 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / November 2008THE TUCKER
Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? > Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? I have seen them a couple of times in museum exhibits.  SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? > > I have seen them a couple of times in museum exhibits. I saw one at a car show once. Loved the sound of that engine. Nothing quite like it. >Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? I've seen them in museums. The engines looked HUGE. They used engines originally for some airplane or helicopter. The whole car was huge, much bigger then I expected from having seen photos of them. >>Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? > > I've seen them in museums. The engines looked HUGE. They used > engines originally for some airplane or helicopter. The whole car was > huge, much bigger then I expected from having seen photos of them. I don't know about huge but 6 people could ride comfortably in them. Much like a Buick, Lincoln or Cadillac of the day. The engines were for a helicopter I believe and retooled for a car. > I don't know about huge but 6 people could ride comfortably in them. Much > like a Buick, Lincoln or Cadillac of the day. The engines were for a > helicopter I believe and retooled for a car. Yes, Tucker had first tried to develop an engine using fuel injection and hydraulic valve actuation (not hydraulic lifters, but an entire hydraulic valvetrain) but that did not work out. He then bought out the Air Cooled Motors company to get their helicopter engine, which was converted to water-cooling for use in the Tucker automobile. The movie about the Tucker (has it really been 20 years now?) had a lot of information, some factual and some not, and generated a lot of interest in the car. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I don't know about huge but 6 people could ride comfortably in them. Much >> like a Buick, Lincoln or Cadillac of the day. The engines were for a >> helicopter I believe and retooled for a car. > Yes, Tucker had first tried to develop an engine using fuel injection > and hydraulic valve actuation (not hydraulic lifters, but an entire > hydraulic valvetrain) but that did not work out. He then bought out > the Air Cooled Motors company to get their helicopter engine, which > was converted to water-cooling for use in the Tucker automobile. Well it almost worked - and would have if Tucker had the time to perfect it. Also they had to rearrange several thinks like the oil pan. > The movie about the Tucker (has it really been 20 years now?) had > a lot of information, some factual and some not, and generated a > lot of interest in the car. Almost ALL of it was pretty well fact based. At least the major details. > Almost ALL of it was pretty well fact based. At least the major details. Unlike the movie portrayal, the car did not come with disc brakes or seat belts. In fact, Tucker was against the use of seat belts as he believed that made the car appear unsafe. He instead preferred a padded "crash chamber" and pop-out windshield glass. The courtoom scenes were also greatly "enhanced" in typical Hollywood style. The movie also presented a somewhat one-sided view of Preston Tucker as a visionary, when the truth was a bit more complex, for example: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099965,00.html But yes, by and large the movie did get the major items correct. The Charles Pearson book "The Indomitable Tin Goose" is probably the most authoritative history of the Tucker automobile. There is also a Tucker club at: http://www.tuckerclub.org Alex Tremulis, designer of the Tucker sedan, continued working as as an automotive designer and in the late 1970s was responsible for the Subaru BRAT (4-wheel-drive pickup with rearward-facing seats in the bed). SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Almost ALL of it was pretty well fact based. At least the major >> details. > Unlike the movie portrayal, the car did not come with disc brakes or > seat belts. In fact, Tucker was against the use of seat belts as he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > movie also presented a somewhat one-sided view of Preston Tucker as a > visionary, when the truth was a bit more complex, for example: > http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099965,00.html Calling the Tucker car a "streamlined lemon" was far from accurate from all I have read by the people who actually owned the 50 odd cars that were built. That Tucker was a showboat cannot be denied. He WAS a con manb of sorts. Not dishonest, just sort of like Herb Tarlek in the old WKRP TV series. > But yes, by and large the movie did get the major items correct. > The Charles Pearson book "The Indomitable Tin Goose" is probably the > most authoritative history of the Tucker automobile. There is also > a Tucker club at: > http://www.tuckerclub.org I wonder how many of the members would agree that it was JUNK? > Alex Tremulis, designer of the Tucker sedan, continued working as > as an automotive designer and in the late 1970s was responsible > for the Subaru BRAT (4-wheel-drive pickup with rearward-facing > seats in the bed). Tremulis also went to Kaiser and later AMC. > I wonder how many of the members would agree that it was JUNK? I don't think it was junk -- from all I've read, it was just in need of further development. I remember that one of the car magazines after the movie came out had a road-test of the Tucker and a pretty detailed write-up of the good and bad points of the car and what it would have needed to be successful in mass production. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I wonder how many of the members would agree that it was JUNK? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > detailed write-up of the good and bad points of the car and what > it would have needed to be successful in mass production. The article (very hostile) labeled the Tucker as a "LEMON." It wasn't. It was a pretty good car all things considered. From what I recall, Motor Trend raved about it. It would be laughable by today's standards, BUT in 1947 it was years ahead of anything the big 3 had.Faster then the Ford V-8 and better gas mileage than anything on the road at the time. > The article (very hostile) labeled the Tucker as a "LEMON." It wasn't. It The magazine article I'm thinking of did not use that terminology. It did contain a frank discussion of the challenges Tucker would have faced in mass production and support if he had continued. I'll have to see if I can find it in with my stacks of decades-old car and mechanics magazines... > was a pretty good car all things considered. From what I recall, Motor Trend > raved about it. It would be laughable by today's standards, BUT in 1947 it I think "Uncle" Tom McCahill gave it a favorable review as well. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> The article (very hostile) labeled the Tucker as a "LEMON." It wasn't. It > The magazine article I'm thinking of did not use that terminology. It > did contain a frank discussion of the challenges Tucker would have > faced in mass production and support if he had continued. I'll have > to see if I can find it in with my stacks of decades-old car and > mechanics magazines... The URL you gace to an article used EXECTLY that term. "A STREAMLINED LEMON." >> was a pretty good car all things considered. From what I recall, Motor >> Trend >> raved about it. It would be laughable by today's standards, BUT in 1947 >> it > I think "Uncle" Tom McCahill gave it a favorable review as well. He RAVED about it, and he was rarely generous about cars of that era. > The URL you gace to an article used EXECTLY that term. "A STREAMLINED > LEMON." That article was provided as a look at another side of Preston Tucker. Whether the car is a "lemon" is a value judgement. Without considerably more development, as well as the development of an adequate dealer, service, and spare parts network, the general public might well have judged the Tucker to be a "lemon" no matter what its good points. (For starters the "Torsilastic" rubber-spring suspension had a tendancy to break, that drawback alone would make many people believe a mass-produced auto was a "lemon.") The Tucker 48 had lots of potential but the few cars built were still basically prototypes that needed more development work to be ready for real-world use at the hands of the motoring public. > He RAVED about it, and he was rarely generous about cars of that era. He had a soft spot for the independent makes such as Nashes also. I'm certain he would have wanted to see Tucker succeed. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> The URL you gace to an article used EXECTLY that term. "A STREAMLINED >> LEMON." > That article was provided as a look at another side of Preston Tucker. If it wasn't objective about the car, do you think it was objective about the man? Of course neither were perfect. If Preston Tucker had not been a bit of a flim flam man the car would never have existed. Noptghing he ever did would have existed. > Whether the car is a "lemon" is a value judgement. Without considerably > more development, as well as the development of an adequate dealer, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > had a tendancy to break, that drawback alone would make many people > believe a mass-produced auto was a "lemon.") No car is ever perfect. If they were, that Ford dealershiop wouldn't need 50 mechanics. > The Tucker 48 had lots of potential but the few cars built were still > basically prototypes that needed more development work to be ready > for real-world use at the hands of the motoring public. Seems most of them held up pretty well. I think of 50 made something like 48 are still running 60 years later. >> He RAVED about it, and he was rarely generous about cars of that era. > He had a soft spot for the independent makes such as Nashes also. I'm > certain he would have wanted to see Tucker succeed. He lashed at the Kaisers, for example as truly dreadful cars, and he wasn't kind to the Packard's of