Jump to content


Could you make a business case for upcoming new kit subjects?


  • You cannot reply to this topic
264 replies to this topic

#21 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,742 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 02 May 2014 - 06:21 AM

I agree 100%. 

 

Me three.

 

And I'm surprised the Homeowner's Assn. hasn't shot the guy working on the Mustang at the top of Greg's post #19. Oh, I know. All the other houses are empty bank repos. <_<



#22 1930fordpickup

1930fordpickup

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,634 posts
  • Location:Michigan/Ohio border
  • Full Name:Andy Lemble

Posted 02 May 2014 - 06:27 AM

1957 -1966 Ford trucks 

 1958 -1972 Chevy trucks 

60's-70's Dodge trucks

For the trucks they could make many of the bed options for all three makes. Like a parts pack ,Wrecker, Box, flat bed, utility box, camper and on and on. 

The G-body GMs would be a great selling kit platform. with all the different makes on one frame and drive train it should cut the price for the molds . 



#23 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,742 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 02 May 2014 - 06:48 AM

I'd REALLY like to see some 2002 and later Dodge pickups too. I think it's a great looking truck, and as it was a ground-up redesign in 2002, the later chassis and guts, i assume, are similar enough to rebody with several later iterations using the '02 tooling mostly.

 

There were factory hot-rod versions as well.   dodge-ram-srt-10-photo-106155-s-429x262.



#24 plowboy

plowboy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,744 posts
  • Location:in the middle
  • Full Name:Roger Hayes

Posted 02 May 2014 - 06:57 AM

Tucker.

 

No multiple versions possible, but why has this iconic and significant car never been released as a kit (except by the aftermarket)?

 

Because if a kit company did produce it, they would probably sell about as many as the real car did. The only thing iconic about the Tucker is how fast it flopped.



#25 1930fordpickup

1930fordpickup

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,634 posts
  • Location:Michigan/Ohio border
  • Full Name:Andy Lemble

Posted 02 May 2014 - 07:08 AM

Roger I think the Tucker would sell better than you think. I do not believe it would be a huge seller though. I think it is to late for that to be worth making now. 



#26 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,742 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 02 May 2014 - 07:12 AM

... The only thing iconic about the Tucker is how fast it flopped.

 

I have to disagree. Just because a car didn't sell in the millions doesn't make it insignificant. The Tucker was killed by the competition (if you believe the story), Hollywood thought enough of it to make a feature film about it (with name talent), and it had many advanced and interesting engineering innovations like the rear-mounted, air cooled engine. I personally think it would make a fascinating model.

 

Of course, as it shares components with virtually no other car on the planet, crossover sales or light re-tools wouldn't be possible. On the other hand, I'd pay a LOT more for a good 1/24-1/25 Tucker, and I'd buy several.



#27 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 02 May 2014 - 07:43 AM

The real car flopped, the movie flopped (though it is a good movie from a critical standpoint), I'd be willing to bet a mainstream plastic model kit would flop as well.  It's a good choice for a resin kit (and there's already one) and maybe if car modelling had short-run injection plastic companies the way aircraft and military modelers do it might make a decent choice if it only had to sell a couple thousand pieces to break even.  No way a mainstream company could sell 40-50,000 Tuckers in today's market.  The time to do it would have been 1988 when the movie came out, that was probably the zenith of public awareness for the Tucker.  



#28 Danno

Danno

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,199 posts
  • Location:Okay. By now you all know ~ Aridzona.
  • Full Name:Nameless Natural Luminary

Posted 02 May 2014 - 09:39 AM

Sadly, what Brett said is no-doubt true. 

 

 

Still, I'd love to see a Tucker kit also.  Yet, I'd only buy one.  Maybe two.



#29 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,742 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:25 AM

I'm sure Roger, Brett and Danno are right about a Tucker having little chance of success as a kit from a major manufacturer...poor business case, which is what the thread is about...but it MIGHT make an interesting subject for some talented and enthusiastic fella to measure carefully and digitize in hopes that the 3D printing scenario will become cheap and high-resolution enough to enable building a full-detail model, but side-stepping investment in tooling.



