Attempting to remain competitive in the automobile business, Hudson Motor Car Co. developed and launched the compact Jet in 1953. However, the cost of bringing the little car to market left minimal capital for much else, so Hudson merged with Nash-Kelvinator a year later. And, the new Jet would quickly disappear as the Nash Rambler would be the compact product of choice for the newly formed American Motors Corp. This beautiful 1954 Jet is an original car with only 6,500 miles on the clock, still sporting its factory paint (70 years old!). Located in Palm Desert, California, this nifty machine is available here on craigslist for $9,900. Another nifty tip from Rocco B.!
To bring the Jet to market, Hudson invested $15 million on the project to compete with the Nash Rambler, the Henry J, and the Willys Aero. But the sales numbers Hudson needed never materialized at 21,000 units in 1953 and 14,000 in 1954. An early nickname for the car was “Bee” which fell in line with the Wasp and Hornet nameplates that Hudson was marketing. The cars used unibody construction and their production was outsourced to help reduce costs. The Jet was powered by a new 202 cubic inch inline-6 engine that was a derivative of their 254 straight-8. 104 horsepower was the rated output.
Sources indicate that the failure of Jet to catch on was the impetus for Hudson’s decision to merge with Nash. We’re told this beautiful example has only had two owners of about 35 years each. The listing party is helping the current owner of the car to sell it, perhaps due to advancing age. We’re told the little car runs and drives great and that the mileage is accurate, though not verifiable. A “3-on-the-tree” manual transmission is part of the fun of driving the smaller automobile.
You’re not likely to find much wrong with the body though there are a few dings and a little bubbling of the original blue paint above the right rear fender. You might want to correct that and then wax the rest resulting in what should be a great car to show off. The driver’s side window is cracked, but the rest of the glass and chrome are said to be good. The interior has been reupholstered with real sheepskin material, adding a touch of class. The tires are new as is the battery. When was the last time you saw one of these and was it as nice as this Jet?
Real nice car. Sure to be a great find for the right buyer. Tell me how an inline 6 is a derivative of a V8. Maybe I missed something.
It was a straight-8, not a V8 that the Jet’s six-cylinder engine was derived from. An older design that was partly splash-lubricated.
One of the reasons for the Jet’s failure was that the dowdy shrunken Ford look that it was saddled with due to management decisions never really enticed buyers. (A shame since these were well built cars for the time. An experimental convertible prototype was made but never went into production.)
It’s proportions were a bit off because one of the requirements was a man should be able to sit in the car wearing his hat. It was also a mish-mash style by committee. And to further complicate things, production costs meant Hudson had to sell it at too high a price to make any money off of it. It ended up competing with the nicer and larger Chevys and Fords of the time.
You missed a lot. Article said straight 8.
Story has been corrected. I’m capable of being wrong but not this time.
Unfortunately the very cool extremely limited Hudson Italia was not put into regular production instead of the dumpy Jet. That would have been something special. Woulda’, coulda’, shoulda’.
That was a beautiful car, but was there a market for it? It’s why Hudson did not mass produce it.
I quite agree. The head decision makers lost sight of styling when they came up with the Jet. The Italia and other potential styling masterpieces, along with a V8 under the hood, would have surely shoved Hudson healthily back into the marketplace. Yep! Woulda’, coulda’, shoulda’.
I would take this in a heartbeat for less than $10k over the rusty 1955 Chevy for $15k.
Yeah. Better built too. Would be slow but with gas near $4 again this is better than driving a gas sucking F 250.
I like oddball cars. And this one surely was, and you rarely see one especially this nice. The rear curved glass was made by the same supplier that Ford used for their rear window. It’s part of the reason the two cars look so similar. Hudson thought they needed to build a compact to boost sales, but when all was said and done all the Jet did was hasten Hudson’s demise.
It’s a damn cute little bug for sure. I’m not sold on the 100% original (right side rear view mirror, seat belts, seat covers, etc) but still damn cute.
Yeah, and the tires, oil and gas has likely been replaced in the last 70 years as well. Kinda ruins it as far as originality.
Steveo , You have a great sense of humour . Aussie , by any chance ?
