Flameout: The Short, Sad Story of the Hudson Jet

Introduced in 1953, the compact Jet was intended to save Hudson, but it only accelerated the proud Detroit automaker’s downfall. 

 

 

In theory, the Jet should have been a big winner for the Hudson Motor Car Company. Dealers had been clamoring for years for a smaller, less expensive version of the sturdy, well-regarded Hudson full-sized line, certain it would be a winner in the showrooms. (Read our feature on the famed Step-Down Hudsons here.) A popular, low-priced Hudson could boost the company’s production volume, reducing unit costs and restoring the company’s profitability. But when the Jet arrived for 1953, it didn’t light the fires of traditional Hudson shoppers, and the price missed the mark as well.

 

 

Introduced in November of 1952, the Jet was developed at a cost of $16 million—a drop in the bucket for the Detroit Three, but a vast fortune to Hudson, which operated at a small fraction of the production scale of Ford or General Motors. Above, Hudson president A.E. Barit (far left) and his executive staff see the first Jet off the Conner Avenue production line. Third from right is chief engineer Millard Toncray.

Over-engineered just like its Step-Down big brother, the Jet rode on a hefty unitized body/frame structure with a 105-inch wheelbase (similar in size to the 1960 Detroit compacts that appeared a few years later). Under the hood, the 202 cubic-inch, 104-horsepower flathead six was essentially the old Commodore straight eight with two cylinders removed, saving the company a bundle on development and tooling. Hudson’s Twin-H dual-carburetor setup was optional, and buyers could select a manual, overdrive, or General Motors Hydra-Matic automatic transmission ($176 extra). While the typically heavy Hudson construction produced a curb weight of 2700 lbs, several hundred lbs more than the comparable Nash Rambler or Henry J, magazine testers declared the Jet nimble, peppy, and enjoyable to drive.

 

 

While the Jet’s engineering was sound, its styling left much to be desired, many will say. Hudson styling chief Frank Spring was an admirer of sporty European cars, and he and chief engineer Toncray used the Fiat 1400 as their benchmark for the Jet. Spring reportedly envisioned an exterior theme much like the limited-production Hudson Italia (See our Italia feature here) but a series of unfortunate compromises produced an entirely different look—tall, square, and awkward.

In Hudson lore, the culprit responsible for the frumpy styling was Chicago mega-dealer Jim Moran, who enjoyed tremendous influence among Hudson’s management. Moran lobbied for a ’52 Ford-like exterior with elevated fenders and roofline, along with the Oldsmobile-ish tail lamps, and as Hudson’s largest retailer he got his way. For his part, company president Barit also insisted on dining-room seating and a generous roofline, and when the Jet came out tall and ungainly rather than sleek and graceful, Spring was reportedly crushed with disappointment.

 

Like any Hudson, the Jet was comfortably appointed, with premium upholstery materials and the full complement of convenience features. Two trim levels were offered for 1953, Jet and Super Jet, with the Super boasting larger tires and a few more gadgets. As sales faltered, in April of 1954 the company introduced a stripped-down economy model, the Family Club Sedan, pictured just above, with less chrome and a more spartan cabin.

 

While the styling has been often faulted, car buyers probably found the Jet’s price equally unattractive. Lacking the Big Three’s economy of scale, Hudson was unable to bring the Jet’s price down to a competitive level, and the company was further handicapped by a complicated cost-sharing arrangement with body supplier Murray, jacking up the price even further. Base price on the ’53 Jet was $1,858, compared to $1,613 for a full-sized Chevrolet or $1,734 for a full-sized Ford. In pricing, the Jet was never really in the game.

As the Jet’s added production volume failed to materialize, Hudson sales remained flat for 1953 at around 66,000 units, with the Jet accounting for around 21,000 units, and the automaker lost $10.4 million, its biggest loss in history. In 1954, total volume fell to around 51,000 cars (including 14,000 Jets) and the automaker lost $6.2 million on $29 million in sales. Far from saving the company, the Jet had only hastened Hudson’s inevitable downfall. With no real alternatives, the Hudson Motor Car Co. merged with Nash-Kelvinator on May 1, 1954, creating American Motors. The Jet was discontinued for 1955, and the new company pinned its hopes in the compact class on a far more successful car, the Nash Rambler.

 

4 thoughts on “Flameout: The Short, Sad Story of the Hudson Jet

  1. But Jet another good car doomed by its creators! Despite its ’51 Chevy grille, and ’53 Olds taillights, I have always wondered why they made it look like a baby Ford. I thought back then, that even if the Ford was the best selling car in the world – I’m not saying it was – but even if they sought to emulate a “successful” design, why would a company make their own new car look like that of another brand? In my youth it made no sense to me, and now in my old age I still don’t comprehend what their reasoning was.
    Now, learning what has been related in this post, I think that if Hudson’s largest retailer liked Ford’s so much, why wasn’t he selling Fords instead of Hudsons? I still question why didn’t Hudson rely on their stylists – alone – to create a design for the baby Hudson, and
    despite the cost figures cited, would it have had a better chance at success if they had done so? We’ll never know. Sad ending to a great marque.

  2. I recall going the the local Hudson dealer on the west side of Detroit with my dad to have a demo ride in the new Jet..Dad was driving a 52 Hornet at the time and prior to that had owned 49 Commodore.Both being very good cars and of course the Hornet making fame at Daytona. This demo ride was one of the scariest rides I’ve ever been involved in .The salesman was attempting to show the speed and handling characteristics of this new breed of sportiness in the driving experience and came close to rolling it over that after taking to some side roads. Your point about styling is very to the point on this model,The designer missed the boat completely and in fact was the exact opposite of the other larger models that were known for their low center of gravity and great handling . The Jet should have been low slung and not a copy of anything else.

  3. The second pic made me look twice. It looks much like a E series Vauxhall in silouhette and the chrome mouldings. I guess Vauxhall copied Hudson as the Vauxhall was a couple of years behind.

  4. Nash + Hudson = Rambler! Even in 1952,.. some of the ugliest, boxiest boring styling to ever be brought out of Detroit!
    I grew up on a street that led right to the American Motors World Headquarters. My brother and I stopped in there almost every day on our way home from school. They “adopted” us!
    I recall reading their dealer brochures and postcard promotional materials. Well into the late 1960’s,.. we would continue to find them advocating things like trunk space, fuel economy, headroom and “safety!”
    As young bucks, even WE were unimpressed!
    So much, that few will recall them winning the Motor Trend Annual Award for 1963 for introducing “curved side glass” as an innovative feature that soon everyone else would be using!
    I can not describe how amazed we were with learning about the “Rebel”, the “Classic” (with Hurst Dual-Gate” automatic shifters) and eventually the Javelin and AMX!
    Still,.. it seems they just never managed to get rid of those stodgy, old fashioned platform planners and marketing stooges? I still thing George Romney was always in the room during new employee interviewing??!!

Comments are closed.