#30 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,880 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:52 AM

The real car flopped...

 

The real car didn't flop. It never even got the chance to flop. The real car never went on sale to the general public. Production of the car was shut down and Preston Tucker was put on trial for stock fraud (and found not guilty on all counts, BTW) before the company had the chance to market the car to the public. At the time his trial began and the plant shut down, only 37 cars had been built.

 

How can a car that was never given the chance to compete in the marketplace have "flopped?"



#31 Luc Janssens

Luc Janssens

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 736 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:01 AM

This is reminiscent of  Luc Janssens $25,000.00 new kit challenge. :o

You think so? ;)

Anyway...been uploading a few of those old proposals on some wish list....will some see the light of day, dunno, but at least I tried.



#32 Greg Myers

Greg Myers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,881 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Full Name:Gregory Myers

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:06 AM

You think so? ;)

Anyway...been uploading a few of those old proposals on some wish list....will some see the light of day, dunno, but at least I tried.

Yes you did, and a noble effort at that.  :)



#33 1930fordpickup

1930fordpickup

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,634 posts
  • Location:Michigan/Ohio border
  • Full Name:Andy Lemble

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:24 PM

 

The real car didn't flop. It never even got the chance to flop. The real car never went on sale to the general public. Production of the car was shut down and Preston Tucker was put on trial for stock fraud (and found not guilty on all counts, BTW) before the company had the chance to market the car to the public. At the time his trial began and the plant shut down, only 37 cars had been built.

 

How can a car that was never given the chance to compete in the marketplace have "flopped?"

Yes they were never in real production , But my grandfather had a deposit down and had got his luggage from Tucker but never got the car. The luggage is long gone , I asked grandpa about five years before he passed. Tucker was railroaded out of town by the Big Three.  



#34 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,880 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 02 May 2014 - 02:32 PM

Tucker was railroaded out of town by the Big Three.  

 

That's the general perception.

 

The SEC investigation into the "fraud" that Preston Tucker was supposedly trying to pull was the work of persons with an interest in, and beholden to, the Big Three, most notably influential Michigan senator Homer Ferguson. There were various forces at work that did their best to throw roadblocks in Tucker's way. For example, the Tucker Corporation mysteriously had a hard time buying steel, while the Big Three had no such problem. And the behind-the-scenes shenanigans went on and on.

 

During Tucker's trial, the prosecution tried to make the case that Tucker never had any intention of actually mass-producing an automobile, and that what he really was doing was selling phony dealerships to unsuspecting investors. When it came time for the defense to present their case, Tucker's lawyers didn't call anyone to the stand. They said simply that there is no need to "defend" Preston Tucker or the Tucker Corporation, because no offense had been committed.

 

The prosecution's witnesses claimed that Tucker had misused investor's money for his own benefit. When the defense asked for the proof that Tucker had done anything illegal, the prosecution witnesses had no answer. And the jury agreed–not guilty on all counts.

 

In regards to the accusation that Tucker was running a scam, and never really intended to mass produce a car, the facts say otherwise. Literally hundreds of thousands of engineering drawings, documents, etc. have been collected by Tucker enthusiasts that tend to bolster the case that Tucker indeed was planning on mass producing his car. At the time of Tucker's trial, the Tucker Corporation had almost 2,000 employees, including engineers and machinists. Why would Tucker have hired a staff if his real intent was merely to scam investors?

 

While we may never know the whole truth, all the available evidence points to the Big Three and their various agents actively trying, and eventually succeeding, in shutting down Tucker and his upstart car company.

 

So no... the Tucker wasn't a "flop." It never had the chance to compete in the marketplace.



#35 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,122 posts

Posted 02 May 2014 - 02:51 PM

 

That's the general perception.

 

The SEC investigation into the "fraud" that Preston Tucker was supposedly trying to pull was the work of persons with an interest in, and beholden to, the Big Three, most notably influential Michigan senator Homer Ferguson. There were various forces at work that did their best to throw roadblocks in Tucker's way. For example, the Tucker Corporation mysteriously had a hard time buying steel, while the Big Three had no such problem. And the behind-the-scenes shenanigans went on and on.

