Sign in to follow this  
Licespray

Why are Tuckers so expensive??

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, 1937hd45 said:

Nobody made a move about Studebaker,

Well, they made a movie with Studebakers as the stars!  Maybe you saw the movie, "Tucker, the man and his dream".☺️

 

You thought Francis Ford Coppolla wrecked real Tuckers in the movie? You though he found a warehouse full of Tucker sheet metal for those factory scenes? You saw fiberglass replica parts, racks of them, which were then fastened onto Studebakers  to make Tuckers they could abuse in filming the movie.

 

Dave Cammack had lots of documentation about the film on display in his museum, along with three Tuckers and a dozen or so engines, transmissions, other parts. And the whole top floor had

 the original Tucker blueprints. The original Tucker prototype mule was there too. Sat on 13" tires! With dual torque converters, transverse style.  The piddly amount of his stuff on display at the "Museum which will not be named" does not do his collection justice. 

 

I always wanted a Tucker. They were always out of reach financially, even when one was for sale for $3500 in the late 60s, and $75,000 in 1983 (Bill Pettit's).  Innovative as a Corvair. Dave once said he was jealous of our driving Corvairs (several Corvair clubs visited him and his museum over the years), as we could drive our cars and his Tuckers were now so valuable he could only start them, drive into the alley to wash them, and drive them back inside or onto a trailer. Were not even licensed.

 

So, 48 or so Tuckers left to ever be for sale, almost 2 million Corvairs  made over 10 years. Supply and demand, guess which one is more valuable?😉

 

And I like the bullet nosed Studebakers also, owned a 50 Champion in college, and now own (wife's car) a 50 Commander.👍

 

8 hours ago, Locomobile said:

"couldn't these people spend a few dollars and have some new cylinder castings made?

They did. Why would you think they didn't? This is why the engine said Tucker and not Franklin on it.

 

9 hours ago, alsancle said:

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?

OK, I disagree with #1 and #4, but styling is personal. 

#2 is outright wrong. The engineering is very top notch.

#3 is caused by not enough cars to go around to really high rollers who want one. If no one wanted one, they would be as cheap as '48 Fords. Sort of also disproves your #1 and #4 points, although sometimes ugly sells.  See: Aztec, Subaru 360, VW Beetle, Avalanche, Scion XB, HHR, Davis, insert other car you dislike here.........😁

 

7 hours ago, West Peterson said:

I usually put a little more weight on those who knew the cars "before the movie

 

Lots of people I knew wanted a Tucker before the movie came out. That led to prices always being out of my reach....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What type of transmission does this one have? Cord pre-selector?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, whoops, I just kept my fingers crossed. (that's what the owner says in the video)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nick8086 said:

Look into a davis car.. 

leno-davis.jpg

 

 

Greatly disappointed in Jay on this episode .....

 

Around the 4:00 minute mark he links Davis ( who went to jail for 24 months )

and Preston Tucker  stating “ they both went to jail for fraud “.

 

Preston Tucker was acquitted on all counts.

 

It just shows ignorance continues decades later about the facts concerning

Preston Tucker.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Frank DuVal said:
17 hours ago, Locomobile said:

"couldn't these people spend a few dollars and have some new cylinder castings made?

They did. Why would you think they didn't? This is why the engine said Tucker and not Franklin on it.

 

So the design was to use air cooled cylinders for airplane application and then convert them to use water cooling. As I mentioned above, I think that alone would have turned people off.

 

Tucker unveiled the car with no reverse gear as they hadn't had time to make it functional. The press went in to a feeding frenzy about it and all the public knew at that point forward was this new radical looking car couldn't back up. That was a huge mistake.

 

Sorta like when Bob Hope commenting about the new Edsel, he said it "looked like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon" That didn't do anything for sales.

 

-Ron

Edited by Locomobile (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 My uncle gave me a gold plated Tucker model that he found in the dump after the Tucker crash. There was a whole box of them.

 I played with it ruffly in the 50's and finally destroyed it.

 I sure wish that I had not been such a thoughtless child and that I had it now. (Who knew?)

Edited by Roger Walling (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first Tucker I ever saw and had the opportunity to examine and learn about was in 1972. There are many other automobiles manufactured by failed car companies that were as innovative, if not more innovative than a Tucker. By the way, Ford and GM never looked at the Tucker car company as a threat and the Tucker car company went out of business for the same reason hundreds of other car companies went out of business.

The only reason we hear of the Tucker today is because of the movie. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Locomobile said:

convert them to use water cooling. As I mentioned above, I think that alone would have turned people off.

 

Didn't seem to affect people buying VW Vanagons. They changed from air cooled to water cooled.

 

As long as the engine runs, 80% of the people would not care what was under the hood.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was growing up there were a few around, remember that James Melton had one. Today I'd rather have a Tatra V8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an awful lot to say about Tuckers.............but as my mother said, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Please see the next ten paragraphs below.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Frank DuVal said:

 

Didn't seem to affect people buying VW Vanagons. They changed from air cooled to water cooled.

 

As long as the engine runs, 80% of the people would not care what was under the hood.

Have to keep in mind, Volkswagen wasn't a new company, everyone knew what they were and what to expect from them. In other words, people had confidence in them. The public didn't know who Tucker was at that time.

 

Tucker brought out this radical design with many advanced and unproven concepts, unveiled it with no operational reversing mechanism, immediately started making brash statements against his soon to be competitors. Leased a gigantic building that he hoped they could grow in to. These are all business and marketing mistakes. Most successful manufacturers start small and build a facility which mirrors their market volume and grow with it. Attacking competitors that aren't even competitors yet, is not the way to win the hearts of the public, it's foolish. The car business is tough, one can do everything right and still fail, Tucker was simply reckless and caused his own demise.

