SWB vs LWB

Unknown
Unknown
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Ive been doing a little on my 53 Hornet, Ive got a Pace Maker parts car , there is a lot of different stuff between the two as far as steering parts. Im wondering if Hudson really saved any money doing two different wheel base cars , or were they even trying to save money doing it ???

Comments

  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    They were trying to offer a less expensive car to the buying public. Whether they actually succeeded in turning a profit doing it relative to what if cost them to build is another question. They short WB cars had less trim, less fancy interiors, etc. but many parts that were unique to them. Perhaps the fully optioned LWB cars actually ate into profit margins more than SWB cars even with development costs for unique parts. If those parts came from suppliers though, rather than being built from scratch by Hudson they were simply ordering the less-expensive parts from the suppliers for their assembly line and the cost savings came from purchases by the factory for the assembly line.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I wondered if if using two different firewalls , front frame assemblies, different fenders , hoods ,some steeringparts really saved any money , it had to complicate the assembly line process.
  • MikeWA
    MikeWA Senior Contributor
    My recollection is that the price differences really weren't that great, between "similarly equipped" long vs short WB cars. Does anybody have any numbers?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Here's a quote by a former Hudson executive from page 57 from author Richard M. Langworth's terrific book, "Hudson, the Postwar Years": "The Pacemaker (1950 implied) was a stunning success-were it not, we would have been comfortably in the red. So instead of forging ahead we were breaking even. At the point the inability of the now three-year-old unit body to undergo radical change began to make itself felt. By 1951, it would begin to cost us money." By the way, on page 128 of this same book, the total production by model is listed for 1950. Out of a sum of 121,408 "stepdowns" produced for 1950, 61,752 were Pacemakers (500 & 50A). That's just more than half of the year's total cars manufactured. Not a bad run for the first year of the short wheelbase stepdown.
  • Aaron D. IL
    Aaron D. IL Senior Contributor
    Pacemakers were definately not rare until '52 model year. I really think a whole lot went to the crusher. Like a lot of "cheaper" cars they get used and run into the ground and then crushed because they don't have the prestige and glamour of the more upscale more expensive models. Some argue that Hudson should've moved more upmarket with their lineup instead of trying to offer less expensive cars. But there's a lot of Hudnuts who have an affection for the SWB cars.

    One thing I was talking about with Jon B. was how come Hudson used smaller diameter brake wheel cylinders in the front wheels when all the other LWB cars had the same brake cylinders?????? Jon responded by saying "Don't ask philsophical questions, just fix your car." LOL
  • Richard E.
    Richard E. Senior Contributor
    The Terraplane was basically a shorter wheelbase version of the Hudson. The difference was primarily in the cowl, but this caused the need for a shorter steering column and a host of other parts that are not interchangeable. However it is remarkable how many parts do interchange. Mine is a 1936.
  • Uncle Josh
    Uncle Josh Senior Contributor
    The front brakes of the Pacemakers were narrower than the long stepdowns. ie 11 diamater x 1.75 wide same as the rears, while the larger cars used 11 diameter x 2 1/4 wide shoes in the front.



    I suppose the theory was that the 232 engine was less powerful and the car was lighter so didn't need as much braking.



    By the time the Wasps came along, however, the 262 engine was being used so they standardized on the larger front shoes.
  • 53jetman
    53jetman Senior Contributor
    Mike (WA) wrote:
    My recollection is that the price differences really weren't that great, between "similarly equipped" long vs short WB cars. Does anybody have any numbers?



    By 1954, the price differences on four door sedans were Wasp $ 2256.11, Super Wasp 2465.84 & Hornet 2768.86 (Hornet Special 2592.88) for standard equiped vehicles. I don't beleive there was ever more than 450.00 difference between the lowest priced unit and the highest priced units over the years.



    Part of the reason for the large production figures on the '50 Pacemakers was that the senior cars were not announced until after the 1st of the year 1950, and the new Pacemaker series came out in October 1949.



    Jerry

    53jetman
  • hudsontech
    hudsontech Senior Contributor
    The biggest problem with SWB pricing was that you could get an (inferior) Chevy for less at the time.



    At the time Chevy and Ford were rompin' and stompin' trying to outsell each other and were, quite literally, giving cars away - selling them for near nickles over factory cost.



    From 1950 to 1954 you could buy a base-line Chevy for around $1500; bottom line Fords for a little less - around $1450; and even a bottom line Dodge was cheaper.



    A Pacemaker Sedan went $300-$400 more in 1950; 1951 the price of a Pacemaker Sedan went up $2145, 1952 $2311; 1953 Wasps for the same price.



    It was one factor that helped kill not only Hudson, but most of the remaining independents as well.



    Hudsonly,

    Alex Burr

    Memphis TN
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion