Art Anderson

These aren't "slang" so much as they are descriptive terms, brought into use to help describe a type of kit, or model. "Curbside" is a classification coming from the model car contest scene in the very early 80's, as there were a number of builders trimming out promotional models (those ready-built model cars you could get at your friendly neighborhood new car dealer). In order to differentiate this type of model from those full detailed ones, having opening hoods, engine bays and engines, the term "Curbside" came into use to describe a model built and displayed as you would see it on the street, either running, or parked at the curb. Of course, the hood would be closed (molded in place), just as the car would be in daily driver service. Also, no attention is paid to the chassis, in other words, what gets judged at contests is only what you can see just standing there, looking at the real car, the body, paintwork, chrome and such interior as can be seen through the window glass. "Annual" is what we've come to use to describe those yearly series of model kit of then-new Detroit production cars, the AMT, JoHan and MPC 3in1 customizing kits. "Annual" refers to those car kits that were first produced and released during the sales season of any given model year--then the tooling was either retired to storage, or modified into the next year's production version. Thus they were kits that did not, with only a couple of exceptions (the SMP '60 El Camino being one), see continued production beyond the year of the actual car, unlike say, the AMT Trophy Series kits, which were models done from the ground up to be as you would remember them, but available until the companies couldn't sell any more of them, at least for a while. Art

flatheadgary, Agreed. All the bashing of older tooling reissued is, IMO, largely the result of the influx of younger (albeit adult) modelers into this hobby. Frankly, it's quite understandable that anyone much younger than say, 50, would have no real memories of those old "modified reissue promos made into model car kits for the LHS", as a kid born in 1959 would most likely have started cutting his modeler's teeth on model car kits produced in the early 1970's, themselves a mix of all kinds of design--from annual series cars, to reruns of Trophy Series (themselves much more sophisticated than their concurrently issued annuals) kits, to the then quite sophisticated Revell and MPC fuel dragsters and funny cars. Thus it has largely been, I think, with even adults younger than say, me, who at almost 65yrs of age, still remembers fondly those first 1958 3in1 kits. For those of us around and building in 1958, those AMT kits weren't just a "kick start", they really were the beginning of this hobby as it has evolved. Prior to that, there wasn't really any common scale in most plastic model kit manufacturing, particularly on the aircraft side--model planes were simply scaled to fit a standard 2 or 3 model kit box sizes--and car kits pretty much had to fit those same standardized packages as well. If there was a standard scale for model cars prior to 1958, it would have been 1/32 scale, given the sheer number of Revell Highway Pioneers kits that had been released since 1951, other companies tending to go all over the map scale wise (Revell had done, in 1956, a few 25th scale kits, Lincoln Futura, Pontiac Club De Mer, and in '57, the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, Monogram their 1/20 scale '56 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz and Coupe De Ville kits, which really set some standards, but at $4.00, were in Birthday or Christmas Present territory--well out of the price range of most kids' weekly allowances or paper-route/lawnmowing money). Before the AMT 3in1 concept put plastic model car building into afterburner, very FEW model car kits of cars that we kids saw daily on the street existed--the most notable were the neat, but very fussy-to-build Revell-AMT 1/32 scale models of the likes of '55-'56 Buicks, Cadillacs, Chrysler New Yorkers, Ford Fairlane Sunliners, Mercury Montclairs, and a '56 Lincoln Continental Mk II--other than those (and the above mentioned Monogram Cadillacs) there had been a few VERY crudely done Premier 1/24 scale cars, themselves a mix of GM Motorama cars and a handful of models of production cars. All of these had but a limited market, due either to product selection, or their quickly-earned reputation (hey, we 10-12yr old kids spread the word quickly about what was out there, and our opinions of those available kits--the good, the bad, the ugly) for either lousy fit, or very fiddly, complex construction of multi-piece bodies. Coupled with all the above, model car kits were either found in hobby shops, or the numerous variety stores, hardware, drug or grocery stores. Trouble was, hobby shop owners saw plastic kits as a stepchild, their real money customers were still adults who were into gas-powered balsa flying models (control-line or free-flight, and for some, the then primitive and fledgling radio control planes) or scale model railroading. For those stores, plastic kits were little more than inexpensive stuff for the sons of adult modelers to buy, for 50-cents to perhaps a dollar or so--nothing more, and in many stores, a whole lot less. A young kid was tolerated, but not really catered to. In the dime stores, variety stores and the like, for a kid to buy anything more than a 5-cent Hershey bar (or a Coke at the lunchcounter) was almost certain to evoke suspicion on the part of the sales and checkout clerks--it wasn't even "politically correct" for a kid under his teenaged years to have more than a few nickels or dimes in his pocket--a dollar bill or larger denomination? Talk about the stern, fishy stares that would get you as a 11yr old! But those 3in1's? Those lit fires among us kids (I was 13, going on 14 when they hit) the likes of which really haven't been seen in the plastic model kit business since. For years, AMT and JoHan, later MPC, simply couldn't bring out a dud--most all annual kits were sell outs, but why? Well first of all, even though they were highly simplified, due as much to the very young market and hands that made up that market, as their having been spun off annual promotional models. When the Trophy Series began, with the legendary AMT '32 Ford Roadster and Coupe in 1959--those moved the goalposts even farther down the field--but those kits today show their age with their glaring inaccuracies when viewed through the much more experienced and demanding 21st Century eyes we all have today. In addition, while the "science" of injection molding, and the capability of engineering complex tooling for this process had been around since early in WW-II, the "art" of creating plastic model kits of any sort was very much in its infancy. Just because the technology existed to mold whatever draftsmen and pattern makers could create--those guys had to move their own crafts beyond their earlier training as designer/creators of industrial products, to the sheer artistry required to scale something down by a factor of 24 or 25, to create scale models--just as we builders can look back and see that it's taken us years and numbers of projects to get to where we are today, it was no different on the manufacturing side of things. Today, most modelers not old enough to have experienced those halycon days of the 50's and 60's modeling wise aren't going to understand why that '62 Buick Electra 225 comes out of the box with a relatively handful of toy-like parts--unless we older, grayer, fatter or balder seasoned citizens take the time to quietly relate the stories I have alluded to above. In so many cases (more now that Round2/Auto World is on the scene, and apparently willing to resurrect seriously old and all but forgotten tooling), it's also up to us older guys to remind the next generations that if those old tools weren't around, those subjects simply wouldn't be newly tooled--the market for the vast majority of car subjects much more than say, 10yrs before today just don't have enough market potential to risk serious capital on. Oh sure enough, there are older, even ancient-by-today's-standards cars that can still be tooled in today's manner, and those will continue to be kitted as long as there is a model car kit market out there. But, unless something drastically changes, most all kits of the more mundane cars of the 60's will continue to be reissued from those old, "low tech" tools, such as exist, warts and all. And, it's really incumbent on all of us who do know the reasons, the whys, and yet the excitement of those old kits, to spread that message, clearly and carefully. Phew! Art

