"48" weight??

[WQ59B]

The usual figure I've seen quoted for the Tucker's weight is 4200 lbs, but I remember reading somewhere that that was the weight of the Tin Goose, which had a lot of lead and other compromises of hand-building. I believe I remember reading once that the actual weight of the 48 is more like 3850. Can anyone verify which is correct?? Thanks! <p></p><i></i>

[chris]

I think it is around 4000 lbs but look at the specs in this web sight. she is a perfect car but not a light weaght. <p></p><i></i>

[WQ59B]

It doesn't quite make sense tho. <br>
A Tucker's wheelbase is 130", overall length is 219" and it's usually reported to weigh 4200 lbs. <br>
<br>
Let's compare a '50 Buick Series 72 Roadmaster 4-dr sedan; wheelbase: 130.25", length: 217.5". The Roadmaster weighs 4220, but bear in mind it has an enclosed driveshaft ("TorqueTube"), a massive cast-iron Dynaflow transmission (with a 10 quart fluid capacity!) and a cast iron staight 8 engine. The rear axle & TorqueTube I took out of my '59 Buick weighed 310 lbs alone.<br>
<br>
The Tucker's lack of driveshaft (never mind enclosed), lack of rear solid axle, usual manual trans and aluminum flat 6 should save it AT LEAST!!! 400 lbs over the weight of the Buick's components. <br>
<br>
Has a Tucker ever been weighed (such as for shipping purposes) in modern times that can verify <br>
the actual poundage?? <p></p><i></i>

[US Navy man]

the acual weight of the 48 tucker of of the assembly line was 3900 lbs <p></p><i></i>

[MJ]

According to the original prospectus. The Tucker was suppose to have an overall weight of under 3,000lbs. <p></p><i></i>

[chris schoenemann]

it is 4,235lbs that is what the spec seas trust me I looked it up and still a heavy car but not a slouch for its weaght for example the ptcruser weas 3900lbs and zips to 60 in 10sec starting in 1st but the Tucker will do it in the same time but you need to start in 2nd or it will out run the cruser . <p></p><i></i>

[WQ59B]

I know that's what the specs say- I am challenging them! The Tucker is so rare & fleeting that a singular number could easily have been erroneously quoted (in this case I believe the weight # is for the Tin Goose) & then 'became history'. Unless someone can offer convincing 'evidence' otherwise, I am going to believe my recollection & my comparison example above and stick with 3850-3900 lbs. <p></p><i></i>

[plancor 792]

Really tired of hearing all this bickering over the weight of the Tucker. What difference does a couple of hundred pounds make? Please remember that all of these cars were hand built. Some had lots of lead others had somewhat less but still much more than the average car had in those days. This was because Tucker was still working with body parts that were not not perfect and many of these parts were beat out at the Tucker plant not at some stamping company. I have had several weighed and all weighed in the vicinity of 3900 pounds.<br>
So instead of hasseling about the Tucker's weight, how about someone trying to determine why Tucker numbered the engines the way they did. Some engines are stamped with a single number such as the number 7. others are stamped with two numbers such as 28 but most are stamped 335 followed by two or three numbers. such as 33512 or 335110. If someone would put effort into this instead of arguing over vehicle weight we may learn something.<br>
Richard E. Jones Tuckermch@aol.com <p></p><i></i>

[WQ59B]

Wow Richard, sorry you found a simple discussion so annoying. I was right, though, wasn't I? 4200 (4235 in one book) is mentioned in most generic car info sources and I KNEW it was wrong. <br>
<br>
Look at it another way: that couple hundred pounds was off by 7%... it's the same thing as those generic info sources listing the Tucker's engine displacement light by 7% (a 310 cubic inch flat six). Wouldn't that bother you at all? My concern is having the car accurately represented to those interested in learning about it, nothing wrong with that. And since most sources I've seen list it incorrectly, we in fact did learn something here.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately for this long-time Tucker fan (20 yrs & counting), I don't have ready access to the minutia regarding Tuckers; I've only had the chance to see 1 car in person. But I have experience (& enjoy) 'number-crunching': is there a listing of engine serial numbers vs. car #s online so that I (& maybe others) can offer up any theories? <br>
<br>
Has the idea that 'pre-production engines were stamped with 1 or 2 numbers until any running changes were finalized, then a system (like 33512) was instituted as 'production' engines... been discarded yet? And that some degree of engine rejection/testing might quickly offset the engine numerical order from the car #s? Or that the single/double digits are markings from Air-Cooled? <p></p><i></i>

[Robert]

In the paperback edition of Charles T. Pearson's book "The Tin Goose", on page 132 it gives some of the specifications on the Tucker engine to be used in the first production cars. It lists the cubic inch displacement as "335". This probably is the source for the first 3 numbers. The last numbers I would figure to be production numbers for the engines themselves. These may not coincide with the particular car production number they are in.<br>
Respectfully,<br>
Robert <p></p><i></i>