Talk:Tucker 48

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

User 64.25.164.65 - If you sign up a username you can automatically move pages and preserve their edit history rather than moving a page by cutting and pasting. Mintguy

What is the link between Lustron house and this article? --Transfinite 06:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prototype engine

I have heard of many sources claiming that the original 589 engine was a V6, not a flat-6. But I just found other sources claiming it was flat from the start. Anyone have a good definitive reference? --SFoskett 03:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-- -- -- -- Tucker 589 was absolutely a flat six. Speed Age 5/57 has definitive pictures & blueprints, among other sources (including the "Indomitable Tin Goose"- book about Tucker). I have never in 20 years heard of the 589 being referred to as a V-6, but there's loads of bad information on the Internet. Also- production car DID have 4-wheel independant suspension- how could a rear-engined car not? Verified: Collectible Automobile 7/85. --WQ59B

Where is the rest of the page?

the story just stops with the speedway incident. what happens from then until the firm is liquidated?

terrymccarthynyc@yahoo.com

Page Move

After reviewing the documentation this vehicle was never sold or marketed as the "Torpedo" therefore I think having the vehicle's entry as "Torpedo" is incorrect. I moved the page to "1948 Tucker Sedan" because I didn't think "Tucker '48 Sedan" (which is the most common official name) works well in the namespace. "Tucker Torpedo", "Tucker '48" and "Tucker '48 Sedan" all redirect here. --Wgfinley 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed

This article needs to be renamed - Tucker (automobile) would bring it more in line with the current autos and manufacturers listed. It doesn't need the word Sedan nor does it need 1948. So anyone for renaming it? Anyone object? Stude62 19:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the article does not need to be renamed, I just moved it to this location. The reason was this was the official name of the car, previously this page was under "Tucker Torpedo" which was never the name of the car. This car doesn't fit in line with other autos or manufacturers because it's a car company that made a single car and only 50 of them, this car. It is clearly listed under the "Tucker" disambig page so I think anyone who just searches "Tucker" will be able to find it, much like 57 Chevy which also has a unique name. --Wgfinley 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree - the official name of the car isn't "1948 Tucker Sedan", the car is simply a Tucker; if you would like to get technical, its also "Model 48" according to Tucker documents. And that based upon the Standard Catalog of American Cars. And I disagree with you about the Tucker not fitting in with other cars. It may be a milestone built by an independent with a dramatic story behind it, but it has four wheels, an engine and classified as a car. As for the 57 Chevy, that article starts out stating that 57 Chevy is a nickname, it isn't an article on the Chevrolet 150 or the Chevrolet Bel Air. Perhaps a discussion really is in order. Stude62 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tucker (automobile)" would not bring it into line with the other naming conventions. They all have manufacturer followed by model, the only difference with this car is the year is on there as well. However, the vehicle is commonly referred to in company documents and literature as a "Tucker '48" or "Tucker '48 Sedan". This is a difficult naming convention though for technical reasons with the apostrophe so I chose, simply "1948 Tucker Sedan". Simply "Tucker" wouldn't be correct as Tucker designed, though never produced, other automobiles. --Wgfinley 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you've not looked beyond the Big Three or AMC. Viking automobile, Marquette automobile Erskine (automobile) these types of listings exist. And seeing that Tucker only produced a limited number of cars in one body style the 1948 Tucker Sedan is not only unnecessary, but unencyclopedatic. If this article were listed by Britannica, World Book, et. al. the listing would be Tucker, automobile. And besides, the Tucker's are regisitered as Make: "Tucker", Model: "4 Door Sedan" Year: 1948. Now your Tucker registration may be different than ours, but thats the way its spelled out on the Ohio Registration slip, the Standard Catalog of American Cars, its Tucker. Now I have no problem with "Tucker 48", I just think that having 1948 in front of the name is unnecessary, as is the sedan. Stude62 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the Tucker '48 is not Big Three or AMC I don't think the other three makes you threw out are good comparisons. I think that De Lorean Motor Company is a good comparison and the De Lorean DMC-12 has its own page. Obviously that car was made more than one year. I'm just trying to stick with the official name but felt "Tucker '48" was unwieldy for the article name. If you go an look at a lot of the material you'll see a lot of "1948 Tucker Sedan" sprinkled in with a lot more "Tucker '48 Sedan" but the "sedan" while I agree unnecessary on most vehicles is ever present in reference to this car. Now, it was the president of the Tucker Club that brought this to my attention, I considered him an authority and changed it accordingly (of course he was most upset that it was originally "Tucker Torpedo" which the club doesn't care for). So, I think I could agree to Tucker 48 but just didn't think it looked right, I'd be interested in what he would say about it.--Wgfinley 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Delorean, that heading works, because it doesn't start with the year or mention the body style. Stude62 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for Tucker (automobile), as "Tucker" is what it is most commonly called; Sedan is not an official name but a body spec, and '48 is a model year. Unless there are separate articles for the car and the company (as with De Lorean) there's no need for adding a model name, and with the Tucker no one is really sure what the model name is. ProhibitOnions 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie vs. Reality

