(first posted 4/18/2014) CJCars found quite the car at the beach in Southern California; San Diego, if I’m not mistaken. It’s a 1956 Hudson Hornet Hollywood hardtop coupe, one of the “Hashes”, a Nash dressed up in Hudson drag, after the two merged. Quite the face on these; reminds me of Jack Nicholson’s evil smile as “The Joker”.
Looks like it’s sporting a bit of a sunburn on its shoulders; should have been more diligent with the sunscreen. I’d take it in a heartbeat, especially with that patina.
Sweet looking Hudson. What better time to take her out for a spin than on a beautiful day! 🙂
Such a RARE and AWESOME car to see in the wild!
+1,an attractive car you hardly ever see in magazines or at shows
With Chevy’s of this era so common, I’d take this. So different. Pull up in a mint Chevy and the the comment is “Nice Chevy” and they move on. Pull up in this and it’s more likely “Nice car, what is it?” and an interesting conversation picks up steam.
Happy Easter everyone.
@twalton, you are right but if they are old enough folks frequently don’t recognize the classic chevs either.
Excellent find Paul.
SoCal is a living museum of cars – every day offers the potential of a great find like this. For me, the grille is an inverted reminder of the one from the Italia.
They didn’t even build 100 Italias, but now, this many years after that 1956 hardtop was built, there probably don’t exist 100 of those either.
They built 26 of them — almost all survive.
Sadly, this Italia was destroyed in a fire a few years ago.
https://youtu.be/8lL5VojwaB0
SoCal? Try NorCal! NorCal has more classics, daily driver CC’s per square mile than SoCal on any given day. Especially true in San Francisco, but mostly in the East Bay (El Cerrito on down through San Leandro and Hayward). Lots in Alameda alone !!
On the day I took these photos, there was a sweet little Honda CRX parked behind the Hudson and a Mercedes-Benz 300CD parked in the driveway of the house they were both beside.
Honda
Mercedes
Love the patina on that Hudson, wouldn’t change a thing on it.
I wouldn’t change a thing either…too cool! Love that three tone paint too, that must have been really something when it was new.
What a lovely Hudson and I am surprised there is not more Patina on it. The driver is going to have some fun getting out of that spot since it is a bit tight and I assume there is no power steering to help them. Lovely scene and I would love to get back to the warm SoCal beaches.
At least this Hudson has full wheel openings. A Nash could be trapped in there.
Sad. What an inglorious end to a once proud mark. Kinda like Willie Mays stumbling around in the outfield for the Mets at the end of his career. Amazing that that the early 50’s Fabulous Hudson Hornet devolved into this in a few short years.
Flush with defense contract profits, the independents had the resources for developing new models after the war, but by 1955 the game was over. Economies of scale just made it impossible to compete with the big three. And when the rare new design did emerge, it missed the mark. Really, just compare this monstrosity with the ’56 Chevy or the Exner cars over at Chrysler.
Perhaps if George Mason had lived, his dream of combining Studebaker, Nash, Hudson and Packard would have made a viable contender to compete model for model with the big three. Sadly, it was not to be.
Independents flush with cash? True of Packard in 1950-52 perhaps . . . but not Nash-Kelvinator nor Hudson. A.E. Barit blew the development/engineering wad on the ill-fated Jet which had very little in common with the step-downs, cars that were dying of an update for 1952-53, much less ’54. Studebaker was horribly mis-managed and Packard almost as stupid – James Nance non-withstanding for not having an audit done on Studebaker during the 1953-54 merger talks.
AMC was Hudson’s best (and only) chance for survival. You could still get Detroit Twin-H Hudson engines through the ’56 model year . . . . and in all fairness, Edmund Anderson at Nash-Kelvinator took the proposed grillework, trim pieces and so on (that would’ve been on a facelifted ’54 step-down) and masterfully integrated them onto the Nash body.
The ’56 “V-line Styling” is the work of outsourced stylist Richard Arbib who AMC commissioned in an attempt to create something ‘more original’ than the ’55 Nash-based Hudson.
Well, flush with cash in the immediate post war era until about 1952. Then mismanagement, poor decisions and a big three price war in 1954 took its toll. Except for Rambler, which succeeded because it had no direct big three competitor until the 60’s, none could go it alone. Simply too much baggage to compete against the well heeled completion.