It's happened before, and it will happen again, with periods of flush times in between. In motor racing, the first big drop in factory participation happened with the onset of WW-1, of course, then factories and/or big dollar sponsorship returned in the early 20's. With the looming recession of 1929 (the Depression began with a recession, BTW), the entry list at Indianapolis dropped below 30, not all those cars made the show), for example. But, in the early 30's, with the return of small, amateur teams, entry lists at Indy climbed to heights that rivaled the 50's through the 80's. Similar to today in the US was 1974, with a recession in the land, and the "energy crisis", but racing rebounded. Same too, with the recessions of 1981, and 1988, even the short, but sharp one in 2001-2002. Art

Unfortunately, a '32 Chevy is nowhere close to the '29, no more than a '32 Ford is at all close to a '29 Model A. Art

Well, IF you want cheap knockoff, virtually counterfeit crash parts that generally do not fit as advertised, are made of questionable, if not inferior grades of sheet steel, lacking virtually all manner of corrosion control--sure, India, Indonesia, Taiwan can do that. No, if the Big Three evaporated from the planet in the next 3 months, demand would fall, for automobiles, for homes, for appliances, for furniture, for (you can fill in the blanks here, there will be innumerable ones), simply due to the massive layoffs across this country. Let Toyota, Honda, BMW and all the rest pick up the slack? Surely you don't mean we should just hand over ALL car manufacturing to companies not of American origin? If that's the way we are going to run this country, then how long before there is NO American industry whatsoever? How long befure there is no United States of America anymore, but rather a collection of colonial possessions, or simply a toothless old land with "Trading Concessions" as was China a mere century ago? (for some reading that will give anyone a taste of what that was all about, tru "55 Days in Peking--was also a major motion picture, or dig into why the story that became the 60's film "The Sand Pebbles"--based on the story of USS Panay, BTW--then tell me you want to see that sort of thing evolve here. The immediate issues surrounding $14 Billion (or whatever it turns out to be) are, IMO, just the tip of the iceberg here. And that is an iceberg that a small clique of Republican senators are either unwilling to see on the horizon, or worse, they are deliberately trying to steer the Ship of State on a collision course--either way, a much smaller icecube sank the Titanic 97 years ago. Art

The reference to Detroit is a figure of speech. And, as for parts, service, oil changes etc., that is aftermarket. But in the immediate, the fallout of any failure of GM, Ford, Chrysler is gonna hit the OEM component makers--for them, there is no aftermarket for their stuff, save for the occasional replacement glass, a busted headlight perhaps. Every day, on the Norfolk Southern Detroit-St Louis/Kansas City mainline, we see upwards of 2000 Triple Crown Trailers loaded with components, and several hundred Hi-Cube 85' boxcars carrying probably sheet metal stampings to their final assembly point. As you may know, Lafayette is home to Subaru Indiana Automotive, where the Legacy and Outback are built, along with Toyota Camry's under contract. I suspect that for each of the 3000 or so employees at SIA, there are probably at least 3 more involved somewhere along the line, in subassembly manufacture by contracted suppliers. From my read of things, it's something like that with Ford, GM and Chrysler. The ripple effect goes way beyond the final assembly line. And yet, while Subaru isn't in any particular danger, it's a microcosm. One of the things brought up in that History Channel program I mentioned last night is the fact that the Hoover Administration opted to let things play out on their own (somewhat understandable, as up to their time, nothing like the events pulling the country down into the Great Depression had ever happened before, certainly not in the manner of a "Perfect Storm". The underlying theme throughout is that so far, the measures that have been taken are those that should have been taken in 1929-30, and weren't, at least not until FDR entered the White House. Of course too, the Federal Government didn't have any of the regulatory bodies, nor the mechanisms in place in '29 with which to deal with things. But, I do stand on what I said earlier, that 'Detroit' is synonymous with the American based and owned auto industry, whether or not they ever make another car actually in Detroit. Art

Harold, When the FDA gets their act together, and bans the production, sale, possession and consumption of STUPID PILLS. Of course, that would mean that every politician, bureaucrat, and the rest of us 300 million Americans would have to go "on that wagon", something I don't expect to see happen in my lifetime. Art

Of course, in the meantime, while all this is supposed to happen, what about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of workers, and company owners, of supplier firms to the Big Three. Just how are they to survive to greet the "Next Coming" of Detroit? Inquiring minds want to know. Art

