1956 Hundson Hornet Sedan V8 factory AC Colo rust free $13.000

[StillOutThere]

Seller not representing this very well (like not mentioning the Solex glass and factory AC and connie kit).

But pretty darn nice car fairly priced.

 

I don't see "Hornet Special" badging anywhere which would mean it has the AMC V8.   Therefore this is the Packard V8.  I presume the Packard then would have Ultramatic trans?

 

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/602535641613434/?hoisted=false&ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post

 

All seller states is:  "1956 hudson Hornet , all original , nice and clean inside and out , runs and drives awesome , v8 automatic ."

 

Not mine!

Edited December 19, 2022 by StillOutThere
spelling correction (see edit history)

[The 55er]

Yes, 1956 Hornet Custom models had Packard Twin Ultramatic Drive.

[DrumBob]

That's one of the most hideous cars I have ever seen. 

[Marty Roth]

Hudson, as a result of the AMC merger, was forced to modify and use what started out as a 1952 Nash body, and the Packard V-8 and Packard transmission.

Earlier Nash used a GM HydraMatic trans with their own Flathead and OHV engines

[Xander Wildeisen]

9 hours ago, DrumBob said:

That's one of the most hideous cars I have ever seen. 

Have you seen a Packard of the same year? They had an ugly contest with each other, and shared parts. The Packard design is a very sad end to an unbelievable car manufacturer known for quality and design.

[John_S_in_Penna]

I like the 1956 Hudsons, though not this color combination.

However, I've read that the 1956-57 Hudsons are widely thought

to be unattractive among Hudson enthusiasts.

 

And to me, the 1956 Packards are beautiful!

[StillOutThere]

The HET club has always been very heavily all about the '48-54 Stepdown Hudsons.   The "merger" with Rambler to become American motors was not a merging of equals.  Hudson was failing badly (no profit since 1950) and Rambler scooped up Hud to add to AMC corporate.  Hudson stock holders were angered and the promise that a Hudson car would continue did not appease them.  From thence forward, the Hudson crowd has forever called the '55-57 Hudson-labeled cars "Hashes" to be derogatory.   

 

I too would speak for the '55-56 Packards as being VERY attractive and well built with their Briggs bodies.

Edited December 19, 2022 by StillOutThere (see edit history)

[Dosmo]

It’s all subjective.  In my opinion, all Hudsons & Nashes after 1954 are sort of odd-looking, but I like them.  Additionally, the Studebakers of 1956-58 look a little weird to me, but I like them, too.  
 

The 1955 Packard was not a favorite of mine, but I wouldn’t call it ugly.  That ‘56 Packard, though…

 

I rather like the three-toned Hudson that is pictured at the beginning of this thread.  In my opinion, that is a nice-looking car.

[58L-Y8]

In defense of the beleaguered 1956-'57 Hudson styling, this diatribe bears repeating:

 

The freelance industrial designer Richard Arbib was contracted to create the restyles for the 1956-'57 Hudsons on the existing body shell with no major sheet metal stampings changes.  The mandate limited changes to front grille, side trim patterns, taillights and details.  The body series dates back to the 1952 Nash Statesman and Ambassador which became the basis for the 1955-'57 Hudsons with the Nash and Hudson merger to form American Motors.  The 1955 Hudson styling was created inhouse by applying features such as the eggcrate grille and taillights from the initially planned continuation of the Step-Down 1955 Hudsons which were in progress before the merger.   Personally, of all the styling carried by that 1952-'57 Nash/Hudson body series, the 1955 Hudsons are the cleanest, most elegantly detailed and appealing of the group.

My taste notwithstanding, AMC President George Romney felt the next Hudson restyle needed more distinction from the Nash with which it clearly shared its body shell/chassis platform.  Richard Arbib, who had been designer for Henney Motor Co. the Packard hearse/ambulance coachbuilder, opened his own design consultancy in NYC, taking on contracts for a variety of consumer products.  His Benrus wrist watches are some of the finest examples of Mid-Century Modern design. 

