It’s been a while since I’ve read H.G. Wells’ classic novel The Time Machine, but the end of the world was a funky place with little to recommend it, as evidenced by a large crustacean with nefarious designs on the main character, the time traveler himself. Therefore, I’ve always maintained that anyone who wants to see the future is nuts. Even today, it’s hard to feel anything but sadness about this top-of-the line Hudson, knowing its fate as the withering end of its generations-old family tree. Isn’t it better to remember the good times?
After all, the Hudson of 1955 was only a couple years removed from the Step Down heights of NASCAR fame and Twin-H-Power. Doc Hudson from Pixar’s Cars was not modeled after a Hash from Kenosha, for crying out loud. It’s always sad to pull back the curtain; I still can’t read Billy Durant’s biography without a certain melancholy awareness that he ended his life as a small-time bowling alley owner getting by with some help from his old pals in the industry. Suave and sardonic British actor George Sanders committed suicide at 65 rather than commit to a slow decline; that’s always in the back of my mind any time I watch his films. Sir John Falstaff is banished by King Henry V in the old Shakespearean chronicles, no matter how many times I read them. Heck, you know what happens to any one of the 27 Club whenever you listen to their classic songs. What a waste.
That’s no reason, however, to live one’s life in avoidance of anything painful. If people behaved in that cowardly manner, they’d miss out on the great joys in life, such as looking over this perfectly imperfect old Hudson. A few weeks ago, my lovely bride was working on a Saturday, and she forgot something important at home. No problem, I’m always up for a drive…but especially when there’s an old car I’ve never seen near my destination. The Hudson was parked at a local repair shop, where it’s evidently been sitting for quite some time (according to said lovely bride).
If the license plate isn’t telling tales out of school, this Hudson’s whereabouts have been unknown for over 50 years, and the general condition evinces that assertion. I didn’t look underneath, but the body was in decent shape for a car that has ostensibly spent its life in Michigan. Interestingly, the continental kit was standard in 1955 on Custom models, of which the Hornet Hollywood is one, although the buyer could opt to delete it when new. As the most expensive Hudson in the line, whitewall tires were also standard.
In addition to the indignity of losing its marque-specific platform for 1955, the Hornet also suffered the ignominy of Packard-propulsion, although anyone in his right mind would see this as a “step up.” The Hornet’s standard engine was still the 308 cubic-inch flathead six from the Twin-H-Power days, but the optional 320 cubic-inch V8 borrowed from the Packard Clipper is under the hood of this car. According to Don Butler’s The History of Hudson, Packard engineers required the use of a two-barrel carburetor and lowered compression to avoid Hudson-centered competition with the Clipper. Rated at 208 horsepower but actually producing 220 (according to Butler), the Hudson trailed the four-barrel Packard’s 225 horsepower by just a little.
The drivelines were also a potpourri in this transition year: Six-cylinder Hudsons continued to use GM’s Hydra-Matic, while V8 models used Packard’s Twin Ultramatic drive, although a three-speed manual and overdrive were still available. This Hudson’s interior doesn’t look to be beyond redemption, and the lack of a clutch pedal tells us that the Ultramatic rests under the transmission tunnel. I hope the engine and transmission are serviceable in this example, as repairing a Packard V8 and Ultramatic might foretell a tragic end for this Hudson, or at least an endless moratorium.
Even if this Hudson is a not-so-sought-after example of a model from a not-so-well-known-these-days marque, the details are endlessly fascinating. The “H” on the gas filler cap acts as a handle for its removal.
The Hudson emblem still evokes memories from the good old days of the company, and the C-pillar, from this angle at least, looks somewhat European, perhaps like a large-scale Hofmeister kink before Hofmeister kinked.
The little evidence from owners past also add to the bittersweet aura of this particular car: a past owner joined the “Circle of Safety.” Was this a gas station promotion? Does anybody recognize it?
Hudson designer Frank Spring apparently added the Hudson grille to the 1952-54 Nash body in an effort to differentiate it from the freshened 1955 Nash, but there was no hiding the design’s origins. The Nash’s basic styling had been around for three years at this point, and three years was about the shelf life of a bodyshell in those heady days of the 1950s. It wouldn’t be long before George Romney decided to shelve both august nameplates forever and focus on the smaller Rambler, which in hindsight made all the sense in the world. But it’s still hard not to feel a little wistful for this forlorn old hardtop, since we all know now what it couldn’t have known then. With just over 20,000 Hudson Wasps and Hornets sold in 1955, on the other hand, this car was whistling past the graveyard.
