Why Hudson Stuck With a Straight‑6 Engine When It Already Had an Eight‑Cylinder

Introduction

Hudson kept using its old straight‑6 even after engineering a new straight‑8, and the reasons are rooted in cost, reliability, and market strategy.

Design & Looks

The straight‑6 was compact enough to fit the Hudson’s sleek, low‑profile bodies without major redesign. Its smooth lines matched the car’s aesthetic, and the engine bay didn’t need the extra space a larger eight would demand.

Performance & Mileage

While the straight‑8 promised more power, the six delivered respectable torque and better fuel economy. In an era when gas prices rose, owners appreciated the 18‑20 mpg range of the six, which was about 3‑4 mpg higher than the eight‑cylinder’s 15‑17 mpg.

Price & Rivals

Keeping the six saved Hudson about $200‑$300 per car – a big margin when competing with Chevrolet and Ford, which offered similar power at lower costs. The eight‑cylinder positioned Hudson as a premium brand, but sales data showed most buyers prioritized affordability over extra horsepower.

FAQ

• What was the fuel economy of Hudson’s straight‑6? About 18‑20 miles per gallon, depending on the model year.
• Did the straight‑8 offer better performance? Yes, it produced roughly 20‑30% more horsepower but cost more and drank more fuel.
• Is a straight‑6 still a good choice for classic car enthusiasts? Absolutely – its simplicity, parts availability, and lower running costs make it popular for restoration projects.

Conclusion

Hudson’s decision wasn’t about being stuck in the past; it was a calculated move to keep cars affordable, reliable, and easy to build. The straight‑6 let Hudson stay competitive until the market shifted toward bigger, more powerful engines.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Source: Read Official News