the 50's either. He was kind to the Studebakers and Hudson's. > If it wasn't objective about the car, do you think it was objective > about the man? Very possibly. "Lemon" is a very subjective thing. Had the cars been actually mass-produced in the same form as the 50-odd pilot production models there is a very good chance they would have been unreliable in daily use. On the other hand, it's a matter of historical fact that Preston Tucker in addition to being a visionary was also, as you say, a bit of a flim-flam man. (Though I do believe he was not trying to defraud people. The effort put into them is evidence that Tucker was serious about mass-producing the cars and would have done so but for government interference. Whether he would have ultimately succeeded is another matter.) > No car is ever perfect. If they were, that Ford dealershiop wouldn't > need 50 mechanics. Not perfect, but people prefer cars that don't exhibit major defects. Those that do (such as breaking suspensions) quickly garner a negative rap. Remember the early 1960s Ramblers with the defective lower ball joints? Rambler garnered a reputation for front-end problems that far outlived the actual problem. > Seems most of them held up pretty well. I think of 50 made something > like 48 are still running 60 years later. Yes, but most were not subjected very long (if at all) to the rigors of daily use at the hands of owners treating them like appliances. As they gained status as collector's items they have been rebuilt and restored, in some cases multiple times. We're talking about cars that go for 7 figures at this point when they change hands. > He lashed at the Kaisers, for example as truly dreadful cars, and he > wasn't kind to the Packard's of the 50's either. He was kind to the > Studebakers and Hudson's. Kaiser failed to deliver the advanced front-drive car they promised, instead producing vehicles that used dead-standard engineering of the time. As you know Packard was on the ropes in the 1950s, the last models being gussied-up Studebakers. Unc seemed to have a real soft sport for many Nash (and AMC) models. He loved the Nash Rambler, actually stumbling on "secret" factory test track trials of the not-yet-released compact back in the day. As I recall he also had kind words for the big Nashes even when comparing them to the Queen Mary. One of his test drives that I read recently was of the 1967 Rambler Rebel. After taking it out on the track he proclaimed the Rebel to be the best-handling car made in America. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> If it wasn't objective about the car, do you think it was objective >> about the man? > Very possibly. I doubt it. Tucker was a man you had to scratch hard to find the man. I tgrust those who knew him best. His kids. > "Lemon" is a very subjective thing. Had the cars been actually > mass-produced > in the same form as the 50-odd pilot production models there is a very > good > chance they would have been unreliable in daily use. Yet the ones made held up pretty well. > On the other hand, it's a matter of historical fact that Preston > Tucker in addition to being a visionary was also, as you say, a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but for government interference. Whether he would have ultimately > succeeded is another matter.) Oh you CAN have an honest flim-flam man. Tucker believed. It is doubtful that he wopuld ahve had long term success. Tucker's life mitigates against that. He was never a successful manager. But I believe that Tucker would have had several years of cars, cars that WOULD have forced the Big 3 into building better cars decades earlier than they did. >> No car is ever perfect. If they were, that Ford dealershiop wouldn't >> need 50 mechanics. > Not perfect, but people prefer cars that don't exhibit major defects. > Those that do (such as breaking suspensions) quickly garner a negative > rap. Remember the early 1960s Ramblers with the defective lower ball > joints? Rambler garnered a reputation for front-end problems that far > outlived the actual problem. The TRUNION suspension was known to "knuckle under." >> Seems most of them held up pretty well. I think of 50 made something >> like 48 are still running 60 years later. > Yes, but most were not subjected very long (if at all) to the rigors of > daily > use at the hands of owners treating them like appliances. As they gained > status as collector's items they have been rebuilt and restored, in some > cases multiple times. We're talking about cars that go for 7 figures > at this point when they change hands. Sure they were, some of the Tuckers have over 200,000 miles on them. >> He lashed at the Kaisers, for example as truly dreadful cars, and he >> wasn't kind to the Packard's of the 50's either. He was kind to the >> Studebakers and Hudson's. > Kaiser failed to deliver the advanced front-drive car they promised, > instead producing vehicles that used dead-standard engineering of > the time. As you know Packard was on the ropes in the 1950s, the > last models being gussied-up