As I was taking pictures, someone drove up and asked if this Hornet was a Studebaker. When I mentioned it was a Hudson, he replied “Oh, like from the movie!” Yep, Hudson’s been gone for awhile, and Cars is now over 15 years old, but there’s still a chance that this car will be saved from tragedy. Its story will be so much easier to take if it is.
Wow, this is something! While these have never been cars that called my name, this one kind of does. I have decided that the 55 Hudson was the most attractive car ever offered on this body, certainly after 1954. And that interior is fabulous!
There may be challenges looming with its powertrain, but from the look of those brand new tires the owner is an optimist. I would imagine that there is enough of a knowledge base among Packard fans, and even some Studebaker people (the Packard 352/Ultramatic powered the 56 Golden Hawk).
I was wondering if there was still a Twin H package for the Hudson six this late. I had hoped this car might have one, and started counting Hs – Hudson Hornet Hollywood Hardtop with HH (Twin H) is a lot of Hs. The owner needs to take it to a 4H fair. 🙂
Also, I think the rule was that any nameplate that was offering a reverse-slant C pillar from 1955 through the rest of the decade was a goner.
Toyota Crown had a reverse C pillar from 1955 to 1961, and are still around the last time I checked 🙂
Cadillac used a reverse C pillar in 1957 and 58. Chevy, Pontiac and Buick used it in 1958, and Lincoln had their own twist from 1958 to 60. This is a sad case. The owner, if they’d sell, would want too much, and it’s not worth sinking much money into it. Bummer!
And Ramblers all the way to ’62.
Consumer Reports tested a Hornet 6 in their August 1955 issue, and I guess it was Twin H? They didn’t use the term, but it was listed as having 160 bhp and a 7.5 to 1 compression ratio.
They summed it up thusly:
“The buyer of a Hudson Hornet 6 gets a tough, old-fashioned and trouble-free engine that runs a satisfactory distance per gallon on standard-grade gasoline. The car gives quiet cruising and its performance is certainly far from weak. The Hudson has a roomy body free from excessive shake, squirm, squeaks, and rattles. Even under adverse conditions, the car’s rear wheels stay on the ground well; on rough roads, the passengers stay on the seats, and neither they nor anyone else is likely to apply the term ‘flimsy’ to the car. On the debit side, the Hudson Hornet’s ownership costs [meaning depreciation] are likely to be high, and this ‘transition’ model–Hudson grafted onto Nash–swarms with gauche details and unhappy characteristics: bad driving position, high steering wheel, poor pedal location, high brake pedal pressure, heavy steering, bad trunk arrangement, unsightly muffler location, hard-to-operate door-handle pushbuttons, inaccessibilities created under the hood, etc. As a result it is CU’s prediction that this year’s Hornet will irk critical motorists.
“The Hornet V-8, costing some $260 more, gives more powerful though less economical performance, but it manifests the same handicaps and hard-to-live-with characteristics as the Six.”
Ouch.
> and this ‘transition’ model–
Transition to what?
Oblivion.
Thanks! It is always interesting to see what the unbiased reviewers at CR thought of cars at the time. People are always knocking them for treating cars like appliances, but car buff magazines are far less reliable (and thus I guess not like appliances).
I don’t think the main objection to CR is that they treat cars like appliances. See here, here, here, and here.
I don’t think of Consumer Reoprts as perfect, by a long shot, but yes, it’s always interesting to see a contemporary point of view. In the Fifties, their car reviews could be very crotchety and I can see how they annoyed a lot of people.
Naturally, if you put any of us in a given car, we’re going to have different reactions depending on what’s important (and unimportant) to us.
To be entirely fair, their appliance reviews were also very crotchety. Somewhere around here I have a CR issue from the early ’60s with a toaster test, and they scold at great length about the curlicue design embossed in the chrome housing of one model. Needless frippery, they say, which adds nothing to the functionality and serves only to increase cost to the consumer and profit to the manufacturer. Hmph, etc. How does the presence of a curlicue in that housing’s stamp tool saddle the consumer with increased cost and shower additional profit on the manufacturer? Sorry, they’re not taking any questions—it’s in the bible; go look it up and stuff.