The Ertl Power Wagons aren't 1/25 or 1/24 scale though, they are 1/32, or perhaps a bit larger. Matchbox did make, though a 1/25th scale '46 Power Wagon, in fire truck, civilian pickup versions, that was quite good for the price (IIRC, about $25. Danbury Mint has the ultimate though, in their pickup truck line--1/24 scale, immaculately detailed, but of course, at a much higher ($125) price tag. I have both models, the Matchbox in duplicate. Art

As a thought here: In any other time, the relatively few fires caused by burst fuel tanks in Pinto's would not have raised such an issue, had there not been the rise of the trial lawyer in the 60's and 70's. Gasoline tank fires in severe rear end impacts have been a fact of life ever since automakers starting putting the tank back behind the rear axle. Perhaps the safest of all locations for a gasoline tank ever done was in the Model A Ford: The tank was put in the cowling, behind the firewall (even formed the cowling of every '28-'29 Model A, except for the 4-dr sedans), and there was never an instance of one of those tanks exploding, or causing fires until very late in the lives of those cars, 20-30 yrs afterward, when metal fatigue around the upper steering column mount formed, causing seepage of fuel into the interior of the car (speaking as one who owned several Model A's in the 1960's). But, the perceived danger of that tank, even with it's continuous electrical welded seams (in a time when most every other gas tank was put together by merely rolling the edges of two halves, much like the top of a can of green beans from the supermarket), spurred by state motor vehicle departments, and by "crusading" state legislators, forced Ford to rethink things, so they put the gas tank of the Deuce where? Between the rear bumper and the rear axle, just like everyone else. Same too, with the mounting of Chevy/GMC full size pickup tanks outside the frame rails. If one thinks about it, NBC News "demonstration" required an external source of ignition to get a fire started after a side impact. Further, if that is such a dangerous place for a fuel tank, on the outside of a truck frame, how is it that nobody cared a whit about the hundreds of thousands of medium and heavy duty trucks out there, all with at least one fuel tank, right where it will burst in a heavy side impact? Hmmmm! Art

Tonight on the History Channel has been most interesting indeed! "Crash! The Next Great Depression?" does a pretty good looking back at not just what has happened in the last year, economically, but goes all the way back to the Great Depression of 1929-34 (with its effects not completely erased until the war production effort fully ramped up in 1943), the causes, the events, the people (both the man-in-the-street and the men in the White House, and in Congress). It then takes a pretty candid look at the tremendous wave of deregulation which began in the Carter years, picked up steam in Reagan's time as President, even though the Clinton years, into our current presidency. They also, through interviews with several economists, look at the measures being undertaken as I write this, and how those measures stem from the lessons of the hardest years of our country, 1929-34. Well worth catching, you can bet that History Channel will be repeating this one over the next few weeks. Incidently, it's not at all prejudiced toward either side of the aisle, nor does it take an real stand as to what needs to happen--but rather they let their experts' interviews make the suggestions, and they are actually few, and none really controversial nor dramatic. Now, in the overall scheme of things, and to return this thread to its roots, it does appear, more and more, that our American based auto industry is too big, too important, too far-reaching to just allow to melt down. I think some of those senators who spoke out about just letting events take their course are being extremely short-sighted--the inevitable fallout of the destruction of Detroit based automakers WILL affect people in every state in the Union, and just as is feared and predicted by the American arms of companies such as Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, etc., such a massive industrial failure by their US counterparts will have far reaching and detrimental effects on them as well. Somehow in all this, current GM, Ford and Chrysler management, even workers, are being blamed for many problems from the past--proof positive that bad or ill-conceived product of the magnitude of a car costing as much as a year's pay or more (no matter what era we want to talk about) can last far longer than the cars themselves. Shakespeare, in writing the script for "Julius Caesar" penned this as the opening of Mark Antony's eulogy of the murdered emperor: "The evil that men do lives long after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." We are looking at, talking about, and in a lot of instances here, the very same thing: "Ill conceived, poorly designed cars have a reputation that lives long after them, the good stuff that comes afterward gets painted with the very same, broad paintbrush". The November 8 issue of Fortune Magazine has a rather chilling look back at GM, in the eyes of their long-time automotive writer, who also has written for several auto industry trade magazines. It's interesting to read him, as he talks about his impressions of the long-unlamented Roger Smith (remember him?), and makes the case that Smith did try very hard to restructure GM inside, as well as on the outside, and the near civil war that he faced among middle and upper management in doing so. Smith of course, was the first GM CEO to come from other than the manufacturing side, he having been a financial guy all his career. But, he could not stem the tide he saw coming onshore, that GM simply could not go on as if it were the 1950's. He also gives some pretty high marks to Robert Stempel, who replaced Smith, but has little good to say about the current CEO. But more than that, he does point out that GM, in the US, has lost more than $75 BILLION just since 2000, and simply cannot go on without either an infusion of ready cash, AND an unprecedented restructuring of the entire company, it's management structure (something like 29 different offices doing purchasing, for example), product line (too many makes, too many models, trying to be all things to all buyers), and its labor structure as well. Well worth the read, and it's not at all a long dry dissertation. As for any sort of real government control over what our domestic auto industry produces, or won't be allowed to produce, I can only offer up Renault as a sample: Renault, up until the German invasion of 1940, produced some very well built, well designed cars, albeit for a much smaller market, France and her colonial possessions. In 1945, however, based on alleged collaboration of Renault's owners with their German ocuppiers, the newly formed 4th Republic confiscated Renault, making them the largest state-owned automobile company in the World up to that time. And, throughout all those years of government ownership, we really didn't see very many even decent cars from them (nor did the French either!). Much the same is true of FIAT, also government owned--the only thing that Italian bureaucrats haven't screwed up is Ferrari, but then the Prancing Horse is practically as holy in Italy as is the Vatican. In the UK, the labor situation there, from the end of WW-II until only a decade or so ago, drove every domestic British automaker of any size either under, or out of the country (think about that: Who runs the likes of Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar today? Where went Austin, Triumph, Wolseley, MG and the dozen or so other makes we used to hear of?) or into foreign ownership. Do I think the US auto industry is going to just evaporate, go away? Nope, not at all. However, it's going to take some serious thinking on all sides, by all parties involved, some real soul-searching, not only in the high rise headquarters in Detroit, but also in the halls of the US Capital, and in the White House. There is going to be some serious head-knocking, and some extremely bruised feelings before this all settles out, however, whenever, and wherever. And then, some extremely hard work by all 300+ million of us here in the US, to get the entire ship back on an even keel. Art