When I was collecting stepdown Hudsons in the early 1990’s a fellow Hudson club member had a red and light grey Jet 2 dr and I rode in it once. Great little car and I would have liked to have one back then had I not had full size Hudsons. But to put sheepskin upholstery in it is a shame, because the orginal upholstery was so much better looking. There is no way that I believe this low mileage is possible. When I bought my 1950 Hudson Commodore the dealer showed me the title listing 26,000 miles. More like 126,000 miles in reality. But the Jet I drove in was in mint condition. Regardless of what the mileage is on this Jet, the price is a steal. Would most cars with such low mileage really need new seat upholstery if it was not stored in the desert? A friend of mine in the early 1990’s once went to an a very old man’s old auto repair shop in Baltimore where the man had stepdown Hudson’s from the 1950’s still sitting in various locations in his 3 story shop with a wooden winding ramp. We looked in his paint room and there sat a Hudson prepped to be painted probably sitting there since the 50’s. My friend bought the guy’s 1954 4dr Roman red with cream top Hornet that had only a few miles on it. It had been driven out of the nearby Hudson dealership for a test drive when it was hit in the side. So one side of the car was in perfect, showroom like condition. The interior also was like new even after 40 years. Which is why i might question the low mileage claim of that Jet. Unfortunately, the old man would not include the Hornet engine and the transmission with the sale of the ’54 car that even had the special and rare ivory color steering wheel. Last week I drove by that block of old warehouses in Baltimore from the 1800’s and sadly they have all been torn down.
More likely than not, any claim to super-low miles has to be taken, not with a grain of salt but the whole shaker. A really easy way to tell if the miles are correct is to see if the left two odometer numbers line up. If they don’t, that’s a red flag right there.
Another way to check mileage is to examine the accelerator pedal. If it is pretty worn down, then no way it is low mileage. Although even that method is not foolproof because the rubber on the gas pedal could be replaced in some vintage cars.
My son lives out there,wish he would buy it for me,the watch he purchased last week was more than this cars asking price.
What is underneath the sheepskin?
Oops! Upon rereading the blurb on the Jet, I see that it is located in a desert town. So the upholstery surely would dry up in that heat over the decades. I would like to hear the story explaining why this car has such low mileage.
Nice little Hudson, at a great price. These always remind me of a ’52 Ford.
I agree with most of the comments; many of the small automakers of the time thought that they needed to compete in the “low price” field with Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth. These attempts “did them in.” Had Hudson stayed with their market and excellent vehicles they would have been an American BMW or perhaps Volvo. Packard (of course minus Studebaker), not only because of the way they treated employees as well as dealers would have been the American Lexus.
I dont think the independents could have survived much longer than they did ,unless the big merger that never that never came about actually happened. Packard was all luxury and doing ok but not great , Studebaker was failing , and Hudson still had no V8 , ;the Step Down platform was obsolete by 54 and Hudson would have to come up with a whole new car, along with a v8 ,but instead they spent what little they had on the Jet. By the time 1960 came along , the Big 4 (including AMC) had compacts and in a few more years mid size cars were also offered. I dont think the independents could keep up with the rapid changes in auto technology and design that happened just in the 1960s alone
I hate posts like this because no matter how hard I try, I think I should own it and I can’t come up with one believable reason “WHY”.
It’s hard to understand the decisions made by Hudson management. In the early 50s you had to have a V8. Even though Hudson’s 308 straight six was superior to most V8s, it still wasn’t fashionable. Instead of developing a V8, théy invested in the Jet. It truly broke the company, but it was only the last straw.
Well, Kaiser did the same thing…developed the Henry J instead of developing a v8 for their otherwise excellent big cars. Guess they both came from the same school of bad management.
I think management already knew the public was tired of the 1948 Stepdown design and they couldn’t afford a V8 motor and a completely newly designed body. So I guess they thought they could bring in some cash by competing against the successful compact Rambler. Hence the Jet. Just the right size for the little lady of the house in the suburbs to go grocery shopping with.
An ugly car that hammered the last nail into Hudson’s coffin.
If my memory serves me correctly, these were popular back in the early 60s at the drag strip in their stock class due to an advantageous horse power to weight classification. Possibly with a larger optional 6 and a hydro transmission??