Tucker '48 Automobile Bulletin Board

by **Amy** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:16 am

If anybody can give me accurate information or a resource about how the Big Three put Tucker Corporation out of business I would greatly appreciate it.

by **Larry Clark** » Fri May 02, 2003 7:59 pm

The Big 3 did NOT put the Tucker Corporation out of business. There are a combination of factors that led to the failure of Preston Tucker and the Company to produce a car. The foremost factor is that the company was always vastly undercapitalized. I believe the only way you can include the Big 3 in a list of top ten factors is if you believe the Big 3 were the primary motivating force behind the overzealous actions of the SEC.

by **nmend72** » Sun May 18, 2003 9:47 am

even though the big 3 had no direct link to shutting down the tucker corp, it was the threat of tuckers invention of break away front windshield, seat belts ( 1st to use), and rear engine design at an affordable cost. all of these were a big threat to the big 3, as they did not want this to be customer expectation. so one can wonder why the government (SEC) produced a fraudulant investigation spilling slanders information in the newspaper,(matter of fact reporting the SEC taking files before the event) is it a surprise ? they have done much more for less

by **Larry Clark** » Tue May 20, 2003 11:12 pm

There was so much pent up demand for cars that the possibility of the Tucker car, even with all of its advertised new features, was not in the short run a major threat to the Big 3. What the Big 3 really wanted was the 300,000 square foot Tucker plant so they could produce more cars. Part of the reason for the SEC and Sen. Ferguson (the "Senator from Detroit") both becoming involved is the plant. Preston Tucker wrote a check for $150,000 to secure the plant in August, 1946 but the company still could not cover (cash) it by July, 1947 (see Business Week, July 5, 1947 issue, pages 65-66). Numerous other business articles of the period cite company press conferences where extremely unrealistic production and sales expectations were expoused in direct conflict with SEC laws. This said, I think the SEC far overreached in going after Preston Tucker. Although Preston Tucker was not an effective CEO, I nominated and helped lead the efforts to get Preston Tucker inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame because he was an incredible visionary of what a car ought to be. Likewise, the Tucker '48 is still an incredible car. For this us TACA members can take great pride in Preston Tucker, his company and his car. 
Larry Clark

by **mikrsmith** » Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:11 am

I find it hard to beleive that the big three only wanted his plant, especially since it was previously owned by one of them.

by **Guest** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:51 am

Larry Clark, You sound very knowledgeable, but I must disagree. Atleast you are going against my memories; memories of what I have learned, what I have seen, and what I have read. Who am I? I'm a nobody, or am I? My hands on knowledge is limited to a garage in Stow Ohio where an acquaintance was restoring "THE" Tin Goose, and one other Tucker. I have held the actual Engine Hood of the Tin Goose in these two hands. I have seen her engine scattered all over a workbench in the back room, etc. The metal of the Tin Goose was cut and bent into place with no evident intention of it being the finished product, just a vessel for led; a Lot of Led. 
 
There ends my knowledge. However every time I read something of yours, it goes against something I thought I knew. So Larry, I do not mean this with any malice or disrespect, but with more of a curiosity of point. First the big 3. As I recollect there was a lawsuit where GM sewed Tucker for infringement of copyright, in Tuckers use of Buick parts in the Tucker that were bought over the counter at full retail. I understand that Tucker one this suite as he was not copying, he was buying. But winning or loosing isn't the issue, such frivolous lawsuits cost real money, and waste real time, which can be quite detrimental to a beginning company. As for the big 3 being behind all the problems Tucker suffered from the Government, I just honestly can not believe that being anything else. 
 
Also, in another article you claim the Tin Goose was made from a 1942 Oldsmobile, yet I remember her as made from a Buick. I was shown how the engine hood was cut and formed from the trunk of a Buick. Some clarification of this would be appreciated. 
 