 

During Tucker's trial, the prosecution tried to make the case that Tucker never had any intention of actually mass-producing an automobile, and that what he really was doing was selling phony dealerships to unsuspecting investors. When it came time for the defense to present their case, Tucker's lawyers didn't call anyone to the stand. They said simply that there is no need to "defend" Preston Tucker or the Tucker Corporation, because no offense had been committed.

 

The prosecution's witnesses claimed that Tucker had misused investor's money for his own benefit. When the defense asked for the proof that Tucker had done anything illegal, the prosecution witnesses had no answer. And the jury agreed–not guilty on all counts.

 

In regards to the accusation that Tucker was running a scam, and never really intended to mass produce a car, the facts say otherwise. Literally hundreds of thousands of engineering drawings, documents, etc. have been collected by Tucker enthusiasts that tend to bolster the case that Tucker indeed was planning on mass producing his car. At the time of Tucker's trial, the Tucker Corporation had almost 2,000 employees, including engineers and machinists. Why would Tucker have hired a staff if his real intent was merely to scam investors?

 

While we may never know the whole truth, all the available evidence points to the Big Three and their various agents actively trying, and eventually succeeding, in shutting down Tucker and his upstart car company.

 

So no... the Tucker wasn't a "flop." It never had the chance to compete in the marketplace.

Chances are, even had the court case not happened, that Tucker would not have survived past the production cycle of the original 1948 model, given that the company was very thinly financed.  For example, Chevrolet Division of GM spent more money restyling and modestly re-engineering their 1941-vintage chassis for 1949 than Tucker Corporation ever had in the bank account.  Also consider that Kaiser-Frazer failed to made any serious impact in the postwar auto industry despite the then tremendous capital resources of Kaiser Industries (then flush with wartime profits from shipbuilding).

 

Preston Tucker had acquired a reputation by the war as a promoter extraordinaire--just dig up old Henry Ford, ask about the 1935 Tucker/Miller/Ford Indianapolis race car project.  And yet, the Tucker family remained in business in Indiana for decades--FC Tucker, Indiana's largest realty firm was started by siblings of Preston Tucker.

 

Art



#36 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,880 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 02 May 2014 - 02:56 PM

Chances are, even had the court case not happened, that Tucker would not have survived past the production cycle of the original 1948 model...

 

We'll never know that.

 

Tucker never had the chance to succeed... or fail. They had their legs cut out from under them by the interests of the Big Three before the car was ever able to enter the marketplace.



#37 drball

drball

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Location:Fountain Hills, Arizona
  • Full Name:Dale R. Ballard

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:01 PM

Me three.
 
And I'm surprised the Homeowner's Assn. hasn't shot the guy working on the Mustang at the top of Greg's post #19. Oh, I know. All the other houses are empty bank repos. <_<

In our town all you have to do is call the city compliance officer-the home owner is warned then fined.

#38 1930fordpickup

1930fordpickup

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,634 posts
  • Location:Michigan/Ohio border
  • Full Name:Andy Lemble

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:42 PM

Well said Harry both points. 

Well said Art also. 

What if is the name of this game. Much like what if they made this or that kit.



#39 Tom Geiger

Tom Geiger

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,696 posts
  • Location:Exton, PA
  • Full Name:Tom Geiger

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:43 PM

And I'm surprised the Homeowner's Assn. hasn't shot the guy working on the Mustang at the top of Greg's post #19. Oh, I know. All the other houses are empty bank repos. <_<

 

Yea, my HOA would have a coronary over that Mustang!  The bylaws specifically mention "no outdoor maintenance of motor vehicles".  My driveway is long enough and sheltered enough that they can't see what I'm up to anyway.



#40 Robberbaron

Robberbaron

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:Bedford Falls (soon to be Pottersfield)
  • Full Name:Robert J. Barron

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:51 PM

This is reminiscent of  Luc Janssens $25,000.00 new kit challenge. :o


My apologies if I'm rehashing a topic that's already been covered. Well, I know it's KIND OF been covered before, but I don't recall the emphasis on "practicality", if you will. If that was Luc's angle, we'll just say that great minds think alike! ;)