(first posted 3/23/2011)
A dying man needs to die, as a sleepy man needs to sleep, and there comes a time when it is wrong, as well as useless, to resist. ~Stewart Alsop
I’d rather hoped to find a genuine Step-down Hudson and celebrate its brilliant life as the last true Hudson. It’s one of my (many) all-time favorite cars, and others here have found them since. But it looks like fate will have us do the Hudson story backwards: we took a sunny day off to hike and browse bookstores in Corvallis, and what do I find in a (locked) storage lot: a Nash-bodied Hornet. Hudson deserved a nobler death; this is just so wrong.
The Step-down Hudsons (full CC here) were the real end of the road for another of America’s independent makers in the mid-fifties. The postwar boom gave all the independents–Willys, Studebaker, Kaiser, Packard, Hudson and Nash–their one last chance. Flush with defense contract profits, the results were some of their most innovative and flamboyant cars ever. Hudson’s new 1948 models were deeply inspired by the aerodynamic influences of the Tatra 87, as well as the chopped and channeled “California customs” and other new trends.
The result was quite spectacular, albeit in a distinctly American idiom. The Step-down’s low center of gravity and sturdy, semi-unitized body construction also endowed it with the best handling of any American car of its time. The legendary H-Power Hornet dominated the early stock-car circuit for several years–something made all the more remarkable given its flathead six engine at a time when the Big Three were unleashing a wave of new OHV V8s.
To make a long, sad story short, the Step-down Hudson’s body style ended up not being a la mode very long–if it had ever been, really. GM’s more upright, glassy and rectilinear styling trend was the new direction, featuring wrap-around front and rear glass and hardtops. The Hudson’s semi-unitized body was very difficult if not impossible to adapt to the rapidly evolving styling trends. The Hollywood hardtop (above) shows all too clearly the challenges of adapting the Step-down.
All of the independents found GM’s increasing lock-grip on the medium-to-upper end of the market to be very uncomfortable indeed and started looking at the lower end of the spectrum for salvation–or at least a brief life extension until someone came up with a better idea.
Hudson’s effort at penetrating the lower end of the market was the dumpy, Step-up Jet (above); a dismal failure that burned up what little cash they had left, it was essentially Hudson’s death warrant. Well, that and the 1953 sales war unleashed by Ford, which ultimately proved to be the proverbial last straw that forced consolidation among the independents. Two marriages of “un-equals” resulted: Studebaker-Packard, and Nash-Hudson.
Nash boss George Mason’s vision was to merge all four. That lofty goal eluded him, but the 1954 merger he engineered with Hudson was the beginning of American Motors (AMC), whose name certainly didn’t belie his ambitions. Needless to say, the merger, like the Packard-Studebaker hook-up, resulted in near-instant rationalization of production. The last true Hudsons were 1954 models, sadly restyled a bit to look like the crashed Jet, no less. For 1955, the Hudson factory was put to defense contract work, resulting in “new” Hudsons–essentially badge-engineered Nashes–that were derisively referred to as “Hashes”.
The Fairna-influenced Nash body that had arrived in 1952 started out as quite clean. The 1955s became a bit more flamboyant.
But any semblance of cohesiveness was tossed overboard with the Hudson versions. Actually, the 1955s weren’t all that bad, but they certainly weren’t Hudsons. They were now officially a Hash.
The real coup de grace came with the 1956s: AMC probably wanted to hasten the Hudson’s demise by giving it a truly wretched re-hash–the so-called V-Line styling–courtesy of AMC Design Chief Ed Anderson. Does its fiendish grin remind you of someone?
I have given a name to my pain, and it is…Nash. I’m only laughing on the outside / My smile is just skin deep / If you could see inside I’m really crying / You might join me for a weep.
His outfit almost matches color-wise too.
My photographs, taken over a chain-link fence at some distance, do the car the small favor of having soft focus and blurry details, especially when it comes to the front end:
If not the Jokermobile, then maybe something from Russia? The Chaika Hornet.
The “Hashes” also had a quite a hash of engine choices to power them toward their death. In addition to the small 202 CID six from the crashed Jet, the hi-line Hornets also got a jumble of engines to speed them along: the big 308 CID flathead six, remaining in action through 1956, and a Packard-sourced OHV V8 for 1955-1956. It was replaced by AMC’s own new 250 CID V8 in ’56, and the final ’57s, all of which were now Hornets, had the 327 CID version of that engine.
