Harold Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) It's true, Tucker got screwed big time from all sides. Sen. Homer Ferguson and the Big Three did everything they could to bring him down, and when the SEC joined the party is was all over for Tucker. Ironically, at the trial he was found not guilty... but by then it was too late. True, the movie takes a bit of "artistic license" with reality, but it's a great movie regardless. The big three could have been less than concerned with Tucker. He had been an industry gadfly since the thirties, and he was seen as a fast- talking con man. After the war, the Big Three were more concerned with getting new product out as soon as possible, and they could have cared less about someone who would sell (at most) 100,000 cars per year. Tucker was priced up against the junior Packards and Lincolns, and the senior Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Chryslers. Heck, even KF had trouble peddling their wares after the sellers market abated by 1948. Add to this the fact that the Tucker styling was locked in by 1945, and would have seemed outdated by 1950- '51, which would have necessitated a major overhaul of the product. Even old- line name companies like Packard and Studebaker had trouble coming up with the change to restyle on the 3- year cycles that the Big Three worked on. I see Tucker as more Hollywood "Big business is bad" tripe (apparently, theirs is the only 'big business' that is pure and holy). Edited March 22, 2010 by Harold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 How about the 1771 Cugnot? Already been mentioned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Already been mentioned! Well, that's what I get for being sick (physically) for a week and staying offline... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 The big three could have been less than concerned with Tucker. He had been an industry gadfly since the thirties, and he was seen as a fast- talking con man. After the war, the Big Three were more concerned with getting new product out as soon as possible, and they could have cared less about someone who would sell (at most) 100,000 cars per year. Tucker was priced up against the junior Packards and Lincolns, and the senior Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Chryslers. Heck, even KF had trouble peddling their wares after the sellers market abated by 1948. Add to this the fact that the Tucker styling was locked in by 1945, and would have seemed outdated by 1950- '51, which would have necessitated a major overhaul of the product. Even old- line name companies like Packard and Studebaker had trouble coming up with the change to restyle on the 3- year cycles that the Big Three worked on. I see Tucker as more Hollywood "Big business is bad" tripe (apparently, theirs is the only 'big business' that is pure and holy). I think Homer Ferguson needed the support of the UAW members in order to get re-elected. And I'm pretty sure the UAW (and by association the Detroit automakers) didn't exactly look forward to potential new competition. There was probably no organized "conspiracy" to screw Tucker, but Ferguson worked with the SEC behind the scenes to go after Tucker. Tucker brought a lot of his problems onto himself, by not obtaining conventional bank loans to finance the company and pay the lease on the Chicago plant that he was awarded by the War Assets Administration (for the amount he wanted, the banks demanded control of the corporation; Tucker wouldn't agree)... instead, to raise needed capital he sold dealership franchises and "pre-sold" Tucker accessories to potential customers before he even had an assembly line up and running. He had every intention of producing cars, but his "unconventional" fundraising techniques were the excuse the SEC needed to put him on trial–they contended that pre-selling accessories was fraud. He was found not guilty, but by then the company was bankrupt. Looks like Tucker was too innovative for his own good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 How about the 1771 Cugnot?[ A fine vehicle but it couldn't steer! Griff Borgeson researched the history of this vehicle and apparently it was demonstrated once and it ran into a brick wall! Editorial cartoons in contemporary newspapers showed multiples of the Cugnot driving every which way in Paris and all smashing into buildings. It is the earliest known example of a full-size self propelled vehicle. The one on display in Paris is apparently a very old replica - older than most cars! The original was long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 A fine vehicle but it couldn't steer! Details, details... Actually, it could steer (notice the "handlebars" in the photo?) The problem was, with the weight of that big old honkin' boiler sitting on the front end, it took the strength of a gorilla to actually steer it! And back then people were "daintier" and couldn't do it! BTW...according to sources that baby could attain a top speed of 2 mph. Wow, that's almost as fast as walking!