So many of us have heard about the “Fabulous Hudson Hornet”, but what about its low-priced companion–the Wasp? If you went to a Hudson dealer and wanted the lowest-priced full-sized 4-door sedan, this is what you got. There’s less brightwork, a shorter length, a less lavish interior, and a shorter-stroke engine with less power. But all the famous Hudson virtues are here.
Seller’s description from Craigslist (car is located in Tappan New York, just over the state line from New Jersey, along the Hudson[!] River). Asking price: $9500.
American cars from the late ’30s through the early ’60s are often called “tanks” because they’re massive, heavy, solidly built vehicles constructed of thick, seemingly impenetrable layers of hard metal. But these Hudsons are reportedly the most “over-built” of all, as if they were crafted out of one solid billet of steel. The radiant blue paint job even adds to the cold, hard, “blue steel” look.
For those of you who don’t know, this generation of Hudsons were notable for their road-hugging ride and excellent handling–superior to nearly all other full-size sedans offered at the time. Here’s what Consumer Reports had to say:
As you can see, Hudson receives high praise from “the experts”. However, this car (like many cars) is an interesting mixture of “good and bad”. The handling, roadholding, and stability is great, but the steering is heavy (power steering is recommended); outside visibility is rather poor; the engine is durable and adequately powerful but not so smooth or quiet as others; and despite the recent updates (called “Flight-Line” styling), the appearance of the car is quite dated–competitors Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac were really leading the way at this time.
This is Hudson’s main competitor: the 1954 Buick Special. This Buick is more in-line with what the public wanted, with completely modern, flashy styling–Dagmar bumpers, little fins, and more glass area with wonderful visibility featuring the all-new Panoramic windshield. (Pretty remarkable considering we’re just a few years out of the split-windshield era). There’s a new, overhead-valve V-8 engine teamed with the creamy smoothness of Dynaflow transmission. The ride was soft and handling wasn’t as precise as Hudson’s, but “dream-smooth” driving and advanced styling were big Buick selling points, driven home repeatedly by Buick’s advertising and salesmen.
Buick produced 444,000 cars in model year 1954, including 190,000 Specials. Hudson managed to sell only 50,000 cars, including just 11,000 Wasps. These were the last “true Hudsons”. As part of the Hudson-Nash merger, Hudson cars would henceforth be based on Nashes, but with certain Hudson features added.
Back to our featured car…
I’m normally not a fan of raised-letter tires, but on this plain-Jane Hudson, I can accept them as they kind of acknowledge Hudson’s stock car racing heritage.
View of the rear has a certain “foreign car simplicity”.
Here’s the interior. The upholstery is not as lush as a Hornet’s.
I felt we needed a close-up shot of that amazing dashboard, which I got from another website. The letters and numerals are a kind of an “old western” style–hard to describe. When the clock is that prominent, I like it to actually work and keep accurate time. Luckily, that’s easy to do these days with quartz conversions.
Last year I was at a car show and someone had a very original early ’50s Hudson Hornet (top-of-the-line). I was really impressed by how plush and luxurious the interior trim was. So well-made. Combined with the thick, heavy doors and solid construction throughout, it reminded me of a classic Bentley or something.
Here’s the sidevalve (flathead) 6 cylinder engine: 232 cubic inches; 126 horsepower. Talk about easy access for servicing!
Original engine compartment decal.
It occurred to me that there are certain similarities between a Hudson and my 1959 Chevrolet.
First of all, both feature a deep step-down construction, with low door heights and floor pans you step into. Both are not the easiest cars to get in and out of, and the seats are wide and low. The bodies are long, low, and wide–but while the Hudson has bulbous, rounded contours, the ’59 Chevy features straight horizontal lines and sharp fins–really sleek. There’s that same graceful downsloping curve to the roofline. Chevrolet’s Vista-Panoramic windshield gives you amazing outward visibility–one of the car’s best features. As far as structural staunchness goes, Chevy’s Body by Fisher is really tight and solid, with substantial doors that close easily with a solid click. I would say the Hudson is even more like a tank, with thick, heavy doors that close like a bank vault!
Both Hudson and Chevrolet feature prominent round gauges (1953 Hudson model shown), but Hudson has more chrome. Chevy’s speedometer also reminds me of Nash’s “Uniscope”.
Both cars are powered by big in-line 6 cylinder engines, but Chevrolet’s six is much more refined by this time. It has overhead valves (not a flathead), higher compression, and hydraulic valve lifters for silence and smoothness. This is a really smooth, steady, and quiet running engine, with good low-end torque. I would guess that both cars would perform about the same, since the Hudson Wasp has 9 less HP but is 100 pounds lighter than than a ’59 Biscayne. As Consumer Reports stated, “Able but not super-powerful.” Both cars also happen to have rather heavy manual steering which is nevertheless quite precise. With its low, wide stance and coil spring suspension that manages to be soft yet well-controlled, the Chevy (in my opinion) excels as a open-road car, like the Hudson.
