Archive - Work in Progress

[streamliner]

Let’s turn back the clock sixty-two years and look into the inner workings of the Tucker Corporation. Here are a few great pieces of Tucker history that put you into the offices of the decision makers as they were scrambling to build a car company. These should help to provide a better perspective on who was doing what at the plant. Keep in mind that these are just snapshots of moments in history during periods of constant change when decisions were being made on a moment’s notice.

First, you’d better bring your own chair over to Joe Lencki’s office, because it’s a full house. On second thought, don't bring a chair since nobody had better be sitting around. The first memo is the transcript from the kickoff meeting for the “Experimental” department and the building of the first 6 of the Tucker ‘48’s. The meeting took place in Building 1 on April 21, 1947. It leaves no doubt as to who was in charge and calling the shots and the sense of urgency and tremendous pressure that these guys were under. It also shows what a major role Joe Lencki had in the efforts to produce the Tucker automobile and its frames. This is the stuff from which legends are made:















Now fast-forward 11 months to March 22, 1948, when Mr. E. Gifford distributed the following update on the status of the builds. It goes into great detail on the car’s components and what was going on at the time with each of them.














Remember that these are just snapshots in time, but by May, 1948, time was rapidly running out. A renewed offensive was coming down on Preston Tucker by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and on June 6th, Drew Pearson’s radio broadcast condemnation of the Tucker car caused a 60 percent drop in the share price of Tucker stock the following day. The dominoes had already been set in motion.

So… I have a few questions to those who may have more detailed company documentation, in chronological order:

1) Does anyone know the serial number of the Oldsmobile frame/body that was used to make the Tin Goose (somewhat off-topic)?

2) How many frames and body stampings had been completed by March 22, 1948?

3) Does anyone have the followup memos to the above action items, especially the status of frame strengthening efforts to the rear torsion box and the side rails?

4) What were the differences on frame #52 to make it an “experimental” frame, or was it just called “experimental” because it belonged to the Experimental Department?

Thanks, again, to Larry Clark and his countless hours, days, weeks, years of research...

To misquote Bette Davis, "Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy ride."

[TUCKER]

Great part of history we got here. What do all this have to do with the topic? Maybe it should be a new topic. Well if you ever wondered how you make a Tin Goose out of a Oldsmobile here is why. See photo attached bellow. There is most of the foof and back of the car. Then the sides were changed and the body extended for the 4 doors. Even part of the 1/4 window design can be seen there. Most of the front fenders were also be made from the front fendrers of this car. Many other parts came from an old 1942 Dodge I believe along with the tail lights. Long story to tell here.

Now on 1052 have a diferent dash in it along being the car that had the roof cut off at the factory.

[streamliner]

Here's the connection: It appears that some of these changes to the frames were implemented after car 25. That's why cars 1 through 25 have a 128 inch wheelbase and cars 26 through 50 have a 130 inch wheelbase. I didn't realize that changes had to be made to the frame to accomodate the suspension geometry. So you can put frames 1 through 50 into three groups; The first 6 or so when the weak frames were discovered, frames 7 through 25 with the 128 inch frame setup, and 26 through 50 with the 130 wheelbase setup.

If the first six cars have the same torsion box and side rail frame dimensions as cars 7 to 25, then the second group of frames were not strengthened (or all the frames were retrofitted).

If the frames on cars 26 through 50 (the third group) are the same dimensions as the second group, then the strengthening didn't happen until after frame 50, namely 51 through 58. That may put frames 51 to 58 into a fourth group, and that's why the "experimental" frame 52 is important in its dimensions.

The intended design changes included three things: 1) to strengthen of the torsion box, 2) to strengthen the side rails, and 3) the necessary changes to go from 128 to 130 inches. These changes may be able to "date" the frame as to which group it belonged. If so, then frames 27 and 57 were not of the same design and you should be able to determine if the convertible is more likely an authentic frame #57, a reworked frame #27, or something else entirely.

