Tucker Frames

[Tucker Fan 48]

The test chassis has always been with Al Reinart. He bought it at the October 30 1950 auction. His name is as Al's Auto Parts at that day he bought it. I have copies of the inventory list of what each car sold to on that day.

Is it possible that the test chassis is now the frame that is under the "Convertible"?

If Al bought it in 1950 then where is it? Does anyone have close-up pictures of it before it was sold?

[Tucker Fan 48]

John,

You've mentioned parts in Roscoe IL. Are you speaking of the parts lot bought by Historic Auto Attractions
from the Richard Kughn auction held at Novi Expo center in Michigan, on November 15th, 2002 or are you
speaking about some other parts there?

I don't recall any club member saying the car in Roscoe was #1057, however Justin Cole is now claiming
that someone said the parts lot owned by Historic Auto Attractions in Roscoe and his car were the same.
It's the only documentation on his website that actually proves something. Of course, nobody ever thought
that, so it was pretty easy for him to prove it.

[TuckerCar]

Pile of parts in Roscoe is 1018 fenders and 1027 doors. Test Chassis #2 frame

[cicero]

Pile of parts in Roscoe is 1018 fenders and 1027 doors. Test Chassis #2 frame

The frame that is nowhere to be seen in the pictures with the USA Today front page on Cole's web site. You see the front cowl but it is not on a frame.

[TuckerCar]

The information on what's in Roscoe exists from the sale of the Kughn Collection. Has nothing to do with Justin's car at all - I don't even know why he took those pictures. No one ever said it was the same car.

From Cars & Parts Magazine, describing the sale of the Kughn parts (now in Roscoe), completely unrelated to Justin's car:

"Presenting a very unusual project, the package known as lot number 684 included the experimental chassis and cowl #52 (only 51 production Tuckers were originally built), several body panels from car #27, the car that was rolled at Indianapolis, a complete front clip from Tucker #18, which was scrapped after an accident in the late '50s, and such miscellaneous pieces as an extra hood, deck lid, door, etc., plus rear end sheet metal. Also included were 2 Tucker engines, bumpers, grilles, door handles, and much more, certainly enough to build at least one car with lots of parts left over."

The "several body panels from car #27" above refer to the doors (as photographed by Justin). So that all begs the question, what happened to frame 1027?

[TUCKER]

I been trying to get something clear here for a long time. Al Reinart always had that test car along with his friend Gilliland who collected parts together for a long time. There was never any Kughn Collection and that is only what they called their collection which they used to finish many cars that were sold by them. They also had 1027 along with the Test Chassis which they used both to start building a last Tucker and now seeing one frame is missing that may be under the other car that was for sale by him before but I do not know. Well in 2002 the test car did not sell and I have the list of all the cars that sold that day. I have the price each car went for and only this car did not sell. It was the only car not sold that day. Hope this help a little to solve things here. Also that coul was the correct coul for the test chassis which is missing and as you can see the coul was bolted together so it may have been easy to remove with no damage to the frame or coul.

[TuckerCar]

Well then I'll clarify this for what it's worth - I was at Reinert's in May 2002. There was no extra frame there at that time. Just 1043, the convertible (in a similar state of completion as when Justin bought it) and an old Mopar. So someone other than Reinert had the "Kughn Collection" between May and November 2002 with whichever frame that has.

[TUCKER]

Hi, Al sayed before that the blue easter egg frame is from 1043 which was for sale together with the convertible. Maybe the 1027 frame went to that car and the test chassis to the convertible car??

[TUCKER]

When was Tucker testing the Tuckermatic motor? The plate looks to be 1-15 so it was an early test chassis after the one displayed with the Tin Goose. It is also the same coul that is stamped 52 which could not be posible if it had plate 1-15. As I know this chassis was for testing the new transmission. Also the car having no body it had to have a reinforced frame to hold 7 persons and it may have been with no body for easy mechanical work and adjustments to the car. I believe it is around the time they started making the new desig after this with the fuel tank on the front and the diferent wheelbase. Looks like it was used to fix the problems with the early design.

