Tucker Frames

[Tucker Fan 48]

It looks like some of the rear quarters from Lot #684 are not in the pictures from Roscoe either. The garage picture shows at least one extra quarter
behind the green (waltz blue) door. The auction site picture shows the car duct taped together. In the photo Cole took I only see one quarter (sitting
behind the firewall) but don't see any others or the frame. Did they sell some of Lot #684 off and if so, to who and where is it? Any thoughts?

Lot 684 in garage.jpg (40.32 KiB) Viewed 2325 times

lot 684_Rear.jpg (86.84 KiB) Viewed 2323 times

23.jpg (43.6 KiB) Viewed 2325 times

[streamliner]

How about we approach all the missing frames this way... As best we can, let’s trace the significant dates in their histories and account for all the missing frames that we know of from 1948 through today. Try to trace the frame number, not necessarily the car number.

18
7/30/1948: #1018 Sold to (?)

27
9/27/1948: #1027 Rolls at Indianapolis
10/30/1950: Sold at Auction by Tucker Corp. to ?
Photograph Date and Location:

42

43

46
11/11/1948: #1046 Completed without Y-1 transmisssion
xx/xx/196x: Frame removed by Nick Jenin, body placed on an Olds frame

50

51

52 (aka Test Chassis #2)
c.1948: Photographed with 7 passengers
10/30/1950: Sold at auction to Al’s Auto Parts
xx/xx/19xx: Photographed at Gilliland's (?)
11/17/2002: Sold by RM Auctions (“Kughn Collection Tucker”) to Historic Auto Attractions, Roscoe, IL
Photograph Date and Location:

53

54

55
xx/xx/19xx: Photographed at Gilliland’s:
xx/xx/19xx: Roof cut off ?

56

57
9/9/1950: LIFE photographed inside Tucker Corp. Big rear window, fender changes (1949 model prototype)

58

[john]

Streamliner,
You are most definetly on the right track.

A chronological frame/body serial # order will create a history so all can be accounted for.
I do not know what happened to the chassis's from Tuckers that had their chassis cut out or a un-accounted # one from Ezra, as their is some issue's to what #'s he exactly had, as well as others Streamliner.Just as I like TaterTots!?
Assume nothing when placing (assumed) known history, or possibly state it as assumption for last known wherabouts.

"Many times", chassis and cars pop up from out of nowhere, hidden for decades.

The Shelby American Auto Club, Ferrari clubs, Rolls Royce Clubs, Jaguar Clubs and on and on, have historical records on their particular makes.
As I like TaterTots!, perhaps access one of their registry's and possibly base your writings inc all details, as they do.
All of these clubs take great pride in their registries and histories.

This is a vast undertaking>>>>kind of smiling while writng this Streamliner, but perhaps one might initiate a seperate area for the serial numbered body parts<<< as you, I and others know, are going to tie directly into numurous cars.

Your are to be congraduated Streamliner, good job buddy.
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

Actually I've been working on this for awhile. Trying to compile a record of all body numbers and which cars (serial numbers) they are on or were on. From my understanding, the frames were welded to the bodies (correct?) so the frame and body number should be the same, unless it's been hacked. Serial numbers and body numbers do not match up. From what Richard Jones has posted, Nick Jenin may have moved data plates (serial numbers) around on the cars he owned. This means any Jenin car may not have its factory data plate. I also understand there are two body number 5s. Richard, can you confirm this and what two cars have body number 5?

Original engine numbers and what cars they were in is another project. It seems that as cars were tested at the plant, engines were regularly removed and swapped to keep test cars on the road. This would mean that almost any car might have had an engine swapped between it's original build date but prior to the October 1950 sale. There are also cars that appear to have had motors and were documented on the road but yet had no drivetrain when sold at the October 1950 auction. For instance, Tucker #1044 had engine #33539 at one time, but now that engine has surfaced as the zero miles engine in the "Convertible". It was taken out of #1044 in the mid-70s, so who sold it to who and how did its internal odometer get turned back to zero miles. If we can figure some of this out the big blue egg might hatch after all. Tucker #1049 also may have had an engine changed. The plant inventory shows it having engine number 33528, however Richard posted that when Nick Jenin had the car it had engine number 33512.

