Help a newbie out - questions about Hudsons vs. Packard
Comments
-
rpmonroe wrote:Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong and I'm sure there'll be more of the same in the future.
I'll just sit by the computer here and have another piece of pie.
Thanks rpmonroe and brownie, I have added wide white walls but couldn't find the pic the other day. My wife found the pic I was looking for so here it is. BTW what kind of pie was that rpmonroe ?? Merry Christmas to all. Thanks again. Richie.0 -
Started with H but not Hudson0
-
Merry Christmas to you too.............and to all the H. E. T. families0
-
Thanks again for all the info guys! You are all quick on the draw, and I'm impressed you told me everything I wanted to know and more!
Well, I certainly feel 'supported' so perhaps my next project will indeed be a Hudson. I feel certain that I would be able to get the kind of Hudson I'd like for considerably less than the kind of Packard I want, so starting with Hudson and considering a Packard down the road may be what I'll do.
Happy holidays to all of you.
By the way...the fabulous 48 and 49 Commodore Hudson steering wheel - the long bar in the center has what looks like a triangle and two letters on either side of it. What are the letters and what do they stand for? Haven't been able to tell! :rolleyes:0 -
Since this question was also posted over at www.packardinfo.com I'll repost my answer here so the Hudson guys can see:
"Having owned both Packards and Hudsons, I'll try to help with this.
#1-Both have excellent club support. The Hudson guys are more forgiving on modifications than the Packard people are, from my experience in both clubs.
#2-Parts availability and cost are almost equal, you can buy most of the odds and ends for Hudsons from K-Gap, and nearly everything you need for a Packard from several different vendors and individuals.
#3-Around here, the cars cost almost the same, condition for condition. When I bought my '48 coupe, I could have bought a '51 Hudson Commodore 6 sedan with a rebuilt engine, otherwise in the same condition for the exactly the same price. The body was in better condition on the Hudson, but it was a 4 door. If it had been a coupe it would have been a much harder decision to make, as I love Stepdown Hudson coupes.
#4-Having owned at one time or another, a 1949 Chrysler New Yorker Coupe, a 1955 Windsor HT, a 1955 Windsor 4 door, a 1956 Dodge Coronet 4 door, a 1950 Dodge Wayfarer sedan, 1950 Plymouth 3 window coupe, a 1962 Dodge Dart with a big block, a 1952 Desoto sedan, a pair of 1949 Hudson Commodore 6 sedans, a 1950 Commodore 6 Brougham, a 1951 Pacemaker coupe, a 1953 Hornet coupe, (put a Desoto HEMI in that one..) a 1953 Hornet sedan, a 1952 Hornet sedan, another 1952 Hornet sedan, my first 1948 Packard coupe, a pair of 1953 Clippers, a 1956 Patrician, another 1956 Patrician parts car, my Packard Speedster, and now my 1948 Packard coupe, I can safely say that the best cars I have owned were the Packards first and the Hudsons second.
I always tell people that I got started out on Hudsons until I grew up and got involved in Packards. When I compare my '48 Packard to the '49 Hudson I had, if I had it to do all over again I would have bought more Packards than Hudsons. That being said, I would not be opposed to owning another Hudson, and if I come across a '48-'53 coupe for a reasonable price, I would jump on it. BUT, a Packard is a heck of a lot easier to work on, since you can remove the body from the frame if need be. Can't do that to a '48 and up Hudson."
I don't think you'll ever get a more honest answer from a Packard guy! And you're all right, a lot of the Packard people are so stuck up that they don't even recognize their own cars! Now I for one, don't really care for the engine swapping bit when it comes to newer engines in older cars. I prefer an old engine in an old car, but it doesn't matter to me if it's not an original year, but I like to stick to same manufacturer when I do engine swaps. I would rather see a Packard V8 in a '48 Packard, or a 308 with Twin-H in a '47 Hudson coupe than the standard bellybutton engine.
As for the snobby-ness of Packard people, you've hit the nail on the head right there. You should have heard all the moans from the purists when I discussed putting a '56 Clipper chassis with Torsion Level, 374 dual quad Packard V8, and a 4 speed manual under a late '30s-early '40s Packard coupe. Let's just say you could see the feathers fly!0 -
Browniepetersen wrote:
I have had Packard 6's, flat head 8's and V8's and I consider the Hudson flathead 8 superior to any of the Packard engines. I have rebuilt both and I consider the mechanics of the Hudson 8 above the Packards.