So if you’re the kind of person who can appreciate the unique virtues of this Hudson, this may be a desirable choice. I suspect this will not be the easiest car to drive, with its heavy steering and 3-on-the-tree manual transmission. It’s hard and tough, smooth and competent; it “means business” and will reward you with its solid, road-hugging performance. Let’s hope a new owner will give it the love and care it deserves.
Related CC Reading
Curbside Classic: 1951 Hudson Pacemaker–My Fluttering Heart Needs A Pacemaker by Paul Niedermeyer
Curbside Classic: 1952 Hudson Wasp–A Day For Orphans by Perry Shoar
Suddenly it’s 1949. 😉
I kid. I like the look of these, but the ‘design’ does seem a little older than what I think of for a 54.
Love this Wasp, it’s the perfect color for it, and love BOL cars in general, but the stick and no PS would be a deal killer. My Grampy had a ’52 Hornet that he loved, I’ll try to find a pic. When Hudson died he converted to Dodge, and had 4 of them before he passed.
A nice car but no ‘flash’ .
Maybe wax the paint and respray the roof white ? .
-Nate
Even before I saw Stephen’s comment about the raised white letter tires, I noticed them and really liked that touch. So often a “restored” American car sports these, but usually some off brand Road Huggers or Renegades that just look wrong. But the simple Firestone lettering seems very appropriate here. A nice car, and even the price seems very reasonable. Good thing I’m on the opposite coast, or I might be tempted. Thanks for posting!
I have always had a major soft spot for these Hudsons. CU said “good choice for long distance driving”; No wonder Neil Cassidy favored Hudsons and his character drove one in “On the Road”.
I’d be tempted to swap in a Ford 300 or Chevy 292 six.
I dunno, I’d rather keep it Hudson and swap in the 308 version from the Hornet, but those newer sixes would certainly be easier to source. In the case of the Ford, there’s even reasonably modern fuel injection from the factory, and a five-speed manual available if you’re so inclined. 🙂
Hudsons were world famous for their excellent steering, in fact many custom builds in that era made sure to install Hudson steering as part of the upgrades. I doubt that the steering in this Hudson would be “heavy” unless the king pins and steering linkage worn out, bound up, or not lubricated.
My dad owned a Hudson when I was a kid. Too young to have many memories of the car. In the pre-seatbelt era, I did enjoy crawling all over those big seats. Being a salesman, at some point, my dad started getting company cars. Cheaper than paying him mileage I guess.
Evidently Hudson was a decent highway car. Over the years, dad had some company cars he didn’t much like. Even with cars a decade or more newer, he’d sometimes comment on how comfort didn’t compare to the Hudson. Some of his company cars being bottom of the line strippers, so there is that.
I have more personal memories of a ’59 Chevy 6. In the early ‘70s, I had a Biscayne with Powerglide and manual everything else. Likely similar to some of dad’s stripper company cars.
In the ‘70s, I considered any car with something less than a V8 as lacking a real engine. The Chevy surprised me by being a good highway cruiser. True, passing on a 2 lane road required good depth perception. With a long sight line & careful planning, it was not impossible though.
To 1959 eyes, I’m sure the Chevy looked more modern than any Hudson. Not having driven a Hudson myself, I can’t say whether it was as good a road car as a late 50s Chevy. Even in 1959, a Chevy 6 wouldn’t have been my choice for a road car, but it was a lot better than I expected. At least that’s how I remember it – 1/2 century later.
That is a pretty nifty art deco dash cluster although the one in the 1952 Wasp is really cool.
Here’s my Gramp’s Hudson. Funny, the pic is being photo-bombed by kids (my cousins) just like Rob’s! Lots of kids around in those Postwar days!
The independents all had the same problem.
Awash in wartime contract money, they were able to introduce all-new products after the war, in Studebaker’s case, even a full two years before everyone else. “First by far with a postwar car” was Studebaker’s slogan in 1947. They all eventually came out with OHV V-8’s and automatic transmissions, and for the first half of the decade at least they could compete.
They couldn’t follow up. Once the Big Three started introducing new platforms in 1955-57, the best the indies could do was spruce up their old stuff and buyers weren’t fooled. George Romney wisely consolidated Hudson and Nash into Rambler, introduced one new line instead of two and was able to stay afloat long enough to bring out an all-new platform in 1963. But even he had to rehash an old Nash Rambler platform into the American.
Hudson wasted a big pile of money on the Jet, which was a good smaller car but they couldn’t get the price low enough to compete with full-size Fords, Chevys and Plymouths. Had they sunk it into a new senior line, they might have had a few more rounds to play.
Barely on-topic question: did ’54 Hudsons come with tubeless tires?