This ’56 Hornet was even graced with a continental spare, no less, to complement its four-tone paint job. Yes, every time it comes around again and again, the clean aero look never seems to take hold in America for very long. Americans do love a bit of ornamentation and, well, “visual interest”, shall we say?
Sales plummeted: the last ’54 Step-downs sold all of 36,000 units; the ’55 Hashes were down to 20,000, the V-Line ’56s garnered 10,000, and the almost-identical swan song ’57s didn’t break 4,000. It had been wrong to resist the inevitable death of Hudson with the Hashes, and it certainly was useless.
A lady who wrote car reviews for the New Orleans Times-Picayune once stated that her grandfather was the designer responsible for Hudson’s V-line styling.
I think she did this in order to establish her automotive credentials, or maybe she was just really, really brave.
The person officially responsible for the 1956 Hudson was AMC head stylist Edmund Anderson, but supposedly the person who really designed it was independent industrial designer Richard Arbib.
My understanding is that Arbib was brought in because Romney thought the 1955 Hudsons weren’t sufficiently differentiated from the Nashes. Alas, being further differentiated doesn’t necessarily translate into being better.
What’s particularly odd about the 1955-57 Hudson is that AMC made very little effort to carry on the brand’s distinctive look, such as the cool side sweepspears. By the same token, AMC did little to preserve Hudson’s sporting pretensions. Clearly all Romney wanted was access to Hudson’s dealer network.
As an interesting counterpoint, the 1956 Chrysler and DeSoto shared considerably more sheetmetal than Nash and Hudson but came off MUCH better.
What a find! I think I’ve seen one at a classic car show over the years.
The 1955 Hudsons were actually nice looking cars, as they opened up the covered wheels of the Nash body. The front is a thoroughly conventional, but better than that year’s Nash. That body was quite clean, but, as you said, the urge for greater ornamentation has been irresistible in America.
The 1956 Hudson is the perfect example of the challenges facing a cash-strapped car company as it tries to make an aging design look new. That year’s Nash really isn’t much more attractive…looking back, it’s hard to imagine anyone choosing either car over a contemporary Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Mercury, Dodge, DeSoto or Chrysler.
Fortunately, AMC had an all-new Rambler in the wings for 1956, and it proved to be the company’s salvation. George Romney cancelled a planned all-new body for the Nash and Hudson, figuring correctly that even a new car would not make much headway against the Big Three competition. He bet the farm on the Rambler, as it did not have any real competition at that time. This turned out to be the right decision, and AMC prospered through the mid-1960s, until the Big Three intermediates stole its market.
Romney cut orders to release the all new Rambler for ’56; it was to have been first introduced in ’57. Romney and the AMC board agreed that the Rambler was the key to survival; the marque whose sales climbed steadily from ’53-’55/’56 vice the Hudson/Nash brands which were sinking.
Cutting loose the names of Nash and Hudson was a last minute decision as the ’58 Ambassador (117″ wheelbase stretch forward of the “A” pillar of the Rambler) has Hudson V-line styling cues all over it and some ’58 clays had “Nash” and “Hudson” badges and decor.
The styling and colors remind me a bit of this…
Give me a Hudson, Nash, or Packard any day. (Now if I just had the money to restore one to its former glory.)
Over the years I’ve come to realize that I’d rather have “good condition” old cars over “restored” ones. Far less paranoia about the small flaws and potential damage.
I have heard and read that the ’56 “V-Line” styling was either Edmund Anderson or Richard Arbib. Most historians point to Richard Arbib since his work over the years tends to gravitate towards sharp creases, “v” shapes. Edmund Anderson was a GM man originally – I don’t think Anderson and his lieutenants (like Bill Reddig) would’ve been solely responsible for the 1956-57 Hudson monstrosities.
Still, I’d take a ’56 Hornet with a Twin-H 308 six any day of the week.
FYI . . . .Richard Teague was still a couple of years away from coming aboard AMC by the time the ’56 and even ’57 Hudsons hit the streets – still in the Packard “Bunker”.
From certain angles the car reminds me of the Edsel Bermuda wagon that had two tone paint and wood-grain trim. Sort of like wearing bermuda shorts with dress socks and a sport coat.