Yes, it’s a tragedy that George Mason died when he did. I don’t think the combination of all four companies would have been successful. Hudson brought nothing to the table except a (faltering) dealer network and Studebaker might have sunk the whole shebang just as they did to Packard. I think Packard and Nash, as Mason first proposed right after the war would have been the way to go. Nothing in either Nash or Packard’s lineups competed with the other and both of them had substantial resources at the time. But the personalities involved couldn’t get out of their own ways.
Being near the beach means it’ll be rusted out and scrapped in ten years maximum .
It always makes me sad to see nice old vehicles go to the beach to live , I then get to watch the rust bubbles then holes slowly appear .
-Nate
Rust on the beach? Not so much in San Diego . . . . it won’t rust and bubble out as bad as say, Nanakuli or Makaha . . . .
This car will be fine as long as the owner washes it regularly. The biggest worry about a Cal car being so close to the beach (without washing) would be chrome pitting . . . .
These cars are different alright. They were different even when they were new. Neither Hudson or Nash ever won a styling award that I know of. They were and still are just flat ugly. But while it could be a nightmare to get the right parts they didn’t really breakdown that often.
I had a cousin buy a 57 Hudson new. He drove it forever.
They’re attractive overall. Its most ugly part is the front end. The grille make the car the ugliest Hudson I’ve seen.
The ’55 was pretty decent looking, but the ’56-’57 front end and trim add-ons spoiled it.
The ’55 was pretty decent looking, but the ’56-’57 front end and trim add-ons spoiled it.
Agree on the 55 being cleaner than the 56. But compare the 56 Hudson to the 56 Nash, with the chipmunk face and skirted wheels.
IMO worse was to come. The 57 front end looked like something designed in the Soviet Union.
This is a nice looking car, the 1956 Nash. It has a nice looking front end to it. I can see myself driving it and not be embarrassed about it.
I don’t think the Nashes are too bad for the era. Both the ’55-’56 front end styling with the low set headlights in the grille (rather than above) and the stacked quads in ’57 were ahead of the curve.
I agree. It makes it look ugly!
IMHO, The ’55 Hudson Wasp and Hornet are easily the most attractively-styled versions of the 1952-’57 Golden Airfyte body series. Other than slight grille and trim changes, that was all that was necessary to carry on to the end. But, one day, AMC called Richard Arbib’s design consultancy with a commission, to restyle the Hudson for 1956. It was paying work, he wasn’t about to turn them down. They told him, “make it visibly different from the Nash/” He certainly succeeded!
To each their own. You like them, I don’t. That’s what makes the world an interesting place.
If we all like the same tings we’d all be eating hotdogs, driving Yugos and living in caves.
BTW I have nothing against hotdogs.
I agree with you there. I’m not against eating hot dogs from time to time, but if I had to eat one every day, I’d get sick.
To each their own. You like them, I don’t. That’s what makes the world an interesting place.
Indeed…..I’m stumped why anyone would buy that Nash, when you could grab a 56 Plymouth
+1 I prefer the 55/56 Mopars to the flashy 57s.
Irony….my Dad’s first new car out of college, a 1956 Plymouth Plaza.
His 2nd new car…not a Hudson, but a 1961 Rambler Classic wagon.
His 3rd new car…another (1963) Rambler Classic wagon.
A ’57 Hudson had the AMC 327 V-8 mated to a GM Dual-Range Hydra-Matic . . . . the ’56 like this one, most likely had the Packard Clipper V-8 with a Packard Twin-Ultramatic . . . or . . . beginning in the spring of ’56, the AMC V-8 thin wall (many design elements copped from the stillborn Kaiser 287 V-8). The first AMC V-8 in ’56 was a modest 250 cube version with 190 hp on tap. Great for the Rambler (which it initially wasn’t offered in); lukewarm at best in the bigger, heavier Nash and Hudson (which were Statesman/Wasp wheelbase “Ambassador and Hornet Specials.” The “specials” were higher trimmed and named junior Nash and Hudsons, but equipped with the 250 cube new AMC V-8.
