Where is this Hornet?
![[Deleted User]](https://openforum.hetclub.org/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
I have scanned a picture of a 1954 Hudson Hornet 4 Door Sedan. In 1975 this car was driven to Amarillo Texas and sold to Spencer Blake. Since then the car has disappeared. When I asked Spencer who he sold the car to... he did not remember. Maybe someone here will know where the car is and who owns it? I would like to locate the car. By way of identification, the car was a very low mileage car 22K with a completely rebuilt original 54 Hornet engine equipped with Twin H and backed by a Hydramatic trans. The interior was original green broad cloth and excellent without damage then. A new headliner and rear window had been installed after the body was repainted. The color was nearly Turquoise versus the original green color. The firewall and door jams were not painted. The right rear door had been exchanged. That door was originally red and the interior surfaces were still red when the car was sold.
If you know where this car is ... or who owns it please pass that information on to me via an email or private message. Thanks
If you know where this car is ... or who owns it please pass that information on to me via an email or private message. Thanks
0
Comments
-
Looks like a nice car..... I luv the 54 Sedans..... I'll keep a look out0
-
Nice styling. I don't understand why the 54's didn't sell well.0
-
Any change you could post the Serial Number? This would help as the appearance of the car could be changed alot like a different color paint job.0
-
Dave53-7C wrote:Nice styling. I don't understand why the 54's didn't sell well.
I would hate to say one single factor, but let's face it, everyone had a V-8, except hudson, in 54. that's what sold cars....0 -
mars55 wrote:Any change you could post the Serial Number? This would help as the appearance of the car could be changed alot like a different color paint job.
Great idea... but I do not have the serial number.0 -
hudsonkid wrote:I would hate to say one single factor, but let's face it, everyone had a V-8, except hudson, in 54. that's what sold cars....
Actually, that is not why Hudson as a company failed. The cost of materials and labor that were invested in each car diminshed the profits to the point the company sought and completed a merger. The Hudson competed with the high priced models and there were too many in the market. Cadillac and high end Buicks emerged as the winners in this class of cars. Buyers of these cars were not concerned about the type of engines as much as they were about luxury and style. The quantity of cars sold was the deciding factor as both Hudson and Cadillac margins in the early 50s were very similar.0 -
So in 54 if they sold another 5,000 cars it would have brought there profit margin per vehicle up to a level that would have been break even or is it closer to 20,000 .......0
-
I agree with hudsonkid's reply of V-8s selling cars but not everyone besides Hudson had V-8s in '54. Chevrolet was still using 6 cylinders. Their first modern small block V-8 was introduced in '55. And Pontiac's 8 was a straight 8 in '54, their V-8 appeared in '55 as well. But, Heart-Of-Texas, that was definitely a good looking Hornet, and I wish you look in finding it0
-
I've heard reasons for Hudson's demise ranging from their spending too much money to make a good car to investing money in the Jet that should have been used to update bodies and engines. Maybe it was just the times, given that the independents were gone by the end of the fifities.0
-
Well, I've waited two days for someone else to speak up, but no takers. So, at the risk of being the first on the board to achieve negative "Rep Power", I'll take the plunge. Now, we all are fans of the marque, and are aware that the low, wide stance of the stepdowns was responsible for their superb handling through corners, etc., etc.- - - but as I recall, the general public pretty much hated it! "Turtle", "inverted bathtub" (although that was applied more to the "Bathtub Nash") and "The Blob" were monikers that I remember. I think that the factory "muscle car" options (and resultant NASCAR domination) helped sustain Hudson through the early '50's, but by '54, the public had had enough. Remember, the only other makes that ever had the same type of styling were Packard, Nash, Lincoln and Mercury, and those had moved away from that styling by 1951. Well, I've said it, and am ready for the fusillade (in the customary Hudson board's respectful manner, I hope). Let the games begin.0
-
Ceartianly , Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.... And of course , the american public would luv a styling change ,or any change, "power" , every year. It's not that the Hornet styling was broke, it's that the Public likes to change socks, every year. In my humble opinion, The 55 stepdown that was on the drawing board , with a packard v8 would have given them new life.
Certianly the Jet was the Albatross. If the jet would have kept it's original roofline that looked like a mini step down I'd probably be driving a 2006 Hudson Hornet to work.......0 -
There's a combination of reasons for Hudson's demise. Here's what I believe to be the correct order:
The spent all their capital on the Jet. Wrong car for the time and cost too much. No $$$ left for improvements to their full size models.
Their unit cost was too high. Low profits
There was No $$$ left to build a V-8. The should have asked GM to hook Olds Rockets to the front of the Hydramatics they were buying.
Styling was no longer appealing. Redesign of the stepdown was costly. The Nash result was Ugly.
They were out of $$$ at the end of 1954 and became a minority partner in the merger.0 -
The rebate wars of 53 early 54 helped change the automotive landscape all of the players took a hit. Ford wanted to put the hit on GM. If a Ford dealer ordered 10 cars they delivered 15 with the implication that they move the other 5 or else. Hudson could not rebate the lower end models like this and the Jet was ugly so did not sell. This ended up just about killing off all the independents and that consolidation was the only way.
When the margins are that small any hit can kill you and of course it did in Hudsons case.0 -
Anyone found the 54 Hornet yet?0
-
hudsondad wrote:
Styling was no longer appealing. Redesign of the stepdown was costly. The Nash result was Ugly.
