This Is What Led To Hudson Motor Company's Downfall | Jay Leno's Garage | CNBC Prime

The Hudson Motor Car Company set itself apart after WWII with the revolutionary step down ride but it was not enough to save the company from a poor decision. Jay Leno's Garage Season Premiere Jan 4 | Thurs 10P ET/PT.
Watch Jay Leno's Garage on demand now.
» Subscribe to CNBC Prime: cnb.cx/yt
About CNBC Prime: By night, CNBC Prime is an entertainment network with a programming slate that is an extension of CNBC’s distinct brand. The entertainment focused block in primetime includes programs such as Shark Tank, The Profit, Jay Leno’s Garage, West Texas Investors Club, Restaurant Startup, American Greed and Secret Lives of the Super Rich. Primetime programming airs Monday through Sunday, 7:00 PM - 2:00 AM.
Connect with CNBC Prime Online!
Visit CNBC Prime’s Website: cnb.cx/prime
Find CNBC Prime on Facebook: cnb.cx/fb
Follow CNBC Prime on Twitter: cnb.cx/tw
Follow CNBC Prime on Google+: cnb.cx/goo
Follow CNBC Prime on Instagram: cnb.cx/insta
This Is What Led To Hudson Motor Company's Downfall | Jay Leno's Garage | CNBC Prime

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Richard M. Langworth's book, "Hudson, the Postwar Years" has a chapter titled, "Why Hudson Failed." In this chapter Mr. Langworth points out the numerous issues that led to Hudson having to merge with Nash/Kelvinator in 1954 to survive (only three more years). Among them is indeed, as Jay Leno points out, the lack of a Hudson V-8 engine. But other factors also contributed to Hudson's demise. To name a few of these includes the famous postwar Step-down uni-body design being near impossible to significantly restyle, not having the manufacturing capacity, dealer network and even advertising budgets like "the big three" (Chevy, Ford & Chrysler), the failure of the 1953-54 Hudson Jet compact car to generate sales to even pay the cost to manufacture it (Langworth said in his book "the Hudson Jet was the single greatest mistake the company ever made.") and finally the so called "Ford Blitz" of 1953 whereby, as Langworth points out, "The overproduction of Ford and GM, in their strident efforts to bury each other, buried only the independents." Mr. Langworth mentions other factors too, but these are some of the ones that really stand out when it comes to the failure of the Hudson Motor Car Company.

[@edarcuri182]

@@sputnikzorro Hudson became part of American Motors (Nash Kelvinator renamed) on May 1, 1954. Stock was "swapped" with each three shares of Hudson exchanged for two of American Motors. Packard unwisely bought Studebaker which was drowning in debt that same year.

[@CharlesWiningham]

They also lost their defense contracts to GM in 1953 because of engine Charlie Wilson.

[@jackgoldstein2254]

Hudson would have been better off not developing the Jet. That money would've been better spent on re-styling, or developing a V-8.

[@cursedcanine8414]

V8 definitely the 54 face lift was nice and yea if i was in charge of hutson i would have told them make me a V8 at 351Cubic inch who thought spending youre componys monny on not what the consumers whant

[@reelreeler8778]

They didn't go out of business, they merged with Nash and became AMC.

[@That_AMC_Guy]

But even Nash, now American Motors management took a good, hard look at Hudson and there wasn't much there worth keeping. Nash's OHV six was a little bit more modern than Hudson's old flathead. Both cars were using GM Hydra-Matics, so call that a draw. Nash's bodies had been unit construction since 1949 and were lightyears ahead of anything Hudson had. Even the name didn't seem to appeal to anybody anymore as Nash tried to keep the Hudson name alive for a few more years. Even the '55 Hudson that was produced on the Nash platform looked very much like the plans Hudson had for it's own 55's. Can't blame Nash for trying! But there was nothing left to distinguish Hudson from other brands anymore. Most everybody else had a V8, GM had the HydraMatic, Hudson had "Step-down" design and "Triple-Safe" brakes. Not exactly the kind of things that made people rush to the showrooms in the mid 50's. Hudsons weren't even stylish anymore. AMC discontinued the name, closed and then sold the old Hudson plant to Cadillac in 1956. GM didn't keep it around long, either. They tore the whole thing down in 1960 for modernization.

[@brienfoaboutanything9037]

Wikipedia about Hudson Motor Car Company: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5KnnoSsjbV3e7s

[@What.its.like.]

True, but Hudson and Nash nameplates did die in 1957

[@hudson2441]

Factors of Hudson's demise. 1. No V8 when that's what the public wanted (engineering merits aside). 2. The Hudson Jet didn't sell well and was expensive to develop and Hudson burned up their cash reserves. It was also a compact that was priced basically the same as a base full-size Chevy or Ford. Mechanically it was good, In styling it wasn't so good. 3. Ford vs GM price war of the early 50's buried the independent automakers. 4. George Mason the guy who masterminded the AMC merger died of a heart attack and the deal fell apart. Hudson got together with Nash/Kelvinator. Studebaker got together with Packard. But the 2 pairs of companies never merged because of competing egos in management who all wanted to be CEO of AMC. 5. AMC dropped both the Nash and Hudson lines in 1957 to focus on selling the Rambler because Ramblers were selling and the Nash/Hudson lines were not. What is not true is that Hudson faded away because they made bad cars.