Studebakers. The Kaisers were warmed ov er Graham Paige cars from pre-war engineering with a great body in the 50's thanks to Dutch Darrin. > Unc seemed to have a real soft sport for many Nash (and AMC) models. > He loved the Nash Rambler, actually stumbling on "secret" factory [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on the track he proclaimed the Rebel to be the best-handling car > made in America. The Rebel WAS the best handling car in America in 67. What was its competition? The Corvette? That damn thing handles like a pregnant water buffalo. > The TRUNION suspension was known to "knuckle under." Only when not maintained. When kept properly greased, the trunnion suspension lasts for decades. The exception was the smaller AMC cars from 1964 through 1969 (American, Javelin, and AMX). These used a "lifetime" non-greaseable rubber bushing in their trunnions. Unfortunately the "lifetime" of these tended to be about 10 years or 100,000 miles at most. When AMC switched to lower ball joints around 1960 or 1961 for the "big" Ramblers, their supplier sent a batch of defective parts. The result was that the first batch of ball-joint equipped Ramblers tended to snap their lower joints when hitting severe potholes or other road hazards. > Sure they were, some of the Tuckers have over 200,000 miles on them. I'm not sure how many were actually used that way, the Tucker club would probably have that info. The point is they didn't last for decades without a little help, and being collectible certainly was a factor in keeping such a high percentage kept up rather than scrapped. Of course most cars don't last for decades without rebuilding and/or restoration, but there are a few exceptions. At this summer's Studebaker national meet in PA I saw a stunning 1961 Hawk, all original and looking showroom-new down to the original paint. > The Rebel WAS the best handling car in America in 67. What was its > competition? The Corvette? That damn thing handles like a pregnant water > buffalo. I have a 1967 Rebel in the garage, so for me this is not past tense. :-) Yes, it is a good handling car for its time, it can be tossed around corners with little plowing or complaining, and the 343 4-barrel motivates it pretty well, though of course it is not a muscle car. Steering (GM/Saginaw power) is a little vague, typical of the time. Upper suspension on the Rebel is trunnion-type. Mine still has the factory-original trunnions and they are still tight, thanks to regular greasing. Don't know if the Rebel is truly the best handling car of that year, haven't driven many others. I understand the 2nd-generation Corvairs with the fully-articulated rear suspension did quite well, but I've never driven one of those. (I did have a 1964 Corvair years ago but that had the old swing-axle rear end.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> The TRUNION suspension was known to "knuckle under." > Only when not maintained. When kept properly greased, the trunnion > suspension lasts for decades. The exception was the smaller AMC > cars from 1964 through 1969 (American, Javelin, and AMX). These > used a "lifetime" non-greaseable rubber bushing in their trunnions. > Unfortunately the "lifetime" of these tended to be about 10 years > or 100,000 miles at most. I don't believe that the Jav opr AMX used trunions. It was not uncommon to see early ramblers squatting down on tirels laying flat on the road. > When AMC switched to lower ball joints around 1960 or 1961 for the > "big" Ramblers, their supplier sent a batch of defective parts. > The result was that the first batch of ball-joint equipped Ramblers > tended to snap their lower joints when hitting severe potholes or > other road hazards. >> Sure they were, some of the Tuckers have over 200,000 miles on them. > I'm not sure how many were actually used that way, the Tucker club > would probably have that info. The point is they didn't last for > decades without a little help, and being collectible certainly was > a factor in keeping such a high percentage kept up rather than > scrapped. > Of course most cars don't last for decades without rebuilding and/or > restoration, but there are a few exceptions. At this summer's Studebaker > national meet in PA I saw a stunning 1961 Hawk, all original and looking > showroom-new down to the original paint. I had a friend who bought a Golden Hawk with the R-5 package. It was "QUICK" to say the least. >> The Rebel WAS the best handling car in America in 67. What was its >> competition? The Corvette? That damn thing handles like a pregnant water >> buffalo. > I have a 1967 Rebel in the garage, so for me this is not past tense. :-) > Yes, it is a good handling car for its time, it can be tossed around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > trunnions > and they are still tight, thanks to regular greasing. The Rebel with the 390 was a dream. Still it handled well for its day with all the shortcommings by today's standards. The Javelins and AMX would wipe the track with a Corvette on a road course. You could never hold the a.s end of the