You forgot the really small “Brownie” camera around the neck!
I don’t think the Hashes were all that blasphemous. The Step-Down Hudsons and Air Flyte Nashes were conceptually similar with unitized construction, and the Nash-bodied Hudson still offered the legendary six. Considering how obsolete the Step-Down was, and how ugly the picture for independents had become in the mid-’50s, it was a reasonable, non-cynical move by AMC.
It was certainly better than the Packardbakers, anyway.
Both Nash and Hudson were doomed, anyway, after GM and Ford ramped production up to put everybody else out of business. I never quite understood what Hudson brought to the table in the AMC merger; Packard may have been a better partner, but Nance and Romney couldn’t coexist and a premium car line probably would have killed the company much sooner.
I’ve always wondered what would have happened if AMC hadn’t blown its budget trying to chase GM every time its conservative product line started gaining traction.
Found this online: “One quick result from the merger was the doubling up with Nash on purchasing and production allowing Hudson to cut prices…”
Nash seemed stronger since it had the Kenosha assembly plants, and Husdon production moved there.
I sure hope that car is being cared for by someone. It looks pretty decent for a 55 year old car. I’d hate to see it get turned into Chinese tuna cans.
There is one of these growing mossy in a Self Storage yard in Kenmore Washington northeast of Seattle. Exact same color scheme in fact.
There’s a nice red Step-Down (a ’48 or ’49, I think) parked around the corner from me in Pasadena (occasionally joined by a second example); I should get some shots and post them to the Flickr group. It looks to be in running condition and is far from neglected, though I’ve never seen it being driven.
If it could talk! I’d like to know in what year the fron clip got collision re-sprayed.
Waiting for Death in a Borrowed Four Tone Suit.
I think that’s the best article tagline I’ve ever read, well done.
You could have just left it at that and attached the photos. No other words required.
“Waiting For Death In A Borrowed Four-Tone Suit”
Incisive, snappy title for this story. Well done.
My grandfather pulled his camping trailer to the logging camps of the redwoods in his Hudson with a strait 8. Grandma said it was always broken though. But the story of it has always made me want a Hudson Hornet.
You got through this article with nary a mention of Doc Hudson, the “Fabulous Hudson Hornet” in the Pixar movie “Cars”. Doc Hudson (voice by Paul Newman) was my favorite character in the movie. In one scene, he gives his engine a few good revs and I’ll bet anyone $5 that the sound is that of a gen-u-wine Twin H 308.
As for the Hashes, I always wondered just who bought these? I just thought of a fascinating mind game: It is 1957. You have made up your mind that you are going to support one of the independents by buying a new car. So is it a Nash, a Hudson, a Studebaker or a Packard? This is going to take some soul searching. No wonder Chrysler had such a great year.
Methinks this car once had a Continential tire kit.
Help me raise $20,000 to buy a Pininfarina-styled, fully loaded, 1955 Nash Ambassador 2dr hardtop on Hemings!
The presence of the small chrome emblem directly under the vent glass on the front door (there was one on each side) indicates that this particular Hudson was equipped with factory installed air conditioning which was the “All Weather Eye” Heating and A/C System. Introduced initially in ’54, it followed Pontiac’s introduction of an air conditioning system that was completely mounted up front and ducted through the dashboard. For the Nash and Hudson models, there were two little flaps located at the extreme ends of the top of the dash that opened to direct the cool air.
Bill Sapp
Hamlet, NC
Packard introduced a fully integrated air conditioning system in 1955, available on senior and Clipper series cars. The vents were dash mounted at the far left and right side of the top of the dashboard and popped up in various positions to direct air.
The 55-57 Hashes looked like their styling was supposed to be inspired by that of the GORGEOUS Hudson Italia, but it was cheapened and uglified to hasten Hudson’s fateful demise.
My grandfather was a millwright at Hudson, when the Detroit plant was closed, he was offered a transfer to Kenosha My grandmother who wanted to stay near her only child, my dad, nixxed the idea. So my grandfather just moved to Chrysler and worked there until retirement.
I once saw a poster, perhaps at the Depot Town Hudson garage, when the old man still owned it and it was the last Hudson garage, not a museum, and the pastor showed the amazing level of manufacturing vertical integration … Even down to in-house fabrication of the seat springs…
I have a 1955 Hudson Wasp I drove home , July 2013. This is garage art, the body is nice but the uni-body frame is questionable.
