The Tucker 48 Could Have Saved America

[Daniel1611]

Maybe the title of the thread is a bit hyperbolic, but Preston Tucker and his 1948 Tucker Sedan could have made America a much different place.

For those who don't know... In 1948, Preston Tucker introduced the Tucker 48 (a.k.a. The Tucker Torpedo), a car way ahead of it's time. Now, I love classic American cars. But when it comes down to it, they were typically big, gas-eating hunks of metal that often times weren't very safe. But Preston Tucker introduced an American car that was not only a beautiful car, but that was innovated. It was very fuel efficient by 1948 standards. It also has pop-out safety glass, lightweight aluminum boxer engines, disc brakes, steerable headlights, padded dashboards and other innovations. It was way ahead of it's time.

Then, basically, the Big Three American Automakers (Ford, Chrysler and GM) feared competition from Tucker and his innovative design. So the Big Three got their cronies in the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and US Senate to go after Tucker's company on trumped up charges of stock fraud. Go figure that when the company finally closed down amidst the scandal, their balance sheets showed $16 million in assets (a fortune at the time) and only $2 million in liabilities. And never mind that officials that lead the charges against Tucker were later convicted of bribery and other crimes.

But what if Tucker's company had survived? For one, there would have been many more innovations in automabiles. American cars would have been even better. There would have been four major companies all in fierce competition. With better cars made by competitive American companies, Americans would not have been so likely to buy foreign cars when they began to be imported in the 1960's. The economic recession of the 70's and 80's wouldn't have been nearly as deep. And without so much foreign competition, American car makers would still be booming and the current recession wouldn't have been so bad.

With the innovations that Tucker made in the 40's, who knows where we would be today in terms of quality, energy efficient, affordable American cars?

The case of Preston Tucker and his innovative automobiles is a prime example of the disasters of corporatism and crony capitalism.

 

[The Berean]

Preston Tucker was his own worst enemy. He was a poor businessman which was a major reason from his downfall. He made a series of horrendous, and borderline unethical/illegal, business decisions that doomed his auto company.

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-tucker-car-did-the-big-guys-do-it-in


I find it hard to believe that any top manager of a Big Three company actually gave more than a few minutes’ thought to the Tucker venture, let alone conspired to destroy him. While Detroit’s auto executives would have been curious about any new car, they would have been quick to see that the Tucker program was likely to unravel by itself. They were also in the midst of an extraordinary sellers’ market in the late 1940s and had little apprehension that a new competitor might sweep the industry. Nor was there need to fear that failure to bring out a glitzy new body design would cause loss of market share. Though some of them may have admired Tucker’s body design, all of them had new aerodynamic models in progress and planned for early introduction. Studebaker and Hudson, in fact, did beat the Big Three to the market with aerodynamic designs, and yet this did not help them survive in the long run.

Even if Tucker had offered a truly revolutionary car, it’s doubtful that Detroit’s managers would have panicked about possible “losses of billions” in the future, as the Coppola movie suggests. The Big Three automakers already knew how to design “dream” cars, as both GM and Chrysler did just before World War II. Their concern was not the design of such cars, but the cost constraints of getting them into production. Again, there is far more required for automotive success than just having a great car. Any top executive of GM or Ford, in looking over the Tucker car, would have immediately questioned whether it could be put into production to support the low sales price Tucker had promised. There would have been questions about its likelihood of giving trouble-free performance and whether the car really delivered the excellent gas mileage promised. And it would have raised some eyebrows if it had been known that Tucker had sneaked reworked Cord transmissions into the car rather than designing his own.

 

[patrick jane]

Maybe the title of the thread is a bit hyperbolic, but Preston Tucker and his 1948 Tucker Sedan could have made America a much different place.

For those who don't know... In 1948, Preston Tucker introduced the Tucker 48 (a.k.a. The Tucker Torpedo), a car way ahead of it's time. Now, I love classic American cars. But when it comes down to it, they were typically big, gas-eating hunks of metal that often times weren't very safe. But Preston Tucker introduced an American car that was not only a beautiful car, but that was innovated. It was very fuel efficient by 1948 standards. It also has pop-out safety glass, lightweight aluminum boxer engines, disc brakes, steerable headlights, padded dashboards and other innovations. It was way ahead of it's time.