Vette down. If you pushed them into a turn with the stock suspension, even with the sway bars, you'd lose if if you were on the power. If you had the HD leafs in the back of the Javs or AMX you could literally stand on it through a turn and watch the Corvettes in your rear view mirror swing wildly from one side of the track to the other and chuckle. > Don't know if the Rebel is truly the best handling car of that > year, haven't driven many others. I understand the 2nd-generation > Corvairs with the fully-articulated rear suspension did quite well, > but I've never driven one of those. (I did have a 1964 Corvair > years ago but that had the old swing-axle rear end.) > I don't believe that the Jav opr AMX used trunions. It was not uncommon > to see early ramblers squatting down on tirels laying flat on the road. They did until the 1970 model year, when AMC changed to twin ball-joint suspension. The Javelin and AMX were derived from the Rambler American chassis and shared its suspension. (All AMC cars had upper trunnions in the front end until the 1970 model year. Also vacuum wipers through 1971!) The most common cause of the symptom you describe in Ramblers was failure of the early lower ball joints, though I have no doubt the even older lower trunnion system would break if hit hard enough. > I had a friend who bought a Golden Hawk with the R-5 package. It was > "QUICK" to say the least. I have no doubt! Studebaker was a performance leader with their supercharged engines. > The Rebel with the 390 was a dream. Still it handled well for its day Yes, that came a bit later on, in 1967 the top AMC engine was the 343. As I recall the 390 first saw the light of day in the 1968 AMX. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I don't believe that the Jav opr AMX used trunions. It was not >> uncommon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the front end until the 1970 model year. Also vacuum wipers through > 1971!) Sorry I had both a 68 AMX and a 70 Javeline NEITHER had vacuum wipers. >> I had a friend who bought a Golden Hawk with the R-5 package. It was >> "QUICK" to say the least. > I have no doubt! Studebaker was a performance leader with their > supercharged engines. The R-5 was supercharged and the larger displacement engine. In its day nothing much stayed on the road with it. >> The Rebel with the 390 was a dream. Still it handled well for its day > Yes, that came a bit later on, in 1967 the top AMC engine was the 343. > As I recall the 390 first saw the light of day in the 1968 AMX. Yep, buit was followed months later in the Rebel and Javelin. > Sorry I had both a 68 AMX and a 70 Javeline NEITHER had vacuum wipers. Electric wipers were an option, and were not made standard until the 1972 model year. At car shows I have seen many AMXes and Javelins with vacuum wipers. AMC also went with the Chrysler Torque-Flite automatic transmission in 1972. They previously used the Borg-Warner automatic. > Yep, buit was followed months later in the Rebel and Javelin. Also the Ambassador, ostensibly as part of a trailer-towing package. And don't forget the SC/Rambler! (Essentially a Rambler American with a 390 and 4-speed!) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Sorry I had both a 68 AMX and a 70 Javeline NEITHER had vacuum wipers. > > Electric wipers were an option, and were not made standard until the > 1972 model year. At car shows I have seen many AMXes and Javelins with > vacuum wipers. AMC also went with the Chrysler Torque-Flite automatic > transmission in 1972. They previously used the Borg-Warner automatic. I ordered both my cars. Electric wipers were STANDARD on both the AMX and Jav. >> Yep, buit was followed months later in the Rebel and Javelin. > Also the Ambassador, ostensibly as part of a trailer-towing package. > And don't forget the SC/Rambler! (Essentially a Rambler American with > a 390 and 4-speed!) The HURST S/CRambler or Scrambler as some called it. > I ordered both my cars. Electric wipers were STANDARD on both the AMX > and Jav. Pretty sure that was not the case until 1972. Here is a picture of a 1970 AMX engine bay (sans engine), note the wiper motor: http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2998588490076313828IopbLb I know I have examples of AMXes and Javelins equipped with vacuum wipers in my own photo collection. > The HURST S/CRambler or Scrambler as some called it. Yes, no mistaking one of those with the wild red, white, and blue paint job. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I ordered both my cars. Electric wipers were STANDARD on both the AMX >> and Jav. > > Pretty sure that was not the case until 1972. Here is a picture of > a 1970 AMX engine bay (sans engine), note the wiper motor: I had a 68 AMX and a 70 Javelin. BOTH came with electric wipers STANDARD. > http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2998588490076313828IopbLb I see the vacuum wiper motor. First one I ever saw with vacuum wipers. > I know I have examples of AMXes and Javelins equipped with vacuum > wipers in my own photo collection. >> The HURST S/CRambler or Scrambler as some called it. > Yes, no mistaking one of those with the wild red, white, and blue paint > job. Some were delivered in one color. > I see the vacuum wiper motor. First one I ever saw with vacuum wipers. Don't know what to tell, you, as mentioned I've seen quite a few that way. > Some were delivered in one color. Yes, ditto for the Rebel Machine, available in eye-catching red, white, and blue, or plain-jane solid colors. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I see the vacuum wiper motor. First one I ever saw with vacuum wipers. > Don't know what to tell, you, as mentioned I've seen quite a few that way. I was on the factory stunt driving team and raced the cars. I never saw vacuum wipers on any. That doesn't mean tghere weren't any, but from what I saw they'd have been rare. RFE: HURST SC/RAMBLER >> Some were delivered in one color. > Yes, ditto for the Rebel Machine, available in eye-catching red, white, > and blue, or plain-jane solid colors. They built lots of SLEEPER cars. Poor unsuspecting owners of Vettes or Mustangs would pull up top a light and see a plain Jane ugly green Rambler and race just to show off and get their doors blown off and wonder what the hell hit them. > I was on the factory stunt driving team and raced the cars. I never saw > vacuum wipers on any. That doesn't mean tghere weren't any, but from what I > saw they'd have been rare. You've piqued my curiosity, so I rooted around a bit. I dug out a 1971 AMC factory service manual, which covers all AMC models for that year. The section on wipers has a photo illustrating removal of the vacuum wiper motor from a Javelin. Accompanying text details removal of the vacuum hose and the control cable. I think I also have a '71 AMC owner's manual around which covers all models, it may have more info on the wiper controls. A little more noodling around came up with this: http://www.amx-perience.com/xperienceamx96100.htm Note that on the above site a point is made that the white AMX towards the middle of the page is equipped with electric wipers, not something one ordinarily would mention even in passing on most cars of that vintage. I also ran across a web page with decoding info for 1968-1970 Javelin and AMX build sheets, with an "electric wiper only" option mentioned for the optional Visibility Group: http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/classicamx/jan2000/jan2000.htm However I have not found any production figures on how many were actually built with vacuum versus electric wipers. > They built lots of SLEEPER cars. Poor unsuspecting owners of Vettes or > Mustangs would pull up top a light and see a plain Jane ugly green Rambler > and race just to show off and get their doors blown off and wonder what the > hell hit them. Even the '65 Rambler Classic I drove years ago, with its 327 4bbl V8 and twin-stick manual trans, surprised a lot of people back in the day. It just looked like a typical "old man car" but would take off like a scalded ape. Getting back to Tucker, while looking through some magazines I found the July 4, 1988 issue of "AutoWeek," which features the car and movie on the cover. (Jeff Bridges is shown posing with a red Tucker.) Inside is a fair amount of coverage, including a pretty harrowing ride in one of the Tuckers belonging to director Francis Coppala. The article also talked about the difficulty of getting enough Tuckers together for the film. They finally managed to get 22 cars, out of which about two-thirds did not run, 90% had broken suspensions, and only two had properly-working gearshifts. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I was on the factory stunt driving team and raced the cars. I never >> saw [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > not something one ordinarily would mention even in passing on most > cars of that vintage. > I also ran across a web page with decoding info for 1968-1970 Javelin > and AMX build sheets, with an "electric wiper only" option mentioned for > the optional Visibility Group: > http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/classicamx/jan2000/jan2000.htm > However I have not found any production figures on how many were actually > built with vacuum versus electric wipers. I think the visibilty group must have been fairly standard then. I got around tghe AMX circles pretty much 68-70. Ones with vacuum wipers may have existed, I never saw one. >> They built lots of SLEEPER cars. Poor unsuspecting owners of Vettes >> or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the >> hell hit them. > Even the '65 Rambler Classic I drove years ago, with its 327 4bbl V8 > and twin-stick manual trans, surprised a lot of people back in the day. > It just looked like a typical "old man car" but would take off like > a scalded ape. > Getting back to Tucker, while looking through some magazines I found > the July 4, 1988 issue of "AutoWeek," which features the car and movie > on the cover. (Jeff Bridges is shown posing with a red Tucker.) > Inside is a fair amount of coverage, including a pretty