This is what happened in the movie. But was it this way in reality? The unveiling looked doomed, however, as last-minute problems with the car cropped up. The suspension snapped and the car would not move. Tucker ad-libbed on stage for two hours while emergency repairs were carried out. It was finally pushed onto a turntable by hand, and the curtain was lifted to thunderous applause. Tucker was joined on stage by his family, with his daughter smashing a champagne bottle on the "Cyclops Eye" and soaking her father. Also on stage were Tucker's engineers, still covered in grease from the last-minute repairs. --Tresckow 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

Though I appreciate the recent changes to this page, I feel the article has lost some things in it's new changes. I applaud the changes in sections, and clarifications made to enhance this article but some facts, if trivial, seemed to better affect the experience of understanding this vehicle.

Compare November 15th's changes to the current article.

24.180.202.72 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatra T77 similarities

There seems to be striking number of similar ideas in Tucker that Tatra T77 had 15 years before it. Shouldn't that be mentioned?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged convertible prototype

I cut this section way back. The tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (more like a blog). It takes sides, is poorly cited, and is full of speculation. The convertible controversy is worth mentioning, but it is not our job to debate the authenticity, speculate on the source of parts, or take a side on the issue. We should try to remain neutral and make sure we can cite any claims made. It think the Wikipedia guidelines below might be useful here. Any thoughts on how to make this section better would be appreciated.HornColumbia talk 05:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole area keeps going back from one extreme to another on the convertible Tucker (including complete blankings of the section). I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the convertible does exist and deserves some mention. The controversy is well documented elsewhere. It's not our job to make a decision on the legitimacy of the car, we just need to remain unbiased and cite sources.17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)HornColumbia talk 17:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well-known enough to go in, there should be more than a single source supporting its existence & provenance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tucker convertible. There's tons written on this topic. It's just up top someone to write and cite in an unbiased way.HornColumbia talk 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the paragraph to an earlier version of the section that was better cited and should be less controversial. Hopefully this will prevent future blankings. HornColumbia talk 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very casual Googling turns up the fact there is doubt it was a factory car & not just assembled from parts. If even the restorers can't establish it, it should be taken out entirely, because, as a non-factory car, it's just another custom. Moreover, this site says chief designer Tremulis expressly denies a 'vert was built. It also says the 'vert was a project by a former Tucker employee. That being so, it should come out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is doubt. Your own cites show the car is notable. It's not our place to decide the validity of the car, we just report that there is a controversy. We can't do that when you keep blanking the paragraph.HornColumbia talk 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course there is doubt." And by adding this junk, you're implicitly endorsing it & giving it credibility it doesn't deserve. Is it WP's job to settle every contested claim of there being a genuine car? How about the contested claims for the fake Eleanors? How about for fake GSs? I started a rewrite to better reflect the highly dubious nature of this claim, which as written isn't reflected, before deciding it falls in the category of junk. Heading it "prototype" as if it's real & adding a photo only makes it seem more credible, when it's much more likely to be pure fiction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trek, good edit! I agree with you that there is a danger of Wikipedia giving creditability where it is not deserved, and that was never my intent. I think the paragraph makes it pretty clear now that there is controversy surrounding the car and the citation links provide a way for the reader to explore this on their own. One good thing about our little edit war is that this paragraph is now the best cited paragraph in a poorly cited article. Have a good one.HornColumbia talk 12:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. That was where I was going in the first place, & got frustrated with the whole thing. If I got the wrong idea, my apologies. As a peace offering, let me point to this & this. More participation is both welcomed & desired. :D Cheers. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Round Of Revision

