Tucker concept

[Dave Mellor NJ]

I just found this on HAMB's" Vintage shots of days gone by", posted by LowKat. Does anybody have any info on this? A shame Tucker never got past the first stage.

[Richard Lichtfel]

What!!! No convertible???

[joe_padavano]

That's simply an early concept drawing of the Tucker.

[CarlLaFong]

Alex Tremulis did that early design concept. The front fenders were to turn with the wheels, but the idea was abandoned after fears of high speed instability as was suspected in the death of Frank Lockhart in the Stutz racer

[Dave Mellor NJ]

Thanks for the replies

[Guest Water Jacket]

Many of Tucker's ballyhooed goals weren't realized, including a 589-ci flat six and the above mentioned pivoting front fenders. Instead, the Tucker used an existing 335-ci, 150hp @ 3200 rpm Franklin helicopter flat (opposed) six and leftover Cord transmissions, though with an improved, strengthened first gear, another of the 1936-37 Cord's weak points. My Cord friends have looked high and low for one of these.

Funding and other setbacks stalled the Tucker's debut 'til 1948. Preston Tucker advertised 166hp so he could boast the nation's most powerful automobile, since the '47 Packard Super Clipper listed 165hp.

The dean of roadtesters, Mechanix Illustrated's "Uncle Tom" McCahill, got a Tucker to an observed 108 mph. The Tucker was a trace wider and two inches lower than the sleek '47 Packard Super Clipper, and the Cord transmission's final drive ratio was a long-legged 2.75:1 against the Packard's 2.95:1 in overdrive.

Hearsay and buff reports of "120 mph" are uncorroborated. 10th grade high school dropout, former car salesman, stock market marauder E. L. Cord similarly advertised 265hp for the Duesenberg Model J simply as an existing, extremely limited-production Mercedes SSK boasted 250hp and Cord wanted to advertise "the most powerful car in the world."

Driving from Michigan to the Washington, DC SEC hearings, Preston Tucker admitted to his press agent son-in-law that the '47 Cadillac Series 62 four-door sedan they were driving was "....a better car" than the Tucker. The Tucker did, however, have some ahead of its time safety features, including a windshield that'd pop out on impact and a "crash cellar" below the dashboard, tho' we've often wondered how much time someone'd have before crashing to crouch down. Tucker meant well, but was underfunded.

If Francis Ford Coppola collected Crosleys, we'da seen a swell flick about those.

As Jean Shepherd used to close his nightly radio program on WOR, "It never ends, folks. It never ends."

Edited March 3, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[alsancle]

I know it's heresy but the Tucker is not particularly attractive. I'm a fan of Tremulis but his concept is worse. The above mentioned Packard Clipper look 100% better.

Is the beefed up 1st gear on the Cord transmission true? I didn't think the room existed in the case else the Cord guys would have been stamping them out by the 100s.

[Restorer32]

Tucker's biggest unmet goal was actually selling these dinosaurs.

[Guest dminer]

If you love Tucker's, check out my Grandmother's museum! '47 Tin Goose prototype and 1948 #1013. William E. Swigart, Jr. Automobile Museum

There's a photo of the two at the top of the page.

Edited March 11, 2012 by dminer (see edit history)

[WQ59B]

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.

[Guest Opel Owner]

What!!! No convertible???

Roll down the windows.......

[Guest Water Jacket]

Alsancle, i'm with you. Ironically, Alex Tremulis is among those who confirmed that Dutch Darrin really did design the svelte 1941-47 Packard Clipper. Whether the Company adapted Darrin's proposed model, or their own designers produced something inspired by Darrin's model, what's the difference? If you take up painting and copy Monet, is your work yours, or Monet's? Packard screwed Darrin, but then, you can't expect all that staid, Masonic, Detroit Athletic Club Packard boardroom ego to publicly admit that their big production hit of the '40s was by a foulmouthed, fast track Hollywood rake who hobnobbed with show girls and celebrities.

As i understand, the first 22 or 23 of the 50 or so Tuckers used stock Cord transmissions, most of them found in junkyards, painted black and given a new bellhousing. The Y(psalanti)-1 Tucker transmission was merely an improved version, a little longer, with improved first gear. I remember an auld Cord friend saying he and his fellow Cordites were looking for Tucker transmissions back in the '50s. Just called him and asked, since he's offline. "I don't know what we were thinking of, since the Tucker version wouldn't have fit a Cord."

To each his own, but to me, the Tucker is not the loveliest car. At 4200 lbs., it's also nearly 200 lbs. heavier than a '42-47 Packard 160 Clipper/Super Clipper, which many people think is a finer car than the above mentioned '47 Cadillac Tucker commented on.