harrowing > ride in one of the Tuckers belonging to director Francis Coppala. > The article also talked about the difficulty of getting enough Tuckers > together for the film. They finally managed to get 22 cars, out > of which about two-thirds did not run, 90% had broken suspensions, > and only two had properly-working gearshifts. Amazing the Tucker club would lead you to believe that is not the case. I haven't see 20 Tuckers so what do I know? > I think the visibilty group must have been fairly standard then. I got > around tghe AMX circles pretty much 68-70. Ones with vacuum wipers may have > existed, I never saw one. I am sure not many people would have wanted to order their AMX with vacuum wipers, but seeing as how the other manufacturers had given up on that "feature" years before it probably caught some folks by surprise. > Amazing the Tucker club would lead you to believe that is not the case. > I haven't see 20 Tuckers so what do I know? The article mentioned that there probably had not been 20 Tuckers together in one place since 1948. The ride in Coppola's Tucker was a tale of handling instability ("Hey, this thing is FISHtailing!"), grinding gears, and stalling in the middle of a state highway. In the back of this issue of AutoWeek there is an article by a fellow named Roger Barlow who purchased a used Tucker in 1953 and drove it for a while: "...I owned a Tucker. Not for long, but I did own it and drive it. Having driven VWs, the 170H Mercedes, early Porsches, and the 4CV Renault, its handling was no surprise -- with so much weight so far aft, in such a long wheelbase, oversteer was only to be expected. And it was there to a quite disconcerting degree despite the helpfully quick steering ratio... The odd action of the suspension contributed further to my unease with the car. I did not enjoy driving 'my' Tucker! ... The car was an interesting concept -- but definitely not ready for prime-time, as they might say today on Vine Street. I phoned [the salesman] recently to see if he remembered driving this car. 'Spooky,' was his summation, 'real spooky. And scary.'" SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I think the visibilty group must have been fairly standard then. I >> got [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > up on that "feature" years before it probably caught some folks by > surprise. Never saw the option. >> Amazing the Tucker club would lead you to believe that is not the >> case. >> I haven't seen 20 Tuckers so what do I know? > The article mentioned that there probably had not been 20 Tuckers > together in one place since 1948. The ride in Coppola's Tucker was > a tale of handling instability ("Hey, this thing is FISHtailing!"), > grinding gears, and stalling in the middle of a state highway. > In the back of this issue of AutoWeek there is an article by a fellow > named Roger Barlow who purchased a used Tucker in 1953 and drove it for > a while: > "...I owned a Tucker. Not for long, but I did own it and drive it. > Having driven VWs, the 170H Mercedes, early Porsches, and the 4CV > Renault, its handling was no surprise -- with so much weight so > far aft, in such a long wheelbase, oversteer was only to be > expected. And it was there to a quite disconcerting degree despite > the helpfully quick steering ratio... > The odd action of the suspension contributed further to my unease > with the car. I did not enjoy driving 'my' Tucker! ... The car was > an interesting concept -- but definitely not ready for prime-time, > as they might say today on Vine Street. I don't think the Tucker would be highly regarded by today's standards. But then neither would my friend's 48 Chrysler New Yorker. Although my 51 Henry J was quite nimble. I once had a 55 Kaiser - that was - well - far from spectacular. > I phoned [the salesman] recently to see if he remembered driving > this car. 'Spooky,' was his summation, 'real spooky. And scary.'" Funny things about cars. Take any given brand or model and you'll get people on both sides. The AMX took a great deal of panning, but Craig Breedlove set loads of records with it on tracks, both oval and road. I used to take great pleasure in blowing the doors off Corvettes, Cameros, and Mustangs. I used to love to watch a guy in a 500KR Mustang pound his steering wheel when I left him in my dust. I hated to race Chevys. You never met a group of people with such whining rationalizations for losing races anywhere. Oh the litany of excuses. NEVER because the other car was faster. NEVER!!!! > Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? > >Yes.. I saw one on a dealer showroom in Denver, CO I was told that if the engine needed any repairs it was so easy to remove that the dealer would slip another loaner in while yours was being repaired. If I recall it was a 6 cylinder pancake type of engine. WW >> Has anyone ever driven a Tucker or see one? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it was a 6 cylinder > pancake type of engine. WW Yep was a great car for its day. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.