"Factory Stock" is perhaps the toughest class to judge with anything like absolute accuracy, frankly. Unlike the 1:1 world of judged car shows, where many have judging staffs dedicated to each marque on the field, we modelers rarely have that luxury in entering Factory Stock in a model car contest, nor does the host organization often have that expertise at their fingertips either. While obvious deviations from factory stock (I've seen polished aluminum show car firewalls, Jimmy Blowers, DONK wheels, candy and other wild paint jobs, even low-riders try to enter this class) should be easy to spot by anyone competent enough to judge this class, others aren't so readily seen nor are they understood, such as incorrect engine colors, incorrectly painted and/or detailed chassis or interiors and the like--after all, how many of us can truly claim to know each and every detail that should be correct for all years, all makes? I like to think of myself as fairly knowledgeable (and I'm sure that others would disagree with my self-assessment), but put me next to most any muscle car, and I am lost! But, give me any Model A, Model T, Duesenberg, '58 or '59 Chevy, and others which I have researched for one project or another, and I probably could spot inaccuracies in a heartbeat. It's the same with any afficianado of any given make, model, year, or era of car--but no one person judging can reasonably be expected to have it all nailed. The best way I have ever seen for judging a model car contest is a method used by a club in South Bend to which I once belonged. The judging team used one person for interiors and chassis, another for engines and overall detailing, a third for bodywork and paint, then two overall judges whose job was to scope out the overall effort of the builder. Points, 0-9 were awarded by each judge in their respective category. One contest official collected all the judging sheets once each was completed, totalled up the score, then drew an average (high average score wins). In cases of any question as to whether this or that was "right", the 5 judges put their heads together, and arrived at a decision. This system allowed for judging to begin as each model was placed in its class, on the table, as for all awards, save for Best Of Show, Best Paint, Best Detail were based on a score, not one car judged against another. As we members were not allowed to enter, the concept of bias was minimized greatly. In addition, the rather detailed scoring sheet, complete with short, written comments by the various judges, was made available to the entrant after awards were made. One ironclad rule for judging was, NO NEGATIVE comments whatsoever. If a criticism needed to be made, by any judge, then it had to be couched in terms of "Model would be improved if ________" (fill in the blank). As a result, we seemed always to have pretty pleased entrants, and people complimented the idea of being able to take their judging sheets home with them. Art

Licensing arrangements are considered assets of the licensor (in this case, Chrysler, Ford and GM), in that they are income producing for them. Licensees (AMT, Revell, Lindberg) carry the licenses they hold as both assets (they are marketable to the model companies) as well as on the liability side of the ledger (Guarrantees plus additional royalties due). The trademarks, copyrights and trade dress that belong to the Big Three will still belong to them in bankruptcy unless sold through the court-appointed receiver (referee in bankruptcy), at which time they would be owned by whomever bought the particular marque, or brand. The same would be true of any and all patents. In short, none of these things change due to a bankruptcy filing by a manufacturer or other type of business. Art

Peter, Well said! Now, allow me to add my 2-cents worth here: I've been a member of several model clubs over the years (currently I have membership in both an IPMS Chapter, and a Model Car Club here in town, as a founding member of both groups (IPMS Chapter was begun in August 1976, the model car club in January 1991). In addition, I was a member of a large (and the nation's oldest continuously going) model car club in the Chicago area for a number of years (lotta long days and late nights with that one, often not getting back from those 140 mile trips to club meetings before sunup on Sunday mornings, once a month!). I've also guested at meetings of the oldest model car club in Indianapolis on more than one occasion. Yes, there are times in any club or organization when things don't go as smoothly as most all of us would like. People who are really intense about the hobby or activity that the club represents can easily boil over into cliques, even fairly nasty fallings out, but I've also seen those events fade over time, and the group come back together, out of enjoyment of a common passion. Every organization you can think of will be made up of those for whom the organization is a major social force in their lives, with close friends, and solid fellowship at least among groups within the group. While ideally, we all would prefer a situation paraphrasing the Elks Lodge motto: "If I cannot speak well of a fellow model car builder, I will not speak ill of him". Frankly, that's a pretty good watchword, IMO. As for contests, my personal thing is that I don't often enter, but if I do, it's something I feel proud enough to show off; if it's good enough, I show it, but if I don't think it's good enough, chances are you will never see it. But what if I do go, and take along an entry? I'm not trying to sound at all self-righteous here, but I seriously do not care a whit, win, lose or draw. It hasn't always been that way with me though. I'm old enough to have come through the hobby shop contest thing in the late 50's, early 60's, when as a teenager, I was intensely serious--so much so that it hurt if I didn't win, even hurt if I thought I might not have done anything good enough to possibly win. Perhaps by luck, or whatever, I have several dozen trophies from those years, along with some bumps and bruises that left their marks for quite a while as well. After about a 15-year hiatus, I entered an IPMS contest, about the time that IMPS chapters starting adding cars to their list of contest classes. At first, I won, mostly because there weren't many car builders represented, but then a dry spell hit--and that bugged me no end. In some respects, I believe I did have an inflated view of my own model building skills at the time. But, after one rather bruising defeat handed down by the judges, I simply had to look at myself in the mirror, and decide: Could I compete without losing my cool, not having the fun of fellowship with fellow modelers of any and all stripes or not? It was at that point in time that I decided to just go, enter something, then step back observe, almost be a wallflower (for those who think they know me, my saying this must seem awfully incongruous, but in many ways it's true. I tend to wander a show floor by myself, almost as if lost in my own thoughts, as I study the works of others, perhaps engaging in a moment or two of conversation along the way. In entering into conversations, I have to fight my own urge to offer advice, and have to remind myself frequently that "advice offered is seldom taken". I have worked pretty hard, due to this, to ask questions of others, as in "how did you do that?", compliment a model to the builder, or point out a model that impresses me, to others whether I know them or not. While at times still, I might be disappointed at the results of an entry of mine, I like to think that I no longer let that get to me, just accept that while I thought it was good enough, others did not, and let it go right then and there. As for building anything for a particular contest, I haven't been able to do that since High School. I find model car building too intense at times to discipline myself to meet a particular deadline. For me, that takes too much of the fun out of a hobby I have enjoyed for now 56 years. Instead, I kind of go by that old winery commercial tag line, "I'll finish no model before it's time". And, then, only if the result is good enough in my book, does it ever get seen outside of a few pics on Fotki, or a club show-and-tell. If not, then not. Art