Then, basically, the Big Three American Automakers (Ford, Chrysler and GM) feared competition from Tucker and his innovative design. So the Big Three got their cronies in the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and US Senate to go after Tucker's company on trumped up charges of stock fraud. Go figure that when the company finally closed down amidst the scandal, their balance sheets showed $16 million in assets (a fortune at the time) and only $2 million in liabilities. And never mind that officials that lead the charges against Tucker were later convicted of bribery and other crimes.

But what if Tucker's company had survived? For one, there would have been many more innovations in automabiles. American cars would have been even better. There would have been four major companies all in fierce competition. With better cars made by competitive American companies, Americans would not have been so likely to buy foreign cars when they began to be imported in the 1960's. The economic recession of the 70's and 80's wouldn't have been nearly as deep. And without so much foreign competition, American car makers would still be booming and the current recession wouldn't have been so bad.

With the innovations that Tucker made in the 40's, who knows where we would be today in terms of quality, energy efficient, affordable American cars?

The case of Preston Tucker and his innovative automobiles is a prime example of the disasters of corporatism and crony capitalism.

i'm sure you saw that movie with Jeff Bridges. that car was ahead of it's time and really scared the BIG companies. like Ford scared the big guys back in his day. Ford had to "get approval" from a group or automotive association to start a car company. the association claimed a patent on the IDEA of the automobile. they denied Ford, he sued and won. we know, at about the same time period in America - Buick, Cadillac, Olds etc, became GM. then bla bla, the Big 3 (Dodge/Chrysler/Amc/Jeep/Willy's Kaiser/ etc.

it really kind of started with Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Carnegie, etc. even before them. big companies buy or eliminate the competition, or merge. it is the American way ?

cars could be so much cheaper, so much better, unlimited mileage, they could last 30 years or more. perhaps we could have done these things 50 years ago ? car makers like to take things slow, so they always have a few new exciting things each year. we get excited by the gradual progress in available new technology and options.

in Cuba they're driving 60 year old cars. i love antique and classic cars and engines, not the same anymore - atrol:
P.S - The Big Auto/Industrial/Big trucks/trailers etc., DO become aware of new innovations and technologies and absorb it, or make it too "difficult" for the small guy to succeed. or stifle it somehow, saving it for later. not always, but whenever they can. it's just business ? -

 

[The Berean]

Guys, Tucker's car hardly "scared the Big 3". That's just Hollywood nonsense. The Jeff Bridges film is full of historical inaccuracies and myth.

Manufacturing cars is incredibly expensive, complex, and time consuming just from an engineering point of view let alone the manufacturing, business and marketing ends. Preston Tucker had no idea how to run a large company and his own people told him so early on. He engaged in shady business practices that were borderline unethical. From the link I posted previously.

Whatever the effect SEC leaks might have had on Tucker’s venture, his failure to raise more capital can be easily explained by the ordinary behavior of the investment market. The surprising thing is not that Tucker failed to finance his venture. What’s really surprising is that he found investors and dealers who were gullible enough to risk $26 million with him. With or without the SEC, the stock market has an intelligence of its own and puts values on shares after they have been sold. Though Tucker was able to milk thousands of small, trusting investors, he was not likely to tap into shrewder ones who realized how speculative his entire venture had become. Price is the stock market’s way of expressing opinion about company values, and in Tucker’s case the share prices plummeted as facts began to surface, virtually foreclosing any hope of raising funds with new equity offerings.

 

[Daniel1611]

When Tucker's company shut down, the balance sheets showed $16million is assets and only $2million in liabilities. Hardly a "horrendous" business man. The Big Three certainly conspired against him. Any innovator who goes against the grain is stamped out by the establishment, whether it be Preston Tucker, or to a greater extent, Nikola Tesla.

 

[The Berean]

When Tucker's company shut down, the balance sheets showed $16million is assets and only $2million in liabilities. Hardly a "horrendous" business man.

Documentation please?