Look at that! Not the car but the location right at Bayside Walk at the top of Mission Bay between Mission Beach and Pacific Beach. I’d call it Pacific Beach myself having spent 5 years, ocean side, and about 5 blocks further north laying on the beach. A shame that car is there as I remember a friend’s 1972 C10 that didn’t look so good after 4 years parked down there.
Sorry, I’m a purist. It is not a Hudson… My ’54 Hornet was emblematic of the last of the breed. In my early years, I owned four Hudsons and loved ’em all.
fwiw, I prefer the looks of the Hudson to the Nash.
Ah, but what lurks under the hood? The Hudson 308 flattie, the spiffy new for 56 Nash 250, or the Packard 352?
I was trying to figure that out too – just realized that there’s a “V8” badge under “HUDSON” in the last pic. That narrows it down a little bit, no idea if there’s any way to tell if it’s the AMC or Packard V8.
no idea if there’s any way to tell if it’s the AMC or Packard V8.
Get a tape measure, or look for a badge that says “Special”
According to the classic car database, the 250 was used in the Hornet Special, which used the 114″ wheelbase Wasp platform. The Packard 352 was used on the Hornet’s 121″ wb platform.
Or play probabilities. 1053 Hollywoods used the 352, 229 used the 250 and 358 used the 308
This is supposed to be a pic of a Special. Only difference I can see is the bits above the headlights on the Special look to be body color, while on the CC car they look to be chrome.
Found it!
The difference is the distance from the front edge of the door opening to the trailing edge of the front wheel arch.
The CC car is on the Hornet platform, hence has the Packard 352, because it’s longer in front of the firewall. Same trick AMC used with the Rebel/Matador/Ambassador, a dozen years later.
Wow, I never would have realized there were two different wheelbase lengths on the ’56 Hornet. Nice catch!
I don’t think so. According to my Standard Encyclopedia of American cars, the longer wheelbase (121.3″) Hornets used all three engines; the 308 six, the Packard 352 (until 3/56), then the new AMC 250 V8. Unless there’s some external badging, no way to know which one.
The shorter wheelbase (114.3″) car was the Wasp and Hornet Special, which used the 202 inch I6.
The shorter wheelbase (114.3″) car was the Wasp and Hornet Special, which used the 202 inch I6.
Special Interest Autos drive report on the Hornet Special. Specs page appears to show 114.25″ w/b and 250 cu V8
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2010/09/05/sia-flashback-1956-hudson-hornet-special/
Wiki entry on AMC V8s
the 250, was used in American Motors Corporation automobiles from 1956 through 1961. It was a modern (for the time) OHV/pushrod engine design and made its debut in the Nash Ambassador and Hudson Hornet “Specials” of 1956. These cars had the top-of-the-line model trim, but were built on the shorter wheelbase (Statesman and Wasp) models (hence the “Special” name).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_V8_engine#250
Classic Car Database, which shows the 250 used on the 114″ w/b Hornet Special and Packard 352 on the 121″ w/b in 56, and in 57 the 114″ w/b and 250 dropped, with the AMC 327 on the 121″ w/b
http://www.classiccardatabase.com/search.php?year=1956&make=Hudson
Kind of makes sense as the 250 would probably have been a slug in the full sized Hornet, compared to the 352.
With the Packard engine plant stripped of equipment and handed over to Curtis Wright as part of the Eisenhower administraion’s bailout of S-P, AMC didn’t have much choice, other than punch the 250 out to 327 to power the Hornet in 57….but then many consider that to have been Romney’s plan all along as he didn’t like the way the partnership with Packard was working out anyway.
Most likely the Clipper 320 as the ‘big 352’ Packard V-8 wasn’t sold to AMC. If it were the last of the 308’s, there’d be a “Hornet 6:” badge in place of the Hornet V-8 one . . .
Most likely the Clipper 320 as the ‘big 352′ Packard V-8 wasn’t sold to AMC.
AMC bought what Packard was putting in the Clipper for both years. In 55 the Clipper had the 320 and senior Packards the 352. In 56. the Clipper, and AMC received the 352 and senior Packards had the 374
Knowing how Hudson developed speed equipment for the 308, which would be the engine to go for?
