Bought a new Hudson book from a bookstore who DOES know how to advertise and satisfy customers.
The book is by Richard Langworth, the best of the non-insider auto history writers. Other good books were by John Conde, Don Butler and Pat Foster. Each worked for Nash or Hudson at some point, so they had inside knowledge and perhaps inside bias as well.
Langworth answers one question I’ve been wondering about. Sources agree that the compact Jet was attractive when first envisioned. Dealers were enticed with a sketch of the intended appearance, then crestfallen by the clumsy blocky reality. None of the other books showed the original.
Per Langworth, stylists were inspired by a Fiat 1400:
It’s easy to see why. The Fiat looked like a small Stepdown, with the same excellent proportions. Here’s a sketch of the original Jet design, made later by one of the people involved in the process:
Again it echoes the big Hudson. But CEO Barit wanted more height and more boxiness. He wanted the Jet to look like a Ford, not a Hudson. He was the boss, so he got what he wanted.
Of course the styling didn’t matter much. The Jet, like the Edsel and the AMC Matador Coupe, would have failed even with nicer looks. All three were simply dumb ideas, trying to fill a niche that was already filled**, and departing from the company’s own best skills.
Langworth also includes the last real Hudson as a memorial:
= = = = =
** The Jet tried to compete with new compacts from three OTHER companies. Edsel and Matador tried to compete with THEIR OWN products. Edsel was a mid-priced car with space age gimmicks. The ’57 Mercury was already a mid-priced car with space age gimmicks. At the time when AMC splurged on the entirely new ugly Matador Coupe, AMC already had THREE sporty coupes, one in each of its existing lines. The Hornet Hatchback was beautiful and the other two were decent. Why would you replace a decent (and amortized) sporty coupe by an entirely new ugly sporty coupe?
Polistra's Mill 