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Looks like Tucker was too innovative for his own good... Innovative financially for sure! I think the car was good but would have sputtered out eventually even if it had gone into production. Tucker was too fast and loose with many of his ventures like the Ford/Miller Indy cars. Good cars but the deal was semi-shady. He persuaded Edsel to do it and when Henry found out it was too late to stop it without greater embarassment. It really stressed Miller's financial health which was poor to start with. Odd footnote - When my parents were young newlyweds they lived in Ypsilanti in the early 50s. One of their friends lived in a duplex and the other tenant was Alex Tremulis. They met him once or twice but didn't get to know him or anything. They liked his name so my older brother got named Alex. My dad said he remembered seeing an occasional Tucker driving around town. I was born in Ann Arbor in 57 and then we moved to the wilds of Minnesota! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) BTW...according to sources that baby could attain a top speed of 2 mph. Wow, that's almost as fast as walking!!! That's more like strolling! Also, could steer and did steer are two different things! Edited March 22, 2010 by Modelmartin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Also, could steer and did steer are two different things! Let's say it could steer... in theory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Innovative financially for sure! I give him an A+ for chutzpah! It sure would be interesting to see how the car would have evolved if the Tucker Corporation had actually been successful. Pure speculation on my part, but I think as things evolved they would have gradually found a way to add the things Tucker wanted at first but were scrapped due to budget (disc brakes, FI, etc.)... who knows, Tuckers might have become really innovative, cutting edge cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Speaking of landmarks in automotive history, I think we should acknowledge the low points such as the cookie-cutter trend that gained speed in the '60s, reached its worst notoriety with the K-car and persists to this day. Edited March 22, 2010 by sjordan2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Speaking of landmarks in automotive history, I think we should acknowledge the low points such as the cookie-cutter trend that gained speed in the '60s, reached its worst notoriety with the K-car and persists to this day. I kind of disagree with knocking the K-car program. Given the financial situation Chrysler was in then, the whole K-car platform/program was a pretty shrewd, and ultimately successful, move. And remember, Chrysler paid back every cent that the government loaned them. And paid it back before it was due. I see the K-car era of Chrysler as making the best of a tough situation. I actually see Chrysler's K-car era as a success, not a low point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I kind of disagree with knocking the K-car program. Given the financial situation Chrysler was in then, the whole K-car platform/program was a pretty shrewd, and ultimately successful, move. And remember, Chrysler paid back every cent that the government loaned them. And paid it back before it was due. I see the K-car era of Chrysler as making the best of a tough situation. I actually see Chrysler's K-car era as a success, not a low point. A success for Chrysler, a low point for discerning consumers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 A success for Chrysler, a low point for discerning consumers. I don't see how the K-cars were any more "inferior" than what GM and Ford were building at that time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaronw Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 The DS was a pretty amazing car for its time. They actually were fairly reliable at some point, they lasted forever if rust was kept in check. The hydraulic system might have been a bit prone to leaks as they got older. Having ridden in one in the '70's, it was very Lexus-like for the time; amazing comfort...very quiet, a cloud-like ride. Also very fuel-efficient for the time, but also a very slow car. The springy floor and the weird "on-off" switch for a brake pedal, the 4-on-the-tree manual transmission, the rotating drum speedometer...the car looked pretty weird but it was definitely a very unconventional car with a lot of influence worldwide. As history goes, it's definitely got a spot on the top 100 cars of all time. My Dad owned a couple of them in the early 1960s, it just happens he is visiting so I asked him about the cars. He loved them, and said it was one of the nicest cars he ever owned. What I thought were reliability problems were actually cost / availability of parts problems. He had one with a manual transmission that he said was trouble free but was pretty beat up when he got it, so he traded it in for a nice one with an automatic trans. Eventually the transmission went out and it was going to cost him way more than he could afford to fix it (if the mechanic could even get parts) so he sold it. The ride height was adjustable, low for performance, high for bad roads. Also adjustable for stiffness. To change a tire you set it at the highest ride height, then placed a special jack stand under the car, then when you lowered the suspension down to the lowest setting the wheel raised off the ground allowing you to change the tire. It