Postby plancor 792 on Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:51 am

1049 - Engine Number 33512

I think a lot can be learned from compiling a list of all the known facts on bodies, car numbers, and engines. From there it should be easy to figure out just where some of the parts that are floating around came from including the you know what.

I'm attaching part of what I've found. If anyone has more information I'll be happy to add it to my database and post it for all to see. I've added Engine Number 33575 for #1007 and Engine Number 33561 for #1022 to the list.

Tucker numbers.jpg (159.36 KiB) Viewed 2081 times

[Tuckeroo]

Streamliner,

It's as if you read my mind! I was thinking of starting a list like this, and another trying to determine engine locations by serial number as well.

[streamliner]

I think this will be a most rewarding excersize (as much as I hate excersizing). Does this illustration help in identifying the major parts (I'll add in a cowl)? Is there such a thing as a rear clip for the car? Also, if anyone knows exactly where on each part the body or frame numbers were stamped, that would help a lot.

[john]

Streamliner,

The blow up you created is great.
Yes, as to our best knowledge, each frame was welded with its main body and all were stamped with that same number.

Body parts, as you have blown up, seemed to have been stamped with the number when all panel beating was done and it was fitted ON THAT car.
One must only look at where other Tuckers have their serial numbers stamped on their panels Streamliner, this is in answer to where they may be located.

A/C Cobras have their serial number on door hinges, doors, hoods, frame, latches and other assorted area's, if this helps.
More than a few panels and parts have found their ways to other rebuilds or ??? bogus cars that were detected and noted as such in the Registry or in the Clubs private files.

Another Example, a 1965-1967 Shelby, built at Shelby's plant in California, had a serial number assigned to the car on a affixed plate after full assembly and before shipping, they did not go in any sequence with other Ford stamped serial numbers, they were picked at random out of a fenced area of cars ready for Shelby modifications. Hope that helps.
Yes, 65-67 Shelby cars have been built using just serial numbers from cars that were thought lost.
All hell breaks loose when the real is brought back into daylight.
An instance like this happened from a Biggs car where we found the Harris Car, not sure how that got settled as it went into the courtroom with testimony up the ying yang>>>

Streamliner, in creating the History, please remember, If a Tucker was not completed down the assembly line, it should have no ( 10 ) added to it, should it?
In essence and in senereo, a number like 1058 should not exist as it was not completed and assigned that number on a affixed plate , isn't this the case?.

Perhaps this was another easter egg that made us walk away ??????

Have fun, your doing great Streamliner, and yes, it will unravel many things as far as whats left and what went where and most importantly, what chassis are truly un-accounted for or accounted for and where they are at >>> or last seen AND with whom>>>>>>>>>>. Perhaps This will narrow down the issue for histories sake.
Also I left you another post in the designers topic area Streamliner.

John

[streamliner]

Re: Tucker Frames
by TUCKER on Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Hi, I have many more pictures of the test chassis #2.

Also do anyone know what that part of a frame could be for?? It was at the place where the convertible was started being built??

I would have to guess that you're looking at what's left from #1018...

I'm sure this list is already accounted for in everyone's records, but I think it's from 1995, or so.

[streamliner]

"Reinert said when he acquired the car it was basically a frame with a cowl tack-welded in place, two front doors and two rear quarter panels. “It had no motor, no transmission, no steering, no tires or wheels. No nothing. After I found the car I started scrounging parts.” Reinert said he began networking in Chicago, Milwaukee and elsewhere and eventually purchased a big stash of parts from an Illinois collector. He said the parts had once been part of an October 1950 auction.

“I bought everything he had, and with that, I was able to get the car as far as a I did. But I still couldn’t afford the $50, $60, $70 dollars an hour (at a restoration shop) when it came down to it (completing the car). I’ve had it for over 25 years, and I stopped working on it a good 7-8 years ago."

