A

["Mahoney, John" <jmahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm headed to NY tomorrow and shouldn't be "playing" with cars today, but
since Red Sox could sweep Red Birds under an orange-red eclipse tonight and
link baseball history with that of cars*, I'll hit a few keys for a few
minutes.

*Huh?  1918, when Boston last won a pennant, was the first year cars were
marketed under the name of Charles Nash.  Now -that's- American history!)

I'll start by clarifying comment on Hudson.  I (we) weren't suggesting that
Hudson was a stronger or better partner than Nash in the making AMC; the
question was if AMC would have been a stronger, better, more successful
marriage if it had not so completely discarded all (Country Club and Hornet
were just names) that Hudson was --- and even more importantly, perhaps ---
had been.  Nash, Hudson, Studebaker and Packard all were on the ropes in
1953, but could AMC have better than it was?

>>
Hudson was drowning! I seriously wonder if Nash might not have been
in a better position if they had just let Hudson go under. What did they get
from the Hudson buyout? The only tangible thing I can see is some
engineering talent. They closed the old Hudson plant, and they didn't pick
up any real sales since many Hudson loyalists detested the "Hash". Now if
they had thought to stiffen the suspension a LOT and make the car handle a
bit, Nash might have kept some of the Hudson people -- at least the Hornet
should have been made to handle (that's what won Hudson NASCAR titles more
than power, the cars were out powered, but the low COG made it handle better
than anything else).

Maybe I'm missing something, but if Hudson had simply went out of business,
Nash could have picked up some of the talent cheaper than buying the company
out!
<<

Or is that what Jay said might have been wrong?  "The more thoroughly Nash
buried Hudson, the sooner AMC could take off" is Rambler/AMC post-'54
doctrine, is solo chant of AM/Mensa scholars and is song still sung by the
Kenosha chorale but just might be an American Motors palimpsest. (Another
word might be Bull----.)  Say what?

Let's see how that may be.

Hudson was a weak sister betrothed to a strong Nash-Kelvinator.  Right?

Well, when Hudson was still selling made-over seven-year-old Step-Downs,
what do the numbers show?  In 1953, Hudson built 66,143 cars (and then built
51,314 in '54); that calendar year, Nash built 67,150 cars: 37,779 Ramblers
and 29,371 Nashes.  Both were nothing compared with the Big-Three, but
neither was one a stunning success while the other was a foolish flop.

N-K had more production capacity than did Hudson at that point, but AFA
making money from it, N-K was a Studebaker, not a Ford.  AFA creativity and
quality, Nash was a Studebaker also; Hudson, sadly, was its Packard.  I'll
say nothing about each firm's relative design and marketing skills; to do so
would result in a dissertation I won't write (and no AMC types would read.)

I will speak of performance outside the Main Street sales showroom and the
Wall Street trading floor.  Track performance of the sort that AMC sorts
care about --- even if they don't know their I-6s from their V-8s.

Facts.  Hudson Hornets still won 22 (of 37!) NASCAR races in 1953 (and Herb
Thomas was the year's Nextel point man) despite the fact that the 160-hp
Cadillac 331 V-8 had been around for half a decade, the 180-hp Chrysler 331
V-8 had been a "Firepower" since 1951, the 165-hp Olds 303 Super 88 had been
a "Rocket-powered" factory hot rod with either of 4-bbls (Rochester 4GC and
Carter WCFB) open, while Hudson was stuck with its old six.  Cylinders, not
barrels.  (Whaddya think, this was Italy??)

Oh, Olds took nine checkered flags, Sydney Allard and Briggs Cunningham won
races in their cars-with-Cadillacs and Chrysler was getting ready to take
next year's Grand National and AAA Stock championships, but Hudson was still
crossing the line ahead of them in 1953 --- nearly at the end of its
lifetime.

But Nash had 85-, 100- and 120-hp sixes plus their optional 140-hp
Dual-Jetfire that Donald Healey had taken to LeMans.  Nash was no Hudson and
no "boy who wanted a Stutz Bearcat" (to quote the '53 Nash ad) wanted a new
Nash.  Any Nash.  (Mrs. Jimmy Stewart was no Carole Lombard either [you're
lost if you don't know a lot more than AMX history now], when Nash hired her
for its '53 "She drives a Rambler" campaign.  "He drives a Duesenberg" was
long ago and far away.  (Almost laughably so, maybe.)

When Hudson was still laughing at the rest: their "7X" 308 made 210-hp.

Out powered?