I suspect some will know what IRAN means, and others may not. It’s actually an acronym, and the letters stand for Inspect and Repair As Necessary. That's the plan for this machine. Unlike Thundercat, which was a long-term project with (almost) no limits, or Snowzilla, which turned into a customer specific machine with massive “project creep", the intent for this one is mostly repair and maintenance, though we are contemplating some upgrades which we think will improve the functionality and user-friendliness. In addition, the Tucker will get both new exterior paint and interior refurbishing. It’s anticipated this will be our last Tucker project, though I must confess I’ve said that before.
The subject of this thread is a 1986 1544, originally purchased by the Montana Power Company. Over the years Tucker typically makes design changes that improve the machine, and later models have these upgrades that earlier machines lack. This particular Tucker was nicely optioned when it was ordered, and features the Chrysler Industrial 360 CID V-8 (instead of it’s smaller 318 CID sibling), an Allison AT545 four-speed, non overdrive automatic transmission, as well as a Warn model 8274 8,000 lb front winch. It also has damper wheels on the carriers instead of the UHMW plastic track slides. (I believe by 1986 Tucker had made the damper wheels standard equipment, but I’m not certain.) Some of the other changes include a one-piece tilting hood (rather than the butterfly style), improved door hinges and latching mechanisms, the relocation of the steering control valve to inside the cab, a smaller diameter and thicker cross section steering wheel and new seats and interior upholstery. Honestly, these are worthwhile improvements, and they make for a nicer machine. However, Tucker made some changes to the frame design and the front seat support structure which were not good at all.
In different threads I've highlighted some of the issues we discovered after acquiring this Tucker, and they included frame damage caused by water intrusion, and some problems with the cylinder heads. In many cases when buying used vehicles, one uncovers unknown issues, and realistically that’s almost to be expected. This one is no exception. But Scott and I believe when we sell a machine our name is on it, and that means it is sold in “no excuses” condition. That doesn’t imply everything is new, but rather everything works as it should, the machine has been fully serviced, and a purchaser should be confident they’re buying a quality machine.
Here’s a link to the frame water intrusion: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=81441
And a link to the cylinder head problem: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=82427
We decided to tackle the frame damage first. We’ve done frame modifications before, so this was not really a big deal, though it is somewhat involved and it needs to be done right. I have not the slightest clue why, but Tucker welds the rear bed to the frame. This makes access a whole lot more difficult and when we built a new bed for Thundercat, we made the bed bolt-on. In this case we knew the frame needed repairs and so the frame was sacrificed to try and remove the bed essentially intact. Removal was done with an acetylene torch used to cut the frame. Literally as we lifted the now detached bed we saw what caused the damage to the two vertical frame support members under the rear cab wall. People who have read some of my posts know I take Tucker to task for ill-considered manufacturing processes, as well as poor quality workmanship and (lack of) quality control. What we saw I think can be accurately described as the worst seen to date. My father was a very smart and highly educated man. He had high standards and was not one to mince words. When I saw what Tucker had done I’m almost positive he would have said “How could they be so stupid?"
Okay, with that buildup.. I’ve got you curious and this picture tells the tale. What you see is the rear cab wall with the aluminum skin riveted to the framework. Note the vertical post and how it’s open at the top. Any rain water or melting snow or just water from washing the machine will flow down the cab wall and enter that tube. With no drain hole, the water has no place to go and will just sit there. When it gets cold enough, it will freeze. What moron thought that was a good idea?
Here’s another view from further out.
I know some Tucker employees visit this forum. This is your chance to call me wrong and explain how leaving a clear and open path for water to enter, and not leave, a structural frame member is a sound manufacturing process. Go ahead Tucker…
Here’s a pic of the bed after the frame sections had been cut off. You can see most of the frame remnants on the floor. We discovered a couple more Tucker boo-boos here as well. One of them you can see in this photo and the other you can't. Notice the way the frame is put together with two cross members supporting the expanded metal decking. Now look at the expanded metal and the orientation of the diamond shapes. The long side of the diamonds are parallel with the supports. WRONG! The supports should be parallel with the short side of the diamonds. If you’re thinking “Yeah, but this way you can use one piece of material and there’s no seam in the expanded metal mesh”, you’d almost have a point. I say “almost" because you can buy the mesh with the long side of the diamonds parallel with the long side of the sheet or perpendicular to them, though it’s not as easy to find. Alternatively, the sheets come in different sizes and one could cut the needed shape from a larger sheet (though that might cost a few bucks more).
The cross members are basically steel building C purlins. We think they were a good choice on Tucker’s part, but the execution was flawed.
Here’s a photo. Note how the purlin is short of the bed rail on top, and is not welded to the vertical leg. (The photo got rotated during upload.)
The purlins should extend all the way from one frame side rail to the other, and should be welded to the vertical leg of the side frame rails for maximum strength. (The vertical leg appears horizontal in the photo above.) To do that requires just a little forethought, because if you weld the perimeter together first, and also weld in the pockets for the sideboard vertical posts, you can’t then slide full width purlins into position past the bottom flange of the side rails and/or the pockets. You’d have to cut them to the proper length and put them in position before welding the second side frame rail to the front and rear frame rails. That rather basic concept eluded Tucker. We have no objection to their choice of expanded metal decking, or C purlins for the bed. But the way they installed the materials needlessly sacrificed strength, and it’s not like they saved any money by doing it this way.