So, if I'm reading this correctly, then there could only be 6 parts that could possibly have had #57 "stamped" into them:

Frame, cowl, 2 front doors, 2 rear quarter panels. That's all it was. It sounds like no body was attached, either. Am I correct, so far???

[Tucker Fan 48]

You are absolutely correct ! That's why the idea that the car has been "restored" is crazy. Restored to what?
If you look at all the work that was done, there is maybe 60% Tucker parts on the car. The rest was taken
from other cars or fabricated. The top, seats, and all the interior are not Tucker. The suspension is not stock.
The rear wheel wells may have been cut from two different cars. There was no rear firewall or landing area
for the top. All the inner doors and rear window housings were taken from a non-Tucker car. A lot was
fabricated and the stock Tucker Parts were reworked. I'm not sure why they continue to market it as a
restored car. There was a lot of new sheet metal added to this car.

All of that on top of the engine (serial # 33539) that was in #1044 and now magically has zero miles.

right rear.JPG (50.87 KiB) Viewed 1742 times

[cicero]

The rear quarters can't be from body 57 because they don't have the strengthening pressings in them. The cars in the LIFE pictures all show this detail. The ones on the vert are smooth which would mean they came from an earlier body. (1027??)

Even if the car was legit, which it is not in my opinion, the fact that they did not work from any official drawings to complete the car leaves you with a guess of what they were trying to design back in '48, '49.

I think it is a hansom car, but it is not a real Tucker as far as I am concerned.

[Tucker Fan 48]

"Reinert said when he acquired the car it was basically a frame with a cowl tack-welded in place, two front doors and two rear quarter panels. “It had no motor, no transmission, no steering, no tires or wheels. No nothing. After I found the car I started scrounging parts.” Reinert said he began networking in Chicago, Milwaukee and elsewhere and eventually purchased a big stash of parts from an Illinois collector. He said the parts had once been part of an October 1950 auction.

“I bought everything he had, and with that, I was able to get the car as far as a I did. But I still couldn’t afford the $50, $60, $70 dollars an hour (at a restoration shop) when it came down to it (completing the car). I’ve had it for over 25 years, and I stopped working on it a good 7-8 years ago."

So, if I'm reading this correctly, then there could only be 6 parts that could possibly have had #57 "stamped" into them:

Frame, cowl, 2 front doors, 2 rear quarter panels. That's all it was. It sounds like no body was attached, either. Am I correct, so far???

Your thought on this got me thinking about it again. I went back to the photos and there was no rear quarter panels. They had only the inner rear wheel
wells and they absolutely came from an early car. That means unless someone dug up Richard's garage floor they have to be from #1018. (maybe Richard
will confirm that the inner rear wheel wells to #1023 are where we all think they are). The rest of the rear quarter panel was completely fabricated.

Even if the top was cut off of the body the rear door post, quarter panels, and flooring behind the rear seat would all be there. In the convertible
none of that was there. There would be no reason to cut it all out to build a landing area for the top. There was a lot more fabrication done on this
car than would be necessary if it was a body with the top removed.

I started looking at the rear fenders as well. Why were they cut on the inside? If they came from another car you'd just bolt them on. These needed
a lot of sheet metal added to mate them to the rear deck lid. Would someone have cut them because they were damaged? Both #1018 and #1027
would have had heavy damage to their fenders. Things just don't add up on this car. It keeps looking more likely it was a test frame.

If the top was cut off then why was the fabrication below done?

right rear quarter.JPG (40.71 KiB) Viewed 1638 times

There should have been sheet metal like this car has above the wheel well.

Tucker pics 010.jpg (77.61 KiB) Viewed 1639 times

[Tucker Fan 48]

Why were these rear fenders cut?

right rear fender.JPG (31.51 KiB) Viewed 1639 times

They should have looked like this.

IM000149.JPG (31.47 KiB) Viewed 1634 times

IMG_113.JPG (64.22 KiB) Viewed 1637 times

[Tucker Fan 48]

rear.JPG (39.35 KiB) Viewed 1595 times

[Tucker Fan 48]

Could it be as simple as it is one of these two cars or one just like it?

15.JPG (99.55 KiB) Viewed 1592 times