Sincerely, jb

by **plancor 792** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:51 pm

I agree 100% with all that Larry Clark has said about Tucker Corporation. I have done years of research on Tucker Corporation and have come up with the same answers. Tucker positively did not have enough money to build his dream car. He thought that once he got started the government would loan him money as it did Henry Kaiser when Kaiser was involved in making his automobiles. Tucker made too many mistakes that cost him a lot of the limited supply of cash he had available. 
Just how much different are the trunk lids of the Buick and Oldsmobile of that era? I suspect there are very little differences. Did you see Buick stamped somewhere in the hood of the Tin Goose? Or did someone tell you it was from a Buick? I was a close friend of Alex Tremulis and he said that they used an Oldsmobile as the shell for making the Tin Goose. However every piece of the Oldsmobile was reshaped or changed considerably. I have never seen anything about the law suite that you say General Motors filed against Tucker. 
Apparently you saw the Tin Goose and Tucker Serial No. 1020 when they were owned by Mr. Lemmo. 
Maybe with age our memories tend to change a bit. At 74 I know mine does so I constantly go into my research material to make sure I don't screw up the facts as they were. 
I have done research on the Tucker and Tucker Corporation for over 40 years. I have an extensive library of material I have collected through the years. I was one of the founders of The Tucker Automobile Club of America and served it a President, Secretary, Meet Director, Tucker Topics Editor. I have restored two Tucker's. They are Serial Numbers 1022 and 1026. I have worked on at least twenty others during the last 40 years. I was hired by Lucas Films to work on the original 22 Tuckers that were in the movie "Tucker The Man And His Dream". 
I know what Tucker had and know how much research and development was needed before he could market a reliable automobile. I also know that his most pressing need was money. 
Thanks for taking the time to read my reply. 
Richard E. Jones 
Tuckermch@aol.com

by **Guest** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:03 pm

Thanks Richard, Yes memories can play tricks on us, and that was twenty years ago. It's just hard thinking that I may have been wrong all of these years. I would bet the Buick and Olds trunk decks were interchangable, so they would probably be near identical. I'll have to see if I can get the Museum to send me a picture of the underside of the engine hood too see if it can jog my memory as to what he was showing me. I was honestly paying more attention to the body work at the time, having just resently learned to work with lead. Why did Mr. Lemmo sell the Tuckers? 
 
The suite is something I wread about in a book or magazine when I was young, I use to read anything and everything I could get my hands on about the Tucker, and still do to a good extent. 
 
Sincerely, jb

by **plancor 792** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:54 am

JB thanks for the reply. Mr Lemmo sold his Tucker's due to failing health. Good to hear you were a lead body man. Tucker used hundreds of pounds of it in the Tin Goose. A lot less in all other cars. I had quite a problem getting someone who could work lead when I was restoring the 2 Tucker's. All these modern body men know how to work is bondo. Mr. Lemmo at one time owned Tucker Serial Number 1020 and the Tin Goose. Tin goose had no serial number and differed from all other Tucker's. Mainly the rear doors opened from the front. All other Tucker's had suicide rear doors. That is they opened into the wind and in my opinion was a big mistake. However many other automobiles had suicide rear doors. 
Richard

by **Guest** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:55 pm

Lead is not a very forgiving filler, and not many people have the patients to work with it, and even fewer are willing to pay for it. Bondo is quick and cheep, but I can usaly fix anything without any filler at all, any more; if someone is willing to let me take my time, and can afford it. I am fairly confident I could build the Tin Goose today, from the same buck, with little or no lead. I hope to build the 49 featured in AQ in the 70's, but the money has never been there, and I have never found drawings of the front or back anyhow, or any dementions. Yet is a goal I continue to work twards. 
 
Sory to hear of Mr Lemmo, he was a good man and shouldn't have to suffer. 
 
Sincerely, jb

by **gojoe283** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:00 pm

B"H 
 
A lot is said comparing Tucker with Henry J. Kaiser, who started his own car company around the same time as Tucker. 
 
The big difference is that Kaiser was already an experienced industrialist. He made a fortune in the aluminum industry so he didn't come into the car business as naive as Tucker. Kaiser was able to enlist Joe Frazer, a wealthy financier, to back his carmaking effort. 
 