Jamie, You should have been here when the removal of "GOODYEAR" from the tires of just about every model kit on the market was the hot topic. No, this isn't the "Church of Nascar Modelers", but I do like to think that this set of forums is very much the "Universal Congregation of model car builders", in short, a sort of "Melting Pot" for model car and truck builders of all stripes, INCLUDING Nascar. Art

I see some real potential rocks in the road in all of this: Unfortunately, while Congress, the current President, and our next one, are appearing daily to be stuck between a rock and the place where it's hard, as regards salvaging the US domestic auto industry (and the jobs that go with it), even more real, more serious problems could also be the result. 1) This "Car Czar"--now I understand that if the taxpayers are going to have to fund the rescue of the Big Three, then the concept of "He who pays the piper calls the tune", and on balance, I support that. However, if that person winds up with too much power over what gets produced, and by whom, then it's very possible that the really exciting cars (you know, Mustangs, Corvettes and the like) could readily get the ax, even if profitable, if they aren't PC in the Czar's opinion. In addition, there is a provision, requiring GM, Ford and Chrysler to "investigate" building railroad passenger/commuter cars. No, let me get this one straight in my li'l pea-pickin mind: Railroad passenger cars when there is almost NO market for them in the US anymore? Fuel efficient cars: OK, what type, what style, what features, or for that matter, will that mean no larger vehicles for those who wish to buy them? Will Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche and anyone that I have missed, be under the same restrictions? 2) While I hold no case for any of the current crop of CEO's, or for that matter, anyone in the highest level of management who is more bean-counter than a passionate maker of automobiles, I wonder if this deal won't drive away perhaps the best and brightest, from even considering taking such executive jobs as might be offered. I wonder if this isn't a problem with the other two major corporations run by the US Government, Amtrak, and USPS. One of the chronic problems with Renault was that French government and politicians managed always to interfere with the company owned by the French Government, with the result being the absolute ###### cars they used to make. 3) One of the little known problems with many industries is, it can be difficult for some companies to recruit the best and finest for top positions--just as it is in government (Richard Nixon referred to the "media anal exam", which while it affected him deeply, does have some of the same effect in private industry). With the notion arising that the CEO of a company could be beholden to a political appointee for his very job, how many truly entrepreneurial types will even consider the job? I am reminded of the first man to be openly hired and paid, the salary of $1,000,000 a year. Any guesses who and when? No? Try one Walter Percy Chrysler, who asked for, and got, that very salary from the Board of Directors of Chalmers-Detroit, with the proviso that if he turned that company around, in the early 1920's, he got to keep the job (meaning a return to serious profitability). Chrysler did, Chalmers-Detroit did, the Board did, and the rest is history. Within a couple of years, Walter P had founded Chrysler Corporation. That's what I mean about an entrepreneur. Not some glorified bean counter, which is basically what an MBA degree means, but a true "car guy", driven to produce the best that he could produce, and let the accounting department track the progress to success. When one thinks of it, how LONG has it been since any of the Big Three have had that sort of person at the helm? Like I said, at this juncture, the legislators and executive branch in Washington are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place--they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Art

Peter, WELL SAID! Art

Johnny, I saw, after I made my post, that you'd added the fact about the guy planning on rodding that Chevy. As far as body shell and associated sheet metal, the work I described, parts I mentioned, still apply. I chose to suggest the body panels/sections I did, based on their shapes, and how close they are in shape to the Chevy. Of course, I have to wonder if your friend realizes that he's got a car with more wood in the body than probably in any stick of furniture he's got in his house? That alone is one of the reasons that Chevies of that era didn't survive in large numbers. That body shell is in fact, a wooden framed body, with not a bit of structural metal in it--all it's framing is wood, the only steel is in the outer skin--little wonder that Model A Fords, of which slightly more were built than Chevies '28-'31 have survived probably 20-to-1 over the Bowties. All that wood will make it pretty tough to chop the top, for example. but then, it's his car, his name on the title. Art

