(first posted 10/31/2013) This car, the infamous 1953-54 Hudson Jet, is one of the most reviled cars in history. Just like GM’s many Deadly Sins, this car hammered many nails into the coffin of it’s maker. The Jet started development in 1950 after the success of the lower-priced Hudson Pacemaker, a slightly shorter and low-trim stepdown Hudson. With the increase in profits Hudson saw with the Pacemaker, Hudson decided to take a try at the compact market, a segment that the independents saw as a ray of hope from the onslaught of the Big Three. That turned out to be a tough nut to crack, but surely Hudson could. Thus was born the compact Jet.
Ate Up With Motor has a typically excellent write-up on the Jet. The homework assignment version goes like this: Fiat’s 1400 sedan provided the initial inspiration for Hudson’s designer Frank Spring. It was representative of the European pontoon-style sedan of the post-war era, and offered good interior accommodations thanks to its upright body.
No pictures are readily available, but Spring developed a design that was more flamboyant, had a lower roofline, and other details to make it visually interesting. But a very influential Hudson dealer in Chicago, Jim Moran, didn’t like it. He pushed hard for something that looked like the new 1952 Ford, and so that’s what the Jet ended up looking like: a shortened, dumpy Ford. Only one big problem: it cost almost 15% more than a Ford! Good luck with that.
The Jet was also sumptuously appointed for the day (in Super-Jet and Jetliner trims), with some standard features that were options for Cadillac in the day. It could be had with two transmission choices, A Hydramatic (which this car has) and a 3-speed column shift (with optional OD). At the time, it was the only car in its class available with an automatic transmission. Very luxurious indeed!
It could be had with many industry firsts, such as the Hudson Twin-H-Power dual-carb setup which this car boasts. The Twin-H-Power setup was first seen on the Step-Down Hudson Hornet and led Hudson to many NASCAR victories in those early days of the sport, with its big 308 CID six. In the Jet, the smaller 202 CID six with Twin-H-Power setup produced 114 gross hp when accompanied with optional aluminum heads.
This car woulda’ , shoulda’, coulda’ saved Hudson, if it looked as good as it intrinsically was. Intrinsically, it was amazing. With better brakes than most full-size cars of the day, it out-braked the (domestic) competition. It also was faster than the regular-size competition from Ford, Chevrolet, and Plymouth when new (if equipped with the Twin-H-Power setup).
The Jet’s downfall was its styling, which could have been a lot more interesting. Jim Moran convinced the Hudson bosses to build a dumpy Ford, and so what they got was a boxy, homely, advanced failure.
Now reflect on these facts and wonder “Did it have to be this bad?”
Excellent piece, Mr. Mann. I can’t say when I last laid eyes on a Jet, but they just don’t really have a good angle (much like the 53 Studebaker Champion sedan).
It is interesting – this car probably comes closer than any other styling job out of an independent in those years to matching the prevailing Detroit style – only on a 3/4 scale that just ruins the proportions. Imagine if this had been bigger and had become the new regular Hudson. Scale this design up to Hornet-sized proportions, and I’ll bet it would have been a very attractive car.
It is also interesting that after the AMC merger, the Jet seems to have just died. Unlike the Willys Aero, I have never heard that it went on to live in some export market. Too bad, as I have read that it was one of the best cars built at the time.
After the merger, the Jet was unceremoniously dumped, as it was a direct competitor for the higher-volume (and cheaper to produce) Nash Rambler. Hudson dealers were given a replacement in the Hudson Rambler, which was a Nash Rambler with Hudson badges (think Dodge and Plymouth Neon).
I think some Metropolitans got Hudson badges, also.
Indeed.
Metropolitans had a following among the Teddy Boy/Rock n Roll set if an American car or Ford Zodiac/ Vauxhall Cresta was too expensive or thirsty for you a Metropolitan was an alternative with it’s 2 tone paint and Detroit styling.The British climate wasn’t good to them and they rusted badly.
Excellent article on an often overlooked car.
These cars were supposedly built like tanks, which was a big reason as to why they were so expensive in relation to their size.
The next-to-the-last photo shows how the trim accentuates the car’s dumpy proportions. There are two separate strips of chrome on the side, but they don’t line up well with each other, emphasizing the small size and giving the slab sides a “disjointed” look. A continuous strip of chrome, running from the front to the back of the car, would at least visually lengthen it.
Hmmm… Can’t say I have ever seen one, but who knows? the design is so plain it’s stealthy – didn’t notice.
Is it me, or does the top photo look like Hudson took an old Volvo greenhouse and a 1951-52 Chevy grille? The back end is all Ford.
Wow. Definitely a sin and an ugly mash-up. How good were these cars back then? How many bought them?
Approximately 40,000 Jets were sold over the car’s 2 year lifespan (about 20,000 a year).
Another car I’d never heard of though I thought it looked like a Mk1 Ford Consul(my parents had a Mk1 in a horrible park bench light green colour).If this had come out 6 years later with a bit of restyling it could have been a rival for the other compact cars.
