Kate's Hudson

Chad.S

Oldtimer
Kate is out for the day and I decided to sneak it into the shop while she is out, she plans to tackle as much of this project as she can on her own..
I think she's going to need a little motivation though ;) This is going to be a big project for her..

We have been discussing it and were planning on gutting the floor and building everything from scratch with a mustang II front clip or C-5 corvette with 4-link out back but after getting it in the shop and crawling around under it, the undercarriage is in MUCH better shape than I anticipated.. Looks pretty solid.. So she may have a decision to make, but if the underside is as solid as it looks it may be a good candidate for leaving it alone.. We will have to get it on stands and i'll have to really look it over but I'd hate to see the money get spent on stripping it to only get left with a bunch of holes and floor panels to replicate, but like I was saying, it may be more solid than I expected..

Let us know you're thoughts on it!!!

Here's some pictures of the car, she doesn't even know it's in here yet.. :playful:



 
That's a cool car and will be a great project!

From the factory, it looks like a hot rod with a chopped top.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a wonderful surprise to find my Hudson waiting for me in the shop this weekend(finally) Thank You Chad!
And as Chad said, I want to hear your thoughts and ideas as I go. This is a first for me so as excited as I am,
it is a little overwhelming!
 
That's cool. Where are you located? I'm just south of Detroit.
 
Just my opinion from the little I know... Since Kate seems to be heavily into the paint end of things, the paint is what I would think most people would be scrutinizing the most. As long as parts can be had for the suspension, and a front disc conversion can be managed, the available time and effort might be better spent on a radical paint job and nice interior, imo.
 
black88coupe;32321 said:
That's cool. Where are you located? I'm just south of Detroit.

We are in southwest corner by Indiana Border
 
Raymond_B;32325 said:
OK, I have to say it 'cause my wife was watching some movie yesterday and it had...

Kate Hudson :)
LOL I think of that too

- - - Updated - - -

So...I was actually going to ask opinions on the paint scheme. I was thinking of Pink, a darker good pink. Then possibly charcoal interior with pink accents.
Thoughts??
 
Fuschia would be kind of an 80's throwback, but done right it could look real good. I'd look to Chad and maybe JimC for inspiration... color choice is a very personal thing, though.
 
Brad, I'm with you. The 1954 Hudson engine put out 170 bhp @ 3800 rpm and 278 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm. In today's computer-controlled, variable-timing and forced-induction world that doesn't sound impressive. But here's two lists of relatively familiar cars that 1) produce less horsepower or 2) less torque. Also note the rpm where the Hudson produces those numbers (I underlined the ones that perform their magic at lower rpm). I grew up when Hudsons were new cars. They weren't popular but they really were impressive.

Horsepower
Hudson Hornet 308 5L - [1954] 170 bhp @ 3800 rpm
Chevrolet Impala Custom Hardtop 6.6L V8 - [1972] 170 bhp @ 3400 rpm
Chevrolet Camaro 5.0 V8 RS - [1990] 170 bhp @ 4000 rpm
Honda Civic 1.8 VTi-S - [1997] 169 bhp @ 7600 rpm
Audi TT 2.0TDI Quattro - [2006] 168 bhp @ 4200 rpm
Mini Cooper S Convertible 1.6 - [2004] 168 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Toyota MR2 GT Mk2 Rev 1 - [1990] 168 bhp @ 6600 rpm
Mercedes SL Class 280SL W113 - [1967] 168 bhp @ 5750 rpm
Audi 80 2.3 20v Quattro - [1989] 168 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Hyundai Coupe 2.7 V6 - [2001] 167 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Ford Falcon 1st Gen Sports Hardtop 260 V8 4-Speed - [1963] 164 bhp @ 4400 rpm
Lotus Esprit S1 2.0 - [1975] 162 bhp @ 6200 rpm
Porsche 944 2.7 - [1988] 162 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Datsun 240 Z Coupe - [1969] 161 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Jaguar XK 120 Roadster - [1948] 160 bhp @ 5000 rpm
Ford Sierra XR4i 2.8L V6 - [1984] 160 bhp @ 5700 rpm
Lotus Esprit S3 2.0L - [1981] 160 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Jaguar Mark VII 3.4L 12v - [1954] 160 bhp @ 5200 rpm
BMW 3200 CS Coupe - [1962] 160 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Audi A4 1.8T Avant - [2008] 158 bhp @ 6200 rpm
Mazda MX5 2.0i Roadster Coupe - [2009] 158 bhp @ 6700 rpm

