Tucker Frames

[cicero]

There is no doubt that they are doors from 1027. Like I said earlier, I think the color has shifted on the old Tucker film.

[TuckerCar]

1027 WAS WALTZ FRIGGIN' BLUE!

There is no conspiracy here!

Someone probably painted the door green sometime in the last 62 years.

You can see the blue on the doors in the photos Justin took.

The video clearly shows a blue car. There is no fading on the video. There are no other colors affected.

The Tucker corporate documents indicate 1027 is a blue car.


1018 was beige.

[MD]

TuckerCar is absolutely correct! #1027 was always Waltz Blue!

That door is still Waltz Blue... The lighting in the storage area where that photo was taken probably gives it a green look, but look at it closer... It's still blue. Your eyes are playing tricks on you. No repaint, just old damaged paint in bad light.

While the 1948 film footage may not be a 100% accurate representation of how the colors look in person, film discoloration over time or whatever, just look at the green car in the same film... It's a medium-dark apple green shade and cannot be mistaken for Waltz Blue or vise-versa.

And yes, #1018 was paint code 400 Beige.

[TUCKER]

Hi, I believe we are falling to the wrong direction with the photos they posted of the car without the frame. It may have been done that way to make us forget about the 1027 frame. I heard that the frame was sent out to where the other gold Tucker with the missing frame is and they may be using it to copy the frame and make a new frame for the car. I think they aint that dumb to show us a parts lot with a missing frame and them having it under the car. Well but anything could be posible. Do anyone here know where the gold car is being restored back with the original Tucker motor? I still believe the frame and coul is from 1027. Why do you think they show us a pile of parts and not the frame??? I talked with a friend and he said the test car frame was sent out to where the gold car is to copy the frame but is this true??? He also said the owner bought a fiberglass body he will use over the test car frame and use all the original panels on the body since he do not have a complete body but is that true or they want us to think the frame is out there somewhere?? I still do not understand why the convertible Tucker guy showed us a pile of parts and not the frame but I smell something and it smells like they want us to go the wrong direction and it is still 1027 they have there but I may be wrong. They may have a plan where the test chassis will show up later and we will look like idiots and nobody will believe us later that it is the same 1027 car made into a convertible.

John, what do you think? Do you think they are making us go the wrong direction?

[Tucker Fan 48]

Tucker,

You must have missed the recent postings about #1046. RM has the car in Chatham, Ont. and is building a new frame with some help
from the fine folks at Gilmore Auto Museum I posted the article below:


Relaunching a Torpedo
Posted By GLEN WOODCOCK, QMI AGENCY


One of the best things about going to the annual North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit is its proximity to Chatham, Ont. -home of RM Auctions.

RM is much more than one of the world's top automobile auction houses and it's always fascinating to see what its craftsmen are working on in the restoration shops. When I popped in after last year's NAIAS, I was shown a rare 1948 Tucker Torpedo -or what was left of it -that was awaiting restoration. On this year's visit I got to see how work was progressing on this rare automobile.

Tucker is very much in the news these days because of the controversy over the authenticity of a 1948 convertible that failed to sell at Russo and Steele's Scottsdale auction last month when the owner refused a bid of $1.4 million. So, RM still holds the record for highest price ever achieved by a Tucker -$1,017,500 (including buyer's premium) for a sedan sold at its Monterey event in 2008. This same car -chassis No. 1034 -previously had been sold at the same RM event in 2006 for $577,500.

The few Tuckers that were assembled at the company's Chicago facility, a former Dodge aircraft engine plant, sold for about $2,500 when new.

The brainchild of auto designer and entrepreneur Preston Tucker, the car was a radical departure from pre-World War II American iron. It had a rear-mounted flat-6 helicopter engine and was driven through the rear wheels. The Tucker Torpedo's streamlined shape was styled by Alex Tremulis and its front end was unmistakable because of its "Cyclops' eye" -a third headlamp mounted in the nose that turned in relation to the front wheels.

While the provenance of the convertible is in dispute -the owner says it's a factory prototype, the Tucker Automobile Club of America says it isn't -there's no disputing the authenticity of the Tucker sedan in the RM shops.

Of the 52 Tuckers produced, including the prototype "Tin Goose", 47 are known to exist. The one at RM is chassis number 1046 and its big problem is that it had been given an Oldsmobile drivetrain in the 1950s and was converted again in the 1960s when it was mounted on a 1964 Mercury Monterey chassis with a 390 CID V8 up front. Despite this, No. 1046 sold on eBay for $202,700 in 2007, according to the Tucker club website.

The car is now in the section of RM's shop where photography is not permitted, but I'd been allowed to take the photo accompanying this story in 2009.