Nascar today isn't the Nascar of old, frankly. I still remember stopping in Atlanta, after going to Daytona in 1965 for the '500'--for a late night supper. The waitress, seeing our sunburnt faces, instead of asking immediately for a beverage order, blurted out: "What won today, a Ford or a Plymouth?" Within 10 yrs, Nascar had openly shifted their focus to the driver, rather than the make of car, which of course, made the series more "fan friendly"--easier to go after the autograph, for example, of one's favorite driver than say, some memorabilia of a particular favorite car. This was something that coincided with the shift of race car sponsorship in Nascar to billboard advertising of a nationwide scope, rather than some car dealership, a southeastern US "association" of car dealers, or some chicken farm in North Carolina, all part of a long range plan to make Nascar a household word all across the US, to gain major network TV coverage. Obviously, it worked. Not only did companies nationwide get in line to become the major sponsor of a Cup car, but the drivers themselves became spokespersons for their major sponsors as well (USAC had successfully marketed this concept through the 60's with Indy cars, CART took it to "the next level", and IRL enjoys some success with this concept to this day). Accessory suppliers (those whose small logo's appear on the front fenders of Cup cars) jockeyed for position to become "Official Nascar" suppliers. Several years ago, however, one of the product development guys at Revell-Monogram, told a group of us some of the hassles involved: While Nascar requires all cars to bear a particular set of "Official Nascar" supplier decals on their front fenders, away from the race car, that mandate goes away--toy and model companies had to negotiate individually with each and every one of them. AND, believe it or not, there were companies who, away from the big advertising venue that Nascar had become, would REFUSE to allow their logo to be used, if "__________" (you fill in the blank) was going to have their logo there! Apparently, advertising with Nascar, like politics, makes for some strange bedfellows, huh? When Nascar, along with each and every sponsor, supplier, along with the driver, wants their individual cut of the pie, the expenses for a toy or model company easily can go way over the top, beyond what makes any sense considering that those expenses have to be factored in to the price the manufacturer has to charge, just to get back to square one. Already, most of the major diecast makers have gotten out of offering new 1/64 scale Cup cars, and the price point of those had to rise to the point that their backing out of Nascar as a product line in that small scale became moot: The mass merchandisers (the Big Box store chains) simply decreased the peg space they were willing to alot, due to unacceptable pricepoints (not many $5 blister-carded diecasts at Walmart, for example). However, things could get very interesting over the next couple of years, given the economic climate: One should start wondering if Nascar will even be able to fill the fields for much of the series this next year, will there truly be that many sponsorships for the full season, or will we see an awful lot of "one race" deals, certainly for the major events, Daytona, Charlotte etc, the lesser events wondering if they will have full fields to face the green flag? This alone may well make a difference in the long run, IMO. Will Nascar be able to be the big dog in racing marketing even this next year that they have been for perhaps the last 25yrs? I, for one, wonder. Art

Johnny, This will be a rather involved project, for sure--given that there is but one prewar Chevrolet model kit done, MPC's 1932 Chevy Cabriolet/Panel Delivery kit (Panel delivery was only available as a stock Chevy in 1965-66, but the Cabriolet has been reissued at least a couple of times by AMT/Ertl in the last 20yrs and isn't hard to find). All is not lost however, as the '32 Chevrolet used exactly the same engine, driveline, rear and front axles and the same type of springs as the '29 (1929 was the first year for the Chevrolet 6-cylinder engine). It's going to be in the bodywork where you have work, some serious work to do: As the '32 Chevy was the final "flowering" of the style of sheet metal that began in '29, it's just enough different in all its aspects to make it very problematic. A better solution might be to use several different kits, along with some cutting, splicing, and putty work to get that '29 Coupe. I would be sorely tempted to start that body and fenders with a Monogram '30 Model A Ford Coupe kit. The basic lines, and I suspect the dimensions as well, are pretty close. Certainly the fenders and running boards are. Differences will be in the splash aprons (that sheet metal panel between the bottom of the body and the inner edge of the running boards, the length of the hood (Ford's were 4-cylinder engines, Chevrolet was the inline "Stovebolt" 6. The roof and windshield will be different from the A, taller and more square, with a longer door length (your Chevy coupe is a 3-window, while all Model A steel-bodied coupes were 5-window, having a shorter (length) door, with a quarter window behind it. The Model A radiator is close, but the shell will need to be reshaped somewhat, particularly in the opening, to get rid of the Model A's characteristic "widow's peak" at the top of the opening for the radiator core. The '32 Chevy frame will need to be shortened a bit, I am sure, given that the '32 Chevy had several inches more wheelbase than did the '29. Those disc wheels will be a major effort, about the only 1/24 (or 1/25) scale wheels like that were done in model kit form in some of the Heller late 20's Citroen kits--not perfect replicas of a Chevrolet disc wheel, but oh-so-close in appearance that they just might work. Probably some sheet and strip Evergreen styrene stock will be needed, to create the new body moldings (different from the Model A body) and lengthening the hood to clear that longer 6-cyl engine, and in reworking the roof. Not an easy project, but one that surely could be done I think. Art

Oh yeah, we've all heard these stories before--but I have yet to be shown the beef. While it is quite possible to create, from the laboratory, a car that will achieve 100mpg (Shoot, in Indiana, we have a contest between high schools, to see who can come up with the most fuel-efficient vehicle--guess what? Those kids have been beating GM's 100mpg by factors of more than 10, for years now!)--but the question has to be: Since when has anyone come up with such a car that is MARKETABLE? By marketable, I mean, one that will fit the needs of at least a major proportion of the car driving public, at a price that is affordable, all that sort of thing. It's one thing to create the "ideal" in the engineering lab, but quite another to make the marketplace want it badly enough to produce it. Unless the latter happens, the former will stay right where it started, IN THE LAB (Unless of course, the heavy hand of government is brought to bear--but, DO YOU want the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington--even your own state capital, dictating to YOU what you will or will not drive?--Isure don't!!). Also, I quite fail to see where the oil industry comes in, in all this. They don't build cars, they don't even show up on the list of stockholders in any of the automakers that I've ever heard of. Pretty much an urban rumor, it seems to me, just like all those urban rumors of 100mpg experimental carburetors on '55 Fords, Chevies or Plymouths that the tellers of the tale seem to always say--"I know a guy, who's buddy got on of them new Fords a few months ago, but when he took it back to the dealer for some service, they found it had a secret carburetor on it that should never have gotten out of the factory--and now the car only gets about 20mpg out on the blacktop."--URBAN RUMOR. But the bottom line still is, it's quite possible to create something in the laboratory that seems phenomenal, but when evaluated for production, comes up far too short of the mark to be saleable, at least at any price that gives not only volume, but also profitability to the manufacturer. Until that happens, those legendary cars that run seemingly on gasoline fumes will remain just that, legendary EXPERIMENTAL cars. Art