“four-tone paint job”
Is it really? I don’t know.
The car is a Hornet Custom. All Customs had two features clearly seen here – continental kit and gold inset between chrome strips on rear sides.
Is the gold a fourth paint color or, rather, is it a gold colored aluminum insert (like a ’57 Fairlane 500)?
Splitting semantic hairs? 🙂 How did the aluminum turn gold? Gold plate?
“How did the aluminum turn gold? Gold plate?”
Really? The same way Ford did it the next year. Anodized.
I know; I was kidding. The point is, there’s four colors on the exterior of this car. How they got there is (in my opinion) not the relevant issue. If a car has one body color of paint, and a different color for its vinyl top, most folks would call it a “two tone”, regardless of whether it’s paint, vinyl, anodized aluminum, or solid gold. Hence my earlier comment about “splitting semantic hairs”.
It’s a four-tone suit, which is what I said in the headline. If it makes you feel better, I can change the text to say that too.
Among all of the remaining independents of the early 50s, why is it that Nash seems to be the only one lacking in any kind of personality or excitement. Even with a V8 engine starting in 1955, Nashes seem uniquely without appeal, at least to me. Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Kaiser – each of them had some dramatic and compelling products in their final years which make us want them, even now. Nash, however, was like your maiden aunt who was thrifty and sensible and had money in the bank, but who was just no fun at all.
Funny, to me Nash is the one with character and appeal lasting into the mid-50s. Nashes were radical from the ’49 Airflytes all the way to the quad-headlighted ’57s. I do have a thing for the Airflyte Nash, which I admit is a very idiosyncratic thing.
Nash sales stayed right with Studebaker and ahead of the other independents from ’51 through ’56, until Rambler started taking off in ’57. (Chart here.)
Why have I not seen this wikipedia page before? That got added to my bookmarks mighty quickly. Thanks.
Yet, of the independents of the early 50’s, it was Nash that was the healthiest by a long shot. In retrospect, it appears they could have taken the Nash and Rambler brands and turned them into AMC without Hudson. Maybe there’s something to be said for ‘four wheeled white bread’ and long term (at least relative) success.
….
I am of the same opinion. Compared to Hudson, Packard, and Studebaker at that time, Nash styling was kind of mundane and… boring. When the merger happened Hudson essentially became Nash. AMC was really “Nash 2.0.” Mason and Romney were Nash. Edmunds was Nash. They had the reins. Hudson CEO Barit became a “shut up and sit in the corner” AMC board member.
From what I’ve been reading it seems to me the Hudson people were shoved aside. AMC management didn’t have a Hudson presence again until Roy Chapin Jnr came in to do damage control on Abernethy’s and Evans’ mismanagement in 1967.
Am I right?
I agree with most of what you say. In fairness to Nash/AMC though, Hudson’s cupboard was pretty bare by 1954. The Jet was a flop, the big Hudson was ancient and there was no modern powerplant. Hudson brought a dealer network to the new company and little more.
You know we are discussing this with the filters of 2021 firmly in place.They were all pretty good cars and I think the Nash could well havebeen the best although my favorite will probably always be studebaker.
Remember this when we all get around to discuss the demise of plymouth, pontiac, Oldsmobile, saturn etc in 20-30 years.
Good find Paul
How big was Hudson’s dealer network compared with Nash, Studebaker and the others? Sometimes a company gets acquired by a competitor for its sales channel (to use the current term) more than its products.
I don’t recall how many dealers Hudson had, but I think that was indeed one of the big reasons for the merger and part of the reason why AMC did the “Hashes” and the Hudson-badged Ramblers and Metropolitans.
The ‘dealerships” page at the amazingly comprehensive HudsonJet.net (link) says, “The dealer network during the step-down era was said to be 3000 dealers strong.” There are tons of listings and historical photos.
Here’s one for you, Paul: “Brodsky’s Hudson/Willys, corner of Charnelton St & W. 8th Ave, Eugene, Oregon. This building also housed their short lived Edsel dealership. It is currently known as The Strand, a business complex that houses Cozmic Pizza, Theo’s Coffee Shop, Indra’s Internet Lounge (Cyber Cafe), martial arts, and a print shop.”
