- The body needed a chassis, and Tucker had promised a rather unusual drivetrain. He had publicly described his car as rear-engine, rear-wheel drive, driven by a six-cylinder engine which would lay flat in the trunk of the car, with two banks of three pistons each, sitting on opposite sides of the crankshaft. The "opposed" engine would be air-cooled, putting power to the rear wheels not through a transmission but through dual hydraulic torque converters, one at each wheel. Unlike the body, which Tucker's men could model with the junkyard Olds, the proposed chassis and drivetrain required the manufacture and assembly of parts and systems no one had ever before created for a consumer automobile. Many people told Tucker to skip the more radical components and simply use a standard chassis and drivetrain, allowing him to unveil the car on time. Tucker insisted on making the first car the way he had described it to the press.
I knew the Tucker was an utter dog, but I had no idea. That. That is not a good idea. Yes please may I have reactive components in my car? If I have a choice, I'd like them to be somewhere maintenance is a royal bitch. Yeah, when a Cessna 172 has you licked for power at half the displacement, it's time to quit. Tucker is one of those companies adored by people who not only want to stick it to the man, but think those carburetor converter ads in the back of Popular Mechanics aren't a scam. edit hubski "jpg" embeds an image but "JPG" does not.
The engine block would also feature brass cylinder sleeves, and would even use a magnesium oil pan to reduce acidity in the crankcase oil.
Tucker had promised 150 hp (110 kW; 150 PS), but his innovative engine was not working out. The valve train proved problematic and the engine only produced approximately 88 hp (66 kW). The high oil pressure required a 24-volt electrical system, up to 60 volts to get it started, and a long cranking time at start-up. Additionally, the oil pressure required to maintain valve function was not achieved until the engine was turning at higher RPMs and Tucker's engineers struggled with keeping the valve train working at idle and lower speeds/RPMs.
I'm half tempted to get the book this article is taken from. The Tucker 48 seems to have the crazy car ideas of Chrysler's Turbine Prototype mixed with the company hijinks of DeLorean Motors. Hell, the Wikipedia Article alone is interesting. They ran in NASCAR. NASCAR. Edit: It also seems to contradict the R&T article a bit, at least in regards to the clay model.
It's worth watching. It's Francis Ford Coppola directing, George Lucas producing, Vittorio Stotaro shooting, and The Free Preston Tucker/Preston Tucker Was Framed Propaganda Committee in charge of the screenplay. So it's a beautiful movie, well acted, well-directed, that happens to be largely bullshit. So long as you understand that whenever someone says "revolutionary idea" they really mean "terrible idea" you'll be fine.