Harry, The pic you show is an excellent example of what I was thinking about when writing my post above. On that chassis, you can see only a few hints of the paint used on the various components when that car was produced. As an older car, from the 50's through the 70's, what coatings were used at the factory have pretty much gone away, such were the materials used on chassis, body underpans from almost the beginnings of automobiles until the advent of catalyzed finishes and robotic painting that are now in use in just about every automotive assembly plant in the world. Corrosion control on steel or iron was so in its infancy as to be largely ineffective (even ships at sea, until the advent of catalyzed epoxy or urethane paints, suffered from this, salt water eating away unprotected steel hull plating as fast as 1/8" per year in some cases!). About the only rust preventive coating available until the advent of say, Rusty Jones, or Ziebart, to new car buyers was a coating of a very oily tar, some sprayed on in production (mostly the rear wheel wells), on the bottom side of a new car at the dealership. This had only negligible effects however, as the tar dried out, it tended to peel away, taking at least some of the "rustproofing" paint coatings underneath with it, leaving those areas open to rusting. Worse, that tar undercoating could just simply blister and crack, leaving entry points for water (or SALT water in snow country) to get in between the undercoating and the sheet steel, leading to the rusting out of floor pans, even "boxed" frame rails. Notice the black coloring of the rear axle center section: It's surrounded, outboard, by surface rust, where the black paint used in manufacture has worn away. Chances are, had whomever shot that picture touched that, it would have been mostly dried grease, grease from a rapidly spinning universal joint, along with traces of the heavy oil used in the differential leaking slightly over time, from the front seal around the differential input shaft. This likely would also be visible at the rear of the transmission hump in the floor, around the front U-joint as well. One can also see by the coloration of the bottom of the floor, and on frame members, that rust is mixed with road grime, be that dust, or from the incessant splashing of murky, dirty water on paved surfaces in rain storms or winter slush. One can clearly see how mottled it looks, tiny "peaks" of rust poking through that coating of dirt. This is a very common look, not only for the era of car your pic shows, but all the way back to the days of Model A's (saw the very same stuff on the first Model A Ford I bought in 1963). In an engine bay, certainly in cars built before our modern era, there would have been little in the way of road splash--even a Model A Ford, from the factory, had a pair of sheet metal "trough-shaped" sheet metal pans, bolted to the underside of the frame rails and under the bolt heads holding the oil pan in place, to keep the vast bulk of road-splashed water from coming up the sides of the engine. As cars grew more complex in their structure, inner fender panels took over this function, of course, at least to some extent. What dirt there was in engine bays tended to come in through the grille, then pass through the radiator core, and collect on the engine, and the sides of the bay itself, the inner surfaces of the fender wells. Even the firewall got that dirt on it. One thing that those who would lightly weather an engine bay almost always miss is the brake master cylinder. Master cylinders were almost never painted, just raw cast iron, which rusted quickly in service. Now, we all know that DOT-3 brake fluid makes a great paint stripper for styrene model car bodies--it did the very same thing to the firewall around the master cylinder mounting point--every time a mechanic (or your dad) topped off the reservoir of the master cylinder, he stood the chance of dribbling a bit of the brake fluid onto the firewall, which stripped that paint in short order, leading to a rusty area right there. In the engine bay, particularly on cars built before sealed batteries, there would be a fair amount of rust on the battery box, from overfilling the cells with fresh distilled water, leading to spillage of water/sulphuric acid there. Battery terminals, even though made of lead, as are the clamps on battery cables, will be corroded, even having battery acid salts crystallized on them, and the bolts? RUSTY. Engines were, and still are, prone to all manner of road dirt, that dust that inevitably comes in by way of the grille or cooling slots up front. Wherever there is oil, or grease, that dust cakes there, and over time, can build up quite thick. At the bottom, oil pans got the worst of it, due to the almost certain seepage of motor oil from around the front main bearing, and certainly around the oil pan flange, where gaskets of iffy capability only served to keep oil leakage there to a minimum--in dusty country, a dark, oily mud, made up of dust and 10W-30 simply caked on--and then, after the passage of time and miles, might actually break off, taking the engine paint with it. The same is/was true around the oil pan drain plug--those almost always leak a bit of oil, so the dust/road grime buildup there, bound up with oil seepage, makes for more caking of dirt, darker in color than ordinary dust or dried road splash. Transmission housings were often unpainted from the factory--manufacturers eventually rationalizing that it made little sense to paint gearboxes, given the inevitable leakage of even the heavy oil in a manual tranny, and a certain amount of seepage of automatic transmission fluid from the seals at either end of the unit. So, rusty grease, and road dirt there, much like the oil pan. However, this, and the oil pan would only be shiny if there was SERIOUS leakage. And so, the list goes on. Art