 

-Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original design called for a separate torque converter driving each of the two rear wheels; no gears, or at least no shifting up though gears during acceleration. Doesn't that suggest engineering incompetence? That would waste a lot of energy; power to the wheels being less. Did they intend for the torque converters to lock at a low speed? The fact this would make providing for reverse difficult is tangential; in other words not providing reverse is a big problem, but there is an even bigger underlying problem with the basic concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Frank DuVal said:

Maybe you saw the movie, "Tucker, the man and his dream".

You thought Francis Ford Coppolla wrecked real Tuckers in the movie? You though he found a warehouse full of Tucker sheet metal for those factory scenes? You saw fiberglass replica parts, racks of them...

 

Francis Ford Coppolla now has a real Tucker of his own!

The following pictures were taken when the show,

Jay Leno's Garage, went to visit him for one episode.

(Photos courtesy of Jay Leno.)

image2.JPG

image1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we start a thread on Movie directors and actors that Good looking cars? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lots of disinformation in this thread. The original Tucker design was for a car with no clutch, no transmission, no driveshaft, no differential and no rear axle. It was to have a large slow turning opposed six cylinder engine with a torque converter at each end of the crankshaft driving the rear wheels directly. There was to be a way of reversing the pitch of the vanes in the torque converter to get reverse. That is why it had no reverse gear.

 

This proved to be impracticable. Instead they adapted the well proven,and excellent Franklin opposed six aircraft engine and designed their own Y1 transaxle. As a stop gap they used a Cord transaxle in test cars. They also hired the man who designed the Buick Dynaflow to design an automatic transmission.

 

Their biggest critic was General Motors who said a rear engined car was ridiculous and impossible. Just before the VW beetle became the best selling imported car in America.  Ten years later they introduced the Corvair with great fanfare.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain how reversing the vanes gives you reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 cars is not production. Have you ever had you hand on one? Last time I was working on one the people who were also helping, all world class mechanics that routinely work on nothing but the most complicated and intricate machines with four wheels all had the same comment and attitude............It was NOT positive. The design...........is terrible, styling is horrendous, fit and finish was poor. Now, if they had managed a production line and built a few thousand, they may have gotten into a groove. Fact is, a Tucker is a footnote in post war cars history...........production as so nill as to be insignificant. It was in the newspapers and magazines back in the day; and it was nothing but an undesirable oddball car that no one really wanted. My father and I passed on one in the early 70’s, for 3500.00

I can’t repeat what my father said about it.......and 99.9 percent of the collectors at the time agreed with his comments. Back then, as today, I wouldn’t walk across the street to look at one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, fifty cars is not production. Those were pre production prototypes. There is no doubt Preston Tucker made his best effort to bring the car to production,and it was not a scam or a dream. Could he have succeeded? I don't think so. Even if the car was good, and several independent experts said it was, he was trying to make a car comparable to a Cadillac, Chrysler or Lincoln in terms of size and horsepower. If he had been an established auto maker it would have cost more to build because of its sophisticated design. At that price - substantially more than a Cadillac or other luxury car - I don't think he could have sold enough to make a profit or even stay in business. My guess is that at best he could have stayed in business for 5 years or less, selling 10,000 cars a year, losing money on every one, and then gone the way of Kaiser, Frazer, Edsel, and Packard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• The original Tucker prototype was not the car that was offered for sale, so the 'no reverse' would not have affected any owners. Yes- there was some minor negative publicity, mostly from detractors.


Their biggest critic was General Motors who said a rear engined car was ridiculous and impossible.


😆 GM, 1949 :

49 GM Corsair 01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read the article that goes with that cover. It explains how GM built rear engine test cars, carefully investigated the pros and cons,  and all the reasons they are no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the piece. I still can't help but notice that after all the fanfare about the Tucker from '46-48, and after a Corporation "GM wasn't worried about" closed down, only then did GM undertake a styling & engineering study that produced multiple models and working vehicles, and showed concepts in 1949, before declaring it was all 'no good'. Had Tucker succeeded into long-term production and grew it's marketshare, you can bet the Big 3 that regularly spied on EACH OTHER would've found a way to make a rear engine car work. The Tucker was a lot less complex & lighter than a '48 Roadmaster, despite being nearly identical in size. Less parts & material potentially equals more profit.

I believe, being run by 'car guys' well thru the point of the late '40s, that GM, Ford & Chrysler (well, maybe not staid Chrysler) were a lot more concerned privately than they ever let on publicly. Even the new OHV '49 Cadillac was still down 6 HP from the 6-cylinder (tho same displacement) '48 Tucker, and was massively heavier.

IDK, hard for me to imagine anyone truly finds the Tucker "ugly" (tho I'm not arguing personal opinion). I think they created an outstanding design, that was unquestionably more advanced, stylistically, than everything else in '48:

Screen Shot 2019-05-30 at 6.45.33 PM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone in Detroit considered Tucker a threat. It just wasn't possible for a new, small manufacturer to compete with the giants in terms of cost, dealership service, etc. At best Tucker could have been a niche product, producing cars in small numbers even compared to the independents like Hudson and Packard. If there was a campaign to sink Tucker I don't think it came from Detroit. It appears to have been politically motivated.

 

GM's Ed Cole did find a way to make a rear engine car work, it was the Corvair. Millions of rear engine cars were made in Europe by VW, Renault, Fiat and others. A rear engine car may have been radical but it was not impractical. Eventually the rear engine design was superceded by the front engine, front wheel drive concept but that was many years in the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at a Tucker it's easy for me to think he took a lot of design influence from Hans Ledwinka's 1930's Tatra's

Some would say plagarized . I say he  wasn't so revolutionary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have stopped reading at "Harvey Earl". He used to winter where I grew up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this