THE TUCKER

Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one?

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
rg...

>> Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one?
>
> I have seen them a couple of times in museum exhibits.

I saw one at a car show once. Loved the sound of that engine. Nothing quite
like it.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:23:11 GMT, " krp" > wrote:
>
>>Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one?
>>
>>
>
> I've seen them in museums. The engines looked HUGE. They used
> engines originally for some airplane or helicopter. The whole car was
> huge, much bigger then I expected from having seen photos of them.

I don't know about huge but 6 people could ride comfortably in them. Much
like a Buick, Lincoln or Cadillac of the day. The engines were for a
helicopter I believe and retooled for a car.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> I don't know about huge but 6 people could ride comfortably in them. Much
>> like a Buick, Lincoln or Cadillac of the day. The engines were for a
>> helicopter I believe and retooled for a car.

> Yes, Tucker had first tried to develop an engine using fuel injection
> and hydraulic valve actuation (not hydraulic lifters, but an entire
> hydraulic valvetrain) but that did not work out. He then bought out
> the Air Cooled Motors company to get their helicopter engine, which
> was converted to water-cooling for use in the Tucker automobile.

Well it almost worked - and would have if Tucker had the time to perfect
it. Also they had to rearrange several thinks like the oil pan.

> The movie about the Tucker (has it really been 20 years now?) had
> a lot of information, some factual and some not, and generated a
> lot of interest in the car.

Almost ALL of it was pretty well fact based. At least the major details.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> Almost ALL of it was pretty well fact based. At least the major
>> details.

> Unlike the movie portrayal, the car did not come with disc brakes or
> seat belts. In fact, Tucker was against the use of seat belts as he
> believed that made the car appear unsafe. He instead preferred a
> padded "crash chamber" and pop-out windshield glass. The courtoom
> scenes were also greatly "enhanced" in typical Hollywood style. The
> movie also presented a somewhat one-sided view of Preston Tucker as a
> visionary, when the truth was a bit more complex, for example:

> http://www.people.com/people/archive...099965,00.html

Calling the Tucker car a "streamlined lemon" was far from accurate from
all I have read by the people who actually owned the 50 odd cars that were
built.
That Tucker was a showboat cannot be denied. He WAS a con manb of sorts. Not
dishonest, just sort of like Herb Tarlek in the old WKRP TV series.

> But yes, by and large the movie did get the major items correct.

> The Charles Pearson book "The Indomitable Tin Goose" is probably the
> most authoritative history of the Tucker automobile. There is also
> a Tucker club at:

> http://www.tuckerclub.org


I wonder how many of the members would agree that it was JUNK?

> Alex Tremulis, designer of the Tucker sedan, continued working as
> as an automotive designer and in the late 1970s was responsible
> for the Subaru BRAT (4-wheel-drive pickup with rearward-facing
> seats in the bed).

Tremulis also went to Kaiser and later AMC.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> I wonder how many of the members would agree that it was JUNK?
>
> I don't think it was junk -- from all I've read, it was just in need
> of further development. I remember that one of the car magazines
> after the movie came out had a road-test of the Tucker and a pretty
> detailed write-up of the good and bad points of the car and what
> it would have needed to be successful in mass production.

The article (very hostile) labeled the Tucker as a "LEMON." It wasn't. It
was a pretty good car all things considered. From what I recall, Motor Trend
raved about it. It would be laughable by today's standards, BUT in 1947 it
was years ahead of anything the big 3 had.Faster then the Ford V-8 and
better gas mileage than anything on the road at the time.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> The article (very hostile) labeled the Tucker as a "LEMON." It wasn't. It

> The magazine article I'm thinking of did not use that terminology. It
> did contain a frank discussion of the challenges Tucker would have
> faced in mass production and support if he had continued. I'll have
> to see if I can find it in with my stacks of decades-old car and
> mechanics magazines...

The URL you gace to an article used EXECTLY that term. "A STREAMLINED
LEMON."

>> was a pretty good car all things considered. From what I recall, Motor
>> Trend
>> raved about it. It would be laughable by today's standards, BUT in 1947
>> it

> I think "Uncle" Tom McCahill gave it a favorable review as well.

He RAVED about it, and he was rarely generous about cars of that era.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...


>> The URL you gace to an article used EXECTLY that term. "A STREAMLINED
>> LEMON."

> That article was provided as a look at another side of Preston Tucker.

If it wasn't objective about the car, do you think it was objective
about the man? Of course neither were perfect. If Preston Tucker had not
been a bit of a flim flam man the car would never have existed. Noptghing he
ever did would have existed.

> Whether the car is a "lemon" is a value judgement. Without considerably
> more development, as well as the development of an adequate dealer,
> service, and spare parts network, the general public might well
> have judged the Tucker to be a "lemon" no matter what its good
> points. (For starters the "Torsilastic" rubber-spring suspension
> had a tendancy to break, that drawback alone would make many people
> believe a mass-produced auto was a "lemon.")

No car is ever perfect. If they were, that Ford dealershiop wouldn't
need 50 mechanics.

> The Tucker 48 had lots of potential but the few cars built were still
> basically prototypes that needed more development work to be ready
> for real-world use at the hands of the motoring public.

Seems most of them held up pretty well. I think of 50 made something
like 48 are still running 60 years later.

>> He RAVED about it, and he was rarely generous about cars of that era.

> He had a soft spot for the independent makes such as Nashes also. I'm
> certain he would have wanted to see Tucker succeed.

He lashed at the Kaisers, for example as truly dreadful cars, and he
wasn't kind to the Packard's of the 50's either. He was kind to the
Studebakers and Hudson's.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...


>> If it wasn't objective about the car, do you think it was objective
>> about the man?

> Very possibly.

