So I’m surfing eBay Motors, and I find this 1956 Hudson*, and I think, “If I want to own a Hudson, this is the one I would want.” Now some of you may give me a disgusted “Why?” and use a certain 4-letter word used to describe these Hudson/Nash hybrids (a word which I won’t use because it’s so déclassé!) So if you want to hear me make my case, read on . . .
*Listing has since been removed from eBay.
Hudsons and Nashes being built side-by-side in the same factory.
In 1954, Hudson (whose sales had been declining for years) was acquired by Nash to form American Motors Corporation (AMC). The original Hudson factory was closed, and both Nash and Hudson automobiles were built off a common Nash-based platform. Because Hudson still had a loyal following, AMC made efforts to give the Hudson version its own distinctive personality, albeit on a rather tight budget.
The first AMC-built Hudson (1955) featured a very Hudson-like grille, and retained some traditional Hudson features like unit construction, the 202 and 308 cubic inch Hudson-built flathead sixes, a Hudson instrument panel, and a few other details.
But because this is the 1950s and all cars had to be “all new“ every model year, the 1956 Hudsons received a, shall we say, “distinctive” new grille design, which differed greatly from the companion Nashes. This grille has garnered a lot of criticism here at CC, being likened to a “Joker smile,” among other things. Actually, it kind of reminded me of a radio speaker from the ’50s, and sure enough, Motorola produced a portable radio that looks a lot like this Hudson:
And not only that, this “V-Lined” Hudson was in a way prophetic. Have you seen the latest Acura XLI?
“V-Line” styling lives! If Hudson had survived, maybe it would look like this!
Truth is, my favorite American ’56 sedans are Mercury, Oldsmobile, Clipper, Packard, and Lincoln. However, this ’56 Hudson still has a certain special appeal.
So let’s now look at the actual car for sale:
This is claimed to be a 29,000 mile original car, with one owner up until recent years, located in the town of Bristow, Indiana, a cluster of buildings along the highway (a “one-horse town” way out in the country where you’d expect to find a well-preserved car like this).
This is a Hornet Custom, the top-of-the-line model (the anodized gold side trim tells you that). In fact, this is the most costly and luxurious car AMC offered that year. Hudsons were always considered higher-end cars, like Chrysler and Buick.
This one has the optional hood ornament, which I like.
And it lacks the “continental kit”! I like that too.
The upholstery, while stained or dirty, appears intact. The “V” theme is apparent everywhere.
Hudson had a totally unique and novel dashboard, very different from the Nash. The speedometer is the thermometer type, with numbers 0, 3, 6, 9, & 12 taller than the others, for unknown reasons.
This example even has power brakes and steering, which will make driving this car so much more pleasant!
Not to mention the “Selecto-Lift Starter”–you start the car simply by pulling up on the shift lever.
“Triple-Safe Brakes”– another Hudson exclusive, going back to the 1930s, I believe. How many lives has this feature saved?
This being an American Motors car, the front seat backs fold down all the way. This is called “Twin Travel Beds”, but I would use this if I had to haul a large and bulky object (like a piece of furniture) which wouldn’t otherwise fit. I think I would spring for a new headliner.
PAINT No. 81-72-81. Solitaire Blue, Frost White, Solitaire Blue–it checks out!
Finally, the pièce de résistance–that’s a gen-yoo-wine Hudson 308 “Championship” six cylinder engine–just like in the previous Hornet Step-Downs, WITH “Twin-H Power” dual carburetors, giving 10 more horsepower than standard (up to 175 HP). And, the original air cleaners WITH the original “Twin-H” decals (or is it silk screening) are STILL INTACT!
You could get a ’56 Hudson with either the Hudson flathead six teamed with Hydra-Matic or a Packard-built V-8 with Ultramatic. I would prefer the six. For one thing, everyone knows what a great engine it is, famous for all those Hudson stock car racing victories. And it’s even better for ’56 because it now has hydraulic valve lifters, which will make it run even smoother and quieter. Everything looks accessible and easy to work on.