The Big Three certainly conspired against him.

Evidence please? Most likely the Big 3 laughed at him and his lack of planning and organizational skills.

Any innovator who goes against the grain is stamped out by the establishment, whether it be Preston Tucker, or to a greater extent, Nikola Tesla.

What exactly did Tucker innovate? His car sucked. His prototype, the "Tin Goose", was a mess. He had no plans on how to mass produce the Tucker 48. Tuckers suckered a bunch of investors to invest a lot of money early on and Tucker pretty much wasted all that money.

For two years, Tucker’s “Tin Goose,” as it became known, seemed to fly fairly high. For his company headquarters, Tucker managed to obtain from the War Assets Administration a huge Chicago plant which Dodge had operated during World War II. Early success in selling stock and dealerships eventually brought in about $26 million. Though the responsive public became restive over Tucker’s failure to produce a car, he finally displayed one in a highly dramatized showing on July 19, 1947. Now called the Tucker “48,” the display model captivated crowds with its aerodynamic design, rear-mounted engine, and such supposedly advanced safety features as a Cyclops center headlight which turned with the wheels and a windshield to pop out in an accident.

Though the display model also drew record crowds when Tucker took it on tour, it turned out that the vehicle had been hastily put together and actually had no reverse gear at the original showing. The suspension system had failed and had been frantically rebuilt just before the show. Some of the body had been fabricated around a 1942 Oldsmobile body. The more serious problem was that Tucker apparently had no sound plan or even blueprints for getting the car into real production. The 51 Tucker cars actually produced were hand-built models fabricated at enormous cost. One example of Tucker’s profligate ways was revealed in his procurement of transmissions. Tucker obtained salvaged transmissions from the defunct Cord automobile, and then paid a hop owned by his family $223,105 to rework 25 of them. With such weird practices, it’s not surprising that by late 1948 the firm was all but bankrupt. By early 1949 it was all over, with less than $70,000 remaining of the nearly $26 million raised by Tucker from trusting shareholders and would-be dealers.

 

[Daniel1611]

Documentation please?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0110127-48_1_alex-tremulis-tucker-corp-engine

 

[The Berean]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0110127-48_1_alex-tremulis-tucker-corp-engine

That's a newspaper article from February 1, 2011. There are no references. Where did they get that information? The information I have states that Tucker raised $26 million and by the time the doors closed on the company they only had $70,000 left.

http://journal.apee.org/index.php?action=ajax&rs=GDMgetFile&rsargs[]=Fall2008 12.pdf

Conclusion
Despite the portrayal of an alliance between the automotive
industry and the SEC to bring down the Tucker Corporation in the
1988 movie Tucker: The Man and His Dream, historians have found no
evidence of a conspiracy. Rather, historical evidence suggests that the
demise of the Tucker Corporation was the result of two problems.
First, the company’s lack of financial planning led to continual crises.
Tucker’s refusal to utilize conventional bank loans combined with the
company’s attempt to sell dealerships and stock before building a car
prototype scared away normal venture capital. Second, unable to sell
additional stock or dealerships, the Tucker Corporation needed
money to start producing cars. With no inventory to sell and the
SEC’s determination that pre-selling car features was illegal, the
Tucker Corporation was financially bankrupt.

 

[rexlunae]

Maybe the title of the thread is a bit hyperbolic, but Preston Tucker and his 1948 Tucker Sedan could have made America a much different place.

Eh, maybe, but it's not a car that really would have saved the world. The real car that the car companies killed that could have saved the world was called the EV-1.

http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/

 

[Daniel1611]

Eh, maybe, but it's not a car that really would have saved the world. The real car that the car companies killed that could have saved the world was called the EV-1.

http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/

I never heard of the EV-1. I'll look into that. Glad you brought it up. As for the Tucker 48, I just think that if this car had been mass produced, it would have created more competition amongst the auto makers and would have mostly kept the Japanese cars and what not out of America. And if it did, the economy wouldn't have dropped so much in the 70's/80's and in 2008. And I think cars would be a lot better and cooler too.