They hadn’t quit their schoolmarm fetish by the time they reviewed the 1983 Chevrolt Caprice Classic (“You must rotate a medallion to insert the trunk key, a nuisance”).
What’s really interesting is reading the list of defects in the cars purchased for testing by Consumer Reports. The magazine bought its test cars straight off the lot, so it wasn’t getting specially prepped and massaged cars.
Interesting. My parents were young transplants to Kenosha right out of teachers’ schools. Dad was a GM customer & didn’t like AMCs, despite every 2nd neighbor having one if not working at the AMC plant. I asked him why, and the driving position / not a comfortable position for him with his bad back, was a major point. Seems like AMC never got this fixed in all their years. (I also somehow gathered that Mom thought the unibody made them unsafe in crashes & that they were mechanically unreliable.) I became old enough to drive in the 70s, and was behind the wheel of various Hornets for some many hours in total. I also found the driving position odd & uncomfortable.
JPC, I think the 1954 Nash concave floating grille and overall front styling looks better than this Hudson but I understand you are mostly comparing it to the 55-57 Nash models all of which had problems (1955 with the inboard headlights that made the body looked bloated and off-balance, the 1956 with too much chrome, and the 1957 just hideous overall).
I always had a fondness for the 55 Hudson. Unfortunately, this was a brand that was already three or so years into it’s death spiral, and pretty much nothing American Motors could have done would have made much of a difference. About the only hope the marque had was to spend the Jet money on a revamping of the Step Down, as that was clearly a 1948 design at a time when Harley Earl changed the styling of American cars completely the following year.
No, it’s not a bad looking car. Quietly attractive would be a good description. Unfortunately, in a 1955 market ‘quietly attractive’ was a formula for complete failure (I’ll add Lincoln as a backup to this opinion). The market wanted loud and brash – until Detroit truly gave them loud and brash 2-4 years later to the point that the marketplace turned against the concept.
“Nothing succeeds like excess” only works up to a point . . . . .
I think that the red Hudson logo in the grill lit up when the lights were on. Similar to the illuminated star on a modern Mercedes.
These we’re quite rare on the ground and destined to fail. It had no chance against the new ‘55 Chevy, Ford and Forward Look Chrysler products.
I’m pretty sure it does. On the Step-Downs I’ve seen with the illuminated grille badge, just the white triangle lights up; I’m guessing many states (since lighting was “regulated” on a state level in those years) would have taken a dim view of anything producing red light on the front of a vehicle, but I dunno. Either way, just having the white triangle glow was a subtle (and cool) feature.
The Circle of Safety was a voluntary nationwide safety-check program in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Very neat that you found one of these stickers!
The program’s origins and sponsors are a bit unclear, but it appears to have been a joint venture of sorts between state governments, industry groups and car dealers. The industry groups included the Inter-Industry Highway Safety Committee, sponsored by auto manufacturers and a frequent publisher of highway-safety literature back then, and the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (a bit of a vested interest there, it seems…).
The program engaged car dealers to perform free “10-point safety checks,” which included checks of tires, brakes, lighting, steering systems, exhausts, windshield wipers, etc.). Of course, customers would have to pay for repairs, and I presume the program faded away when the inevitable ripping-off became commonplace.
Initially, the program was promoted as a civic-minded duty – the carmakers probably hoped such a voluntary program would forestall potential state or federal safety regulations. It seems to have faded away in the mid-1960s, maybe replaced in many places by mandatory state vehicle inspections, which were becoming common at the time.
When dealers inspected a car under the Circle of Safety program, they filled out one of these circular checklists. This was a two-sided cardstock checklist; the center portion would be punched out and (supposedly) retained by the dealer, while the outer portion would be presented to the customer and indicated which items “needed attention.”
Clearly the symbolism of the circle was considered more important than a halfway readable layout…
These look more like 45rpm record labels than maintenance records…
Interesting! Those ‘wheel-charts’ were a big deal in the ’50s, often serving as slide rules and calculators.
My first thought was of the Burns’ “Circle of Trust” in Meet the Parents.