[@edarcuri182]

Excellent review of the facts. It is true, too, that you note that the product wasn't responsible for the failures nearly to the extent of business conditions and decisions. Hudson did build some fine cars as did Nash. The difference for both was that, despite a lot of headwinds, Nash had a better financial position. Neither was strong enough to make it much longer alone, however AMC never went bankrupt. Studebaker didn't either. Who did? 2 of the "big" Three!

[@saxongreen78]

Hudson Jet (to compete with the Nash Rambler) - a great little car with styling that was compromised by management interference...very expensive to develop, sold very poorly. They had diverted funds away from their full size lines for that project and lost too much ground, leaving them no option but to merge with Nash to form AMC.

[@frankeggers4024]

I question whether they needed a V8 to survive and their failure to survive was the result of not having a V8. Suppose that they have converted their flathead six to a twin overhead camshaft six with four valves per cylinder. That would have given them more power than any V8 available at the time and they would have won the stock car races by even wider margins. They could have advertised that pushrod engines were obsolete and that only Hudsons had modern engines.

[@davido.2908]

Ya know that the Ford 300 OHV six was designed by Hudson engineer Bernie Siegfried who was told by Hudson management they weren't going to need any more engines designed with the merger with Nash. When presented to Ford they decided to build the 300.

[@johnnymason2460]

The V8s were cheaper to produce than a twin cam inline six. Plus, this is America. Most people wanted V8s at the time. You don't hear a lot about six cylinder cars in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Just mostly V8s.

[@Classickoolcars]

@@johnnymason2460. Maybe if they had flogged the v8’s on the race tracks you might’ve!! Marketing sometimes has a LOT to answer for. !!!

[@edarcuri182]

There were some experimental twin overhead cam sixes built during the Nash Healey days. Nash decided against producing the engines. I don't know what factors led to the decision, but I can guess!

[@jlletaw1954]

when l was a kid I'd hear people talking about Hudson's but can't remember actually seeing 1 running on the road...now, the more I'm finding out about them the more l like them...what kind of bike is that in the background

[@robertphillips6296]

Two “Fabulous Hudson Hornets!”

[@privateprivate1865]

I love the terraplane

[@jerrygundecker743]

Jay, I take it you don't own a Nash Metro, but could you find someone willing to come on the show who does? I've always loved the look of those goofy things. Besides, that I enjoy your show and would rather hear it all from your point of view.

[@NebukedNezzer]

when I got my drivers license 1960. I drove our second family car. a 1950 hudson commodore 6. its cylinders were worn out and had a lot of blowby. but it still ran so we kept on using it. my dad said it was the best car he ever owned. as for me it drove nicely so it was better than no car.

[@edmikula7187]

The flat head 6 was also a problem. If it over heated it was never right again. Both the head and the block would warp. You could only shave so much off and hope it worked. multiple head gaskets and various other fixes never lasted.

[@timothykeith1367]

If the independents had seen what was coming and merged in 1947 and developed a good v8 - the Studebaker v8 was a decent motor, but the factories were obsolete. Maybe GM and Ford were awarded better war contracts than Nash, Hudson, Studebaker and Packard. I've read about Studebaker trucks and Package Merlin engines, but I think GM, Ford and Chrylser must have done better on war contracts.

[@FairladyS130]

That flathead 6 was archiac, it didn't even have a modern pressurised lubrication system. To compete a complete new design was required.

[@DivineMisterAdVentures]

What happened to the 1960 metropolitan, Jay? You don't own a Metropolitan??

[@Watchmaker_Gereon-Schloesser]

For the US-american it should have been a 16 cylinder - I guess. 6 cylinder is best consumption and power / smoothness. Citroën put even that great 2Liter 4 cylinder motor of the TA - Traction Avant (construction of 1933 L'Attraction the Attraction) in the miracle car of 1955 - the DS (Déesse - Goddess) 19 .

[@SebastianATaylor]

Hudson will live again

[@Scyffe]

I wish Dodge And Hudson were a thing

[@hiesenburg669]

They kinda were

[@Scyffe]

@@hiesenburg669 Prove it. Not because I think you’re lying but I genuinely want to know how.

[@hiesenburg669]

@Scyffe well Hudson and Nash merged becoming Rambler and eventually becoming AMC . The company had taken on jeep as Willys had gone out of business and later AMC became Eagle which if you noticed Chrysler Dodge Plymouth Jeep/Eagle were being sold at Dodge dealerships since the 80s Eventually Dodge would take over Jeep and Eagle would eventually die out. I know not really Hudson and Dodge but the later versions of the company.

[@Scyffe]

@@hiesenburg669 I think that did the trick 🫱🏼‍🫲🏽

[@marc639]

Americans don't make good decisions. But gas millage was not important then when it was 25 cents per gallon. So they went for gas gussler v8.

[@here_we_go_again2571]

@ marc639 Gasoline was cheap in USA, post- WW2 and fuel economy did not matter until the 1970's. Why not emphasize style and new models to sell more with more people employed who can afford to buy products? USA wasn't Communist Russia after all!