I am a professional historian but not a Hudson historian. But based on what I've read your reasons listed are pretty well right. I think it would be foolish to blame the demise of such an organization on one deciding factor. Single factors usually dont do that. Combinations of things do. But I have heard and read quite a bit about one coffin-nail in particular, and that is what I've quoted above: The stepdown design was great when it came out. An industry leader. But it was bloody expensive to retool. In a car culture where one marque's model from one year to the next was often indistinguishable as being the same car (Think 64 and 65 Plymouths) the Stepdown was a design overworked.0 -
The 1948 stepdown styling AND engineering made it an official milestone American car. This is a title few cars can match. It was a historically important design and a commercial success for Hudson. On the other hand the Nash did look like a bathtub and from what I read, they drove like one aswell.0
-
SuperDave wrote:Anyone found the 54 Hornet yet?
Thanks Dave...
Actually would like to find the car... if there is thread potential on the demise aspects of Hudson...someone else please take it there... I really want to hear if someone knows about this car.
Thanks0 -
Heart_Of_Texas wrote:Thanks Dave...
Actually would like to find the car... if there is thread potential on the demise aspects of Hudson...someone else please take it there... I really want to hear if someone knows about this car.
Thanks
Although I sincerely hope that you find this car, there is no need to get huffy. Sometimes I post questions and don't get an answer, or get off topic discussions, but don't find it necessary to be rude.0 -
Heart_Of_Texas wrote:Actually, that is not why Hudson as a company failed. The cost of materials and labor that were invested in each car diminshed the profits to the point the company sought and completed a merger. The Hudson competed with the high priced models and there were too many in the market. Cadillac and high end Buicks emerged as the winners in this class of cars. Buyers of these cars were not concerned about the type of engines as much as they were about luxury and style. The quantity of cars sold was the deciding factor as both Hudson and Cadillac margins in the early 50s were very similar.
No, I still would argue that no V-8 was a major contributing factor, and again, will say, if you read my original post, never said it was the single factor. What about Packard? they got themselves a V-8, but still went belly up.... And to compare a hudson to a cadillac is just plain off.... It was not competing with Lincoln, Packard, Cadillac. More so, Mercury, Oldsmobile, Buick, etc
Not to discount the lack of the V-8 notion, Hudson's mismanagement, and the jet also helped seal the companies fate, just as well.....0 -
Dave53-7C wrote:Although I sincerely hope that you find this car, there is no need to get huffy. Sometimes I post questions and don't get an answer, or get off topic discussions, but don't find it necessary to be rude.
I wonder how much thought you or anyone else are willing to put into the effort at this point to help find this 54? especially after the responses you got? :eek:0 -
Yeah we may be big loveable lugs with wrenches in our mitts but darn it we are sensitive too.....0
-
Dave53-7C wrote:Although I sincerely hope that you find this car, there is no need to get huffy. Sometimes I post questions and don't get an answer, or get off topic discussions, but don't find it necessary to be rude.
Obviously, my post was taken as a negative response... not true. I was and continue to be happy with the response(s) that come from posting on this BBS. In the world of sterile BBS and email contact the challenge is to remain neutral in our replies. The bigger challenge maybe recognize the neutrality when we read and respond.
As said... My goal was to find this car... and found there was interest in the secondary topic that rightfully could (should?) have a separate life of it's own. Nothing more and nothing less. And for Hudsonkid, there are times when silence speaks the loudest... and yes I still believe there are folks who are genuinely willing to help one another.
Cheers0 -
hudsonkid wrote:I wonder how much thought you or anyone else are willing to put into the effort at this point to help find this 54? especially after the responses you got? :eek:
I would be glad to help locate this car if I could. But when I first responded to this thread, I simply commented about the car and wondered why 54's didn't sell well. As sometimes happens, responses went off topic...so what! The opinions and knowledge shared by those on this forum are priceless. Sometime, even inane comments give us a laugh and/or insight into fellow members. At any rate, I have never, nor would I ever, suggest that others move their discussion because it didn't satisfy my purpose. If I post a question and don't get responses, or received those which don't answer my question, I'd simply try again.0 -
Heart_Of_Texas wrote:Obviously, my post was taken as a negative response... not true. I was and continue to be happy with the response(s) that come from posting on this BBS. In the world of sterile BBS and email contact the challenge is to remain neutral in our replies. The bigger challenge maybe recognize the neutrality when we read and respond.
As said... My goal was to find this car... and found there was interest in the secondary topic that rightfully could (should?) have a separate life of it's own. Nothing more and nothing less. And for Hudsonkid, there are times when silence speaks the loudest... and yes I still believe there are folks who are genuinely willing to help one another.
Cheers
How should I interpret this? Anyone got a suggestion? :eek:0 -
KEN - I know you don't have the serial number for that '54 but I was wondering if you checked with the '54 Registry keeper on the off chance that he has previous owners listed where you might track it or at least get a starting point ?0
-
hudsonkid wrote:How should I interpret this? Anyone got a suggestion? :eek:
Perhaps a round about/not so nice way of saying shut up, be quiet. :eek:0 -
hudsonkid wrote:How should I interpret this? Anyone got a suggestion? :eek:
Depends what your objective is. "No response" can sometimes be the correct answer. But, of course if you want to continue this discussion...............0 -
Well said Ken, Your PAL Rudy.
Looking also.0 -
Aaron D. IL wrote:KEN - I know you don't have the serial number for that '54 but I was wondering if you checked with the '54 Registry keeper on the off chance that he has previous owners listed where you might track it or at least get a starting point ?
Thanks Aaron,
Spencer did not register the sedan with the registry. Unfortunately I do not have the serial number of the car. I have an electronic copy of the registry and have contacted many of the sedan owners but to no avail.
Cheers from HOT0 -
This sure looks like my car...right down to the fact that it came from TX. The car had been repainted palm beach green and then the correct spring green. The firewall is still the original spring green. Even the side view mirror is the same. Hmmm I wonder. Take a look at the picture
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
- 993 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