Spoilers###
I know hindsight is 20/20 but to you think that Tucker would have been successful if he tried to start the company in another state? The catalyst for the SEC investigation seemed to be started by the Michican state senator. Another state might have looked at Tucker more favorably in starting a new car company and creating jobs.
"Life is a state of mind"
Hey, I see no one has responded to this, so why not do it myself?
Big business and American politics don't recognize borders of countries, I can't see how they'd fear state lines or for that matter other politicians stomping grounds.
The Metal Man From Titan
"Till All Are One!"
States often compete with each other to lure business in. Unless the Michican senator was extremely powerful (considering a run for Pres), I don't see why a senator in another state wouldn't welcome Tucker him with open arms if he believed that the business would be successful. A boon in business and tax revenue in that state could get a Senator reelected and increase his/her power. The risk for the state senator is the fall if the business fails and the wrath of the Michican senator.
The new plants are now currently being opened in the south where wages are cheaper.
"This picture of Al Dutcher bothers me."
Michigan was/is home to the big 3. Tucker unlike other car companies such as Packard, Hudson and so fourth actually had something to be fearful of. A car so advanced, safe, fast, and inexpensive that the big 3 actually saw Tucker as a threat. So the big 3 implored on their representive (you know, the one that these companies contribute to their campaign funds) and took the fight to Washington by bringing in the charges filed against Preston Tucker federally. Out of all the car out there, Tucker's car actually could have caused huge drops in sales for the big 3.
If Preston Tucker has tried to build his company in another state, the same result would have occured. Washington would have still got involved and Tucker would have still been tried.
I think Preston Tucker made his mistake by pre selling stock in his company, as well as accessories for his cars. He did this to gain financial stability of his company in the future. In 1948, his company was stable but he was just looking decades ahead.
"A car so advanced, safe, fast, and inexpensive that the big 3 actually saw Tucker as a threat." That's absolute rubbish.
"Out of all the cars out there, Tucker's car actually could have caused huge drops in sales for the big 3." That's even more absolute rubbish.
"I think Preston Tucker made his mistake by pre selling stock in his company, as well as accessories for his cars." That, at least, is true. That's one of the reasons he was indicted.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
And what do you base those "rubbish" comments on? Are you saying the Tucker wasn't advanced, safe, fast or inexpensive? Or that the Big 3 automakers didn't see him as a threat which could have caused huge drops in their sales?
Considering the features the Tucker had, I'd say that it was a better car than the "planned obsolescence" model the Big 3 were following. It only took them another decade to wear out their welcome with customers and allow the Japanese to take over the U.S. car market.
And if they didn't see him as a threat, why use their political cronies to shut him down? You know that government and housing industry did the same thing to the Lustron company who took over the plant in Chicago, don't you?
As for pre-selling stock in his company, etc., it was never proven that the company was mismanaged financially. And yes, he was indicted, but found not guilty.
By the way, to the OP: he did try to make his cars at the factory in Chicago, but the company board (the one he was fighting with) controlled it. That's why he stayed with his facility in Michigan.
The best that can be said for Tucker's car is that it was "interesting." It was certainly fast, and had some advanced features for its time, mainly in the area of occupant safety -- something few consumers cared about in those days. It also had some dubious features, like the air-cooled rear engine. Volkswagen and Porsche made cars with air-cooled rear engines beginning in the late 1940s, but those were small cars. The Tucker was a large, heavy, six-passenger sedan. The extreme rearward weight bias meant that a Tucker driver could get in trouble if he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
Where is the evidence that the Detroit automakers used their cronies in Congress to put Tucker out of business -- aside from his own well-publicized charges that there was some dark, clandestine plot against him? Tucker's company had a history of SEC violations dating back to its first stock issue. In those heady postwar days when anyone with an idea and some money for advertising could pose as a major entrepreneur and sell stock in a phantom corporation, it's understandable if the Feds overreacted somewhat.
Despite Tucker's claims of a working production line and a promise to build 1000 cars a day by mid-1948, only 50 Tuckers had been built by August of that year -- and they were little more than hand-built prototypes. Vice-president Herbert Morley testifed that $800,000 in receipts were unaccounted for in 1947. Tucker was planning to subcontract work to his mother's Ypsilanti, Michigan machine shop, which didn't have the capacity to build transmissions, let alone engines. And so on and on.
Tucker may not have been a crook, but he was no Frank Capra hero either. He was basically a small-time promoter who tried to go big-time, but found himself out of his depth.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
Of course, Volkswagen and Porsche had air-cooled rear engines for decades, but those were small cars.
Volkswagen did not start making production cars until 1948, which is the same year the Tucker was brought out.
I never claimed that VW or Porsche produced rear-engined cars BEFORE Tucker did. I used the simple past tense "had," not the past perfect "had had."
Perhaps my meaning was unclear. I've edited my post accordingly.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?