I doubt it. Tucker was a man you had to scratch hard to find the man. I
tgrust those who knew him best. His kids.

> "Lemon" is a very subjective thing. Had the cars been actually
> mass-produced
> in the same form as the 50-odd pilot production models there is a very
> good
> chance they would have been unreliable in daily use.

Yet the ones made held up pretty well.

> On the other hand, it's a matter of historical fact that Preston
> Tucker in addition to being a visionary was also, as you say, a
> bit of a flim-flam man. (Though I do believe he was not trying to
> defraud people. The effort put into them is evidence that Tucker
> was serious about mass-producing the cars and would have done so
> but for government interference. Whether he would have ultimately
> succeeded is another matter.)

Oh you CAN have an honest flim-flam man. Tucker believed. It is doubtful
that he wopuld ahve had long term success. Tucker's life mitigates against
that. He was never a successful manager. But I believe that Tucker would
have had several years of cars, cars that WOULD have forced the Big 3 into
building better cars decades earlier than they did.

>> No car is ever perfect. If they were, that Ford dealershiop wouldn't
>> need 50 mechanics.

> Not perfect, but people prefer cars that don't exhibit major defects.
> Those that do (such as breaking suspensions) quickly garner a negative
> rap. Remember the early 1960s Ramblers with the defective lower ball
> joints? Rambler garnered a reputation for front-end problems that far
> outlived the actual problem.

The TRUNION suspension was known to "knuckle under."

>> Seems most of them held up pretty well. I think of 50 made something
>> like 48 are still running 60 years later.

> Yes, but most were not subjected very long (if at all) to the rigors of
> daily
> use at the hands of owners treating them like appliances. As they gained
> status as collector's items they have been rebuilt and restored, in some
> cases multiple times. We're talking about cars that go for 7 figures
> at this point when they change hands.

Sure they were, some of the Tuckers have over 200,000 miles on them.

>> He lashed at the Kaisers, for example as truly dreadful cars, and he
>> wasn't kind to the Packard's of the 50's either. He was kind to the
>> Studebakers and Hudson's.

> Kaiser failed to deliver the advanced front-drive car they promised,
> instead producing vehicles that used dead-standard engineering of
> the time. As you know Packard was on the ropes in the 1950s, the
> last models being gussied-up Studebakers.

The Kaisers were warmed ov er Graham Paige cars from pre-war engineering
with a great body in the 50's thanks to Dutch Darrin.

> Unc seemed to have a real soft sport for many Nash (and AMC) models.
> He loved the Nash Rambler, actually stumbling on "secret" factory
> test track trials of the not-yet-released compact back in the day.
> As I recall he also had kind words for the big Nashes even when
> comparing them to the Queen Mary. One of his test drives that I
> read recently was of the 1967 Rambler Rebel. After taking it out
> on the track he proclaimed the Rebel to be the best-handling car
> made in America.

The Rebel WAS the best handling car in America in 67. What was its
competition? The Corvette? That damn thing handles like a pregnant water
buffalo.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> The TRUNION suspension was known to "knuckle under."

> Only when not maintained. When kept properly greased, the trunnion
> suspension lasts for decades. The exception was the smaller AMC
> cars from 1964 through 1969 (American, Javelin, and AMX). These
> used a "lifetime" non-greaseable rubber bushing in their trunnions.
> Unfortunately the "lifetime" of these tended to be about 10 years
> or 100,000 miles at most.

I don't believe that the Jav opr AMX used trunions. It was not uncommon
to see early ramblers squatting down on tirels laying flat on the road.

> When AMC switched to lower ball joints around 1960 or 1961 for the
> "big" Ramblers, their supplier sent a batch of defective parts.
> The result was that the first batch of ball-joint equipped Ramblers
> tended to snap their lower joints when hitting severe potholes or
> other road hazards.

>> Sure they were, some of the Tuckers have over 200,000 miles on them.

> I'm not sure how many were actually used that way, the Tucker club
> would probably have that info. The point is they didn't last for
> decades without a little help, and being collectible certainly was
> a factor in keeping such a high percentage kept up rather than
> scrapped.

> Of course most cars don't last for decades without rebuilding and/or
> restoration, but there are a few exceptions. At this summer's Studebaker
> national meet in PA I saw a stunning 1961 Hawk, all original and looking
> showroom-new down to the original paint.

I had a friend who bought a Golden Hawk with the R-5 package. It was
"QUICK" to say the least.

>> The Rebel WAS the best handling car in America in 67. What was its
>> competition? The Corvette? That damn thing handles like a pregnant water
>> buffalo.

> I have a 1967 Rebel in the garage, so for me this is not past tense. :-)
> Yes, it is a good handling car for its time, it can be tossed around
> corners with little plowing or complaining, and the 343 4-barrel motivates
> it pretty well, though of course it is not a muscle car. Steering
> (GM/Saginaw power) is a little vague, typical of the time. Upper
> suspension
> on the Rebel is trunnion-type. Mine still has the factory-original
> trunnions
> and they are still tight, thanks to regular greasing.

The Rebel with the 390 was a dream. Still it handled well for its day
with all the shortcommings by today's standards. The Javelins and AMX would
wipe the track with a Corvette on a road course. You could never hold the
ass end of the Vette down. If you pushed them into a turn with the stock
suspension, even with the sway bars, you'd lose if if you were on the power.
If you had the HD leafs in the back of the Javs or AMX you could literally
stand on it through a turn and watch the Corvettes in your rear view mirror
swing wildly from one side of the track to the other and chuckle.



> Don't know if the Rebel is truly the best handling car of that
> year, haven't driven many others. I understand the 2nd-generation
> Corvairs with the fully-articulated rear suspension did quite well,
> but I've never driven one of those. (I did have a 1964 Corvair
> years ago but that had the old swing-axle rear end.)
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)