This statement is my only problem. Having owned both a Hudson eight and a Packard eight, there is absolutley no question that the Packard eight, whether it's a 288, 327, 356, or a 359, is so superior to the Hudson eight it makes the Hudson engine look like a antiquated hunk of iron. They still used poured babbit in the last year they made them, 1952! Full pressure lubrication, fugettaboutit! I have been in several Packard straight eights and one Hudson eight, and there's nothing better about the Hudson eight than a Packard eight. And if you want to get reallllly technical, from everything I can tell, the Packard eight and the Hudson 232/262/308 are very similar in design and quality.
Let the flames begin!0 -
Well now let me tell ya from my perspective. I've stood back and looked very carefully at both the Hudson eight and Packard eight, I've seen'm clean and I've seen'm dirty and in my opinion they look about the same.
LOL!
Hope this helps :]0 -
Turbopackman wrote:This statement is my only problem. Having owned both a Hudson eight and a Packard eight, there is absolutley no question that the Packard eight, whether it's a 288, 327, 356, or a 359, is so superior to the Hudson eight it makes the Hudson engine look like a antiquated hunk of iron. They still used poured babbit in the last year they made them, 1952! Full pressure lubrication, fugettaboutit! I have been in several Packard straight eights and one Hudson eight, and there's nothing better about the Hudson eight than a Packard eight. And if you want to get reallllly technical, from everything I can tell, the Packard eight and the Hudson 232/262/308 are very similar in design and quality.
Let the flames begin!
Can I put the flames on the front of my 39 Hudson roadster and be accepted at a Packard meet? Comparing Packard engines to Hudson engines is a little like comparing Tiger Woods girlfriends. They all look reasonably attractive and function with little or no flaws? I understand, from rumor, that performance does differ with each one? My 34 V-12 Packard was a great car. Smooth and fun to drive. The flat 8 Packard was also a quiet and smooth engine. Did not like the car that much-reminded me of taking a bath? Now, then the 52 Hudson 6 brought me membership in the Bonneville Salt Flats 100 mph club and set a new land speed record for a stock Hudson. Great running car and the engine was a lot of fun to build. I now have a 36 Hudson with the 8 cyl engine. The car is registered with the CCA as a full Classic and drop by at the National this year in Spokane and we will ballance coins on the running engine and go for a ride. You may just fall in love with this Hudson as I have. If not, my third car can always be another Packard.0 -
Browniepetersen wrote:Can I put the flames on the front of my 39 Hudson roadster and be accepted at a Packard meet? Comparing Packard engines to Hudson engines is a little like comparing Tiger Woods girlfriends. They all look reasonably attractive and function with little or no flaws? I understand, from rumor, that performance does differ with each one? My 34 V-12 Packard was a great car. Smooth and fun to drive. The flat 8 Packard was also a quiet and smooth engine. Did not like the car that much-reminded me of taking a bath? Now, then the 52 Hudson 6 brought me membership in the Bonneville Salt Flats 100 mph club and set a new land speed record for a stock Hudson. Great running car and the engine was a lot of fun to build. I now have a 36 Hudson with the 8 cyl engine. The car is registered with the CCA as a full Classic and drop by at the National this year in Spokane and we will ballance coins on the running engine and go for a ride. You may just fall in love with this Hudson as I have. If not, my third car can always be another Packard.
Can you put flames on your Hudson and be accepted at a Packard meet? You would at mine. As the newly appointed Activities Director for the Great Plains Packard Club, I'm working on doing some combined shows and meets including all Independents. There's too few Packards here to have a large show, so I figured why not combine all the Independents and have a larger show with more variety? And yes, if you have a modified Packard it's welcome as well.
As for the comparison between Hudson 8's and Packard 8's, my challenge still stands, prove to me the Hudson 8 is better.0 -
Those "old boat anchors", be they Hudson sixes or Packard eights, (or even the Packard six) will surprise a lot of people if they're built right.