Both the 308 six and the more modern Packard V8 weighed the same, right about 700 lbs. Four-speed Hydra-matic should be a good match for Hudson’s six, taking good advantage of the engine’s low-end torque. And Hydra-Matic itself is improved this year, with much smoother shifts.
This charming little commercial explains another benefit, “Deep Coil Ride”. The Hudson’s springing was tuned a little firmer than the Nash’s, since Hudsons were always known for good handling and flat, smooth riding.
So when you add it all up, there’s a lot here to like. There’s the snug, solid single unit body with the widest seats and windshield of any car, and the most headroom. There’s the Selecto-Shift starter, the unique dashboard, the brakes with mechanical reserve, the fold-down seats, the excellent and quieter Hudson engine with Hydra-Matic, power steering and brakes, the fine ride and handling, beautiful two-toned paint. I bet it drives like a dream! If I were buying Hudson in ’56, that’s the way I would have it equipped.
It’s cute, isn’t it? However, this Hudson won’t be making a new home in my garage. The ad is down; Bristow, Indiana is too far. Too many possessions can be a burden. But it was a nice little dream. And the dream is often nicer than the reality. (But not always.)
So what happened to Hudson? The next year, 1957, brought a new AMC-designed 327 cubic inch, 255 HP V-8 and improved handling via a lower body and revised steering and front suspension. Styling, however, was not significantly improved. Sales dropped from 10,671 in ’56 to 3,876 for ’57. Hudson actually outsold the companion Nash model, which only eked out 3,561 units, which isn’t saying much.
In 1958, the Nash and Hudson models were superseded by the new “Ambassador”. This was essentially a Rambler with a longer, more elaborate front end and luxury interior. A little Hudson V-Line DNA remained in the form of the “V” shaped grille guard. Ambassador sales reached 7,000 in ’58, about the same as Nash/Hudson’s combined ’57 total. Rambler sales, however, took off–159,000 in ’58!
So why did the last Hudsons and Nashes fail? It’s not that they were bad cars, they were just not competitive. Why buy a car with early ’50s looks and technology when you can buy a jazzy, all-new Forward Look Dodge, DeSoto or Chrysler; a snazzy all-new “Rocket” Oldsmobile or super-smooth Buick; or an out-of-this-world Big M Mercury?
Rambler succeeded because it was an all-new form of all-new–a slightly smaller, but still roomy and practical family sedan–a market segment that had been neglected by the Big Three.
The lesson I learn from this is that producers have to constantly innovate and improve their products to beat competition. And they have to not just follow but anticipate new trends. What worked in the past may not work now. The market moves, nothing stays the same. This may be a hectic way to do things, but hey, “That’s progress!“
I’ve always wondered why nobody tried to copy the failsafe brakes. They unquestionably would have saved LOTS of lives if required on all cars. The feature was never repeated.
I almost got run over, at age four, by a neighbors “Emerald Poly” ’58 Mercury, in 1958. I was running across the street, towards my house. I don’t know how good Mercury drum brakes were, at the time, but they worked “well enough,” that day.
The dual-circuit hydraulics, first introduced in 1962 and made mandatory for 1968, were almost surely the better solution.
From memory, some British cars had a hydraulics for the front and mechanical for the rears. The Austin A 40?
Wow, my first thought was that I have never heard of Bristow, Indiana. But I looked it up, and there it is down in the southern part of the State. (as opposed to Bristol, Indiana way up north). Gee, had you only asked I would have been happy to run down and pick it up for you. 🙂
I have finally decided that the big Nash and Hudson is the car that pops my little imaginary Studebaker bubble. Gee, I have said, if only Studebaker had offered a larger car, one more in tune with what everyone else was selling then. Oops, Nash and Hudson did exactly that. And they couldn’t sell them. The styling was a little off, I will admit, but those small companies had to do everything perfectly to stay afloat. When the inevitable mistake or miscue comes along, they wound up flat on their backs with no way to get back up.