The first thing you'll notice is that louvers have been cut into the hood to direct air flow to the front-mounted V8. These will be removed during the restoration process and RM has obtained the correct drivetrain, including the water-cooled flat-6.

However, one thing that's impossible to obtain is a Tucker chassis, so that will have to be fabricated. To help with that job, RM has Tucker No. 1047 on loan from the Gilmore Auto Museum in Hickory Corners, Mich. In exchange for doing some work on its car, the museum is allowing RM to use it as a template for four months.

On the day I was there, No. 1047 was up on a hoist and a technician was photographing every square inch of the floor and frame for future reference.

As for No. 1046, it's now been disassembled, awaiting a complete rebuild.

[Tuckeroo]

TUCKER,

I'm afraid you are either confusing one thing for another or writing in a stream of consciousness that is difficult to follow (no hard feelings, it happens to all of us). If you are referring to the car in the Historic Auto Attractions (listed on this site as #1027 but also having parts from #1018 and a presumably a test chassis), then I believe that owner did purchase a fiberglass body, but my understanding was that this was to make a display recreating a portion of the Tucker assembly line. It is also possible they intend to use it as a template to give #1027 a proper roof again.

[TUCKER]

tuckeroo, how can you give 1027 a proper foor if it is not 1027. That is a test chassis with panels from 1018 and a couple of other parts.

[Tuckeroo]

tuckeroo, how can you give 1027 a proper foor if it is not 1027. That is a test chassis with panels from 1018 and a couple of other parts.

Fair enough, what number do we give the car that is parts of multiple cars but largely recreated from genuine parts? And by "proper roof" I only meant they could (hypothetically at least) recreate a roof out of steel as that would probably be the best solution to getting this Tucker as close to "factory" as possible, though perhaps one might see this as compromising the uniqueness of the test chassis?

[Tucker Fan 48]

What about the panels that are marked # 52 that I posted on the last page? Would they have come from one of the bodies Ezra bought?

[Tucker Fan 48]

I think this car could reasonably be considered as either #1070 or #1097. If there are only panels from #1018 and #1052 then #1070 (18+52=70)
If there are truly parts from #1027 included in the bunch then it should be #1097 (18+27+52=97)

[TUCKER]

The coukl may be stamped 52 but it is the same coul and chassis as seen on the photo of test chassis #2. Just like the 57 coul that is stamped 57 but it is the same coul as last seen on 1027 when it rolled over.

[Tucker Fan 48]

The coukl may be stamped 52 but it is the same coul and chassis as seen on the photo of test chassis #2. Just like the 57 coul that is stamped 57 but it is the same coul as last seen on 1027 when it rolled over.

So now you've confused me. Are you saying the #52 cowl is the same cowl that was with the test chassis AND the #57 cowl is the same cowl that was on #1027

OR

are you somehow saying they are all the same cowl?


I think everyone believes that the #52 cowl was with Test chassis #2 when it was all sold as parts lot #684 at the Kughn Collection auction to the people
that own it now in Roscoe. I agree that it sure looks like the cowl that is now stamped #57 was most likely on #1027 and was restamped. It could also be that somehow the body on #1027 was #57 all along and was just out of sequence as some Tucker cars and bodies were but that is a less likely option.

[TUCKER]

Ok once more and one final time I say it. First the car you know as 52 is test chassis #2 and test Chassis #2 coul. That is the car listed on the site as 1027 but it is really test chassis #2 with body panels from 1018 and doors from 1027.

The second car you know as 1057 is the coul and all fenders from 1027 and parts of other cars. The frame we still do not know but it started with the complete 1027 frame and coul along with all front and rear fenders.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I agree with you. It looks very much like the car at Gillilands labeled "test chassis #2" is the same cowl and frame that showed up
in parts lot #684. It also looks like the rear clip in parts lot #684 came from Gilliland.

tucker at gillilands.JPG (8.88 KiB) Viewed 1563 times

So did Gilliland own the front clip from #1018 at one time? How did the parts get from Gilliland to Kughn? Did Stan sell them to Kughn
or did they go from Gilliland to Reinert and then to Kughn? It appeared that there were almost enough parts to complete a car in lot #684.
Did Kughn assemble the parts to get it to the point it was in lot #684 or did Gilliland or Reinert sell it to him in that condition? Kughn
was a huge collector and wanted a Tucker. Did he buy parts from several sources or just buy the lot from one person? Ideas?

[Phantomrig]

This is just a warning to everybody, please keep your posts civil towards other members and their posts or risk having your posts deleted. again this warning is to everybody so keep it civil.