(EXPANDED FROM 1/25/2023)
When rechecking links I was disappointed to see that Hemmings has apparently deleted one of the better comment-thread discussions about late-50s American car design. This illustrates a downside of the digitization of automobile history. However, Indie Auto had previously captured the highlights of that discussion while analyzing the car-design career of Fred Hudson.
— Steve
Fred Hudson comes across as a talented designer and a nice person. At least that’s my impression from an oral history that was videotaped before he died in 2010. Hudson oversaw the styling of notable cars such as the 1968 AMC Javelin.
However, the film, Hudson: By Land and By Sea, presents a man who seemed quite comfortable with the bigger, glitzier, more powerful mentality of post-war U.S. carmakers. In other words, he was a purveyor of Detroit groupthink.
As you might expect of a 34-minute video produced by the Chris-Craft Commander Club, most of it was about boats. Fortunately, filmmaker Whitney Pillsbury (2011) also showed Hudson discussing his work for Studebaker-Packard, the Chrysler Corporation and American Motors. Mixed in with his musings are images of the cars he helped design.
Note that this film is a good model for the kind of oral histories that need to be produced while the remaining postwar auto-industry leadership is still alive.
Hudson discussed in greatest detail the 1961 Imperial
When surveying Hudson’s car designs, the film spent the most time on a facelifted 1961 Imperial. Hudson drew this car after being appointed the chief stylist of Imperial exteriors in early 1957.
The most noteworthy part of the Imperial was its coffin nose and freestanding headlights. The film doesn’t clarify whether Hudson came up with the idea on his own, but the neo-classical theme was clearly in alignment with the stylistic taste of Virgil Exner, who headed Chrysler’s fledgling design department.
The 1961 Imperial was developed while Exner was recuperating from a heart attack, so technically Cliff Voss was in charge. However, Exner’s biographer Peter Grist noted that “Cliff was in constant contact with Ex” and that it was “hard to imagine anyone but Virgil Exner creating the Imperial head and taillamp” (2007, p. 117-118).
Grist’s biography is generally sympathetic to Exner, but it nevertheless described the Imperial as possessing the “most outlandish” styling of the Chrysler Corporation’s “unpopular” 1961 lineup (2007, p. 117).
Hudson’s rendering (see below) looked better than the car that reached production, but it was still overwrought. And as the Imperial’s principal designer, he should take at least some responsibility for the final product, which I would argue was the most excessive design of that era (go here for further discussion) as well as the most-poorly styled in that brand’s fairly short life.
Also see ‘1961-63 Imperial: Ode to Virgil Exner’s neo-classical excesses’
Curiously enough, in the film Hudson did not display any embarrassment about the 1961 Imperial. Quite the opposite — he was downright glib about his handiwork: “I drew the damn thing up and they put it in production.”
Hudson’s boyishly casual attitude is endearing in a way, but it suggests that he was lacking in good stylistic judgment.
Hudson’s American Motors work had a generic quality
The film also shows some of the designs Hudson oversaw during his time at American Motors. However, Hudson mostly discussed feeling burned out.
“When I left Chris-Craft I was exhausted,” he told Pillsbury. “I didn’t do a damn thing at American Motors except let my 90 guys work for me and pick out what I liked. I was milked dry when I got out in 1964 and went back to Detroit.”
Hudson was hired to be AMC’s chief stylist of exteriors. In that role he oversaw a 1967 redesign of mid-sized cars as well as the 1968 Javelin and AMX.
Hudson quite rightly said that his team “did some nice cars.” They were certainly as good as designs from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
The biggest problem may have been marching orders from management. As discussed here, top executives vainly sought to compete directly against the Big Three with “me-too” cars.
More under Hudson’s control was the stylistic continuity of AMC exteriors. The Javelin had little resemblance to the mid-sized Rebel aside from gently rounded rear-quarter windows. Did this reflect his creative detachment? Or did he not think that brand DNA was important?
The lack of styling continuity is a mark against Hudson — and his boss, Richard Teague. AMC was too small to not think carefully about how the Javelin’s look fit into the overall lineup as well as the automaker’s past.
Hemmings’ comment thread debated late-50s styling
Hudson didn’t say much about his stint at Studebaker-Packard. However, the film shows pictures of a proposed line of Packards and Clippers. Some of the same images — and background on their evolution — were published in an article by Daniel Strohl (2019a).
In the story’s comment thread, some readers criticized the cars as emblematic of Detroit’s late-50s styling. For example, Harold Dillon (2019) noted that only with the U.S. automakers “was such excess, flamboyance and sheer silliness the ‘flavour of the day.'” David E. M. Thompson (2019) noted that “those excesses gave us the Volkswagen, in all its simplicity.” A number of commentators also suggested that Hudson’s designs had a fairly generic look.
That aligns with my views. As discussed here, Studebaker-Packard could not hope to compete in the Big Three’s race to make the biggest, glitziest and most powerful cars. They instead should have offered a more practical alternative.
