(EXPANDED FROM 10/27/2023)
We haven’t checked in with our friends at Over-Drive Magazine lately, so what’s up? They continue to build a multi-faceted repository of information about American cars after initially trying to launch a magazine. Their website includes a variety of documents as well as historical overviews of individual brands. Let’s test drive the quality of their analysis by taking a look at a piece entitled “The Tale of Hudson’s Demise” (Over-Drive, 2025).
The unbylined story has technical bells and whistles that puts to shame more established auto history websites. These include buttons that let you share the article on your favorite social-media platform. And at the bottom of the page there is a link to a Hudson “fact center” that has brochures, ads and model specifications. This is a brilliant idea but it comes across like a store where most of its shelves are empty. In the case of Hudson, only 1951-54 has any content.
Meanwhile, the main Hudson article doesn’t suffer from bloopers quite as big as what I found in a Packard story in an Over-Drive magazine edition (go here). However, there are enough factual quirks that I would not point to this as the best discussion about Hudson’s demise. It reads like it was produced by artificial intelligence without an adequate amount of human editing.
Over-Drive has curious takes on Hudson’s demise
For example, the 1953-54 Hudson Jet is mostly referred to as a “mid-size” car that “competed with established brands such as Nash’s Rambler and Studebaker’s Champion line — both of which had the reputation of delivering solid lower-price cars” (Over-Drive, 2025).
The Jet has been most commonly referred to as a compact because of its exterior dimensions, but I suppose you could call it mid-sized if you go by price and weight. Even so, I would be more inclined to give the larger Champion that label.
Also see ‘1948 Hudson step-down was a brilliant car with tragic flaws’
After Hudson merged with Nash-Kelvinator, the article states that “the Hudson became a badge engineered Rambler.” They are clearly not talking about the compact Rambler, which was sold at both Nash and Hudson dealers with minor changes. Instead, they are referring to the full-sized Nash body because they note that the 1955-57 Hudson was available with a “Packard supplied OHV V-8 and Rambler’s own V-8” (Over-Drive, 2025).
They further state that V8 sales were “even” with sixes in 1955 and outselling them in 1956. That deviates from the production figures listed in Richard Langworth’s (1993) Hudson book. By my calculations of his data, V8s only represented 30 percent of big-car production in 1955 and 28 percent in 1956.
Ode to conventional wisdom
The article’s summary of why Hudson died sounds like a regurgitation of conventional wisdom: A unit-body that didn’t lend itself to frequent restylings, the Jet’s unpopularity, and the lack of a V8 engine. I wouldn’t reject that assessment, but it also doesn’t display a whole lot of nuance.
As a case in point, a unitized body did not keep Nash from fielding full-sized cars with fairly competitive styling. The difference was that while Nash redesigned its big cars twice after the end of World War II, Hudson did so only once.
The article quite rightly states that once Hudson committed to launching the Jet that it did not possess the “financial wherewithal to make the needed body style changes to the full size line.” However, the piece makes a debatable argument that the Jet “added no new buyers among the booming middle class — who in those days — bought full-size cars” (Over-Drive, 2025). If that were true, then why did the Rambler sell so well that by 1955 it had eclipsed the full-sized Nash?
Is Over-Drive too small to be viable?
If this Hudson story is indicative of Over-Drive’s quality, it illustrates how even a great idea — an integrated repository of information — can fall short due to execution weaknesses.
Just to be clear: My aim is not to do a “gotcha” about errors. Almost all U.S. auto history websites are so small — and often volunteer powered — that mistakes are inevitable. Of greater concern is that there does not appear to have been any improvement in the Hudson story since I last read it more than two years ago. You would think that they would have at least fixed the “Holleywood” typo.
Also see ‘What kind of information is good enough for automotive history?’
The tragedy here is that of all the auto history websites, Over-Drive has shown the greatest promise in putting in one convenient location information that is typically scattered all over the Internet. And that leads me to wonder whether this project needs to team up with others in order to achieve its potential.
This also strikes me as yet another example of how the auto history field seems destined for a shake out. For example, how many repositories of auto ads and brochures do we really need — particularly if no single media outlet has both comprehensive content and up-to-date technology?
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Oct. 27, 2023 and expanded on Nov. 7, 2025. Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Langworth (1993).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1993. Hudson 1946-1957: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- Over-Drive Magazine; 2023. “The Tale of Hudson’s Demise.” Accessed Oct. 27.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Hudson (1954, 1955)
Some intriguing questions. Hudson was stuck with a straight 8? Hudson kept the 2 1/2 box body long after everyone else gave up? And counterintuitively compared to the previous sentence it didn’t look like a Hudson?
As far as I understand it, the problem with Hudson’s body was not the fact that it was unitized with the frame per se, but rather the particularities of its design, which was rather quirky at best. Hudson’s load bearing side sills wrapped around the entire rear section of the body shell, effectively locking it into the teardrop-like shape of the original 1948 model, as well as making closed rear wheel arches all but mandatory – unless a major redesign of the entire body structure was planned:
https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/see-this-49-hudson-rust-bucket-turn-into-an-ls3-supercharged-custom-work-of-art-153717_1.jpg
Nash’s “Monobuilt” body, on the other hand, was more or less a “normal” car body, just with frame rails welded shut to the floor pan, instead of bolted. This design much better lent itself to regular styling changes because they did not affect anything structurally important. No wonder Hudson’s original body was discarded after 1954 and replaced with a Nash-derived shell.
I assume that the enclosed rear wheels were baked into the step-down’s design, which made a station wagon body style problematic. However, I would think that Hudson could have made a mid-cycle switch to a more notchback-style, four-door sedan somewhat akin to the two-door coupe.
To correct my first post, the Jet did not look like a Hudson. Hudson made a few step down pickups to use around the factory, and some enthusiast made a Hudson phantom station wagon. It could be done. Post WWII station wagons were barely moving from the more or less coachbuilt woodies and Studebaker, Kaiser, and the large Nash did not offer them in their lines at all.
Yeah, a station wagon could have been done. The problem was that the inboard rear wheels would have resulted in an unusually narrow cargo area.