[Tuckeroo]

Contrary to popular belief, the Illinois manufacturer plates attached to most Tuckers seem to have little if any bearing on the actual serial numbers of the cars. For example, in the "Tucker: The Man and the Car" promotional film we see a car driving into a service station with a plate that appears to say either 1-16 or 1-18. But we also see that the gas lid is on the left front fender, so we have to conclude that the car is serial number 1025+ (I believe the car actually is #1025, dark green exterior/interior, front gas lid, probably built prior to #1037). I have other examples of how the manufacturer plates do not correlate with car serial numbers. The 335 test chassis is most definitely equipped with an R-1 Tuckermatic (just review that photo with it seating 7 people). The transmission itself has distinct visual characteristics, and the support structure for it is inverted over the transmission (exactly the opposite of the Cords and Y-1s). Phil Egan mentions this chassis in "Design and Destiny" being equipped this way as well. We see this chassis in the promotional film as well (though not much of it. The narrator is talking about "individual wheel suspension" and that's all we really see of it.)

Now, assuming that this test chassis' cowl is stamped "52," that leads me to believe that 1) probably all of the cowls/bodies that would ever be produced had been produced and stamped by about the same time #1026 was being fitted with a Tuckermatic (I will hazard a guess somewhere around July-August 1948) and 2) "52" was diverted from the pilot assembly line, regardless of sequence, to take on this specialized role as a test chassis and completed as such around the same time (ie: "52" was built before, say, #1034).

Again I say "assuming" because I have yet to see what is actually stamped on that cowl...

[plancor 792]

I do not go along with the assumption that because 7 people are seated on this test chassis that the frame is reinforced. Tucker's were built to comfortably carry 6 people so 7 would not really overload a normal frame.
Also you may note the gas filler tube is by the rear seat so the fuel tank is under the rear seat as in the
early cars Serial Number 1001 through 1025.
Richard Jones

[cicero]

Having never seen, much less sat on a bare Tucker frame, I don't know for certain how strong one is, but I do know that pretty much every production convertible that is of a unit body construction has considerable reinforcement added to the body and frame to compensate for the loss of structural integrity that occurs when the roof is removed. The box structure created by the roof adds a great deal of strength to the car. Otherwise the frame flexes enough that doors sag as the car gets loaded up.

The frame on a Tucker does not look so substantial to make me think that it would not flex with the body removed with a full load of bodies on board. I think it is probable that the test frames had some sort of reinforcement. Of course my opinion is based on looking at pictures so I am aware that my opinion is an educated guess.

Are there any drawings or documentation on any of the test chassis vehicles that would discuss any reinforcement?

[TUCKER]

Hi as I remember the red frame twisted very easy as of what owner of 1051 told me once and he used to own that frame at one time. This frames were very weak without a body in a wat that they twisted very easy so if you would want to drive it around as a test car it would have to be reinforced in one way or another.

[Tuckeroo]

I do not go along with the assumption that because 7 people are seated on this test chassis that the frame is reinforced. Tucker's were built to comfortably carry 6 people so 7 would not really overload a normal frame.
Also you may note the gas filler tube is by the rear seat so the fuel tank is under the rear seat as in the
early cars Serial Number 1001 through 1025.
Richard Jones

Agree with your assessment about the frame, etc. The Tucker might as well be an 8-passenger car by today's standards. Also you answered a question that I was toying with in my mind before I went back to the photograph (one that I failed to note when looking at the trans); "where is the gas tank on the test chassis?" but that still leaves open the questions 1) when was it built? (either by date or between which s/n cars or both) and 2) what number is it? (and whether that number is out of sequence with the completion of the other cars or not.)

Also wondering if we should rethread this topic because I don't know that anyone is making the argument the the 335 test chassis (be it "52" or "1052" or otherwise) was used to complete the convertible...which in the height of confusion I believe Mr. Cole believed that argument was being made and sought, with the "newspaper" photos to disprove but only created more confusion regarding the identity of a different vehicle altogether.

[streamliner]

The argument as to the "Kughn Collection Tucker" and the Benchmark convertible was made on a Hudson website a year ago:

http://hudsonandrods.blogspot.com/2009/03/1948-tucker-convertible-protoype-for.html

That author later recanted their assumptions, based on Justin Cole's response to them, but the confusion continues...