I don’t dislike these cars at all, but neither have they stirred me into the kind of enthusiasm you display. Make it a 56 Chrysler or DeSoto or Packard or even a Studebaker President and I would be all over it. This one is cool, but the kind of cool that belongs in someone else’s garage.
The 1955 Hudson isn’t a bad-looking car. The front is attractive, and AMC opened up the wheel wells to distinguish it from the Nash.
The problem was that Hudson – even more than Studebaker – was surrounded by the stench of death by 1955. The Stepdown had been unchanged for far too long, and the Jet went nowhere. My guess is that a fair number of people stayed away because they feared being stuck with an orphan make before they had paid off their car loan.
Fear of being stuck with an orphan make car deflected many potential buyers as the precarious state of the independent car companies were reported in the newspapers and news magazine’s business section. Resale value of an orphan make plummeted to a fraction of the original sale price. Buyers were very conscious resale value retention, promoted constantly by popular Big Three makes.
The irony is that as fear of being stuck with an orphan car spread throughout the country, that accelerated the downward spiral to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
this car is beautiful compared w/ the 1956 Ambassador
both cars had very cheap looking dashes though, the Hudson dash almost looks Eastern Block
Everything inside or out on this Hudsonash is either obviously from years earlier, or facelift bits that look like they are also from years earlier, just trying to be futuristic from 1951 or something.
The 1957 version differs mainly in the truly pathetic little fins they tacked on.
Maybe, just maybe, the whole idea that the independents went away is really an illusion we Americans force on ourselves. The independents may have failed as individual companies, or merged into other existing ones, but the spirit of the independent really got carried along by the foreign marques that made inroads into sales in the United States at about the time the American Independents were going under.
The independents were just a shorthand for companies that sold in the US alongside the Big Three of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. One could argue that Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Peugeot, Renault, and other imports are really the ones that took their place. And in a real sense, they took over, eventually, and have sort of made Ford, GM, and Toyota (and Tesla) the only real independents, with merged supercompanies like VAG, Stellantis, and others as the big companies. What has died are small companies. Scale has determined success more than competence. Most drivetrains are refined as much as they can be, so too suspensions, transmissions, and the like, so ride engineering of existing components are the defining features of engineering, not a new engine, transmission, or suspension setup. That leaves cost and styling as the things that set companies apart, and most megacompanies spread that out among their various brands at different price points to reach the most consumers. What we have end up with is a glorious choice of many different cars, trucks, and SUVs that are more alike than different. It’s not a bad thing, it just is what it is. Like choosing a burger from Wendy’s, McDonalds, or Burger King, each slightly different, but more alike than not. Ground beef, a bun, condiments, all in slightly different forms, but the same basic formula for all.
There has always been a “what if ?” about a Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard merger. The 1956 Hudson with a Nash body and a Packard V8 is about as close as it came to reality. Had they merged, their resources would have been used to produce four car brands that were already on the ropes. The Rambler was a much better business venture.
It probably didn’t help that the front end of these last Hudsons reminded me of the ’57-’58 Studebaker Scotsman.
There is a lot of “styling” going on there, especially from the rear 3/4. Everything old is new again and all that…
How were these painted? We can see that at least the blue has been repainted based on the overspray of the door tag, but if you look at the engine bay, it’s blue and the fenders in white were clearly bolted on afterward. I can’t figure out the sequence – Is it painted as a blue base car, then that was masked and the white filled in as needed and the fenders done offline and added later?
I would have guessed this is all aftermarket paint but for the color code explained by the author. The color break at the rear next to the trunklid is very awkward.
For two-tone paint, the color that covered the majority of the body would be applied completely, then masked to allow the second color on only those areas. Door jams were always a problem whether to extend the second color into, most didn’t. It was quite labor-intensive work the car companies moved away from as quickly as possible, reserving the second color for only the top.