My first flathead was a 262 Hudson, and I loved everything about it. Sadly, this engine was stolen from me several years ago by someone who decided scrap prices were high enough to take the risk. I only have one Hudson 6 left, and it's just the block, a 262 wide block. I need to get it down here to my garage before it gets stolen as well.
As for my 254, once I got in it far enough to see how it was made, I decided that if I wanted an inline eight, then I might as well stick to my Packards. Cheaper to rebuild, and they're all larger displacement wise to begin with. The smallest postwar straight eight made by Packard was the 282, for '46 and '46, after that it was the 288. It costs the same to build a five main 327 as a 288, and a 359 isn't much more expensive than that.
Now, the 356 is probably the best-built Packard straight eight I have ever come across. But, it shares Packard's use of siamesed intake ports. If Packard had made the ports on it's engines like Hudson did on their sixes, they would have been a lot better engine, IMHO. Of course, there's no way to really fix this problem, so it led me to forced induction to overcome the deficiencies in Packard's port design.
I wish there were a few hot rod Hudson guys here in Wichita that would be willing to come by and check out these Packard I8's in my garage and compare the basic design to the Hudson I6's, as we'll no doubt be able to teach each other a few tricks on how to get these old girls running circles around the normal SBC, and have a lot of fun doing it!0 -
Thanks for that image. Never would have guessed sailing ships and castle rooks on that ornament. Though the castle rooks do look suspiciously "H"-udson like.
And Eric, thanks for your input and perspective on the packard eight v. hudson eight. Learning a lot here; it's all useful.
All your feedback is helpful guys. Whether I end up with a Hudson or Packard (and I will take my time deciding, I know that) the more knowledge about each make is helpful.
I really like both makes from a purely aesthetic perspective as well as studying their construction and design. Each has true virtues. Hard choice.0 -
Keep in mind that no matter what brand you end up with, you'll have one he11 of a car!
And I'm glad I contributed to the learning, as I'm still learning myself!0 -
Mr Eatkinson, I have "fixxed" the bodies of both a Packard [51 their last true change] and some Hudsons. Big differerences are that the hudson qtrs are much eadier to re-do as Packards hace compound door fender curves-that rust i might add as do the fixed rockers.Hudsons are simpler.The frame is another issue-unless you have access to a metal shop the Hudson frame will require some help as its part of the body structure-the Packard is easy ro just jack up wire wheel and paint. I learned a lot working with both but am 100% sure you get more help from nicer people at this forum and club.0
-
Comparing car brands is akin to discussing politics and religion- everyone has their loyalties and their reasons. I like the thirties Hudsons such as the 34- 37's but my lust is with the stepdowns. I find it hard to compare a Packard of the stepdown era Vs a Hudson of the era. The stepdown Hudson is considered one of the most influential car designs ever and is listed as a "milestone car". I'm sure the straight eight engines of both were great engines for their time but the Hornet 308 6 cyl is simply legendary, as is the car. A large displacement 6 that did more than run with the modern V-8's, such as the 303 Old's rocket and even the new Hemi. A tribute to this engine is the volume of all the old speed equipment that was made available for these Hudson Hornet cars from manufactuers such as Clifford, Edmunds, Edelbrock, Mallory, etc.