Regarding the above poster's Bonneville speed in 1950. As Letterman says, "I'd like to see the paperwork on that." I read once years ago that a Tucker was run at Bonneville, but i'd like to know in what tune, with what tweaks.

No matter how much some of us like certain cars, laws of physics are immutable. For example, the '53 Bentley R-Type Continental, a smaller car than the Tucker with less frontal area, put out 150hp @ 4,200 rpm, 1,000 rpm higher than the Tucker's peak, and has a long legged 3:08:1 rear axle. The best the R-Type Continental could do, razor-tuned under the watchful eye of Crewe engineers, was 116 mph. Yet over the years, buff books and magazine articles cite "120 mph."

Like Fox "News," you repeat something that sounds good long enough and it gains credibility.

I think Tom McCahill knew what he was doing.

That's all the interest i've got in Tuckers, or Cords, for that matter. Afraid i'm a "grille man" who likes his cylinders out front, in a row, and his engineering refined.

Love this Forum. Constantly amazed at the breadth and depth of knowledge of many of my fellow autoholics.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[WQ59B]

^ 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).

[Guest Water Jacket]

Preston Tucker's SEC trial was national news, comics had a field day with Tucker jokes. "....a man didn't know whether to buy his wife a Kaiser to surprise her, a Frazer and amaze her, or a Tucker and ..." Radio comedians of the day, newspapers, Time magazine. You name it. Big story. Tucker's well covered trial wound down in January, 1950, so such a blistering new stock car speed record that year would've been huge news.

Yet there's not one (1) mention of it in any of the day's automotive magazines. Not one.

Hundreds of car buff recitations aside, not one column inch in any publication in the day confirms this Bonneville run. SCTA and AAA Racing Board records from the day show not a mention. Even if the run was made at El Mirage, not Bonneville, the Russetta Timing Association (RTA) would have a record.

As with the Duesenberg Model J and other novel cars, myth, claims, conjecture only muddy the water. Let the cars stand on their genuine merits. Alex Tremulis' .30 CD rating was an estimate, never confirmed in a wind tunnel. 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."

As for Alex Tremulis "logging speeds of 118 and 122," what does that mean? We all know about speedometer error.

I don't even buy 120 mph.

All this becomes like the quiz show Johnny Carson first hosted, "Who Do You Trust?"

I met Tucker owner Bev Ferreira, saw him at many old car events in the late '70s and over the ensuing decades. He and his wife Dorothy died in 2009 and '08. Bev, a mechanic, Bay Area native, also owned a '41 Packard 160 sedan, '37 Packard Twelve conv. coupe, several other nice cars.In '79 or so he told me about the Tucker movie Coppola was planning, that Burt Reynolds was then slated to play Tucker. My firsthand experience with Tuckers is limited to seeing often Bev's canary yellow Torpedo, which he'd masterfully restored himself, being a lifelong mechanic.

My Cord info comes from friends who are lifelong Cord owners and mechanics, one of them also a machinist and aircraft mechanic, who coincidentally worked on several of the same Franklin helicopter engines as used in Tuckers, tho' Tucker curiously added water jacketing.

Even we hardcore gearheads are not immune to urban legends.

The Tucker was a fast car, with some novel features, and promise, had there been development money. That's the unvarnished truth. And not a bad story as is.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[Rob Ida]

I am currently working on bringing this early Tucker concept to reality with the help of Preston Tuckers grandsons. Click here to see more about it and video.

Rob Ida Concepts

[Rusty_OToole]

The picture above is an early concept drawing done well before Alex Tremulis joined the company.

In fact I believe seeing this picture in a magazine article is what inspired him to seek a job with Tucker.

Some more thoughts on the Tucker design. This is my own idea put together from what I read over the years about the Tucker and how it came about.

I believe the original inspiration came from the invention of the torque converter some time in the forties. There were automatic transmissions on the market that featured fluid couplings (Hydramatic, Fluid Drive) in the late 30s but the first torque converter transmissions did not hit the market until 1949 and 1950 (Ultramatic, Dynaflow, Powerglide).

We know Tucker was close to Harry Miller and gave Miller credit for the Tucker concept. What if Miller saw the data on the first experimental torque converters, and realized he could eliminate the transmission?

The torque converter will multiply torque up to 2.6 times, like a set of gears of 2.6:1.

Miller knew the fluid coupling could replace the clutch. Now the torque converter could replace the transmission. In fact the early torque converter transmissions did just that. They all started off in high gear with a low that could be manually selected for emergencies.

Now if you can eliminate the clutch and transmission why not do away with the driveshaft, differential and rear axle while you are at it?

You could do this by turning the engine sideways and putting a torque converter at each end of the driveshaft, one for each rear wheel. Their slippage would give you a differential effect automatically and limited slip at that.

This would only work if you had a very short, very slow revving engine. No gearing down in the trans or rear diff. So, he designed an opposed six, 598 cu in engine that peaked at 1000 RPM.

This would be the ultimate in simple compact drive train packaging but would require a rear mounted engine.

Now how to get a reverse with no gears? The solution was to make the deflector blades inside the torque converters movable and reversible. This would give a reverse gear and also allow greater flexibility in forward driving. This problem was not impossible, but very difficult to solve, making the internal parts of the torque converter adjustable by some kind of external control without leaks. GM eventually came out with a Switch Pitch torque converter in the sixties but Tucker simply did not have time to perfect the torque converter drive and 589 motor.

This is why they went to the Franklin motor and Cord transmission as a stop gap. They just did not have the time and money. But they did keep the rear engine drive, dictated by the original design.

To me this is entirely logical and explains the original design concept, why they used such a large slow turning engine, the rumors about not being able to back up, and so forth.

The fact that they could not make such a radical concept work, explains the design changes that led to the Tucker we all know and love.

Does this make sense to you?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest Siegfried]

Dminer, I recall seeing #1013 at the AACA Museum, and at The Elegance. Looking forward to seeing this Tucker again. Sure is a beautiful car

[Rusty_OToole]

alsancle you may not find the Tucker attractive but park it next to other 1948 cars and you will see why it caused such a sensation. There are other cars that were knockouts on introduction day but have not aged well. I think the Tucker stands the test of time. It may not be the prettiest car ever made but it was outstanding compared to other 1948 cars.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

I have Tom McCahill's Tucker road test in front of me. He states he accelerated to 105 MPH when a truck loomed up ahead and he had to kill speed. The car was still accelerating. Earlier he said "Leaving the plant grounds, I went up to Cicero Boulevard on the south side of Chicago, and I soon knew I was in one of the greatest performing passenger automobiles ever built on this side of the Atlantic". So the speed test was done on Cicero Boulevard or thereabouts.

To put this in perspective no other American stock car would go 100 MPH at that time. In 1951, three years after this test, McCahill set a record of 100.13 MPH at the Daytona speed trials, driving a new Chrysler New Yorker sedan with the hemi head V8. This was the fastest production car on the beach that year and the first stock car to break 100 at Daytona since the supercharged Cord in the late 30s.

[A. Ballard 35R]

The Packard speedsters were sold as 100 MPH cars.

[DAVE A]

If Francis Ford Coppola collected Crosleys, we'da seen a swell flick about those.

You are right about that. If you've never read the Crosley story I recommend McClure et al "Crosley...Two Brothers and a Business Empire that Changed the World" An outstanding read! Powel Crosley must have made Preston Tucker seem mild mannered and boring!!

[WQ59B]

The Packard speedsters were sold as 100 MPH cars.

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

[Guest South_paw]

Here's another drawing of the concept along with the article,

and one of his earlier concepts from 1938,

[WQ59B]

>>"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.

Edited March 5, 2012 by WQ59B (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

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

That may be true. The Buick Century was also supposed to do 100 MPH. But Cadillac 16,Auburn, Cord and Buick Century were all out of production in 1948. That year the fastest production sedan would not do 100 and any car that could break 90 was very fast.

5 or 6 years later 100 MPH was routine but in 1948 the Tucker performance put it way ahead of any production car.

[alsancle]

Given that numerous cars from the 1930s could break 100mph wouldn't you say the lack of faster cars had more to do with what the manufacturers were concentrating on (i.e. building as many cars as possible) than any inherit design superiority in the Tucker?

[Restorer32]

I wonder how many miles the highest mileage Tucker has ever gone in its original configuration?

[WQ59B]

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.

[Rusty_OToole]

There were cars that could exceed 100 in 1951, not in 1948. That is 3 years difference, practically an eternity in the car business back then.The OHV Cadillac was not out yet, neither was the Chrysler, Olds, or even Studebaker. The only OHV engines in 1948 were Chev, Buick and Nash. All prewar long stroke engines not noted for sparkling performance.

Prewar sedans that could do 100 were few and far between.

Why is it so hard to accept that this car was a sensational performer in 1948 when there is an independent report from a reliable source proving that it is?

Why is it so hard to believe that a 335 cu in OHV engine could put out 166HP when only a year later, the Cadillac put out 160HP from 331 cu in?

Why is it so hard to believe that a car lighter than the Cadillac, with more horsepower, was an excellent performer?

[Guest Water Jacket]

The roadtest monthlies reported the new '49 Cadillac would do 80mph from a standing start in 30 seconds. Road & Track's founder & technical editor, John Bond, a degreed engineer, listed the observed top speeds of all the nation's 1949-50 cars, attributing 97mph to the 331-ci Cadillac, 98 to the 336.7-ci truck-engined Lincoln, 99 to the 356-ci, Ultramatic-only Packard Custom Eight. Buick's 320-ci Roadmaster, having been detuned since 1942, was listed at 94mph.

Restorer 32 asks a good question, three posts above.

Quite a coincidence that consumate salesman Preston Tucker advertised 166 -- not 163, or 165, or 167, or 168-- horsepower for his new Torpedo sedan, intended to debut in time for the 1947 model year, when Packard's chart-topping Super Clipper advertised 165 hp.

Former car salesman, 10th-grade high school dropout, Wall Street marauder E. L. Cord claimed 265 hp for his new Duesenberg Model J as there was an existing extremely limited-production Mercedes-Benz SSK boasting 250 hp, and Cord wanted to advertise "the most powerful car in the world."

About the same time Road & Track listed the top speeds of all current American cars, John Bond visited the Lycoming plant and saw dynamometer reports of four Model J engines, the best of which showed 208 hp.

Why can't we enjoy these cars sans hyperbole?

Edited March 9, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Water jacket were those Duesenbergs supercharged? I have long thought that the 265HP Duesenberg must have been the special supercharged racing engine built for the record setting Mormon Meteor, if it existed at all.

[Guest Water Jacket]

They weren't supercharged, Monsignor O'Toole. Of the 481 or so Duesenberg J engines produced, only 36 of them were supercharged from the factory, tho' several more were blown in the years since. BTW, there was no such thing as a "Model SJ." Duesenberg just called them a supercharged Model J.

A friend is on his second J, and they're of course impressive juggernauts, especially when you contrast them with most of what existed then. If people could just see Duesenbergs, Tuckers, any of these cars in perspective, for what they are, there'd be more enjoyment. Leave the thrice-told myths to the auctioneers and shut ins.

Other than king pins ball-bearinged top and bottom, and extreme quality, there's nothing unusual in a Duesenberg chassis. Veterans report roughness at high rpm as the long camshaft chains stretch, upsetting timing. The steel connecting rods in the supercharged J were quickly made available to unblown J owners.

The apple green engine with polished aluminum is a handsome piece of machinery. But talk with ancient farmers and tractor collectors about some of the factory finish on old Massey-Fergusons, etc. Really.

Recall hearing in 1972 when a Model J originally owned by Greta Garbo cracked $100,000 at auction. It was the first automobile to eclipse that figure. Often think that was the start of everyone glomming on to the term "Classic car" for muscle cars, '57 Chevies, T-Birds, anything too old for the current Kelley Blue Book. Before then, the only people using that term were the Classic Car Club of America. Then we wound up with Classic Coke, Classic pizza, and so on, as Kurt Vonnegut, once a Saab salesman, used to say.

DOHC or not, there's only so much you can extract from 5.2:1 compression (5.75:1 optional). Duesenberg's own test of a Model J gave 116 mph, and that was obviously a well-tweaked example, likely with the 5:75 compression and tallest of the four axles, 3.8:1 (The later 3:1 was ONLY in the Cooper/Gable bobtail speedsters, and Ab Jenkins' Bonneville edition). Maurice Hendry and others in the know cite a real world 105 mph or so for most Model Js in road trim, which makes sense, since each 1931-33 ohv Marmon V-16, with 6.25:1 compression and another 71 cubic inches, 3:78:1 rear end, lapped the Indy brickyard at 105 before delivery, and this was confirmed, not a case of E. L. Cord having dash plaques inscribed with an arbitrary figure just over 100 mph slapped on each 1935-36 Auburn 851-852 boattail speedster.

Chrysler Imperials in road trim could hit an honest 95 mph. Period Packards, as we know, suffered from stumpier rear axles, as we know from Col. Vincent's longer legged speedster, in which Charles Lindbergh famously reached 128mph at the Packard Proving Grounds, then the fastest track in the world. Of course, Col. Vincent's speedster was modified, tweaked to the nines.