It looks like Joe Lencki took on the frame project for the initial production of the Tucker '48's. It's also clear there was a factory effort to strengthen the side rails of the production units. So the questions that come to mind are: Did the strengthening take place after the first 6 cars were built, the first 25, the first 50 frames, or never? And how many frames were completed by March 22, 1948? And did the strengthening of the side rails take place on frames 51 to 58, or just a select few? Or, were some of the previously built frames retrofitted with strengthened inserts and was Joe Lencki involved with this aspect of the project?

There must be documents somewhere to support what happened with the frame strengthening efforts since this was obviously a very important part of producing the car. And it also may help to clarify the facts around the convertible.

[Randy Earle]

Wow Tucker! At the angle of the photos you can really see the simularities.

[john]

All great work,

We had mentioned a long long time ago that receipts of purchase for build items/steel etc would be of great benefit.

We do beleive that they would exist in the Tucker Clubs mass of paperwork.
Lots of work to find them though, do agree with your compliments to Larry>> Streamliner!

We made mention in a post quite awhile ago that we spoke with a person that read us some factory memo's>>> seems "what was just posted" is maybe from the same source we spoke with. We were critized for not posting what and who, seems its out now.

WE always said that the story was lenghthy and could NOT be briefed, as it would turn into a mess without the entire story being described in detail.
Tucker made comment once, it would take a book, thats as we believed.

We always believed that a special frame/body was built, needless to say, as time went on herein, pics and details proved just that.

We were convinced about #57 for quite sometime with the strories as being told,
"thats was until certain facts and Easter eggs appeared in our research.

The """biggie""" has yet to appear in all of these writtings herein and all over the internet.

We enjoy all of you guys, what a great group,
till the next time,
John

[TUCKER]

Hi Body 1026 was the last of the cars with the gas tank under the back seat and the short wheelbase. Then on 1027-1057 they all were the same wheelbase and there were extra reinforcement to the body and frame. Also extra weight was added to the front of the frame on the late models to balance the weight of the car. Now part of the wheelbase is at the lenght of the rear torsolastic suspension arms.

[USAFpilot50]

Tucker Fan 48:
In response to: “USAFpilot50, it is obvious that you know very little about this subject and are simply fronting for Benchmark.” True to your colors, once again you seem to be judging someone you do not know. That’s a good one, saying that I am a front for Benchmark Classics! As you like to say, that’s a JOKE! I attended a great car show in Houston and was intrigued by the Tucker automobile I saw. If I was fronting for Benchmark I would have certainly responded sooner than now.

I certainly didn’t expect this kind of feedback when I joined this forum to learn more about Tuckers. You and TuckerFan 1053, in particular have a hostile attitude and a negative way of stating your opinion online. That kind of behavior detracts from your credibility. I understand your passion for the Tucker automobile, but you need to try to keep you attitude in check as other members do and act professionally.

With regards to your comment concerning the payoff of a bet I would be willing to put money into an escrow account for any amount that would be managed by an independent trustee so you would be paid. Are you willing to do so as well? You don’t know me from Adam. And I thought the purpose of this forum was to talk about Tuckers, not insult other people’s character.

TuckerCar: I would love to see you sign an affidavit stating that you saw the frame that Benchmark is now using in 2003 and that it was nothing but a rusted old stock sedan frame. This is because all of the frame restoration work was completed in 1991. If you saw a frame from another car it was probably 55's.

The bottom line here is that the two of you who seem to be the most adamant about arguing with the authenticity of the car have never even seen it. You guys continue to risk looking worse by making bogus claims which could pretty easily be proven to be incorrect by Benchmark. I also find it pretty funny that you guys have conveniently forgotten to mention that at one point #43 was waltz blue. That does not help the “57 is actually 27 theory” at all. All those pictures that you guys are so proud of are of #43.

You guys should seriously find something more positive and productive to do with your time. I have a good idea, why not meet at Benchmark? In case you haven’t been to their forum yet: http://tuckerconvertible.com/forum.