The convertible section was way out of control again so I cut down and brought up to standards with wording. I mostly worked on references today, fixing some dead and bad ones, expanding and correcting, bringing all the citations into the same form and finding new ones for some parts. There's still a lot of information in this article not cited but it's been cut down quite a bit. --WGFinley (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WG. This paragraph is always hard to edit due to the controversy surrounding the car. Does anyone know if there is a tag we could place on the paragraph stating that it is controversial subject? HornColumbia talk 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is but I personally dislike the use of section tags unless they're absolutely necessary. I think the issue of the alleged convertible is well laid out now and hopefully can put the matter to rest. --WGFinley (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a lock down, as the paragraph is clear about the controversy and should only be changed if something new is firmly established. NealeFamily (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we need semi-protection, given the repeated nonsensical change to the header, with no sourcing whatsoever... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put a lock down or semi-protection on a single paragraph? I've seen that on complete articles, but never on just a single section. Here, I think it would be overkill to lock down the whole article. Do we have any admins here with the power to do this or will we need to ask for some help to get it done?HornColumbia talk 01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin. I've never seen it done except for a whole page. It might do to lock out the IP (who seems not to have any interest in any page but this one anyhow). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watts, not Volts Measures Power

Article says: ", the huge pistons required up to 60 volts to turn over the starter, nearly triple the power of a normal starter." This statement does not ring true, & the footnote ref I cannot check out. 1) huge pistons would require power to move, but low volts can have high power. Power = Volts X Amps. Cars operate starters with low volts. At the time of the Tucker, so far as I know, most cars used 6 volt batteries, but had huge Amp capacities; so they gave out big power with low volts. 60 volts would be 10 X normal battery volts of the time. But volts does NOT measure power. My guess is that if the Tucker used a 60 volt system (no idea how they did it- ten 6 volt batteries would be impractical), it was to have a starter that was physically smaller (a high amp system requires thicker wire in the starter). I doubt that huge pistons require a lot more power to move, it is friction, not size that requires work. Compressing much air in the cylinders to a small space requires more power to be sure, but I can't see that piston size determines air compression resistance. A larger piston would have a larger compressed volume. Should this sentence read, "The high compression of the engine required nearly triple the power"? Did the editor wish to say, "nearly triple the voltage (electromotive force)"? Did the editor wish to say something like "required 3600 Watts to turn over the starter"?

The words "up to" are also problematic. "Up to" means "no more than." Did the editor wish to say "at least."? "Up to" does not mean "at least." (PeacePeace (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of "Dealerships" section

I debated whether or not I should delete this section, but I think that the section's pertinence was doubtful, especially as it only had a single example (with no sources provided).

Furthermore, all information available about the said dealership seems to have been submitted by a single person.

However, that same person also submitted a visual document about a dealer franchise agreement on Wikipedia, and it looks legitimate.

Here is the page for the said picture: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TUCKER_DEALER_FRANCHISE_AGREEMENT_-_AMENTINI.jpeg

I nevertheless included below the section as it was before correction, if a recovery is considered.

Here it is:

Dealerships

An example dealership, costing eight thousand dollars, was Amentini Motors in Cleveland, Ohio. Flying Ventana (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auction of Tucker number 1034

According to this article, Tucker number 1034 will be sold at auction "this weekend" (as of 2020 January 17).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rare-48-tucker-just-one-of-the-million-plus-dollar-cars-up-for-auction-in-scottsdale-202156680.html

If the auction winner is known, this article should be updated to correctly track.

Kreline (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Tucker

I'm going to edit the sentence about "several Tuckers" racing in NASCAR. As the listed source clearly indicates, it was only car #1004, not "several". Driver Joe Merola drove #1004 in only seven races, before quitting racing in 1951. Elsquared (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elaina Hill real?

I know sometimes unsourced information in Wikipedia is totally legit, but there are absolutely no sources clarifying who Elaina Hill, the supposed owner of two Tuckers, is, nor does Googling her name plus "Tucker" produce any concrete discussion of any such person purchasing a Tucker that I have seen. 2604:2D80:D380:3200:A03B:495D:8BD:C360 (talk) 2604:2D80:D380:3200:A03B:495D:8BD:C360 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]