What a great setting for this car! I love the bizzaro Hashes and am super jealous of this one’s owner. Hollywood hardtop, perfect patina, great tri-color combo, lives near the beach in San Diego. Bastard! Are you guys seeing the same green/white interior I’m seeing?! That’s nuts. I know these cars are hated for being ugly and not real Hudsons, but it’s clear that a lot of effort still went into making them distinct. All the small details really stand out to me, even amongst all the other overly-detailed American cars of the time.
One of the most interesting things about the 1956 model is that the base engine was still the old Hudson Twin-H flathead. Love it or hate it, this was fairly modern styling for that year – not exactly the kind of thing you’d expect to find a 300+ cubic inch flathead six under the hood of! And despite its age, the old six was still more powerful than some contemporary V8s. When I’m daydreaming I always debate whether it would be cooler to have a ’57 with the 327 V8 or a ’56 with the six, but usually settle on the latter.
And despite its age, the old six was still more powerful than some contemporary V8s. When I’m daydreaming I always debate whether it would be cooler to have a ’57 with the 327 V8 or a ’56 with the six, but usually settle on the latter.
The 308 had bags of low end torque, but what with the siamesed cylinders, had some cooling issues. Nash made some improvements in the 308: improved head cooling, switched to hydraulic lifters, and, more importantly, used a much stronger tranny input shaft, as well as switching to a dry clutch.
As for peak power, the 56 308 appears to have delivered 165hp @ 3800 and 264 ftlbs @ 1800, while the low compression version of the 352 that Packard provided delivered 220hp @ 4600 and 320 ftlbs @ 2350. The 57 327: 255hp @ 4700 and 345 ftlbs @ 2600
The 352 as installed in a Packard (higher compression, 4 bbl carb vs 2 bbl) delivered 275hp @ 4600 and 380 ftlbs @ 2800
Much to my surprise, when I was at the Hudson museum in Ypsilanti last week, I learned that, while the rest of the Hudson plant was shut down when assembly was consolidated in Kenosha, the Detroit engine plant was kept operating, producing the 308s and shipping them to Kenosha.
True, Steve. AMC got Packard Clipper’s 320 2-bbl V-8. Hudson Detroit actually shipped out their last Detroit built CAR in October of ’54. The engine plant soldiered on through the spring of ’56. I did not know that AMC switched out Hudson’s traditional wet clutch for a dry one, nor was I aware that AMC added juice lifters to the L-head sixes . . .
AMC switched out Hudson’s traditional wet clutch for a dry one, nor was I aware that AMC added juice lifters to the L-head sixes
AMC did a lot of work to adopt the 308 to their existing drivetrain. The hydraulic lifters were used because it was impossible to reach the valves when the engine was installed in the Nash body.
pic: comparison of the weak trans input shaft that had develed Hudson owners for years, on the right, with the shaft Nash used. The 308 would twist the old shaft without too much effort. No such problem in a Hash. Facinating thread about a guy with a stepdown Hudson, who was tired of the shaft twisting, so modified the Nash shaft and adopted the 308 to use a Borg Warner trans culled from a Studebaker truck. Trans problems solved!
Steve: By the looks of the picture are you working on or own a Hudson? Like to hear about if so. Got a link?
Steve: By the looks of the picture are you working on or own a Hudson? Like to hear about if so. Got a link?
Not working on a Hudson myself. Got curious about them during the winter and started reading.
Can’t find the discussion thread where the guy talked about his transmission mods, but one of the posts on a different thread has that pic of the shafts, so is probably the guy who did the mods.
That post is in this thread that starts as a discussion of the big Hudson sixs and transmissions. This board looks to be a wealth of Hudson info
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=539734
I was looking up the HP & TQ figures for the 352CI V8 that was in the’62 Mercury I had back in the early 70s to compare it with the Packard 352; as the Monterey didn’t seem that powerful, but by the specs they’re similar. Must of been the 2barrel carb and 2sd auto that made it so slow.
What really surprised me was noticing the Ford 260V8 2barrel which has never been know as a torque monster has 164hp @ 4400 and 258ft/tq @ 2200 which is very close to the 308 of the Hudson. I know they had torque as my dad had several Hudson’s. I have taken off in high gear with the 3sd stick thinking I was in first and didn’t know till I tried to up shift into 2nd. Must have been the 400rpm difference in torque peak, wouldn’t think it would make that much difference
I know they had torque…Must have been the 400rpm difference in torque peak, wouldn’t think it would make that much difference
Lots of interesting little tidbits on places like jalopyjournal.com. Stories like the time Hudson used an early 50s Studebaker as a test mule for it’s big six, and the six put out so much torque it twisted the Studie’s frame.