A very familiar place indeed! Live music every night; been there often over the years. And always wondered what kind of garage or dealership it was. Thanks!
What kind of man drives a Hudson?
Rather hunky ones by the look….
I think what ruined the 1955-56 Hudson Hornet in terms of styling is its facial styling. The Nash version had a better looking face than that of the Hudson. Overall, they’re both looking cars, and they may have been way have been better cars than people have given them credit for, but the Nash had a way better looking face than that of the Hudson.
Conspiracy theory: perhaps Edmunds (head of design) had Romney whisper in his ear “don’t let Barit (ex-Hudson CEO) find out, but make your new Hudsons so butt-ugly that no one wants them, so we can keep the Nash flag flying even though we are “AMC” now – nudge-nudge-wink-wink. Here’s $50 to put in your pocket. Us Nash-ies stick together.”
1956-57 Hudsons had one of the strangest looking speedometer designs of the ’50s: it looks like a green mouth with single digits for numerals (no zeros). For unknown reasons, the 0 3 6 9 & 12 are larger than the other figures. This unique design was Hudson-exclusive.
These AMC Hudsons also retained the original Hudson safety link in the brakes which enabled stopping despite hydraulic failure (but only on cars without power brakes). The 327 C.I. V-8 used in ’57 was supposedly an excellent engine.
The ride and handling was reported to be inferior to the desirable “close to the road” driving characteristics of the original 48-54 Step-Down Hudsons. They were even uglier outside than the contemporary Nashes they were based on (if that were possible)! Despite their faults, I find them to be fascinating curiosities of the Golden Era period.
Weird – the emphasized digits are as on a clock.
Richard Arbib, who designed the facelifts for the ’56 and 57 Hudsons, also designed watches! The most famous being the Hamilton Ventura from 1957, which looks rather like the “V-Line styling” triangular motifs on those last Hudsons.
Another view of dashboard:
According to this filmstrip, the ’56 Hudson is the most beautiful car ever built:
I would like to download the text of this video. It is probably one of the finest examples of over wrought salesmanship ever recorded. Every adjective was used. The finest examples from the Madison Avenue age. We rarely hear this kind of presentation today.
I can only think of the term, “farm-fresh eggs” in describing a McDonald ingredient, as an example used today. This video is crammed with this kind of descriptions of the most mundane auto parts.
Absolutely over the top!
Actually, McDonalds doesn’t use the term “farm-fresh eggs” because theirs aren’t. They invented a term that alludes to that but means nothing. They advertise “fresh cracked eggs”. Yep, they crack em fresh!
Wow, they weren’t being coy about the benefits of reclining seats and fold-down bed…
I never realized just how ugly these cars were.
I found a compelling reason to own one of these – excellent air conditioning. While the other 1956 cars offer a lot of reasons to choose them over the Hudson – I absolutely need modern air conditioning and this is one of the few cars in 1956 that offered it within my budget.
It isn’t pretty, but it will ride cross country well, and do it without you sweating a pint getting there.
I found a compelling reason to own one of these – excellent air conditioning. While the other 1956 cars offer a lot of reasons to choose them over the Hudson – I absolutely need modern air conditioning and this is one of the few cars in 1956 that offered it within my budget.
It isn’t pretty, but it will ride cross country well, and do it without you sweating a pint getting there.
Another thing I like about it is the hideous “front fender fins” – they make it easy to see the edge of the car. All four nasty fins on each corner of the car, makes it easy to know exactly where this car ends.
I also like the the reclining seats. The competition doesn’t offer that. Other cars force you upright without adjustments other than slide for legs – the Hudson lets you adjust the seat so that you are more comfortable.
The car is overdone and I hate Continental spares, which I’d see about removing completely, yet there is no one else on the road in a car that looks like this, and that uniqueness makes this car special as well. Driving it, you will get comments and opinions, which is better than showing up in something else and either being ignored. You won’t get ignored in this car.
Finally, would I want this car. I think so. Mechanically, the challenge is rust in this unibody, but the rest of the car is very standard issue and straight forward. As dismissed as it is, there are some very appealing things about this car that shouldn’t be ignored. It has strong nerd appeal.
Without the “front fender fins”, the chrome on the side of the body and without the awful “V” grill it would have been a rather attractive car. As is it’s totally overdone. Combining Hudson with Nash was not a good idea.