In my experience, most people who hear the word "Hudson" will reply "Hudson Hornet". My two cents, for the stepdown era, the Packard can't even compete with the cool factor, notoriety and racing provenance of the stepdown. BTW, part of the Cool factor is when Johnny Lightning, Disney, Matchbox, etc make and sell 100 million toy cars of your pride and joy.0 -
If you all want to see what the "experts" say, see if you can get a copy of Consumers Reports" from the annual auto edition of 1953. I have a copy. They rate cars properly according to price class. In the case of the Jet it competed with Henry J, Rambler,Willys, however, the base Chevy and Ford mainline were cheaper. The Hornet was rated on a par with the Desoto. CR liked the Hornet for long road trips but the Desoto was a bity better family car. They explain why. Packards were two in differant markets. The Clipper and the Patrician 400 class, which competed with Cadillac 62s. The 356 is one of the finist engines ever built 9 mains and all. The Clipper was in a mid to upper mid price field Buick super Super wasp etc. But like the Hudsons for all the good they have to offer, sported obsolete engines and a weak dealer network. Consumers did not like Packards of the stepdown era. They used too much fuel, heavy,and other points, a bit too much to write here. But for 53 there all around best car was the Cadillac model 62. 15% less fuel, almost NO deprecation.Braked and handled better than the Packard. Hudson was in the next lower price category. In fairness, not a fair comp, because the price was 20% differ. I have a 50 Caddy( 50-53 were same, less 4bbl and 12v) Pckard is a good car. Before 1947, the senior Packards could have been the best.0
-
I have to get one more comment in on this post before it goes away. And I agree somewhat that I am biased? However, Let me put this into terms that I can understand: I have a 1936 Hudson 8 that was designed by Reid Railton and bodied by Coachcraft in London, England. It has its good points and its bad points but bottom line is that I have never seen a 36 Packard that I would trade it straight across for. Now, I realize that it will move from the paint booth today and on to the assembly/detail part of my shop on the way to a fresh, although driver style, restoration. If you are one of the folks that go for high end restorations with all the "tricks" that the classic cars had in the 30"s... this is that car. If you have a 36 packard you can make me an offer for a trade and in polite terms: you'd be SOL? Yep, I guess I am biased..... Oh, by the way, I felt the same way about my 52 Twin-H Hornet?0
-
Comparing Hudson and Packard is a good subject. I am biased to a point, both makes have there positives and negatives. The '48 Hudson was an all new design while the Packard was a carry over from years past.
I have had several step down HUdsons and they rode and handled much better than my only Packard, a '50 super "8" sedan. It was a very nice car and I really likes the sound of that powerful straight eight engine.
Tis particular Packard was a very lowmileage, origional car, needing paint to shine.
One night nearly forty years ago, my wife and I drove the Packard from the Seattle are to San Jose, California when we moved there. The Packard served us well, my Hudsons were still in Washington at the time. We did attend a couple Hudson Chapter meets and found the people to be freindly and notjudgemental, even though we drove the Packard to their meet.
One weekend, I heard of a Packard club meet, so we attended. Yes, there were some beautiful Packards there, but we felt as though we werenotwelcome as the remarks were, "one of those". Yes the people were rather snooty and turned me off of Packards right away. I traded that low mileage Packard for a camper shell for my pick up., and have stayed with HUdson since. I hacemeytpeople with Packards who arereally nice, but they even toldme that most Packard people are stuck with the great classic Packards of the thirties, and those with newer are not as readily accepted into their group. Hudson people help each other, and areinterested is all Hudson's regardless of year ofr concition. Yes we do have our favorite years and models and most of them are not trailer queens. Hope you find and enjoy your new Hudson. Arnie in Nevada.0 -
I realized when I asked the question Hudson v. Packard on this forum that I'd be opening up a lively debate.
That's exactly what I wanted, and I appreciate people sharing their stories/experiences. Opposite points of view are helpful; they're making me think a lot more about the entire experience of owning a particular make, and as importantly why I would like to take this drive down the road with one or the other. I've never really bought a car this way before, but I figger, after years of just buying cars and hoping it all works out, let's just get a good idea of what I'm jumping into beforehand.
I know, at the end of the day, nothing is going to be a substitute for an actual test-drive so I may experience the real deal. Hopefully, I'll get to drive in both sooner, rather than later.
:cool:0 -
eatkinson wrote:I realized when I asked the question Hudson v. Packard on this forum that I'd be opening up a lively debate.
That's exactly what I wanted, and I appreciate people sharing their stories/experiences. Opposite points of view are helpful; they're making me think a lot more about the entire experience of owning a particular make, and as importantly why I would like to take this drive down the road with one or the other. I've never really bought a car this way before, but I figger, after years of just buying cars and hoping it all works out, let's just get a good idea of what I'm jumping into beforehand.
I know, at the end of the day, nothing is going to be a substitute for an actual test-drive so I may experience the real deal. Hopefully, I'll get to drive in both sooner, rather than later.
:cool:
Be sure to test drive a few Clubs and club members. Make the trip to Spokane this summer--you would not regret it..... Stop by and say Hi! And, take a ride in a really different 36 Hudson....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 36.9K All Categories
- 102 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 17 Upcoming Events
- 90 Essex Super 6
- 28.5K HUDSON
- 556 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 992 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 172 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 75 Hudson 8
- 43 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 597 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos