Why are Tuckers so expensive??

[Licespray]

Heya,

 

Info for the uninitiated. Why are Tucker’s so expensive/valuable? They don’t look any more revolutionary than say a 1950/51 Studebaker..?

 

Cheers,

Troy.

[Trulyvintage]

4 minutes ago, Licespray said:

Heya,

 

Info for the uninitiated. Why are Tucker’s so expensive/valuable? They don’t look any more revolutionary than say a 1950/51 Studebaker..?

 

Cheers,

Troy.

 

Troy,

 

You need to do some internet research ....

 

Start here:

 

Preston Tucker

 

 

Jim

[1937hd45]

Nobody made a move about Studebaker, but it would be a far more interesting story from Civil War wagon manufacturing, wild west chuck wagons, highest finishing stock brock powered INDY 500 car Pre WWII race cars . Billet noses in the early 1950's. Lowey designed cars that still set records at Bonneville. I'd like to own a Tucker for as long as it took to flip it and buy six Studebakers and bank the balance and live happily ever after. Bob 

[nick8086]

maybe this..

Edited May 29, 2019 by nick8086 (see edit history)

[Licespray]

Just read the wiki page. Still not seeing what makes it any different from the scores of other failed makers..?

[C Carl]

Press' Tucker made 'em bassackwards. Dangerous configuration with all that powertrain so far aft. Now if you turn that chassis around, and make it front wheel drive with rear wheel steering, whaddaya think the automobile buying public would have thought about THAT one ? HEY NOW  : Straight ahead parallel parking !!!!! Can't do THAT with no Stude'. I actually saw a gold one going Southbound on I-5 at Redding, CA maybe 30 years or so ago. Every (business) failure "tells a story, don't it ?"  Have you seen the movie yet ?    -    CC 

[nick8086]

found this on you-tube:

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by nick8086 (see edit history)

[mercer09]

for starters.............. only 48 of them.........................

[1935Packard]

They're really cool, everyone knows about them because of the Tucker movie, and only 48 were made.   Other than that, it's just a supply and demand thing and explanations are hard.

[John_S_in_Penna]

Why are Tucker cars so expensive?

 

Someone was telling me that they used to be

five-figure cars at some point before the movie.

The fact that they are so expensive shows human

"herd" mentality, when people tend to act in unison

and feel they need to have something.  After all,

it's just a CAR--bent sheet metal, mechanical pieces,

bright trim.  A Buick sedan might actually be superior!

 

No matter how much money someone has accumulated,

there is always something at every price level to take

his savings.  Saved $100,000,000?  There's an unusual

and bizarre piece of modern art available at $20,000,000.

Saved $10,000,000,000?  Build an angularly styled modern art

museum and collect all the expensive pieces.  And in the end,

you'll be no happier than the guy with the single Buick sedan!

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

Before the movie there was little interest in the Tucker. Used to be one that showed up at Hershey and the general reaction was Ho Hum. The fact that potential Tucker dealers were required to buy a supply of parts before ever getting an actual car spelled scam to me. Maybe  Pret started out actually wanting to build a profitable car company but maybe Musk had the same intention.

[edinmass]

Why are Tuckers so expensive? The answer is the same as why someone paid 91 million dollars for a chrome energizer bunny.............perception. Or, more money than brains. 

[Walt G]

Lots of opinions about the Tucker, most seem resentful that they are currently bringing a lot of $, few mention how good/bad they ride, drive, etc. Supply and demand with only 48 being made has a lot to do with the $ value currently and the movie made more people aware of them. I had two friends that owned several Truckers. Bill Hamlin of Ontario, California had 2 as did Les Schaefer of Pa. Both also were owners of Franklin cars more specifically 1932 Franklins. Bill was a fantastic mechanic with great ability and used to take his Tucker out to the Ontario Speedway and lap it at 80+ mph.   The Tucker has a Franklin engine made in Liverpool, NY that was eventually used in Helicopters.  Before you put something down perhaps do a bit more research ( beyond a movie) and really learn what the car in question was about. I have ridden in a Tucker or two, and they are fine automobiles. Because something gets a lot of PR and press doesn't mean it is just a fluffed up toy that you resent because you will never own one or perhaps even see one in person.

[Restorer32]

If they are such great cars why wasn't the company successful? 

[1937hd45]

If something is ugly in your field of vision others opinions will not change it, no mater how much it is worth. Being given a Tucker and selling at market value would not change the appearance in my mind. Bob 

[John_S_in_Penna]

I know of 2 Tuckers within our local AACA region.

(Pennsylvania is a great place to be an old-car fan.)

[Locomobile]

There is one just north of here at the Stahl's museum. If I heard and remember it correctly, they paid 500k for it and put another 600k in it in restoration. It is reportedly the best Tucker known to exist now. I too fail to see the value of these vehicles. There were thousands of failed automakers over the years, especially very early on, some that made as few as 2 or 3 vehicles, they are so rare and unknown, there is no demand for them. The movie is what created demand and made these cars so valuable.

 

[Walt G]

If they are such great cars why wasn't the company successful? 

Well it was post war America, and long established car companies that built 'great cars' for many decades disappeared from the car buying scene as well within the decade + or -  after the Tucker tried its hand at production and sales. Cars Like Studebaker, Packard, Willys, Hudson , why weren't those companies successful ? 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Walt G (see edit history)

[Licespray]

I see a few others share my “why..?” Thoughts.

 

Not trying to put Tucker’s down, just a genuine curiosity as to why.

[Licespray]

12 minutes ago, Walt G said:

If they are such great cars why wasn't the company successful? 

Well it was post war America, and long established car companies that built 'great cars' for many decades disappeared from the car buying scene as well within the decade + or -  after the Tucker tried its hand at production and sales. Cars Like Studebaker, Packard, Willys, Hudson , why weren't those companies successful ? 

 

Actually that makes me think of another question - why did the Sleeve Valve engine die out?

[Matt Harwood]

1 minute ago, Licespray said:

 

Actually that makes me think of another question - why did the Sleeve Valve engine die out?

 

Complex, expensive, and they blew (a little to a lot of) blue smoke even when operating correctly. The sleeve valve engine's primary advantage was that it was considerably quieter than an engine with poppet valves. By the late '20s, however, poppet valves had become acceptably quiet so that the sleeve valve's advantages weren't as significant, making it difficult to justify the added cost and complexity. They're fascinating machines and an awesome trip down a technological dead end, but it's purely a case where simpler really was better.

[Brass is Best]

1 hour ago, Restorer32 said:

If they are such great cars why wasn't the company successful? 

 

Politics.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Brass is Best (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

Not just quieter; although that was a automobile selling point , but more reliable. Early poppet valves were prone to failure. The metallurgy of the day meant poppet valves were still a developing idea. It wasn't until heat resistant nickel steel alloys were developed that poppet valves became truly reliable.

 Sleeve valves were less stressed and ran cooler than poppet valves. Particularly exhaust valves.

Sleeve valve aircraft engines were still being successfully used in WW2, mostly by the British. The Bristol Hercules was a very successful sleeve valve engine, powering many British aircraft.

 

Greg in Canada

[Locomobile]

2 minutes ago, Brass is Best said:

 

Politics.

 

That was according to the movie, growing up in the Detroit area, car talk was always prevalent. Even in some High School classes, drafting etc, The subject of Tucker was brought up and used to teach, the consensus was always the same, the design was too radical and ahead of it's time, the public rejected it. There was never any mention of big bad Detroit corporations beating up on the little guy, the lesson was about design and Tucker was used an example and warning of not getting too far ahead of your market and deviating too wildly from the mainstream i.e. what people knew, understood and were comfortable with. We had great schools here.

 

-Ron

[Brass is Best]

1 hour ago, Locomobile said:

 

That was according to the movie, growing up in the Detroit area, car talk was always prevalent. Even in some High School classes, drafting etc, The subject of Tucker was brought up and used to teach, the consensus was always the same, the design was too radical and ahead of it's time, the public rejected it. There was never any mention of big bad Detroit corporations beating up on the little guy, the lesson was about design and Tucker was used an example and warning of not getting too far ahead of your market and deviating too wildly from the mainstream i.e. what people knew, understood and were comfortable with. We had great schools here.

 

-Ron

 

This is true, but isn't history usually reported by the victors? 

[39BuickEight]

6 hours ago, mercer09 said:

for starters.............. only 48 of them.........................

This is all of it.  When you only made 48, it takes little or no demand for the price to go up.  It only takes 1 person with the means looking to buy.  You don’t need much desirability when you are starting at 48.

[Locomobile]

There is a flip side to this phenomenon as well. With Tucker there was interest in the man himself as he was known to to say some provocative things in the press and his car was interesting and probably why he and his car survived in popular lore prior to the movie, but interest alone in something doesn't equate to sales. A long time ago I had this really nice 1950 Chevrolet truck, no rust, good paint, ran great, everything worked, even the vacuum wipers, everywhere I went people loved it,  driving down the street, thumbs up from passers by, then I decided to sell it, wound up practically giving it away, the comment I made was "Everybody loves it and nobody wants it" Probably different today though. The flip side is early steam touring cars,  like the 700 series Stanleys, 735, 740 etc, those cars were around 5000 dollars (As was the White) new, at the same time a person could by a model T touring car for about 1/10 that, yet Stanley sold thousands of them. Car people today scratch their heads trying to figure out why anyone would buy a Stanley instead of a model T (er T-model if you're from the south ) , It gets back to what I mentioned about what the market was familiar and comfortable with. Other than smoother running and quieter, the steamer had no advantage over it's Internal combustion rivals.

 

BrassisBest, so true, history is written by the victors or anyone with a bone to pick.

 

-Ron

[Matt Harwood]

I like Tuckers. I've always liked them. I liked them even before they were famous because of a movie. I like the way they look, I like the way Preston Tucker colored outside the lines to build them, I like some of the tech that went in to them, and yes, I do like the story (with or without the dramatizations). A big part of any car's collectability is the story--I can't tell you how many guys ask me for the "provenance" on the most mundane cars. Tucker? Now that's a great story! Plus it's not some goofy dreamer's car like, say, a Davis, but a real, working full-sized car that needs no asterisks. A friend of mine grew up riding in his father's Tucker (the blue one currently in the Sweigart museum) and says that the car is a great driver, fast, comfortable, and reliable. I think they get maligned for the reasons many old cars get maligned--slipshod mechanics trying to keep it running on a shoestring, not defects specific to the car itself.

 

Very few cheap cars are rare, fast, exclusive, technologically advanced, with colorful, well-documented histories. Most cars with those features tend to be very expensive. Why should the Tucker be any different? It isn't a garden-variety car.

[alsancle]

This is  the rare subject where I will part company with my friend Walt.  Other than the low production and rear mounted air cooled engine,  I see nothing special or unique about them.    The price they bring is really unbelievable.  

[Matt Harwood]

Actually, Tuckers are liquid-cooled. The engine was originally air-cooled but was converted to liquid cooling for the Tucker. It was neat to see one on display in a museum where you could see the custom water jackets on the outside of the engine, enclosing the air-cooling fins. Pretty simple setup, actually.

 

Like I said, the Tucker is full of ingenious little touches that make it unique. I do understand why many folks don't love them, but their value nonetheless makes sense.

[alsancle]

3 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

Like I said, the Tucker is full of ingenious little touches that make it unique. I do understand why many folks don't love them, but their value nonetheless makes sense.

 

Matt,  I agree with about 95% of what you say,  but like my friend Walt, we part company on the  Tucker.   I 100% do not get it.  I think if they sold for 150-200k I would get the premium for the oddity. 

 

1.  They are ugly.

2.  The build quality and engineering are highly suspect.

3.   They are overpriced in the market by about 500%

4.   Did I mention they are ugly?

[39BuickEight]

They are not priced incorrectly, but rather they are priced correctly according to the supply and demand.  They would be $150-$200k if they were easier to locate in the marketplace, for a person wanting to buy one.

 

I've never seen "ugly" as a parameter in a vehicle valuation report. 

[edinmass]

If you look at the great car collections, only one has a Tucker in it..........and they laugh at it, but got one because too many people were asking to see one. I have a good friend who is a true car genius and he has restored several of them. I can't print here what he thinks of them......not even in a locker room. 

[alsancle]

I hard and fast rule about collecting where I never disparage anyone else's car.   There is lots of stuff on here that I don't understand or care about.  But to each is own.    If it makes you happy to own the best 87 Yugo in the world,  then god bless.

 

The only exception is the Tucker, which I could bad mouth for the next 3 weeks.

[alsancle]

14 minutes ago, 39BuickEight said:

I've never seen "ugly" as a parameter in a vehicle valuation report. 

 

Appearance makes up about 75% of the value of any car.   The difference between the most attractive Duesenberg Model J and the Ugliest is about 5 million bucks,  all other things equal.

[Trulyvintage]

Visit the “ Museum That Shall Not Be Named “.

 

Linger At The Tucker Exhibit.

 

Observe - Let It Set In .....

 

My appreciation of the man - his vision - what was accomplished in the blink of an eye - greatly increased.

 

 

Jim

[West Peterson]

19 minutes ago, alsancle said:

 

Appearance makes up about 75% of the value of any car.   The difference between the most attractive Duesenberg Model J and the Ugliest is about 5 million bucks,  all other things equal.

Oh, dear... the difference is WAAAAY more than $5M. That is, if one considers one of the SSJs as the most attractive. They're cool, but not the most attractive in my opinion.

[Locomobile]

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

The engine was originally air-cooled but was converted to liquid cooling for the Tucker. It was neat to see one on display in a museum where you could see the custom water jackets on the outside of the engine, enclosing the air-cooling fins.

 

That in itself would be a turn off for most buyers, a vehicle with a converted engine to work in their new car. I think the question would be, "couldn't these people spend a few dollars and have some new cylinder castings made? What else did they scrimp on or cut corners with? "" People are pretty fickle about that sort of thing, like when it was discovered Oldsmobiles were allegedly being sold with Chevrolet engines or vise-versa, it was a big scandal with people demanding new engines or their money back.

 

-Ron

Edited May 29, 2019 by Locomobile (see edit history)

[Walt G]

I did not state Tuckers are "really pretty" , I like them from a 3/4 rear view especially and profile side view , ( front view - not so much)  as with any car it also depends upon the color.  If they look bulky how do other 1947 - 48 cars look? Revamped 1940 - 41 styling  roundy? ?

We view these cars from today's perspective, take a step back and try to view it the way people did in the era they were made, and if you possibly can,  to other cars of that era, not what came after for the next two decades! . I feel the bullet nosed Studebakers are equally as different as the Tucker was. You love it or you hate it.  Again I will ask, how many people commenting have ever ridden in one? Yes, I have and I have driven one , although that was back in the early 1970s when Les Schaefer invited me to get behind the wheel of one of his. Very easy to comment and pass judgement on something from a distance , even if that distance is only 12 inches away. Lotsa experts here on the forum.

[1937hd45]

With the Tucker line up along the cliff at Pebble Beach last year did this Chrysler Airflow test run through anyone's mind, or am I all alone? 

 

 

Bob