Here is a link to a 1959 Studebaker-Packard service bulletin about the Circle of Safety.
https://1956goldenhawk.com/servicebulletins/sb-346.pdf
We need a better dashboard shot. I found this one online. Apparently that big Hudson shield emblem on the steering wheel came in various colors. It’s a beautiful wheel to command! The gauges and the solidly chromed WEATHER EYE are neat too. They should have kept the “streamlined” accelerator pedal (from earlier Hudsons) on the 55-57s.
If I’m not mistaken, the gauge cluster on the 55 is the same one used on the 54. Kind of a cheap clever way to try to convince the public that this is not a Nash.
Here’s the 1954 brochure image of the Hudson dashboard; the cluster does look similar.
Supposedly Mason, and then Romney, wanted to use up leftover 1954 Hudson gauge clusters. It was thus adapted to the Nash dashboard for 1955.
Same thing with the 1957-58 Studebaker-based Packards, which used real 55-56 Packard gauges in a similarly-shaped dash to make it look somewhat like a real Packard from behind the wheel (and to use up leftover parts).
As kewl as these look & scored the Packard V8 ( it was a very heavy engine ) which leads into the 55-up terrible handling !! as I drove a 49 Hudson my friend had a the Hollywood body shown here I drove his it was nite & day from the 48-54 Hudsons its no wonder they could not complete with the Big 3 ! the closest the 48-54 came is to the 55-57 chevy in excellent drivability ! but it all depends on how you like to drive
I recall reading about how AMC execs (Romney?) thought Packard was being petty when they insisted the engines they sold to AMC had to be slightly less powerful, actually adding slight cost to making the engine less powerful. It probably helped push them into getting their own V8 into production fast. Besides Nashes and Hudsons being a tad less powerful than Packard, the AMC cars also had different engine accessories like bell housings, oil pans, fuel/oil/water pumps, carburetors, transmission cooler, and head gaskets. Also, Nash/Hudson still used a negative ground 6V electrical system whereas Packard had moved to 12V positive ground, so Packard mills used in AMC cars have 6V coils on them.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was Jim Nance behind making Hudson’s Packard V8 less powerful. In the annals of auto industry executives, Jim Nance has to go down as one of the worst. Besides fouling-up George Mason’s plan of combining all of the smallest independents, there’s how badly he misjudged the Packard-Studebaker merger. Studebaker made out okay, but it was pretty much the death knell for the once proud Packard brand.
The windows and doors and lids on this car fit better than many brand new ’55s. Nash was the master of body tech, and Unibody kept the parts in line.
It’s too bad they didn’t conquer rust until 1980, with galvanized bodies. By that time it was too late, and the unique innovation went unnoticed.
Great find. I prefer (and rather like) the Nashes of this vintage, but this is quite appealing to me too, moreso than the sedan.
Rated at 208 horsepower but actually producing 220 (according to Butler), the Hudson trailed the four-barrel Packard’s 225 horsepower by just a little.
It’s ancient history, but this makes no sense. If the Packard had a four barrel carb and higher compression, it undoubtedly made more than 5hp above that of the two-barrel, low-compression Hudson version.
I’ve come to keeping a salt shaker nearby when reading some of these books.
Yeah, who knows about the author’s statement. He said it came from an AMC engineer, but memory is not always infallible. Here’s the passage I referenced. The compression ratio situation may not have been as dire as the brochures would have you believe. Either way, a couple tenths of a point of compression wouldn’t make too much of a difference in power. The four-barrel probably would, even on an engine of this modest displacement (with undoubtedly conservative cam timing).
Great find. Definitely a Hash as that steering column, shift control and quadrant indicator are pure Nash and the same as our 52 Statesman (minus the quadrant as our car was a manual). The Nash steering wheel and dash were less busy and more attractive IMHO. Saw quite a few of these cars in northern IN while growing up as the independents appealed to folks in that area of the country and were quite inexpensive used cars when orphaned though they did rust out fast. The Weather Eye heater was a fantastic feature for cold country, too. Here is a 55 Nash Ambassador interior.
The steering wheel looks to be at a very awkward angle.
Aaron mentions that “the details are endlessly fascinating.” Even the shape of the parking/turn signal lights mimic the Hudson badge at the center of the grille.
This is really interesting and unusual car. In surprisingly good condition, with a nice looking interior. The smooth and generally attractive styling is not something I associate with these years at Nash/Hudson. IIRC, Ate up with Motor suggested the Ultramatic was quite advanced, although poorly timed. Hopefully the newish looking tires suggest a potential revival of this rarity.