Tucker was a dreamer and his car had a lot of advanced features, whereas Kaiser's car was completely conventional, and even used Continental engines. Had Tucker been an established titan of manufacturing (with the savvy that went along with that), there's every chance he would have succeeded in mass-producing his car. 
 
Immediately after the war, anything with shiny paint and chrome could have been sold without a hitch. However, once supply caught up with demand, there were lots of casualties left on the side of the road by the Fifties...Bill H.

by **sonofadealer** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:05 am

Richard, 
 
My Dad, Victor Carlson, was going to be the Tucker 
 
dealer in the Minneapolis area. I was 8 years old in 1948 
 
and remember going to my Dad's Garage on 11th and 
 
Harmon Place in Minneapolis to watch the Aquatennial 
 
Parade from the top of the building. On that day there 
 
was a tucker in the garage and it was displayed on the 
 
Parade route. Needless to say our Family was very 
 
excited about the Car coming out and our Dad being the 
 
Dealer for Minneapolis. I was too young to remember alot 
 
of the details, but I remember my Mom telling me about 
 
the first showing in Chicago and She mentioned them 
 
waiting and waiting for the car to come out and all the 
 
problems they had, Just as the movie showed. I know 
 
My Dad had at least 1 tucker in Minneapolis for awhile 
 
and did drive in around Minnesota and showed it to a 
 
number of people. Being so young I don't remember much 
 
more about what went on. My dad's business had other 
 
financial problems and we were broke when He passed 
 
away. I know if The Tucker had come out we would 
 
have been in much better shape than we were and I 
 
realize this was not the only setback my Dad had in his 
 
business. I am inquiring if you have any of the data on 
 
the dealerships and of course specifically my dad's or 
 
if not, about what was the average investment to be 
 
a dealer and what all was required or some of the 
 
activities the dealer's were personally involved in. 
 
I appreciate and admire all of you fellas dedication to 
 
this club and all of your personal time, and of course 
 
needless to say I was touched personally when I found 
 
this Site last week. 
 
Steve Carlson

by **Larry Clark** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:59 am

Steve: The dealer arrangement essentially worked like this. There was a Tucker Corporation regional manager in Regional Branch #5 which was in Minneapolis (in September, 1948 this person was a G. H. Gibbs). He sold distributorships for the company in a five-state region, including Minnesota. The distributor for the Minneapolis area sold the dealership rights to your father. The amount your father paid was dependent on the quota number of cars he wanted "guaranteed" to him (that came out of the distributor's quota amount). Your father was also expected to meet capital expectations for his dealership premises and service facility. This figure probably ranged for most dealers from $14K to $33K (this was NOT paid to the company). Your father probably sold some accessory packages that included luggage, a radio and/or seat covers. If so, he deposited money for these items with the company. In addition, he probably bought stock ($5 a share or less). Many dealers made their payments over time and yet owed money to the company when it went into bankruptcy. These dealers were shocked and angered when the Trustee in Bankruptcy came after them for payment of the remainder of their dealership contract payments when the company was out of business. It is for this reason that some former dealers remained quite bitter about their Tucker experience for some time, if not forever. Being from Minnesota, you ought to look at the "Unknown Tuckers Still in MN" set of messages under the "Where to See a Tucker" grouping of messages. You might recognize one or more names. 
 
Larry

by **MatheusC20XE** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:56 am

I was didn´t know about Buick parts at the Tucker car..

How many parts of others cars the Tucker was use on Torpedo?

Tucker '48 Automobile Bulletin Board

How did Big Three put Tucker Corp. out of business?

How did Big Three put Tucker Corp. out of business?

Big 3 did not.

BIG 3 WITH A BIG HAND

Role of the Big 3

The Plent

Questions

Questions

Tin Goose

Tin Goose

Lead

Did the big 3 put Tucker out of business?

Seeking info on dealerships

Regarding dealer information

Who is online