Tucker Frames

[streamliner]

Tucker Fan 48, you're reading my mind... Here are my current thoughts:

Body first: TUCKER has already stated that the body is the remains of #55. The inner rear wheelwells (SuperFleye's indre hjulhus) look like more rust than metal at the time of these photos. So the damage adds up. TUCKER, have you got some higher resolution pix of the following photos of #55 (or other photos) to help finish off the body piece of the puzzle:




Frame: There's also that frame from #55 that still looks to be pretty good at this point. The rear part of the frame is missing, unless that's it sticking out the rear window...

As far as the test frame goes, it's baffling. The LIFE photos prove that "Test Chassis #2" cannot be #52 from the welding production line. However, Lot #684 was described as being "Test Chassis #2" with the cowl from #52. #52's cowl must therefore have been added after the 1950 auction, unless the frame is also #52. But then the test chassis would be missing. What better way to hide the original "Test Chassis #2" than to call Lot #684 the test chassis, as nobody would look elsewhere for the test frame?

Even if Lot #684 did include the original test chassis (then where is frame #52?), Phil Egan made it clear that there were several more test chassis made "to contain" the drivetrain developments that were ongoing (has anyone ever looked at Gene Haustein's photos?):



It's only a matter of time and research until the actual records, blueprints, or closeup photos of the various test chassis are found that describe exactly how each of them were made (assuming the frame really was Tucker-built). FYI, here's a list of the specs for the various gauge steel thicknesses:

[Tucker Fan 48]

Try this idea out. Lot #684 we know has the front fenders from #1018. It has at least 3 doors (may all 4) from #1027.
It has a right front door that is likely from #1018. (accident photos show that door was in good shape) The cowl may be
(and is most likely) from #1052. The hood is not from #1027 (see photo below).

The frame and rear quarters could be from #1052 as well. They appear to be in much better shape than the picture
of the #1055 rear clip. The rear outer fenders could be from #1018. If Wayne McKinley got to the #1052 frame in the
mid 60s as I believe he did it would have been in much better shape than Gillilands #1055. Clyde Poll got #1054 very
early as well.

The #1027 frame could exist somewhere and may be the frame in the picture at Gillilands.The frame in the picture at
Gillilands could also be the red frame in Grand Rapids. The #1018 frame was destroyed. From the looks of the #1055
body, any frame under it would really be a mess since it looks like is was stored on the ground.

The E-bay photos from 9/2006 show the #1027 hood and what is likely the left front door and deck lid from #1018.

1018 door.jpg (61.01 KiB) Viewed 770 times

1018 deck lid.jpg (48.4 KiB) Viewed 766 times

1027 hood.jpg (35.29 KiB) Viewed 768 times

The front fenders from #1027 could be on the convertible along with the hood from #1018, the rear inner fenders
from #1018, and the rear outer fenders from #1027. Those outer fenders were a real mess and could explain why
the drip moldings had been cut away where the rear fenders meet the rear deck lid. From the photos of their
restoration I don't think any rear clip ever existed as the photos show everything was fabricated except the rear
inner fenders which have to be from #1018. The two "special" doors on the convertible are really only door skins
mounted on some other non-Tucker doors. Would it be that hard to make two Tucker door skins? (I'll guess Ricardo
says no to that question).

I don't think there is any part of #1042 in Lot #684, the convertible, or the red frame. If the story about #1042
evaporating while the owner was in the hospital is true, then I'm going to take a wild guess that maybe his
significant other saw it as a great opportunity to get rid of what she thought was a piece of junk. I don't know
about all of you but I've had the "geez I wonder where that could have went" statement made to me a few times.
I still hope to someday track down the origin of that story and see if it can be resolved (i.e. maybe she'll come
clean after all these years).

I know many of you have been collecting information on Tuckers for years. Of course Richard knows more than all
of us put together and probably put his hands on more Tuckers than Preston Tucker himself. The amount of
information that exists is simply amazing. After looking at hundreds of photos and reading thousands of hours of
documents and postings it is my guess that the rest of the convertible is what we see in the picture with the 7
people on a test frame. That frame would have needed to be reinforced to hold the weight with no body and it has
everything the convertible now has.

[Tucker Fan 48]

15a.JPG (44.44 KiB) Viewed 769 times

So what does it all mean?

That Lot #684 is made up of parts from #1018, #1027, and body #1052

The convertible is made up (i could stop this sentence right there) of the test frame above,
parts from #1018, #1027, and lots of fabricated parts as shown in the "restoration" photos.

The red frame is most likely #1027

#1042 is still out there somewhere

#1023 is still safely under Richards garage

[Tucker Fan 48]

The article in Cars & Parts from June 02 about the Ypsilani Automotive Heritage Museum shows the
red frame and part of a block. It says the museum has the chassis (frame) from #1018, the hood,
trunk lid, and left front door plus half a Tucker engine. It says the chassis was retrofitted with a
Toronado rear suspension but has the stock front suspension. It also says it was all donated by
Mark and Karen Lieberman.

6-02 p35a.JPG (165.04 KiB) Viewed 688 times

How it all ends up in St Paul, MN in the hands of Donna Murawski by October of 2006 is still a mystery
but its clear they are the same parts. (see e-bay parts thread)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1791&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p7185

It's hard to believe that could be the frame from #1018. First it was ripped in half after the accident.
We have photos of it at Les Sheaffers that show there was no rear to the frame. The drivers side
rail was much longer and twisted upward. For someone to have found the rear section and put it back
together looking that straight would be amazing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1791&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p7256

It seems more likely it is from #1027 and not #1018. I know from what Richard has explained that
there were changes to the frame between numbers 1025 and 1026. That would mean that the #1018
frame and #1027 frame would be different.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1759&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p6973

Is there a way to look at or measure the red frame to determine if it came from the first group of
frames, #1001-1025, or the second group, 1026-1058? From what I can determine from the Tucker
Corporation memo of 3/22/48 the frame side rails were moved inward 1 1/2" on each side. If I
understand this then the late frames are 3" narrower than the early frames? Does anyone know
what those two measurements are? If someone were to measure how wide the red frame is would
they know which group it came from? Has this ever been done?

The E-bay parts from Donna Murawski that started out at the Ypsilani Automotive Heritage Museum
are most likely the door and deck lid from #1018 and the hood from #1027. The hood could be from
#1018 but that would mean someone painted it Waltz Blue which seems unlikely.