+1
Ultimately, I would say it was the price, more than the styling, that was the Jet’s Waterloo. A Super Jet with Hydra-Matic, radio, heater, Twin-H power and turn signals had a list price of about $2,400 in 1953, which was actually about $60 or so more than a comparably equipped Ford Customline V-8 Fordor. If you consider that aside from being a foot shorter than the Ford, the Hudson had the misfortune to bow during the period where Ford and Chevrolet were trying desperately to outproduce each other and dealers were offering fire-sale discounts on new Fords and Chevys, you can see the nature of the problem. I would say that in ’53, you could probably have talked your way into the Ford for at least $150 less than the Jet, depending on the dealer’s individual desperation level.
Even if the Jet had been a gorgeous car, overcoming the price gap would have been a tall order.
At least if the Jet had more distinctive styling, it might have had a chance. As it turned out, looking just like a Ford doomed it to instant failure. Who would buy a Hudson for the same price (or more) than a larger Ford that looked just like it?
The Chicago Hudson dealer, Jim Moran, responsible for that bonehead move should go down in history with Packard’s James Nance (Studebaker merger) and Chrysler’s William C. Newberg (1962 full-size Mopars) as one of the dumbest executive decisions in automotive history.
As it turns out, this Moran character was so infatuated with Fords, that not long after the Jet bombed (for which he was responsible), he actually switched to selling Fords. Geez, what a weasel.
The perfect getaway car. “They were driving a Ford, officer, I’m sure of it!”
The bromance between Barit and Moran led to stupid, ego-driven decisions. These two clowns killed Hudson. The Jet was overpriced, took a good deal of Ugly from U.K Vauxhall, and was “committee designed” – all the good things about the Jet were became insignificant in the face of the more significant marketing blunders. Blaming Hudson’s demise on the “Ford vs. Chev Price War” is debatable too. The Jet just needed to be cheaper. The cheapskates who would have bought one then probably couldn’t care too much about its “ugliness.” People who buy cheap cars buy them because they are cheap not because of their looks. After “Nash 2.0” was created in 1954 Barit was rightly told to shut up and sit in the corner and let the Nash boys and girls run things, while his mate Moran went off to sell Fords. Hard-earned lesson.
Leon, the Jet was certainly a failure, but so was every other one of those early compacts. None of the independents had a cost structure that would allow them to undercut the big 3 in price, even without a Ford-Chevrolet price war. Each of those independents was operating with no margin for error compared with the big boys. They were always one bad/wrong decision away from disaster.
Look at Studebaker – they were selling 200k units a year, had a full truck line, a new V8 engine – and were still on the ropes by 1954. I am not the biggest Nash booster in the world, but you have to admit that Nash was probably the best run of all the independents in the early 50s.
Yep, a dowdy car indeed. A small car should never just be a large car scaled down. I think if were shopping for a small car in 1953, I’d go for a Willys Aero.
I must say, I have no issue with the proportions or the styling at all. Maybe it’s because I’m more used to ’50s British cars? In fact to me it bears strong similarity to the 1950s Vauxhall EIP, as per this 1956 that’s for sale here:
Remember, it could have looked a lot more like this, the Hudson Italia:
That’s a lovely looker despite the hearing aid beige paint job
I love those Italias. Beautiful!
A long time since I saw one of those,I recall a neighbour having a very rusty maroon one in the early 60s
Thats a 57 EIP Vauxhall actually last effort before the PA, but some of those Hudson Jets came to NZ Ive seen pics of local ones on FB but only ever saw one in the metal in a wrecking yard well munted it had been in a crash and didnt do well
I recall that in 1954, a co-worker of my father stopped by our house to show us the new Hudson Jet he had just purchased. He was very proud of it and I thought it was a nice looking car, light blue body with a dark blue roof. I also thought the current generation of Fords at the time were nice looking cars (1952-54). I never thought of them as dowdy, and in fact, many hot rodders at the time were doing some sleek jobs with the Victorias but that is another story. Getting back to the Hudson Jet, I glanced into the back seat and was astounded to notice there seemed to be perhaps 5 inches of leg room. I didn’t understand how anyone would want to buy a car that was that cramped. I was mentally comparing it to the 15 or more inches of rear leg room we had in the family 1949 Kaiser. The Hudson Jet lost my interest right there.
My husband in1957 bought me that blue Hudson jet. Blue . I just got my licence . I loved it so much. Till this day I think about that car and wished I had it now in 2014 I still have a 1990 Honda. I still loved my Hudson jet. Back than gas was real cheap. I wish I had it now.
I was searching for articles about the Hudson Jet, and I came across this one…and there were some pics of my 1954 Hudson Super Jet!
Some very interesting points made by Mr. Mann about the Jet, and also with some of the comments.