The current Genesis G80 has almost the same grille as the 56-57 Hudson, so someone must have found the look attractive.
I imagine the stylists at the independents who typically tried to keep older bodies in fashion had to be quite irritated at the big three for coming up with wraparound windshields in the 50s then going back to traditional pillars in the 60s. The step down Hudson’s obviously had other stylistic traits not long for 50s fashions or any other for the foreseeable future, but with that being an element for consolidating both brands into the Nash body it really makes one loathe conformism.
I have mixed feelings on the Hash, I don’t actually think the front end is that bad, but that could be because of what I’m used to on cars today – I remember back when the Sonata came out with a big joker grin and thinking it was godawful but automotive critics just lavished the styling with praise! – I think if that front end as is was instead used on the step downs it would still be considered one of the cool Hudsons, honestly the little fins the final year 1954s sprouted was visually more offensive. I think it’s the Nash body I don’t like, maybe it’s because I associate Nash of this period so closely with Rambler and sanctimonious Romney but after the bathtubs(which are super cool) I find Nash’s mid-50s bodystyles very uninspired and pedestrian, in effect about the worst choice to slap the iconic Hornet badge onto. Actually it reminds me of the Marlin, with the 65 Classic being the worst possible car to graft a fastback onto.
Richard Arbib, the independent design consultant AMC hired to restyle Hudson for 1956-’57 had an unenviable task. Here was a bulbous body from the start, his mandate to give it a different look from its corporate mate Nash. This without requiring any new major tooling stampings. Other than minor die changes to the front panel to accommodate the corner parking lights and lower ‘V’ opening, the remainder is punching patterns for the stainless trim.
He was creating a series of ‘dream-car’ advertisements for Tidewater Oil Company (Tydol) concurrently, with some displaying this ‘V-themed’ grilles and trim. Benrus watches were another of his clients for whom he applied the same themes. Mid-Century Modern at its best…or worst dependent upon your taste.
Hudson had been losing ground ever since 1950 before the merger created AMC. Very likely there was nothing that could be done to stem the demise of the nameplate, though going out with clean, elegant styling would have been a good way to go.
On the other hand, these are some of the most memorable designs of the era and the perfect offbeat, nerdy collector car now. Check out this nicely-preserved 1957 Hudson Hornet that shows up at a local cruise night here in western New York.
And the rear, fortunately without the ‘continental kit”.
It’s way over-simplifying, but I’m tempted to say that AMC in the US made the same mistake as BMC in Britain; basing their mass-market sedans on the wrong platform, because “WE are the senior partner in this outfit.”. BMC used the bouncy, wobbly Austin as the basis for the new Morris Oxford instead of the old Morris’s superior torsion-bar/rack and pinion front end; AMC used the ordinary Nash chassis instead of Hudson’s race-proven setup.
What if they had chosen to use the best parts in their inventory, wherever they had come from, rather than what was expedient for the assembly plant? While the Hudson’s ‘chassis’ setup was superior to the Nash, unfortunately that seems to have been all tied up in their ‘belt-and-braces’ semi-unitary body construction, which had to go. It would have been interesting if the Hudson suspension elements could have been adapted to the Nash body structure. I wonder if this was ever tried, to make a ‘real’ ’55-7 Hudson?
The Hudson name will be forever memorialized by the sisters Blanche and ‘Baby’ Jane Hudson (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, 1962).
“I’ve written a letter to Daddy…”
Looking at long-stored Melbourne “Age” classifieds, 1950s & 60s. A cheap student’s car, several examples each Saturday, was the TERRAPLANE. My Grandmother’s older brother – Western District sheep farms being a family thing – drove over paddocks in a COMMODORE, long before Opel sowed that seed for Australia’s General Motors Holden, now, thanks to rightwing government’s lack of support, dead as the dodo, as Ford, as BMC, as all automotive manufacture in this wide brown land.
When I was born, the owner of our flats actually lived in one of them – imagine a modern Melbourne landlord living on the property! He drove Step-down Hudson (so I’m told; I don’t remember) and had to have the garage extended a foot and a half to fit it in. Old-timers were still talking about that car in the sixties, and how he ever got it down the drive without scraping the sides – that was hard enough in the Falcon!
Nash bodied Hudsons are like Studebaker bodied Packards. They just aren’t the same as the originals. Curse you, badge engineering!