Torque
Hudson Hornet 308 5L - [1954] 278 lb-ft @ 2600rpm
Lexus IS 350 3.5 V6 - [2006] 277 lb-ft @ 4800rpm
Mitsubishi Galant VR4 Type S - [2000] 276 lb-ft @ 5500rpm
Nissan 370Z Nismo - [2009] 276 lb-ft @ 5200rpm
Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale - [2003] 275 lb-ft @ 4750rpm
Ferrari 360 Modena F1 - [1999] 275 lb-ft @ 4750rpm
Maserati 430 2.8 V6 - [1988] 275 lb-ft @ 3000rpm
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI GSR - [2000] 275 lb-ft @ 3750rpm
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI Tommi Makinen - [2000] 275 lb-ft @ 2750rpm
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo V GSR - [1998] 275 lb-ft @ 3000rpm
Lamborghini Islero 3.9L V12 - [1968] 275 lb-ft @ 4500rpm
Mercedes SL Class 560SL V8 R107 - [1986] 275 lb-ft @ 3250rpm
BMW 3 Series M3 CSL 2d SMG E46 - [2003] 274 lb-ft @ 4900rpm
Aston-Martin DB6 1965 - [1965] 273 lb-ft @ 4500rpm
Cadillac CTS 3.6 V6 Sport 4d Auto - [2008] 273 lb-ft @ 5200rpm
Nissan 300ZX 3.0 V6 Turbo - [1990] 273 lb-ft @ 3600rpm
Porsche 911 Carrera 4 996 - [2002] 273 lb-ft @ 4250rpm
Porsche Cayman S 3.4 - [2009] 273 lb-ft @ 4750rpm
Volkswagen(VW) Passat 4.0 W8 4Motion - [2001] 273 lb-ft @ 2750rpm
Porsche Cayman S 3.4l - [2012] 273 lb-ft @ 4500rpm
Infiniti G35 Sport Coupe - [2002] 270 lb-ft @ 4800rpm
Infiniti G35 3.5 V6 X - [2006] 270 lb-ft @ 4800rpm
Infiniti G37 3.7 V6 S - [2009] 270 lb-ft @ 5200rpm
Nissan 370Z 3.7 V6 Roadster - [2009] 270 lb-ft @ 5200rpm
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo GSR - [2012] 270 lb-ft @ 3500rpm
Aston-Martin DB4 GT - [1959] 270 lb-ft @ 5000rpm
BMW 3 Series M3 SMG 2d E46 - [2001] 269 lb-ft @ 4900rpm
BMW Z4 3.2 M Coupe 2d - [2006] 269 lb-ft @ 4900rpm
BMW Z4 3.2 M Roadster 2d - [2006] 269 lb-ft @ 4900rpm
Pontiac Firebird 5.0L Trans Am - [1985] 269 lb-ft @ 3200rpm
 
I was surprised to learn that the Hudson Hornet only lasted 4 years before AMC took it over and made them rebranded Nashs, and 54 was the last year. They made quite a splash in just 4 years on the NASCAR circuit with the twin H 6cyl

Its some very interesting reading, it seems there demise was due to the unibody design, because that made it too expensive for frequent model changes to keep up with the competition. But they had no competition on the track with that lower center of gravity due to the unibody design, so much for winning on Sunday translating to sales on Monday.

And with all that chrome it looks great in shades of pink, although this is a 52

1952_Hudson_Hornet_Club_Coupe_zps493870c5.jpg
 
It's kind of odd that the company didn't really take off, I like they unibody design, really looks to be built well..
Making some good progress on it, we stayed after a little bit and took a few more parts off.
 
Didn't take off? They made good cars for 50 years. For whatever reason a lot of makers were dying off in that era.

Surely be a sin to see a cookie cutter 350 in there. Those air cleaners just have character.

Chad, you guys ever go to the Hudson museum in Shipsy? The man that donated the cars to the City is a great old timer that was a converted Amish farmer. We were there with the Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg club a few years ago, my wife and I missed the luncheon because he was telling us stories of the cars.
 
Back
Top