 

[The Berean]

The reason the Japanese automakers made major inroads in America was because of their quality cars. Japanese automakers embraced new management and engineering quality principles after WW II. The American automakers refused to do this. This all started with an American engineer named William Edwards Deming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming


Deming created the 14-Points for Total Management. These principles are designed to improve a company's quality.

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.

3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

6. Institute training on the job.

7. Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.

8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.

9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
•Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
•Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

11. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.

12. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective.

13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.

14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.


Japan embraced Deming's ideas and revolutionized the auto industry. American automakers took decades to catch up because they refused to change. It wasn't until 1981 that Ford Motor Company hired Deming to help them improve their quality. This documentary describes in detail how Deming's principles revolutionized Japan and how America fell behind.

.

.

.

 

[rexlunae]

I never heard of the EV-1.

I'm sure that's quite intentional, on the part of GM.

I'll look into that.

I highly recommend the documentary I linked. I know it's really long, but it'll suck you in and make your blood boil.

Glad you brought it up. As for the Tucker 48, I just think that if this car had been mass produced, it would have created more competition amongst the auto makers and would have mostly kept the Japanese cars and what not out of America. And if it did, the economy wouldn't have dropped so much in the 70's/80's and in 2008. And I think cars would be a lot better and cooler too.

At the end of the day, I think it would have been another car in the market. And it might have been great in its day. But I don't think it would have kept out the Toyota and Honda and Mitsubishi, or the Korean makers a few years later. And I wouldn't have wanted it to anyway. Our auto makers should compete and try to make the best cars, because it makes cars better for everyone. The more closed the market is, the easier it is for pathological capitalism to occur, where competition isn't done on the basis of quality or price, but on power, market dominance, and control of politicians.

 

[The Berean]

Eh, maybe, but it's not a car that really would have saved the world. The real car that the car companies killed that could have saved the world was called the EV-1.

http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/

I'll have to check out the documentary. For years I've wondered about what really happened to the EV-1. I once had the pleasure of meeting legendary aircraft designer Burt Rutan in the mid 1990's. He had a red EV-1 at the time. He even let one of guys in our group drive it!

 

[rexlunae]

I'll have to check out the documentary. For years I've wondered about what really happened to the EV-1. I once had the pleasure of meeting legendary aircraft designer Burt Rutan in the mid 1990's. He had a red EV-1 at the time. He even let one of guys in our group drive it!

In brief, it seems that the car companies, GM in particular, wanted to keep EVs from catching on. I have a coworker who, in a previous job, worked at AeroVironment (after the car had been disavowed by GM), the company that made the EV-1 for GM, and they were pretty baffled by how the company handled it too.

I drive an EV now, and it's amazing. And it was made by Chrysler/Fiat, who really, really didn't want to make it. They still want to sell cars by tying them to sex, and convincing you that you aren't a man if they aren't noisy and overpowered. But CARB's ZEV mandate is back on track after a detour into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which have always been a distraction.

Toyota has twice made an EV version of the RAV4, which I believe is the only production SUV that's been made as an EV to date. Once was back in the era of the EV-1. And then they made it again in partnership with Tesla from 2012-2014. Sadly, they discontinued it in favor of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that is supposed to come out this fall, called the Mirai. There's a joke about hydrogen fuel cells, which goes that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and it always will be. I don't know if it was a deliberate reference or not, but "mirai" is the Japanese word for "future". It's a pity they don't see EVs as the future.

 

[The Berean]

I watched the first hour of the film. I'll watch the rest later tonight. It answered several questions I had. I had always wondered why GM put such effort in designing and building a good electric vehicle if they had no real desire to build one.? I was not aware that they had contracted out the design and prototyping to AeroVironment. It's hard to gauge the number of people who wanted to an electric vehicle. The hardcore EV-1 owners were quite public and loud about how they felt about. But where their views and sentiments held by a larger majority? GM claimed there wasn't a large market for the EV-1. They only leased just over 1,100 EV-1's. The automaker's reaction to CARB was predictable as always.