Studie dropped their “Commander 6” from passenger cars when their V8 came out in 51, but kept the 6, by then a 245, for their trucks. They kept trying to drop the 245, which dated from the early 30s, from their truck line, but customers kept demanding they continue to offer it. The 259 V8 delivered 170hp @ 4500 and 260 ftlbs at 2800, while the 245 delivered only 102 hp and 201 ftlbs, but the torque peak was at 1200.
Seems to me the big Hudson sixs would have been great truck engines all through the 50s, but Hudson dropped trucks when they went to unibody construction in the late 40s.
Low-rpm torque is what is ideal for trucks moving heavy loads. Long-stroke engines are best at generating great amounts of torque at low rpms.
well they’re ugly
i have one so I can say it. i luv ugly carsz
Going from memory here but there is a scene from “On Golden Pond” when Chelsea arrives at the Thayer’s camp, Norman asks how she got there. She says that she rented a car. Norman asks what kind? She doesn’t know but says that it’s ugly and it breaks down a lot. Norman thinks for a second and says, “It’s ugly and it breaks down a lot? It sounds like a Nash!”
I am not sure how I missed this one back then. This isn’t really a bad shape, but that grille is really unfortunate. The sculpting on the lower body is quite modern – we just saw that on the Chevy van of the mid 60s the other day.
From what I have read, it was a pretty decent car with a nice choice of powertrains. But what was the reason to buy one.
It is interesting when a company loses a customer base. Hudson buyers didn’t respect these. Packard buyers didn’t respect Packardbakers. It was kind of the same way when Chrysler transitioned from “old Chrysler” to “New Chrysler” in the early 80s. But the difference there was that there was a compelling modern product which brought in new buyers instead of just selling to the old ones. Neither the Hash nor the Packardbaker managed that trick.
Trying to keep your brand alive by badge-engineering another make that wasn’t even related until recently just reeks of desperation. Has this ever worked? It’s impossible to think of those last ’55-57 Hudsons without also thinking of the ’57-58 Packards, but they also remind me of the more recent attempts to turn Subaru Imprezas and Chevy Trailblazers into Saabs. Sometimes even healthy brands will do this to fill an otherwise unoccupied sector. Think Volkswagen Routan or the new Toyota Supra. These are commonly derided by fans (or maybe I should say fanboys) of those marques. This despite BMW usually being considered a higher-prestige brand than Toyota. I liked the Routan but it did seem odd VW with its rich heritage in small vans would have to turn to Chrysler for this one.
The ‘Hashes’ were very much peripheral to the survival AMC by the time this ’56 Hornet Hollywood was built, also true of the Nash. It was all on the shoulders of the Rambler, the only product showing any promise. The only reason to continue both the Nash and Hudson were to keep the loyal customer bases of each within the fold as AMC transitioned into a compact car maker with the ‘full-sized’ Rambler Ambassador to satisfy them. It worked surprisingly well.
Here’s a design challenge: without changing any major body stampings, sketch out how you would have restyled the 1956 Hudsons if that had been your design consultancy commission as it was for Richard Arbib. The only requirement is to make it visibly different from the Nash.
Am I the only one who likes Arbib’s alterations? The grille reminds me of what is probably his most famous design, the (now very collectible) asymmetrical Hamilton Ventura watch whose 1957 introduction overlapped the V-line Hudsons. Besides the distinctive appearance, these were also the first ever to be powered by a battery so you wouldn’t ever have to wind it. Note that the battery powered an otherwise mechanical movement – electronic quartz watches were still over a decade in the future. Arbib also did some work for Packard and styled the interesting Astro-Gnome concept car, which featured a Hamilton clock as its timepiece. Anyway, there’s a definite resemblance between the ’57 Hudson Hollywood and the ’57 Hamilton Ventura watch:
I like a lot of weird stuff but the front end on these just gives me the creeps….
Don’t know if this works, trying to open chapter on my 1957 Hudson Hornet Hollywood Custom Hardtop, from my book.