Smoke Wagon

? ‘Cause I’m proud to be an American, where I know my food’s messy ?

Sounds more streamlined than what I’ve been doing. I take a small square crafting stick and make a small cap out of masking tape. The cap goes on the end of the stick and viola.

I like the concept. That’d even make a good daily driver where you’re headed. Half-a-summer vehicle up here though.

Great idea. Are you planning on painting it silver with redline tires like the 1:1?

That’s gotta be the automotive equivalent of a 12-year-old girl mutilating a pair of jeans with a Bedazzler. There was talent in that family but it only reached one brother IMO.

Eh, what’s with the Mack, Mack? Is that their 1/32 tooling?

Are you sure?

Help. I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.

I’m glad the ‘40 Ford coupe won’t be molded in yellow (like the 41 Plymouth and 40 Ford SD coke kits).

Neat idea. Long term reliability would be my biggest concern, but if they can engineer the valves and valve seals to be swapped out with just a few common tools and without having to take 30 parts off to reach them, then it’s hard to see a major downside to that concept.

Beautiful C10. If that isn’t bad to the bone I don’t know what is. Every single detail on it compliments one another.

Those colors work perfect for this. Every bit of red from the plug wires to the decals really tie the look together.

I really like this concept. That grille is a work of art in itself. I can’t imagine how many shoebox Fords this brute would’ve crumpled into non-existence with the tap of a bumper.

Hehe. Wrote that after the cost shot up from the low fours to “arm and kidney“.

When life gives you lemons, you brush up on lemon law.

Just did that with my Dodge. It was about 20 bucks for a full set of new chromed solid nuts. The nuts that were on it were swollen and rusting underneath the caps. I about used all four sides of the tire cross getting them off. I don’t see why automakers started capping nuts in the first place.

I think Bronco II’s biggest problem was negative publicity and people being too dumb for their own good. Same deal with the Suzuki Samurai. Here me out here. Step 1: Make an affordable, compact (short wheelbase), body-on-frame 4x4 SUV. Step 2: Make it available and market it to folks who wouldn’t normally buy anything high off the ground with four wheel drive. This sets off a chain of events that goes as follows: 1. Lots of people who were used to driving econoboxes are now behind the wheel of a type of vehicle they don’t really know how to drive. Those people do things such as taking corners just as fast as they did with the cars they owned before, without taking into consideration that their cars’s center of gravity is now more than a foot higher than it used to be. 2. Rollover accidents happen more often as a result. Due to the nature of these crashes, they’re often more fatal, which attracts more attention from the public and news media. 3. News programs hungry for a big story take wind of these higher fatality statistics, and run full speed ahead with it. If I remember correctly, 60 Minutes did a story on the Samurai, and went so far as to cheat their own tests in an effort to get a Samurai to roll over. Took them a few tries but eventually they managed. 4. The general public accepts these skewed results and runs with it. Eventually vehicles like the Bronco II and Samurai become shunned and looked down upon by most, akin to vehicles like the Pinto and Gremlin. When in reality, they’re just as fine as their competitors of the time: S-10 Blazers, XJ Cherokees, 4Runners, etc.

Haven’t driven that bodystyle myself, but I’m partial to it and I’m curious as to what you mean. Problem specific to that truck itself or a design flaw?

I really wish I could’ve gotten a picture of what I saw on my way home. Metallic gray Chevy II, pro street. Huge front splitter and the rear tires looked like a couple of 50 gallon drums turned on their sides. Couple of old dudes inside it smiling ear to ear, shoot I would be too!

You hit the nail on the head and then some Bill. It seems I have a habit of forgetting to look at the big picture.

Do we know for sure if they’re keeping the shrunken Red Ram for this upcoming release? If that engineers’ revenge (or new team not knowing what they’re doing) story is true then it wouldn’t make sense for Round2 to put a botched kit back on the shelves when we already have to accept 30% higher new kit prices.

It’s not like Ford had nothing but Vogons working in their design studios. A few designs I’ll agree were clunky looking, like the Lincolns you mentioned. The ‘58-‘60 T-birds look very unappealing to me as well. That isn’t to say that everything Ford put out at the time was like that. The original T-birds, ‘60 Starliners, Fairlane Skyliners, Falcons, ‘61 Lincolns, etc. are pretty well remembered for their designs. I think this is becoming a bit trivial though, as no matter how much we debate this subject, beauty will still remain in the eye of the beholder. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such things in this world as the toilet style spare on ‘59-‘60 Plymouths and Edsels’ toe-nail taillights.

’50 Ford Tudor: ’50 Plymouth 2 door sedan: These two designs were pretty much direct competitors. Ford made a considerable advancement with their styling for ‘49, the rear fenders didn’t bulge out, and the front fenders rose up and met the hood and window line rather than blending in with the bodywork a foot lower. If you park a ‘48 Ford next to a ‘49 Ford, you really start to see how forward thinking the ‘49’s design was at the time. Park a ‘48 Plymouth next to a ‘49 Plymouth and you’ll start wondering if the folks at Chrysler wrangled up one of the ‘48s and somehow fed it nothing but fried cheese and Twinkies for a year straight.

Incorrect to ask if there are options on lower trims?

What a cruiser something like that would be. Great finish, I really dig that LS6 under the hood.