I have been a member of the Hudson, Essex,Terraplane Club for many years-mainly due to help with the restoration of my Grandfather’s 1930 Essex that I inherited. I became interested in Jet’s when they caught my eye at the 2007 HET National Meet in Auburn, Indiana. The Jet’s also made a big impression on my then, 19 year-old daughter. When she got a ride in a Jet at the 2009 HET Meet, she was hooked, and we began our quest to find one to ‘drive’. We bought the car you see in the pictures in 2012.
A couple of observations; the Jet is a very smooth riding car, just like most other Hudsons. This car, with it’s ‘Twin-H’ set-up, can zip right along, even on today’s expressways.
Jets, like many Hudsons were probably ‘over-engineered’…the company spent way too much money on this car. Hudson’s had many ‘firsts’ in the US automotive industry, and were perhaps years ahead on some of the concepts. People were not ready for the ‘compact car’, and what would they really car about good gas mileage? Gas was pretty cheap!
As far as the design of the body, Jim Moran, a dealer from Chicago, suggested the change in the taillights-he liked the looks of the ’52 Ford lights. Another story is, the President of Hudson, A.E.Barit, did not like the ‘low profile’–word was he thought, “Gentlemen need room to wear their hats” in cars, so extra height was added, much to the dismay of Frank Spring. In fact, the height of the Jet is 2″ higher than the larger Hudson Hornet!
In the end, with a merger with Nash coming soon, the very expensive re-tooling for the Jet may have been too much for the Hudson Company.
As a member of the HET group the ‘JetSetters”, I can say we love the looks and performance of our Jets!
There really wasn’t much of anything that Hudson could have done by that point, Jet or no Jet. It would have been nice if they’d used that money to restyle the senior line and begged, borrowed or stolen a v8, but I doubt hey would have gone on for much longer regardless.
Jim Moran and A.E. Barit killed Hudson. Barit ultimately responsible due to his bromance with Moran, his sense of self-importance, and his refusal to let his engineers engineer.
After “Nash 2.0” was created in 1954 he allowed himself to be shoved into the corner to sip tea as a board member, hanging his head in shame.
It’s not a bad little car at all, Charlie Brown. All it needs is a little love–and removal of the fender skirts and rear spare, and someone sober to put on the chrome trim.
Did they steal this design from a Ford Customline?
One curiosity about the Jet (from what I’ve read – I’ve never seen one) is that it lacked one of Hudson’s signature design features – the low “step-down” floor. Why would they not use that in a small sedan where space efficiency is most crucial? A low floor would have allowed a lower roof and sleeker styling while preserving headroom.
Unlike the big Hudson, the Jet didn’t have the “Double Safe” brake system where mechanical brakes automatically took over in the event of a hydraulic failure. I think that if they had built the Jet on the scale of the big cars with all of their features, it would have been a good replacement for the “step-down” series. Gotta love that Italia.
Right car at the wrong time, 20 years too soon. Hudson tried to build a compact Ford. The public didn’t bite. The Ford Granada found that sweet spot, but by that time the definition of a compact had changed.
While the continental kit, fender skirts, and other gimcrackery certainly do it no favors, from a styling perspective; I certainly don’t see what everyone is complaining about. Staid? Sure, but not really any more so than what the other manufacturers were making. The Ford pictured for comparison is hardly a lithe exotic.
Jim Moran was a big Ford dealer in Chicago through the 1960’s. Then he became involved with a fairly upstart Japanese company called Toyota and got the import and distribution rights for the southeast United States, which his heirs still maintain today.
Nice gig.
What’s missing is Hudsonness. From the little Terraplane to the massive Stepdown, Hudsons always had a jazzy syncopated proportion. There’s nothing syncopated about this shape; it doesn’t swing.
Chapin Junior recaptured Hudsonness in the Gremlin, intentionally or not. It’s a modern version of the Terraplane in appearance and configuration.
The basic tragedy of the Hudson Jet program was that it diverted development efforts and funds from Hudson’s core products which were full-sized, middle-priced cars. By the time the Jet program was undertaken, the ‘Step-Down’ Hudson which had been so progressive in 1948 was just so much old news. The restyle body cycles were speeding up, driven by GM. Hudson was neglecting the very cars on which its continued profitability depended.
Compacts may have been seen as an escape from direct competition with the Big Three but it was by no means assured at that early date. Barit, with meddling by Jim Moran, created a vanity project out of hubris and desperation that was doomed to fail. Indicative of the management mindset were the new 1948 generation of L-head six cylinder engines introduced into an automotive landscape soon to be forever changed by the OHV V8.
I am Editor of JetSetter newsletter for the HET (Hudson, Essex, Terraplane) group. I enjoyed your article. It is hard to find positive thoughts about the Jet. It seems to have been the red headed step child of the Hudson group. We find it a peppy little car, and enjoy it greatly. I would like to share your article with our group if I may reprint with your permission! Thanks for the facts.
My first car ( 1953 auto) after HC grad. In 1960.
Drove it for 3 years. Great little car for its day. Never had a problem with this little gem.