Talk:1948 Tucker Sedan Information & Talk:1948 Tucker Sedan Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class, 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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Automobiles

(Rated Start-Class, 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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Contents