I’ve been trying to come up with the right words to describe Tucker’s approach to the bed’s construction. To put it politely, it’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The subject of this thread is a 1986 1544, originally purchased by the Montana Power Company. Over the years Tucker typically makes design changes that improve the machine, and later models have these upgrades that earlier machines lack. This particular Tucker was nicely optioned when it was ordered, and features the Chrysler Industrial 360 CID V-8 (instead of it’s smaller 318 CID sibling), an Allison AT545 four-speed, non overdrive automatic transmission, as well as a Warn model 8274 8,000 lb front winch. It also has damper wheels on the carriers instead of the UHMW plastic track slides. (I believe by 1986 Tucker had made the damper wheels standard equipment, but I’m not certain.) Some of the other changes include a one-piece tilting hood (rather than the butterfly style), improved door hinges and latching mechanisms, the relocation of the steering control valve to inside the cab, a smaller diameter and thicker cross section steering wheel and new seats and interior upholstery. Honestly, these are worthwhile improvements, and they make for a nicer machine. However, Tucker made some changes to the frame design and the front seat support structure which were not good at all.
In different threads I've highlighted some of the issues we discovered after acquiring this Tucker, and they included frame damage caused by water intrusion, and some problems with the cylinder heads. In many cases when buying used vehicles, one uncovers unknown issues, and realistically that’s almost to be expected. This one is no exception. But Scott and I believe when we sell a machine our name is on it, and that means it is sold in “no excuses” condition. That doesn’t imply everything is new, but rather everything works as it should, the machine has been fully serviced, and a purchaser should be confident they’re buying a quality machine.
Here’s a link to the frame water intrusion: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=81441
And a link to the cylinder head problem: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=82427
We decided to tackle the frame damage first. We’ve done frame modifications before, so this was not really a big deal, though it is somewhat involved and it needs to be done right. I have not the slightest clue why, but Tucker welds the rear bed to the frame. This makes access a whole lot more difficult and when we built a new bed for Thundercat, we made the bed bolt-on. In this case we knew the frame needed repairs and so the frame was sacrificed to try and remove the bed essentially intact. Removal was done with an acetylene torch used to cut the frame. Literally as we lifted the now detached bed we saw what caused the damage to the two vertical frame support members under the rear cab wall. People who have read some of my posts know I take Tucker to task for ill-considered manufacturing processes, as well as poor quality workmanship and (lack of) quality control. What we saw I think can be accurately described as the worst seen to date. My father was a very smart and highly educated man. He had high standards and was not one to mince words. When I saw what Tucker had done I’m almost positive he would have said “How could they be so stupid?"
Okay, with that buildup.. I’ve got you curious and this picture tells the tale. What you see is the rear cab wall with the aluminum skin riveted to the framework. Note the vertical post and how it’s open at the top. Any rain water or melting snow or just water from washing the machine will flow down the cab wall and enter that tube. With no drain hole, the water has no place to go and will just sit there. When it gets cold enough, it will freeze. What moron thought that was a good idea?
Here’s another view from further out.
I know some Tucker employees visit this forum. This is your chance to call me wrong and explain how leaving a clear and open path for water to enter, and not leave, a structural frame member is a sound manufacturing process. Go ahead Tucker…
Here’s a pic of the bed after the frame sections had been cut off. You can see most of the frame remnants on the floor. We discovered a couple more Tucker boo-boos here as well. One of them you can see in this photo and the other you can't. Notice the way the frame is put together with two cross members supporting the expanded metal decking. Now look at the expanded metal and the orientation of the diamond shapes. The long side of the diamonds are parallel with the supports. WRONG! The supports should be parallel with the short side of the diamonds. If you’re thinking “Yeah, but this way you can use one piece of material and there’s no seam in the expanded metal mesh”, you’d almost have a point. I say “almost" because you can buy the mesh with the long side of the diamonds parallel with the long side of the sheet or perpendicular to them, though it’s not as easy to find. Alternatively, the sheets come in different sizes and one could cut the needed shape from a larger sheet (though that might cost a few bucks more).
The cross members are basically steel building C purlins. We think they were a good choice on Tucker’s part, but the execution was flawed.
Here’s a photo. Note how the purlin is short of the bed rail on top, and is not welded to the vertical leg. (The photo got rotated during upload.)
The purlins should extend all the way from one frame side rail to the other, and should be welded to the vertical leg of the side frame rails for maximum strength. (The vertical leg appears horizontal in the photo above.) To do that requires just a little forethought, because if you weld the perimeter together first, and also weld in the pockets for the sideboard vertical posts, you can’t then slide full width purlins into position past the bottom flange of the side rails and/or the pockets. You’d have to cut them to the proper length and put them in position before welding the second side frame rail to the front and rear frame rails. That rather basic concept eluded Tucker. We have no objection to their choice of expanded metal decking, or C purlins for the bed. But the way they installed the materials needlessly sacrificed strength, and it’s not like they saved any money by doing it this way.
I’ve been trying to come up with the right words to describe Tucker’s approach to the bed’s construction. To put it politely, it’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.