To have an insight into his thinking about automotive styling, Tidewater Oil Company under the Tydol, Flying A and Veedol brands featured a series of his "dream cars" in their 'Veedol "Dream Car" Salon' advertising series.   Typically, a vertical half-page advertisement, a different dream car designed by Richard Arbib was shown at the top.  Nothing illustrates it better than his "V-Liner Custom Sedan" and "Interplane Sedan."   How could the 1956-'57 Hudsons have turned out any differently...

 

Steve
 

[Xander Wildeisen]

55-56 Packards are a good looking car. 57-58, not so much. A 58 looks like a stepped on frog, with it’s eyes bugging out. Great info in the post above. 58L-Y8

[m-mman]

As I remember Packard was going to be part of the AMC merger.  They were desperate for a body builder (or even a stamping plant) after Chrysler bought Briggs. 
The thought was that Packard could get the Nash bodies and they could “trade” their V8 and ultramatic. 
 

After long negotiations Nash declined and Packard was left without bodies.  That was what drove them to Studebaker.  

Nash bought some motors and transmissions as a consequence but were not interested in a full merger. 
 

Nash was well financed and had long avoided debt which made them very attractive to the failing companies but they were in a position to say no, when the others could not. 

[Rivguy]

This is not a car that you see everyday! I like the "busyness" of the design, especially the front end. I even like the white and yellow combo. I'm starting to realize that any car that I'd like to buy will cost me at least 15-20K. Not ready to spend that yet. 

[JamesR]

Thanks for the comment, Steve. I like the looks of this car. Not in the same way I like the step down Hudsons, but I like them. It's just one of the many uniquely styled cars of the 1950's: like the Edsel, '59 Impala, '57 Mercury, etc. The other Hudson that step down fans don't like is the Jet, but I like those, too. The problem is that the Jet and the American Motors cars are Hudsons that don't look quite as good as the step down models, kind of like colonnade Chevelles weren't as pretty as the beautiful 'mid to late '60's Chevelles, so some called them homely. They weren't homely, though - it's just hard to measure up to legendary styling. 

 

 

[StillOutThere]

1958 Hudson renderings (Hemmings)   I think I've seen a rear view also but am not finding it.

 

[StillOutThere]

   Further digging:

Second photo ("Hudson Rambler" clay) may be subject to copyright according to Amazon

[Marty Roth]

... and still tied to the 1952 Nash basic body and reverse slant "C" pillar

[58L-Y8]

13 hours ago, StillOutThere said:

   Further digging:

Second photo ("Hudson Rambler" clay) may be subject to copyright according to Amazon

Note, of course, the central body structure is that of the 1956-'62 Rambler Six/Rebel/Classic shell with Hudson-unique front clip, wheelbase extension and rear quarters.   American Motors was still in precarious financial condition during 1956-'57 when these potential Nash and Hudson 'full-sized' 1958 models were in development.  It was a 'gutsy' decision on Romney's part to jettison both long-established makes, to, as he said, "sink or swim with Rambler".   Since they could only afford to continue with one body series, while Rambler consistently showed the most promise and both Nash and Hudson were fading away, there was only one route to go.  It helped that the industry was reeling from the sudden acceptance of small, import cars, the Big Three fielded their largest, most outlandish and a recession occurred at the 'right time".  

While the 1958 Ambassador fooled few that it wasn't much more than a stretched, dolled-up Rambler, it provided an important option for loyal Nash and Hudson to stay with American Motors since it could be still considered a 'full-sized' car.

[DrumBob]

On 12/19/2022 at 7:29 AM, Xander Wildeisen said:

Have you seen a Packard of the same year? They had an ugly contest with each other, and shared parts. The Packard design is a very sad end to an unbelievable car manufacturer known for quality and design.

Yes, I've seen those Packards. They're pretty ugly too.