also had a crank start in case the starter failed. It was front wheel drive when that was rare. He said he was stopped once driving in the snow and he had to explain that he had the chains on the front wheels because they were the wheels with the power. He said it took a little convincing before the officer would believe him. The Citroen was replaced with a VW Bug by the time I was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaronw Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) I don't see how the K-cars were any more "inferior" than what GM and Ford were building at that time... The K-cars were my preferred rental car at one time. I actually thought they were a pretty decent car for an entry level sedan, much nicer than a Chevy Citation or Ford Fairmont. Edited March 23, 2010 by Aaronw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Sometimes cars that are successful for a car company are pretty awful cars from an enthusiasts standpoint. The already mentioned K-car, Chevette, Vega and variants, Granada and variants, Citation, Cavalier, Escort. All of these sold well for years and none will be missed! I would even argue that a car as succesful as a Corolla is just a transportation appliance and an underwhelming car from the enthusiast standpoint. On the other hand look at all of the various makes of cars over the years that enthusiasts raved about which wouldn't know success if it ran it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimnohio Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 and GTO is not gas tires and oil. In 65, my dad had a 442. He said GTO stood for "Go To Oldsmobile". I think the Grand Nationals were significant in the modern era. Proving speed could be obtained from a factory 6 cylinder! Most significant in my time, the 64 GTO...starting (argueably) the muscle car era! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 First front wheel drive fullsize domestic car with a V8, the toronado. Actually, the 1936 Cord 810 had front drive and a V-8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 1957 Forward Look cars from Chrysler- these things sent GM back to the drawing boards. 1961 Lincoln Continental. Proof that a downsized luxury car could be a winning proposition. 1965 Mustang. 'Nuff said. 1958 Edsel. On the perils of consumer research. 1936 Cord 810. FWD, V-8, unit construction, retractable headlights and enough pizazz to make Buck Rogers envious. 1932 Ford V-8. Power to the people. 1908 Model T. The world gets a set of wheels. 1953 Studebaker Starliner/ Starlight. One of the greatest designs ever. 1951 Kaiser Manhattan. Darrin's masterpiece. 1962 GT Hawk. Brooks Stevens changed everything, yet changed nothing, on a shoestring budget. 1962 Avanti. Studebaker's last performance gasp. 1957- '59 Skyliner. A technological sideshow from the age of excess. 1983 Thunderbird. Proof that smaller cars does not mean unattractive cars. 1984 Continental Mk. VII. see above. 1993 Probe. Pure Design, along with its sister car, the Mazda 6. 1989 GM 'W' cars (Grand Prix, Regal and Cutlass). Same basic platform, each with a distinct look and personality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAL Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 In 65, my dad had a 442. He said GTO stood for "Go To Oldsmobile". I think the Grand Nationals were significant in the modern era. Proving speed could be obtained from a factory 6 cylinder! Most significant in my time, the 64 GTO...starting (argueably) the muscle car era! It is actually Italian Gran Turismo Omologato E.I. homologated for racing in the Grand touring class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan White Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 1993 Probe. Pure Design, along with its sister car, the Mazda 6. The Probe is a key moment, but I wouldn't say for that reason. Ford was thinking of having the Probe be a replacement for the Mustang, to compete with the Integra and such. Mustang fans said "hell no!", so they used it to instead replace the Ford EXP (which was a sports coupe based on the Escort). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Winter Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) The Probe is a key moment, but I wouldn't say for that reason. Ford was thinking of having the Probe be a replacement for the Mustang, to compete with the Integra and such. Mustang fans said "hell no!", so they used it to instead replace the Ford EXP (which was a sports coupe based on the Escort). Probe what a freakin' name, who fell asleep in the proof reading department. Edited March 23, 2010 by Dukefan69' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdiego Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) The same geniuses who named the new Willie Wonka candy bars "Wazoo" and "Kazoozles", which bring to mind the body part that made the "probe" thing uncomfortable Edited March 23, 2010 by samdiego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdiego Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) That wasn't so much an automotive milestone as a business milestone. But'cha gotta admit, the Model T changed the automotive landscape, that's highly significant. Edited March 23, 2010 by samdiego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.