Harry P.

Not to mention a full page obituary/eulogy in the magazine!

"To post or not to post, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of forum member's comments, or keep 'em in the dark!" -Bill Shakespeare

If you'd rather not post photos, that's fine! You can still be part of this place without posting.

Take the fact that I'm paying attention to you as a compliment...

Wow! I hope you got out ok!

I don't think you'd drive a concours-restored T down that dirt horsecart path either...

I guess that's a debate for another post...

Ok, at this point I've forgotten the question... The post asked which cars were significant in the development of the automobile. Everyone agrees the Model T belongs on the list. That was never in question. Then someone said that pricing the T so that everyone could afford one should be on the "landmark" list... to which I answered, no... we're talking about landmark cars, not landmark business accomplishments. To which someone said, but gee, dontcha have to admit the Model T was a significant car? To which I said, yeah, we all already have agreed on that, but Ford figuring out how to sell cars cheaply is not an item that belongs on a list of landmark automobiles. Well, that's about as clear as I can be without resorting to flip charts or other visual aids. Your turn...

I guess we're arguing semantics here. Yes, the Model T was a significant car, for all the reasons you mentioned. If it had sold for three times the price it would still have been a significant landmark automobile. And in fact in the beginning it did sell for about three times what it ultimately went for. But bringing that price down... selling the cars at a price that the average family could afford, was in some ways related to the Model T itself, the Model T being a relatively simple car, with few parts and easy to assemble quickly and cheaply. But my point is that Ford's business practices would have worked regardless of whether the car they were building at the time was the T, the Model A, or any other car. So I see the affordability of the T as a separate accomplishment, a business landmark; as opposed to the T itself, an automotive landmark. Like I said, it depends on your definition of "cars would you say were instrumental in developing the automobile into what it is today"... as the post asks. Ok, enough pontificating from me.

Of course they were cut! How in the world could he get the models in there otherwise???

Yeah, the Model T was an automotive landmark. I think it's on just about everyone's list of milestone cars. The question originally asked, though, was which cars were automotive milestones. Making cars affordable for the working man wasn't a milestone in automotive development; it was a milestone in business/marketing. Henry Ford had figured out how to build cars economically enough that he could sell cars at a price the average worker could afford... but the Model T itself had nothing to do with that, it was Ford business practices and manufacturing efficiencies that made that possible. Ford's methods would have worked regardless of the car they were building, the Model T just happened to be the car they were building then.

You seem to know way too much about hearses...

L'il Coffin?

Yeah baby! Now yer talkin'! Very nice! You got your 5...

That's because Tamiya does things right. Not like some (ahem) companies who seem to think that "sort of" is good enough...

Hmmm..... kind of a cheerful color for a hearse!

I don't see how the K-cars were any more "inferior" than what GM and Ford were building at that time...

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.

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.

Let's say it could steer... in theory!

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!!!

And the final 1/4 comes when you fix the decals!

Exactly. That should do the trick. The decals crossing the panel lines in one piece is pretty obvious in the photos...

You should have cut the flame decals where they cross the door openings and used setting solution to get them down into the panel lines for a more realistic look. I'm just sayin...

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...