The professional and much missed Special Interest Autos (Hemmings Classic Car is not in the same league) did a DriveReport of a 1931-33 Chrysler Imperial years ago entitled "Better Than a Duesy?" Adjust for price, a good question.

A longtime Packard collector with experience with all three 385-ci straight eights, said the Pierce had the best manifolding, if he had to pick the best engine, split hairs.

But then, Studebaker President L-head straight 8s were the engine of choice during the Indy "junk" or stock block years in the Depression.

BTW, in 1940, Augie Duesenberg was offering a marine version of the 254-ci Hudson splash-oiled straight 8.

That's the sum of my Duesenberg interest these days, tho' if you'd told me when i was a boy i'd know someone with one, my jaw woulda dropped.

All these old cars have a certain charm, especially when no matter how carefully, fully rebuilt, they retain the understatement, colors, blackwall tires, minimal accessories most had in the day.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

One of the features of the Duesenberg was that every car was custom built for the owner and so was the engine. There were 3 different pistons, low regular and high compression, 3 different intake systems, single carb dual carb and supercharged, and at least 2 exhaust systems Also the cams could be adjusted individually to advance and retard. By doing this you could change the peak power point by changing the breathing characteristics.

A top racing mechanic could make a variety of different engines this way, from a creamy smooth, quiet, engine that could pull the heaviest sedan or town car with ease, to a rip roaring performance car.

I always figured the 265HP was a one off if it existed at all, the supercharged Mormon Meteor engine or one of the short wheelbase speedsters. Non supercharged engines for normal road use I figured 150 - 170.

[WQ59B]

^ So with that much difference in tuning, looking at 4 engine dyno sheets is not necessarily going to be very representative...

[Guest dminer]

So what killed these cars? My wife says they would've been the safest cars on the road, first with seatbelts and padded dash. Optional radio. Tucker luggage. The obvious moving 3rd headlight. Sounds like the bees knees.

But then Tucker was taking preorders and money in advance to produce vehicles and put the orders in production, and the SEC got a bug up its butt about the biz practices and essentially shut them down??? Modified helicopter engines?? Abridged version. wrong or right or halfway there?

This story is akin to the Pinto...1st with airbags,etc

If God said to her,Tucker or Dan?, I'd be a single man!

She also had a question. 49 produced on the assembly line to completion, plus the tin goose...where does everyone get the 52 Tuckers total?

Edited March 11, 2012 by dminer (see edit history)

[WQ59B]

^ 1 prototype, 50 cars built (some completed after the line/company shut down), 1 more (#1051) built from other pieces = 52.

There were a few more partial bodies that left the factory auction in bare steel, about 7 IIRC; they did not survive the 1970/80s (when these cars were not in any way valuable except to a few). Not enough there nor enough spare parts to build a complete car even if they were worth the cost then.

Edited March 11, 2012 by WQ59B (see edit history)

[Guest dminer]

So does that make 52 legit? I guess this is where it gets a little fuzzy...other 'official' pieces? Is this like DeLorean? Tons of parts? Well, not tons but you know what I mean.

Edited March 11, 2012 by dminer (see edit history)

[WQ59B]

Here's the list of cars:

:: The Official Tucker Club of America :: See a Tucker

Caption by 1051 says it's generally not considered to be 'official' because it was not finished at the factory, but at least it's built with factory parts and not from scratch (WRT the body).

[Lawteachr]

dminer, been to the Swigart museum, near Altoona, PA, Great Place

[alsancle]

So what killed these cars?

Poor business plan. As collectors we get caught up on the merits of the car's style, construction and technical design. The business that produces the car is more important.

The common knowledge for years which was perhaps untrue or unfair was that very few of the Tuckers produced could drive 100 miles on their own (not on a trailer) let alone drive 100mph. Lots of re-engineering over the years has changed that.

It is hard to sell a car that won't start, or drive around the block reliably. It is even harder if you are under capitalized, and have no dealer or service network.

Also, it's very unfair to compare a Duesenberg to a Tucker (unfair to the Duesenberg) for so many reasons I can't list them all. While the stock non supercharged Model J engine was not 265hp, it was well over 200 and almost double the other high end cars of the day.

EDIT: I probably should have said that I can't think of any business model for the automobile industry that would allow you to create a car company from scratch post WWII. I know there were some European brands that were able to start but I really don't know how you could do it in the U.S. Also, I personally think that the Tucker is a neat concept and although I find the nose horrible the styling on the back of the car is very cool. I just think the level of fawning is out of proportion to the reality of the car & company.

Edited March 12, 2012 by alsancle (see edit history)