not great looking.



    Tim in WI.
  • Only problem with the Jet was too few people wanted a small car in the early 50s. Fuel was 25 cents a gal. so who cared. Bigger was better was the thinking at the time and most people didn't want quality, they wanted CHEAP! well they got it! The Rambler & Stude Champion were the only two small cars that sold and were both a piece of crap. The Jet, Willys Aero and even the Henry J were good cars, but cost too much for their size. Problem was, it cost almost as much to build a small car as a large one, savings on material were slight.
  • Everybody picks on the Jet, It may be an ugly duckling, but it is fun to drive, and the skirts make it! I do get tired of people saying "is that a Ford"? but I just say "no, it's a Hudson". And that is what it is, a HUDSON.



    Barry Smedley
  • hoosiercrosley wrote:
    Everybody picks on the Jet, It may be an ugly duckling, but it is fun to drive, and the skirts make it! I do get tired of people saying "is that a Ford"? but I just say "no, it's a Hudson". And that is what it is, a HUDSON.



    Barry Smedley



    That's okay



    Stepdown folk constantly contend with "That's a Mercury - isn't it?"



    Or, "They copied the Mercury's style"



    For the record, I like Jets. I've never heard a Jet owner say anything bad about them, with the exception of the off-balance roofline. But then, we all say that.



    Mark
  • I don't mind the Jet at all, as long it has the skirts, continental kit, twin H and two tone paint. We never received the jet down under so I have never seen one before.



    Fact... It's more Hudson then the Hash will ever be. But I still love my Hudson powered Nash..... Sorry Hornet that is.



    Long Live the Super Jet Hudson. By the way how is that Jet convertible going?



    Regards
  • 50C8DAN
    50C8DAN Senior Contributor
    IMHO the 52 Ford was no great looker either, YUK!
  • If a Jet came my way cheap I'd probably grab it, heck I bought a '53 Aero Eagle hardtop so that wouldn't get crushed. It's not even to me that they're ugly - they just look too much like a Ford, in retrospect it's not hard to see all the reasons they didn't sell very well.



    The sad thing is they probably could have sold them by the thousands in Europe, Australia and South America - just like the Willys Aero sold far more in Brazil than they did in the US. Especially if they were an overengineered, durable car.



    Are there any design drawings for a 1955 Hudson based on the Hudson body in existance?
  • 54Hollywood
    54Hollywood Senior Contributor
    pontiac59 wrote:
    Are there any design drawings for a 1955 Hudson based on the Hudson body in existance?



    I'm not aware that any of the old design drawings still exist because just about everything was thrown out following the merger. However, in Butler's book on page 322 there is a photograph of the proposed, facelifted '55 stepdown Hornet. Maybe someone can post this photo?



    Tim in WI.
  • 464Saloon
    464Saloon Senior Contributor
    I rode in my first Jet at this years Western Regionals that belonged to Matt Royer. I was very impressed. Solid,quick and not a rattle to be heard. Sitting in it reminded me of a miniaturized version of my 54 Hornet. Even the inside was the same color. With a stick, this car would have really been a blast. I think the timing was bad for the Jet and I don't think it is ugly but it isn't quite right either in its proportions. A redesign of the big car would have been a better move with Hudson's own V8. They still wouldn't be around today though but they would have been around longer IMHO.
  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    Hudson doesn't look like a Merc a Merc looks like a Hudson and you'll notice the striking similarities between many Ford products to Hudson products from roughtly '39-'51. Maybe it wasn't only Chryseler that was eyeballing the roof of the Hudson factory for some corporate espionage.

    As far as the Jet public didn't want a small car when for the same money you coould get a full size chevy or ford although with a lot less quality of construction.
  • 464Saloon
    464Saloon Senior Contributor
    My Dad made the mistake one day of saying my Hornet looked similar to a Merc. I reminded him that the Stepdown came out first and other than some general similarities the Merc is no Stepdown.
  • All this talk about the idea that Hudson could be around today is an intriguing idea. I almost wish some wealthy entrepreneur who enjoyed Hudsons could rebuild the company and do redesigns of the old cars. Think of the Studebaker Avanti for example, still being sold today out of Cancun, Mexico. Some of these old Hudsons would look great as modern redesigns (this could also be a disastor waiting to happen) as long as they kept the old designs in mind while doing the redesign.



    just my two-cents-worth.
  • The stepdown design (high belt line and squat side windows) has been a winner with the Chrysler 300 and Hummer line.
  • coverton
    coverton Expert Adviser
    If you read the car mags Holton had a prototype that sure looks like what a modern hudson would be. We need another John DeLorean to buy the design and build it as a 2010 Hudson ??
  • "People didn't want a small car in the early Fifties..."



    Explain how 102,000 Metropolitans were sold from 1954-1962. Or that the automaker that was building the highest number of station wagons in the late '40s-early '50s was - Crosley! Or, that the VW Beetle, which began selling in the US in 1947, was the best-selling import car during the '50s and '60s.



    The Jet was an overpriced car for the market it was competing in. For the same money, a buyer could have a full-sized car from many different makes. The Jet was the highest-priced car in it's size during that period. Its looks didn't help it any. Yes, it was the best-built car of that size, but when it comes to cost and looks, it could not compete. Wrong car, wrong time. If they had built a car more along the lines of Nash's American series, they'd had something.



    Hindsight is always 20/20.



    On a different note, look at the Dodge Magnum wagon and park one next to a Stepdown four-door - the resemblances are striking! And park a '36 or '37 Terraplane next to a PT Cruiser four-door - same, especially from the rear!
  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    The automakers (Chrysler I guess has the rights to Hudson.) could remake the step-down in lighter materials like fiberglass or something and still have more passenger room, style, and safety than modern SUV's even if they pad the crap out of the interior like they do on modern cars. Could theoretically be produced inexpensively too if it was kept simple mechanically. (oh well we can dream)
  • I restored a Jet in the late 80's and can testify to its quality of construction and design. In my observation though, that's rarely what sells cars. It's more of a design and price thing. I think people buy more cars that "look good and are a good deal" than a car that is average looking and higher priced. Before I owned one I always thought they were ugly, but they really grow on you once you have one. Just a quick note about 66patrick66's comment on the Dodge Magnum and the step down Hudson. I never made the comparison, but for me he hit the nail on the head. I bought a new Manum wagon last year and a friend of mine recently said he could see why I bought one, "it looks like a modern Hudson". Now I know why I went out and bought a car from a maker (Dodge) I had never owned one from before.

    Aaron
  • 37 CTS
    37 CTS Senior Contributor
    In the car businees the leaders of the company are always looking for a "home run" a high unit model.

    Since Mr Barit had been with Hudson since its begining he was buiding the Jet to find the sucess of the Essex and the Terraplane and obtain volumne to continue the company and restyle the senior cars.

    The V8 engine, its own automatic transmission and restyled line of cars did not save Packard and its too bad the Jet did not selll well enough to rebuild Hudson. The cost of the Jet was about equal to what Packard spent for the new V8 engne plant.

    It would seem a new car line is a better choice than a new power plant. The "bet the farm" is how a car company fuctions and its a tough time when the new car misses the market.

    29 Vic
This discussion has been closed.