Of course, Hudson did not decide that the proposed 1957 Packard would have an ungainly 130-inch wheelbase. Even so, he clearly had a flair for glitzy. This is why I wonder whether he might have found greater success at one of the Big Three than at an independent automaker, which needed designers who challenged rather than perpetuated the prevailing design groupthink of the postwar era.
If you have not seen By Land and By Sea, I hope this post did not dissuade you from doing so. Pillsbury’s film is a well done tribute to a talented — if rather faddish — designer.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted Jan. 3, 2020, expanded on Aug. 27, 2021, updated on Jan. 25, 2023 and expanded on Jan. 2, 2025. Thank you to commentator Dave Painter (2019), who posted a link to the Hudson film in a Daniel Strohl story about the AMC designs Hudson oversaw.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dillon, Harold; 2019. Commentator in “How Fred Hudson designed a Predictor-ified Packard future that never came to pass.” Hemmings. Posted Dec. 17 at 11:25 am (comment no longer online).
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer.Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Painter, Dave; 2019. Commentator in “Rogues, Ramblers, Rebels, and more: Fred Hudson’s tenure at American Motors.” Hemmings. Posted Dec. 18 at 4:04 pm (comment no longer online).
- Pillsbury, Whitney; 2011. Hudson: By Land and By Sea. Chris-Craft Commander. Posted on YouTube Jan. 7.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2019a. “How Fred Hudson designed a Predictor-ified Packard future that never came to pass.” Hemmings. Posted Dec. 17.
- ——–; 2019b. “Rogues, Ramblers, Rebels, and more: Fred Hudson’s tenure at American Motors.” Hemmings. Posted Dec. 19.
- Thompson, David E. M.; 2019. Commentator in “How Fred Hudson designed a Predictor-ified Packard future that never came to pass.” Hemmings. Posted Dec. 17 at 9:42 am (comment no longer online).
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: AMC Javelin and Rebel (1968)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Imperial (1961); Packard (1956)
Just a question: If the 1957 Packards had Predictor styling on a 126 and 130-inch wheelbase, would they have been successful (relatively) against the 1957 Lincolns and 1957 Cadillacs ? (Of course, Studebaker-Packard had no money to create and manufacture such a car in late 1956, so realistically, the point is moot.) In 1957, 126, 127 and 130-inch wheelbases defined mid-1950s luxury. The Packard Predictor’s styling work better than the 1958 Edsel and the front end styling would have been a predictor for the 1962 and 1968 Pontiacs !?!
I agree that the 1961 Imperial styling was different, Exner’s revised fins and all. The coffin-nose grill is nice design touch as not every make of automobile can feature an “egg-crate” grill, but the free-standing front headlights should have lasted only one-year, but someone in Chrysler’s management hierarchy must have loved that front end. Somehow, even though the 1961 Lincoln Continental did not outsell Cadillac, the impact of the Elwood Engle styling should have really shaken up Chrysler’s upper management, but maybe the civil war between Tex Colbert and William Newburg blinded the folks in Highland Park. All I can say is that the 1961 Imperial was the culmination of everything Virgil Exner, Sr. at Chrysler. It was a work of sheet metal “art”. I don’t know if I am qualified to judge about its “beauty” because that is in the eye of the beholder.
During this period, there was so much corporate chaos at Chrysler that the low-volume Imperial most likely fell off the radar for a few years.
During this period, management was grappling with the disastrous fall-off in sales after 1957 (particularly with DeSoto); severe quality control and rust issues with the 1957 and later cars; ongoing efforts to bring labor costs in line with the Big Two; the rollout of a new compact (the Valiant); the realignment of the dealer body, with Dodge dealers losing their Plymouth franchises; and a payola scandal with suppliers that directly involved top corporate management.
What to do about the Imperial was shoved to the back burner.
And Chrysler top management did ultimately recognize the impact of the 1961 Lincoln Continental, given that it hired its designer, Elwood Engle, to replace Virgil Exner after the debacle with the 1962 Dodges and Plymouths.
Geeber, it makes sense that Chrysler’s management would be distracted. At the same time, Detroit executives during the postwar era tended to be drawn to luxury cars like a moth to a flame. Look at Iacocca’s infatuation with the 1981 Imperial despite everything else going on at the time. A vaguely similar pattern played out in the late-50s and early-60s with the Imperial.
For 1959 the Imperial was given its very own assembly plant (go here for further discussion). Then, in 1960, the brand received a new set of sheetmetal and — only a year later — an all-new front end and fins. In contrast, the 1958-59 Imperials received only grille and trim changes.
My guess is that management was unhappy with Imperial sales in 1958-60 and assumed that the best way to fix things was more aggressive styling. So they doubled down.
The 1961 Imperial didn’t look all that outrageous next to a Plymouth of the same year, and it fit within the same design paradigm as the proposed (but ultimately aborted) S-Series big cars for 1962. This leads me to wonder whether the fundamental problem was that top management made the mistake of trusting the judgment of its design department . . . which could have been partly driven by management feeling distracted.