[Tuckerfan1053]

I certainly didn’t expect this kind of feedback when I joined this forum to learn more about Tuckers. You and TuckerFan 1053, in particular have a hostile attitude and a negative way of stating your opinion online. That kind of behavior detracts from your credibility. I understand your passion for the Tucker automobile, but you need to try to keep you attitude in check as other members do and act professionally.

If you think that my attitude is "hostile" then you'll probably want to stay away from the rest of the internet, where disagreements can quickly turn into obscenity filled tirades. As a moderator on this board, I have the ability to lock threads, delete posts, and other things. I, or TuckerCar (who's the administrator and can do much more than I), have left this thread basically untouched (TuckerCar did merge another thread into this one). We're leaving this discussion open for a very good reason: Its informative and people are being polite to one another. Yes, we don't all agree with one another, but if we did, things would get pretty boring.

And I thought the purpose of this forum was to talk about Tuckers, not insult other people’s character.

I'll address this comment a little later.

The bottom line here is that the two of you who seem to be the most adamant about arguing with the authenticity of the car have never even seen it. You guys continue to risk looking worse by making bogus claims which could pretty easily be proven to be incorrect by Benchmark. I also find it pretty funny that you guys have conveniently forgotten to mention that at one point #43 was waltz blue. That does not help the “57 is actually 27 theory” at all. All those pictures that you guys are so proud of are of #43.

You mean the photos of the car that was rolled, and how the damage on that car matches up to body work done on the 'vert? Those photos? When was '43 rolled, I have to ask.

You guys should seriously find something more positive and productive to do with your time.

Okay, so you complain about people making character attacks, and then do one yourself. Pot meet kettle.

I have a good idea, why not meet at Benchmark? In case you haven’t been to their forum yet: http://tuckerconvertible.com/forum.

Apparently you've missed the discussion a couple pages back where I went over the documention that's been provided by Benchmark and pointed out what's wrong with it. Here's a handy link to that page: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1424&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=360

If you've read the documentation on Benchmark's site, then you'll know that I could not have made those comments without having read the documentation. I quote specific sections of the documentation, point out, by name, who one of the people making the affidavitts was (even though Benchmark attempted to conceal this on some of the documents), and show how the things in the documentation are useless in determining the validity of the claims that people have made that this was a car Preston Tucker intended to build.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Tuckerfan1053, you nailed it right on the head. Everyone on her has been pretty civil about what is being said.
A couple days ago, USAFpilot50 jumps into the discussion and starts attacking myself and others. I'll say it
again, it is clear he has not read all the postings here and he certainly has some interest in Benchmark. If he
did not, he would be open to the facts posted here and not the fiction posted at Benchmark. He says we are
making bogus claims which could pretty easily be proven to be incorrect by Benchmark.

USAFpilot50. PLEASE tell me just ONE FACT that Benchmark has proved. Just ONE !!!
The reason I know you are connected to Benchmark is you talk the same story. No facts, just lots of garbage
heaped on more garbage and then insist that it all proves something. You have not ONE single fact. The
Benchmark site shows not ONE fact about the car being real. You say it does. Where is it? Tell us all what we
missed. You ignored my question completely. Will your buddy Justin allow an independent investigative
reporter to look at the car and ALL the evidence? Is he willing to put 5 million on the line and let the truth
come out about his car?

Thanks streamliner for posting the memos. Page 2 of the March 22nd 1948 memo says "a change in the rear
tortion box and the side rails of the frame is now in progress to strengthen the frame". It goes on to mention
that frames #26 - #50 would be different. This would seem to shoot lots of holes in the "convertible" frame
story and that it was the only one strengthened.

Page 6 of the March 22nd 1948 memo says they had a planned experimential run of 125 cars and by the time
125 cars were completed they would be in a good position to swing into large scale production. That answers
a lot of questions as they still had bugs to work out on the first 50 but seemed to be aware of most of the
problems.