 

[rexlunae]

It's hard to gauge the number of people who wanted to an electric vehicle. The hardcore EV-1 owners were quite public and loud about how they felt about. But where their views and sentiments held by a larger majority? GM claimed there wasn't a large market for the EV-1. They only leased just over 1,100 EV-1's. The automaker's reaction to CARB was predictable as always.

That in itself is a matter of the choices car makers make. There are now quite a few good EVs on the market, and yet you hear almost no advertising for them. And yet, Tesla still does essentially no advertising, and they can't make cars fast enough, even at $70k entry level. There's a market for EVs that are cool, and that fill the need, but the car companies would still rather try to convince you that the main thing you need in a car is proof of manhood (see Chrysler/Fiat's current line of commercials about things you don't do in a Dodge).

 

[patrick jane]

That in itself is a matter of the choices car makers make. There are now quite a few good EVs on the market, and yet you hear almost no advertising for them. And yet, Tesla still does essentially no advertising, and they can't make cars fast enough, even at $70k entry level. There's a market for EVs that are cool, and that fill the need, but the car companies would still rather try to convince you that the main thing you need in a car is proof of manhood (see Chrysler/Fiat's current line of commercials about things you don't do in a Dodge).

i agree with a lot of that, getting back to the Tucker, i used the wrong wording saying the Big 3 were scared. they simply stifle or acquire technology and innovation. advertising is key, the dealership mentality is key. gas/oil needs more gas/oil vehicles. i think Tucker had a car that may have become credible. i still think back to what Henry Ford had to do to start his company. the Tucker was different, looked good and with advertising and hype, and given an even chance, who knows ? there was a 'big' car company called St.Louis Motor Carriage Co. - founded: 1898 - 1907 closed - absorbed - atrol:

View attachment 19671

View attachment 19672

View attachment 19673



View attachment 19675


wrong pic there in thumbnail

 

[The Berean]

That in itself is a matter of the choices car makers make. There are now quite a few good EVs on the market, and yet you hear almost no advertising for them. And yet, Tesla still does essentially no advertising, and they can't make cars fast enough, even at $70k entry level. There's a market for EVs that are cool, and that fill the need, but the car companies would still rather try to convince you that the main thing you need in a car is proof of manhood (see Chrysler/Fiat's current line of commercials about things you don't do in a Dodge).

Are people buying the Tesla Model S because it is the best car for them or because it is a "cool tech toy"? I sometimes go running on a trail before work near my work in Palo Alto. A few months ago as I was parking a lady was parking her Model S. I was curious about the how the car really runs so I struck up a short conversation with her. I asked her about how the car runs and the quality. She said the car runs well but she's had several annoying quality issues. Tesla Motors has sent staff to her home on several occasions to fix the problems but a few have persisted. She mentioned that she noticed that some assembly parts do seem to quite fit together properly. And she's had a software bug that the Tesla Motors staff hasn't been able to solve. Still, she said she was happy with the car overall but in her opinion Tesla Motors should have delayed the introduction of the Model S by at least a year to hammer out these issues. They way she spoke I am pretty sure this lady was an engineer as well. Plus, she was Indian and it's highly likely she works in some high tech industry.

It is important that a company like Telsa Motors is out there pushing the technology boundaries for electric vehicles. Still, they are struggling to make a profit. And it doesn't help that Tesla Motors treats its employees like crap. They have significant employee turnover. That has to hurt their efficiency and ability to pushing the cutting edge technology.

 

[The Berean]

Daniel1611, no more Tucker Torpedo talk?

 

[patrick jane]

i agree with a lot of that, getting back to the Tucker, i used the wrong wording saying the Big 3 were scared. they simply stifle or acquire technology and innovation. advertising is key, the dealership mentality is key. gas/oil needs more gas/oil vehicles. i think Tucker had a car that may have become credible. i still think back to what Henry Ford had to do to start his company. the Tucker was different, looked good and with advertising and hype, and given an even chance, who knows ? there was a 'big' car company called St.Louis Motor Carriage Co. - founded: 1898 - 1907 closed - absorbed - atrol:

View attachment 19671

View attachment 19672

View attachment 19673



View attachment 19675


wrong pic there in thumbnail

bump for Stl - not the tucker