WQ59B

Bob- know anyone looking for '47 drivetrain stuff?

I've seen the '49 Cadillac 331 quoted as being able to do 105. I would still say a combination of factors related to performance would still put the Tucker ahead in that regard, rather than a 'backtracking' of other makes WRT performance. Cadillac 331~ HP : 160 @ 3800 TRQ : 312 @ 1800 CR : 7.5:1 Tucker 335~ HP : 166 @ 3200 TRQ : 450 @ 1800 CR : 7:1 I believe more than 1 Tucker has eclipsed 200K. It strange- some have super-high mileage, others have very very low- circumstances of their individual histories.

>>"As for Alex Tremulis "logging speeds of 118 and 122," what does that mean? We all know about speedometer error."<< It's not exactly high calculus to accurately measure speed with mile markers & a stopwatch. >>"In his remembrances, Tremulis cites the Tucker's "130-inch wheelbase." It was 128 inches. Variance here, remembrance there. Tremulis did recall the weight as "4,250 pounds.""<< It was 128" on the first 8 cars, 130" after that. 4250 lbs for the post-Tin Goose cars has been disproven by weighing some of those cars, which were all right around 3900. No- I have no paperwork for the scales on that one.

So were the Auburns. Cadillac V-16 in the lightest body also eclipsed 100.

^ So you've seen the 'paperwork' from Crewe then? WRT comparisons to the Bentley, it was about 7" narrower (and 2" taller), but the Tucker's ace here in a straight-up comparison was MUCH better aerodynamics. In a top speed run in IDENTICAL cars, this is going to show up 'in the pudding'. Tucker's internal coast-down tests returned a cd of .28, tho Tremulis preferred to round it off to .30. Bentley has a barn door for a grille. Rounding 116 off to 120 is understandable. Rounding "108" off to 131.64 on a three way timed average @ Bonneville is not so much so. McCahill reported he was still accelerating at 105 when he had to "kill speed" due to a "looming truck". Tremulis logged numerous public highway runs between 118 & 122. One car was timed at 105 in the corners during the Indy testing. BTW- the oft-quoted weight of 4200 lbs is that of the heavily-leaded Tin Goose prototype. A '48 Roadmaster, within inches dimensionally but with a cast-iron I-8, iron-cased Dynaflow, TorqueTube & solid rear axle weighed 4160. The (pilot) production Tuckers were right around 3850 (confirmed by TACA founder Richard Jones) Another factoid is that the Franklin 6 was rated at 150, but they averaged 177 on the dyno (again according to McCahill).

Dave- Tucker did build a scale model of the Tucker in that illustration, tho it lost a bit of the sleekness of the sketch. BTW- I LOVE the design in the illustration; with unlimited budget, I would have it built in a second. >>"Hearsay and buff reports of "120 mph" are uncorroborated. "<< Tucker was timed at 131 MPH @ Bonneville in 1950.

I have to check my collection (currently scattered) to see what I have/don't have. Where in Jersey are you located?

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/27600.jpg I never heard that theory, there's similarities but direct influence....?

That Chevy frame did throw me. I saw the square boxed rails, with what looks like a pair of drain holes, but I should've noticed the floorpan braces were attached to them, whereas on the '59 Buick, those same stamped braces cross above the frame & attach to the rocker backs. I own a '59 Buick, and spent many hours underneath it, cleaning/ scraping/ painting- so those braces are very familiar to me. RE the Olds bolting directly to the frame is interesting, but of no real difference- they just as well could have used inboard outriggers with the same results.

'59 Olds frame : Directory Index: Oldsmobile/1959 Oldsmobile/album

You are correct WRT the '60 Chevy frame- I was indeed tricked by the show chassis. RPO C-60 frame :

Eldorado was a Series 64 in '59-60, was Series 63 in '61-62. Yes; the Biarritz nameplate followed the Eldo thru '64, then became the 'Fleetwood Eldorado' in '65.

1959 Cadillac :

1959 Impala: Other '59 Chevy frame pics: http://www.xframechevy.com/1959/1959-impala-convertible-x-frame/ 1960 Chevy: Gains side rails here...

1959 Buick frame : • • • >>"One side issue with the front floor level not being recessed, when the rear footwells were, would be to make the transmission "hump" seem much less tall. This would make the front seat seem much more spacious in nature."<< Could be, but not a really smart way to do it. The trans tunnel wasn't lower; the floor was higher.

^ To clarify, the GM '59-60s still have the flat, 'above-frame' floor in the front seat... but the seat bottoms were pretty dang low there, too. Only the rear had dropped floor pans in '59-60; X-frame or K-frame. 'X-Frame' : good question.

There needs to be an all-inclusive list of XP programs; TONS of ideas & ingenuity (even if much never saw the showroom floor) worthy of acknowledgement, documentation & appreciation, IMO. I can only imagine the sheer volume in GM archives, and how much is in there that has not gotten 'out here'. Perhaps another book is required.....?

^ So does this mean a re-visiting of your opinion in the book that '2 were unlikely'? A new lead since that writing? Bonneville Special #2 didn't 'appear' until when, 1990? Stories like that (few & far between) buoys the hopes for concept car fans. I always keep an eye peeled for the Golden Rocket; rumored to be here in Jersey... There is another XP program which has stuck in my mind; GM had a program working on a convertible station wagon, XP-812. I struggle to picture this. Do you look into the post-Motorama concepts much?

Another gem uncovered (XP-27 = La Espada)! Excellent work, David. I too have been maintaining a list of GM's XP cars for some years now, your book filled in some of missing 'matches' tho I too have had some info obtained via Media Archives. The S.O. numbers have been a puzzle. I grabbed your book after reading the above post, thinking the pic of the Olds log book showed individual S.O. numbers for the F-88, but I mis-remembered it; the pic does not but the text does. As you well know, S.O. numbers don't follow XP numbers chronologically. You also state in your book that S.O. #s were also utilized by Accounting, perhaps to follow some degree of 'work / change order' on a car, or in the case of the F-88s, individual cars under the same program. GM's internal mysteries are endless. I have a number of XP-#s on my list that were indeed 'floor studies', various engineering programs or the next generation production car (XP-734 = new 1964 B- & C-Body cars)... so if an XP # can be for something relatively mundane I don't see why GM might NOT have done that same with engineering projects, too (IE: a convertible top program). EDIT : In your book you mention the tight schedule around the overlapping shows the La Espada was shown in, saying perhaps it joined the 2nd show a day late... you entertain the possibility there were 2 cars built (the Bonneville Special scenario comes to mind here). 2 La Espadas would really answer your S.O. question handily.... I also wonder why the S.O. system changed from 19xx~26xx numbers thru XP-48, but by XP-53, they were 90xxx. This must go hand-in-hand with changing the XP numbers from 1~101 then jumping by hundreds to restart @ 700 & UP. Any new whispers regarding XP-75 surviving beyond 1967 ?? ~ MARK

{jaw hits floor}

Reportedly, Knudsen said that the Indian was a dead race, so he saw no benefit with the association.

It was moved to a very minimal use (the high beam indicator) because Knudsen disliked the Indian logo representation. On the 2nd part; why PMD chose to maintain the logo copyright, I have to say I'm not sure.

To protect the copyright. That part I understand, but I am curious how that protection was deemed pertinent thru the mid-70s. While I personally like the idea, it's not like there was a chance it would be reintroduced...

Pontiac Indian head high beam indicator was gone by the '77 downsize- but I believe it went thru '76 on the full-size cars. I can testify it's there in '70.

Looked at one for sale 2 years ago in central Jersey- timeworn, but no parts car.