James, your question is a good one — and it is hard to answer. To explain what I mean, take a look at the graphs here. For example, in 1957 GM saw production of its premium-priced cars fall dramatically. Ford fell too, albeit by a smaller amount. Chrysler was slightly up . . . but then collapsed in 1958.
My takeaway is that the public reacted differently to each of these automakers’ new designs. Would they have liked the new Studebaker-Packards better than a Ford or GM product? I don’t know, but I don’t have an intuitive sense that the new styling was on par with 1957 Chrysler products in its appeal. Of course, by 1958-59 the styling of SP’s cars vis a vis Chrysler’s may have mattered less than if they didn’t suffer from Chrysler’s quality problems.
A somewhat similar pattern occurred in the luxury car field. I mention that more parenthetically because Packard would have had to see an extraordinary increase in the sales of its luxury cars in order to generate much volume (go here for further discussion). What mattered more was how premium-priced sales did because that is where the volume was. I’m skeptical that the Clipper would have been able to do all that well in such a crowded market . . . and without the cache of the Packard name.
So, yes, I’d agree that the Packard’s styling worked better than the 1958 Edsel. The fundamental challenge is that the country entered a recession in 1957 that would hit the premium-priced and luxury-car markets hard over the next few years. Even if the public responded well to the styling of the Clipper and Packard, would there have been enough buyers to keep the automaker afloat?
That was an era of longer, lower, wider. The Predictor show car was longer lower and wider because it could be. Fred Hudson’s drawings were also, because that was the artistic convention of the time. The “Black Maria” mockup was fairly spartan looking, but to me looked like a 57 Mercury with Packard grill and taillights. The pictures I called up showed clays of the proposed 57 Packard and Clipper. They just scream FoMoCo.
Steve, You talk of the need for brand design cue continuity. I argue against that as it gives us a whole bunch of the crap we have today. Make a design then graft some corporate nose or other major element onto it for the sake of that “corporate look”. Design needs to move forward so it finds “next” and not stagnate.
The Javelin could be its own standalone design.
In your review of the 2 Fred Hudson renderings of the Imperial you make an opinion that the black nose with the shorter grill is superior to the red rendering’s taller treatment. I question if that shorter treatment was modeled first and upon review decided that since the rendering uses cheated proportions it did not translate as well as you think. I suspect that the height above the shorter grill might have become visually excessive.
Studebaker-Packard was always doomed. Neither had the money that the other expected was coming to the table. Packard had become a distant memory of its former top of market self despite the Caribbeans. The Predictor was an attempt to build some last gasp positive PR but the pictures of what it might have been as the productionized iteration was not going to look good anyway.
I don’t know how helpful it is to talk about the pros and cons of design continuity in the abstract. Whether it works or not can depend on a variety of factors. So it makes more sense to me to talk about specific brands at specific points in their evolution.
As a case in point, you mention the Javelin. Yeah, it could have been a stand-alone design — much like the Mustang turned out to be. A while back Chris Bangle weighed in on that by arguing that it made sense for the Mustang to have its own design language. I don’t often agree with him, but here I do. Ford was big enough that it could get away with giving the Mustang a distinctive look.
I would suggest that AMC had the opposite problem. It needed more of a Mercedes approach to design, where the language changed gradually and was shared by the entire lineup.
Regarding the Imperial, I think Hudson’s rendering had a number of qualities that were better than the production model: The bumper had a more contoured look, there were no turn signal brows, and the grille was more horizontal. It may very well be true that this particular drawing “cheated” on the proportions, but I think that the basic, more horizontal approach would have worked better.
Of course, what do I know? This is my inner 10-year-old wanna-be car designer talking.
Steve, I’ve never seen this film before, thanks for bringing to our attention!
I find fascinating Hudson’s renderings of the 1960 Imperial because they featured hidden headlights. Many years ago I read somewhere (if I find the source will post link) that hidden lights were pursued but could not be made to work reliably.
Because I always thought that the design would have benefited from them, several years ago I worked up an image to depict. Also removed the Imperial script from the grill like Hudson had done, added skirts and raised the passenger seatback height to match driver seatback. Image courtesy Wheelsage and AACA Forum.
Another ’60 Imperial rendering in the film shows a ’60 New Yorker-style grill with hidden lights. Wonderful design!
“MeTV” offers daily re-runs of old (mainly C.B.S.-TV) shows, but currently have in their excellent promotional announcement rotations a clip of Mr. Drysdale pulling up to the fictional “Commerce Bank of Beverly Hills” in his 1962 black-on-black Imperial. The car looks elegant and impressive with its revised rear styling (clipped fins). Whoever made the decision to tastefully restyle the Imperial rear clip, while leaving the “gunsight” taillights not only maintained brand exclusivity, but design continuity. I think that given the 1960-1961 corporate level turmoil combined with Exner, Sr.’s heart problems created the opportunity for a lack of accountability, miscommunication and lost perspectives. Chrysler design staff must have been relatively disciplined, as Elwood Engel was able to rally the troops and fix many of Chrysler’s car designs by the fall of 1962 for Chrysler to have a better 1963 model year. Fixing the Imperial had to wait until 1964.