[Tuckeroo]

I take the position of most of the respondants that, while what we have been presented with is a convertible likely made of many authentic Tucker parts, it was not started at the Tucker factory this way and was not completed at the Tucker factory this way in as much as it does not appear to be completed to this day.

Some of what has been presented here recently almost deserves its own post, but there are few minor things I noticed that ought to be addressed.

#1026 has the fuel tank in the front and a 130 inch wheelbase. The last car to have a mid-rear tank and 128 inch wheelbase was either #1024 or #1025.

Also I'm seeing a picture associating the Tin Goose (which completed, at least in appearance, by its premiere on June 19, 1947) with what appears to be a 1948 Oldsmobile. Unless I have misunderstood the implication I don't see how you could build a car in the first six months of 1947 out of car that wasn't released until the 1948 model year. I had read that the Oldsmobile in question was used as a starting buck to ensure dimensions and support but in the end nothing that was once an Oldsmobile was left on the Tin Goose.

I believe the correct date for #1001's completion was March 13, 1948. References to the Y-1 on the March 17-22 memos are surprising (unless Y-1 universally referred to any and all manual transmissions as of the date) as the first car to have a Y-1 (not a Cord transmission) was #1013.

There is also a reference in The Indomitable Tin Goose to Tucker's desire for a six-car crash test program that was abandoned

[TUCKER]

Sorry about the 1948 Oldsmobile in the photo. I don't know what I was thinking here. Here is the back of a 1942-47 Olds

[TuckerCar]

Yep, it's generally not a good idea to pick a fight with the admin or the moderator...

Guys, I agree that the frame comments are related to the 'convertible' but this thread is getting very long and there is a lot of information in it that needs to be effectively archived. I am inclined to split it off just so it doesn't get lost in this thread.

Thoughts?

[Coach_B]

Guys, I agree that the frame comments are related to the 'convertible' but this thread is getting very long and there is a lot of information in it that needs to be effectively archived. I am inclined to split it off just so it doesn't get lost in this thread.

Thoughts?

From a newbie prospective I say that is a good idea. I would suggest sticky it at the top though. There is a lot here that needs to be read before going on to other posts (or before posting). I have learned so much from this one thread alone. I intend to read it again from the beginning.

I just want to say keep up the good work guys. Everything here is both informative and entertaining. It is great to see Tucker history so well preserved and taken care of.

[Tuckerfan1053]

Yep, it's generally not a good idea to pick a fight with the admin or the moderator...

Guys, I agree that the frame comments are related to the 'convertible' but this thread is getting very long and there is a lot of information in it that needs to be effectively archived. I am inclined to split it off just so it doesn't get lost in this thread.

Thoughts?

Something clearly needs to be done as there's a lot of valuable information in this thread which needs to be saved and made easily accessible to folks. Splitting the thread up and locking all but one segment of it might not be a bad idea. Folks would be able to comment on the matter, but wouldn't have to wade through so much stuff. Or maybe we could split the thread up into "themed" segments, one dedicated to the frame, another dedicated to the documentation, etc..

No matter what, this has been the most valuable thread (and the most active) I've seen here.

[Tucker Fan 48]

TuckerCar and Tuckerfan1053,

Can I suggest that you copy parts of this thread into new areas but also leave the entire thread
together. What you have right now is a story that continues to unfold. If you were to move parts
of it to other areas, parts of this thread would not longer make sense. It would be like reading a
book with chapters missing. The story of the convertible has brought attention to the Tucker
Automobile and I do wish them the best as they assemble their collection of parts from various
cars.

This attention is bringing out a lot of new information that has not been seen for many years.
Much of this information is in danger of being lost forever with the passing of those involved
in the history of the Tucker. I urge you to continue to take advantage of all the new information
that has been uncovered and that will continue by keeping this thread together for anyone that
is interested in this subject.

The internet is an amazing tool and the discussions we can now have were not possible just
a few years ago. There is a lot of information yet to be uncovered about the Tucker. Thanks
again for keeping this site alive and Yes, it's generally not a good idea to pick a fight with the
admin or the moderator...