It’s possible that it moves under its own power; my wife said it was parked there last fall but was gone over the winter. So maybe it’s in good hands!
That god awful back porch heeds to go. Could be a pretty rare, cool ride otherwise.
Sorry. “Needs” not “heeds”.
The Continental spare tire mount as desirable enough to be standard equipment on the top model is truly hard to fathom.
Pain in the ass to reach over to get to the trunk, subject to icing up when you really need it, maybe damaged in a collision that also causes you to suffer a flat.
The appearance is not as egregious as some of the aftermarket mounts, but it also isn’t a beauty contest winner among the factory efforts.
Still, I’d leave it on if this were my car, only because it is part of the vehicle’s historical pedigree.
I have read that Nash got itself locked in to the Packard V8 when George Mason was talked into helping fund it’s development.
Packard not only demanded a princely sum for the engine, but also demanded it’s costly Ultramatic be bought along with it, rather than Nash hooking the V8 up to the Hydramatic they used with their other engines.
As has been documented elsewhere, the V8 had an oil aeration issue that Packard never solved, and the 55 Ultramatic had a tendency to smoke it’s high gear clutch, which Packard appears to have solved for 56.
There is a 1956 Nash sales training film strip on YouTube. The film assures the Nash salesmen that all the issues of the V8 powertrain have been fixed for 56, but then continues that if they think their sale prospect will go for the 6, sell him the 6. It even warns salesmen that, if a prospect might be satisfied with the 6, don’t even try to sell him up to the V8, because the price premium will probably lose them the sale.
For the heck of it, I looked up the specs for a 1958 Studebaker 289. By the time Studebaker gave the 289 more compression than a disinterested handshake, 4bbl carb and dual exhaust, it put out more power than the Packard sourced 320 with virtually the same compression ratio, with the added virtue of the 289 actually having decent durability.
Inspired by that engine issue, I constructed an alternate history where Mason tells Nance which price-gouging orifice he could stick his V8 and heads to South Bend to talk with Gene Hardig. The engine sharing arrangement (Stude 259s and 289s to Kenosha and OHV 196s to South Bend) leads to the two companies merging. A few years later, someone on the FB Studebaker board wondered out loud “wonder what would have happened if Studebaker had merged with Nash?”, so I posted my alt history of that merger. It was pretty well received.
Even without the merger, Packard was in a tight spot. It desperately needed a new V-8 and a restyled body, but really didn’t have much money for either one, let alone both at the same time. No doubt Nance was trying to wring every penny out of AMC that he could, in order to help pay for that engine.
” No doubt Nance was trying to wring every penny out of AMC that he could, in order to help pay for that engine.”
There is an episode reported in “Master Motor Builders”: When Curtiss-Wright bought all of the Studebaker-Packard defense contracts, Packard was building a series of engines under a DoD guaranteed profit contract for Navy mine sweepers. A Packard engineer who went to C-W with the mine sweeper engine contract, sent a memo up to C-W management, saying that you go to go Cummins and get a perfectly serviceable engine, for what Packard was charging to the program for overhead alone. If Packard was gouging the Navy, I would not put it past them to gouge Nash. If Nash felt gouged on the engine and transmission deal, they seemed to be trying to get payback. Packard sent a few RFQs to Nash, by then AMC, for stampings, as the Hudson stamping plant was close by in Detroit. The prices AMC quoted for the stampings were exorbitant, compared to quotes from other stamping plants.
Reportedly, Romney was delighted to learn that one of the engineers on staff had designed a V8 for Kaiser, and put him to work on a new engine, so AMC could tell Packard to get stuffed.. As luck would have it, the AMC V8 was ready for production, just as Packard went toes up.
Brilliant essay from start to finish. Can’t someone get this thing under covered storage, or doesn’t it matter anymore? Sometimes when I read a post about a car like this, I’m secretly hoping someone with means reads the post and makes purchase arrangements.
The granddaddy of AMC cars…
Thank you Joe! I’m hoping the thing finds a home soon; I’m more a fan than a buyer of this one. In a similar vein, there’s a really cool ’55 Buick Special four-door hardtop within a mile from me that is sitting under a temporary driveway “carport,” and it definitely deserves a garage.
Great find and review.
That roofline looks familiar – I guess Rootes and Loewy got their inspiration from somewhere