Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[TuckerCar]

John, I think it's time for you to go start your own messge board. Your constant complaining is making you unwelcome at this one.

[TUCKER]

John, I think it's time for you to go start your own messge board. Your constant complaining is making you unwelcome at this one.

maybe an easter egg message board

[Turbopackman]

My point is that there's no paint on it at all, it's ALL the discoloration from heating. It is obvious to me that it's not paint at all, but blue discoloration. Hence the fade from darker blue to yellow to rusty steel. I would think any metal man would know this. That's also the reason why it's blue on top where the "C" pillar would be, that area would show a great void of paint where they cut the pillar off. There isn't a void on this car. How would you explain that? This frame was heated and reshaped, period. I still say it was a straightened #1027 frame, so I'm not discounting your theory one bit, just on how you arrived to that conclusion. All roads lead to Rome, as they say.

[Ace Barker]

So this car #1027?



Which ended up like


and


For history wouldn't it have been better to not cut up 1027 and leave it as it was, wrecked and unrestored but on display?

Was 1027 left to the elements after being wrecked and thus nothing really left but parts? Looking at the photos with the hood and fenders from other cars maybe so. Why would the top have been cut out though?

These are all probably silly questions but I am not up on Tuckers but have really enjoyed reading about them.

Thanks!

Ace...

[TUCKER]

the second and third photos are not 1027. they are the second test chassis with panels from 1018

there are early photos from "test chassis #2" which is not 1027, once again "IT IS NOT 1027" The club is all wrong calling this car 1027 since it is not 1027 but only a few doors from 1027 that were in the lot. Also this lot which was to be sold by Al Reinart and Gilliland never sold till today!

also lately taken photos of test chasis #2 can be seen at the convertible site but have no idea why the frame is missing on it now.

[streamliner]

Since this never did finish up, I need some help with a couple things:

In TUCKER's photos of #1055, shown below, there is a hole in the center of the raised portion of the floorboard. Why was it there, and does anyone know how it was cut from the sheetmetal?



If you look at the following photo from September 9, 1950, you get a pretty clear view of the hole in what was probably frame 57:



A closeup of the hole reveals a rough cut, ragged edge on the driver's side of the hole. It's not the same shape as the one cut just two frames earlier on 1055:



The following two photos of the convertible also clearly show a similar hole:




So... Was every hole cut differently, or were they stamped out in that odd shape? If they were cut or enlarged by hand, as it appears, then no two holes would be the same, like fingerprints. The holes on the convertible and on LIFE's #57 certanly have a similar shape. John, you had mentioned that you thought that #57 was long gone. Is it because you think the convertible's frame is the same one as in the LIFE pics? If it is the same frame, then I'd agree, #57 as it appeared in September 1950, is toast. It's frame also was not reinforced with the inner structure as of September 1950:





Also...

Re: Tucker "Convertible" at Auction
by mframe4646 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:27 pm

Wow, You guys have raised alot of great points. I have sat back quietly over the last few months and let the car get finished and have not checked on what has been written about for awhile. Good stuff here. I and my business partner were both working for benchmark classics when the tucker was bought. We started the restoration on it. It was a great debate amongst us that worked there.

...whatever did happen to the original frame that was on #1046???

[TUCKER]

The hole was for the heater that went under the front seat.

[Tommy]

I have suspected from the start that the frame, floor pan and cowl on the convertible were from #57. That hole in the floor pan is very convincing. I would bet the ones on other Tuckers do not look like that. It looks very rough cut. Looks like the same rough cut hole on the convertible to me. There it is in the factory in 1950 without a reinforced frame and a one of a kind back window opening.

That is every bit as convincing as the front fender damage proving the fenders are from #1027.

[TUCKER]

here are more photos of the hole for the heater and the heater as instaled on 1003 and other Tuckers. Tucker 1001 - 1054/1051 also have the same hole for the same model heater. The panels were stamped thrue the cars with a mold and they were not hand made as some of you think here. This panel was shared on all the cars and about 100 or so of them were stamped and used on cars and others were scraped when the big 3 killed Tucker/Tremulis dream of the car of tomorrow today.

[TUCKER]

more pixs

[streamliner]

TUCKER,

As always, you've got great insight and information. Thanks, again, for the clarification...

[Tuckeroo]

I have not seen engine serial number 33539 show up in any recent article about the convertible or on the convertible's website. Was the original source for this information the ebay listing?

If the engine serial number is on the convertible's website now, I can't find it. The website merely says that the statement that "the engine in the Tucker Convertible was assigned to another car at the Tucker factory," is fiction and that "Benchmark Classics has a document that was put together by a Tucker historian which states that the motor that is installed in the Tucker Convertible was not assigned to a car at the factory." If this is so I do not know to which document they are referring and wonder (though not so much anymore) why the serial number itself is not presented.

[cicero]

I find it interesting that the rear deck hinges are metallic green. I thought this car was never completed by the factory so why would their be green paint on the hinges? 1027 was also green. coincidence?

[TuckerCar]

1027 was Waltz Blue, BUT those are not even Tucker hinges. Tucker hinges were flat and did not have the two ribs that the "convertible" has.

In fact, you can tell the firewall ribs aren't aligned properly with the hinge location too. Reinert was fabricating that piece in May 2002 when I was there.

[cicero]

Oh, I didn't notice the detail of the grooves. So they are "rare, tucker convertible only hinges"

I thought that 1027 was once waltz blue but was later painted green and was green when it rolled.

This is a door for 1027, no?