Although my Ford F100 Custom Cab has a two tone cab where Ford painted the Wimbledon white first and then the Holly Green over. I tried to duplicate.
But how’d the front fenders get done on this car? If you look at where they bolt on (in the underhood pix), since the flange seam is not a straight line I can’t see that being masked off to make the white paint conform to the flange. Did they get painted offline and then bolted on? It seems weird.
They were bolted on after painting. Which was essentially necessary (or certainly more practical) with these, as they were unibodies, and the front suspension bolted to the very strong inner fender structure. That pretty much had to happen before the outer fender was bolted on.
The fender has to come off to do any significant front suspension work.
Thanks for the explanation, I’m too used to looking at strut towers and everything being integral!
Wonder if these have trunnions? Seems like AMC took awhile to go to ball joints.
This would definitely get the attention on cruise night or at a car show! What was the reserve or starting price?
Bidding started at $3500.
For unknown reasons, AMC contracted with independent design consultant Richard Arbib to style the 1956 Hudsons, whereas the 1955 Hudsons were styled in-house. No major sheet metal stampings or modifications were to be required, thus he simply ‘redecorated’ the body by different trim patterns, grille and cast metal fins with taillights. The front grille did require a change to the openings but that was minor. The idea was to be modern, stylish and up-to-date in a Mid-Century Modern idiom.
Arbib had been chief designer for Henney Body Co. that was Packard’s exclusive professional car coachbuilder before they folded in 1954. He had styled various Packard shows cars as well, the best known the 1952 Pan American which inspired the Caribbean series for 1953-’56. His Henney hearse and ambulance designs were very nicely done, no V-lines.
After Henney, he opened his own design consulting firm, produced a series of advertisements for Flying A – Tydol Oil Company that featured his dream car designs, some with prominent V styling. He also styled Benrus wrist watches, some as outlandish as the ’56-’57 Hudsons,
BTW, If anyone is considering buying a 1955-’57 Hudson, find a good, solid, presentable car like this one and pay a bit of a premium price if you have to. The cost to restore the chrome will quickly put you ‘under water” and any structural rust in the Unit-Body is hideous costly to repair…if you can find anyone to do so,
This is one of those cars which has its charms if you look for them. Chief among them for me is the engine choice and originality. A Hudson with the quintessential Hudson engine.
I love seeing these kind of unusual cars at the show. Frankly I’ve seen enough Camaros and Chevelles to last a life time.
Were I going to buy a 50s car, I’d probably go for the 58 buick or oldsmobile with as much over the top chrome and the biggest engine possible. Or I would think about an ls swap to be actually drive the thing and enjoy it and probably do it on a four door hardtop so as not to ruin the collectibility. . . On the other hand, I understand the value of pristine originality but I prefer something I want to drive more often.
That said this is a beautiful car and if I wanted a Hudson, this would probably be it. I hope it goes to someone who will cherish it!
While the engine choices are compelling, I much prefer the styling of the big Nash, especially the front fender skirts. I had a friend in Iowa who bought a Nash of this vintage from a farmer; it was in great shape. What a fun car to tool around the countryside in.
Amazing, all of it.
In the 65 years since that television ad claimed buying a ’56 Hudson would set you apart from the crowd, advertisers have built up all kinds of ways of bombarding people with their toxic pollution, but they still claim buying a [make, model] will set you apart from the crowd. It’s still a ridiculous claim to be making about a mass-produced product—especially such a benchmarked one—but I guess it’s still working.
The claim was true – but not in the way AMC had intended. Given the production numbers of 1956 and 1957 Hudsons, anyone driving this car would be set apart from the crowd. It was a rare beast even back then.
I never liked this car until i read your description. Now i’m kind of liking
Nice find; love the color combo! You wouldn’t find another if you showed up with this at a cars and coffee!
Taillights are reminiscent of those on a ’54 Chevy.
I would assume in any car this old, the odometer reading should be taken with a grain of salt.