Jairus, Exactly! For starters, if weathering a model, any model, do some real research. Persuade a garage owner/operator to let you look at cars up on a lift, WITH a camera, to capture what the grime, rust, mud etc., really looks like. Digital camera's really can make short work of this sort of thing, don't worry about "beauty shots", get the details. Note what old oil stains on the bottom of the oil pan look like, what a fresh, wet oil stain looks like. Look at how the dirt and grime is laid on, there will be some pattern to it, based on the forward motion of the car, for example. Also, think about where the car is being driven: If in city or suburbs, almost always on pavement, then the undercarriage dirt will be a lot less, and likely a different color than if the car is out in the country, on rural roads, particularly if gravel roads. Even think about the part of the US the car you are weathering might be from--for example, in say, Illinois or Indiana, that sort of rural road dirt will be brown or tan in color, but if in the deep south, or say, in the Ozarks, even Oklahoma, then the road dirt will have a reddish brown cast to it, just like the red clay soils in the fields along the gravel road. With tires, keep in mind that tires pick up road dirt and grime, it lodges IN the tread, but not on the surface of the tread--friction with pavement will keep the tread surfaces nice and black. Also, photograph the exterior of a weathered car--note how road grime builds up, where it builds up, and what the overall pattern of it is (like down the sides of the car, after it's been driven in the rain, or say on slushy winter roads. A lot to consider, but realistically done, after some good research, and reference pics you've taken to refresh your memory when at the workbench, something like that could be absolutely stunning! Art

Pete, The graveyard of American automakers is filled with "crusading" companies who tried to buck the trend of public opinion, and public demand, by virtually insisting that people should buy what today would be termed "politically correct" (read that, compact, fuel efficient) vehicles, regardless of whether or not we all wanted them at the time: Do the names Austin, Bantam, Crosley, Nash Rambler, Hudson Jet, Willys Aero, Willys Model 77, Willys Americar, Chevy II 4cyl, ring any bells with you? Incidently, I watched the press conference of the UAW President! Did he bash the leadership of GM, Chrysler, Ford in this situation? No, he did not, in fact, he supported them wholeheartedly. The US Big Three, given the labor contracts in force (I know, they signed them!) and other considerations forced upon them by US laws and regulations, concentrated on the vehicles that were profitable to them--and in case you have forgotten, the job of any company is to provide a return on investment to their owners, the stockholders! However, this current situation was NOT brought about by the US Automakers, but rather by the same elitist idealists that are now in the driver's seat in the US Capitol, those who wrote, and those who support, the laws that made the US auto industry what it had to become. Obviously, from my read of the US auto market, does everyone in the US WANT a "Crampact" car--no they do not, never have, and never will. To force that upon the entire US auto buying public would require a legislative/enforcement effort that would rival the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire pale by comparison. No, it was the meltdown of the US, and hence, the World's, banking system that has made the situation that exists right now. And that, my friend, is a responsibility that lies squarely in the hands of the likes of Christopher Dodd et.al., aided and abetted by our "Speaker" of the House, Nancy Pelosi and her Kaliforiya collaborators. It seems to me that the majority of the US Congress is hell-bent to election bent on destroying once and for all, the ENTIRE US auto industry, just as they would destroy the US oil industry, so that there be no ugly factories pumping out ugly "un-politically correct cars". Just how large a step is it gonna be to the day when we all drive the modern equivalent of the Trabant or the Moskovich, bland, nearly useless cars, available only to the chosen few able to, or politically allowed, to buy them? Art

1) OK, I'm going to weigh in here: Yes, it is true that as of 1 Sept 1945, Germany, Italy and Japan had ceased to exist, as either independent nations, or as industrial powers (Italy really wasn't what you could call an industrial country, but rather a rural, farming country, with one large industrial city--Turin. For that matter, France had been all but devastated not so much by battle, but by German expropriation of most of her factories, and their equipment. But, even before 3 Sept 1939, neither Germany nor Italy had much of an auto industry, and what there was, was orientated toward those people with the serious money with which to buy and fuel a car. Japan? No auto industry worth a ######, period. As for our "rebuilding their production ability", in all three countries, that was a national, "bootstrap" effort--very little help from US companies was involved, beyond GM through their subsidiary Opel, and Ford, with their small factory in Koln (Cologne). It was the British who in effect rescued Volkswagen from the dustbin of history, having them produce Beetles for British military use, as a start on reparations. The "Aid" from the United States began as food shipments in the fall and winter of 1945-46, critical given the destruction of much of that year's crops by the Allied advance across Germany, along with winter clothing, and aid in the form of coal for heating, that sort of thing. The legendary Marshall Plan was the first form of "Foreign Aid" undertaken by the United States, and extended not only to Germany and Italy, but also to the UK and to France--to help them get back on their feet quickly--but that was in the form of equipment for rebuilding destroyed cities and rural homes, stuff such as trucks, bulldozers, electric power equipment, in short, mostly hard goods, and very little money. The real purpose of the Marshall Plan in Europe? To blunt the influence of communism, and to prevent the further advance of the influence, even control, by the Soviet Union beyond the agreed upon line of demarcation at the close of hostilities, "From Stettin on the Baltic, to Trieste on the Adriatic" (in the words of Winston Churchill in his famous Iron Curtain speech at a small college in northern Missouri in 1945), the Iron Curtain. Look up the Marshall Plan (named for former US Army Chief of Staff, General Of The Army (5-star) George Catlett Marshall, who became President Truman's Secretary of State in 1947, and also the "Truman Doctrine". 2) Yes, Dwight Eisenhower did put forward the "System of Interstate and Defense Highways" which began spreading 4-lane divided concrete across the country, dotted with those cool Red, White and Blue shield signs, linking all the state capitals and other major cities, but that was superimposed over the top of what was already the most developed public road system ever seen in history. The all time production record, which stood for 24 years, of automobile production was 1929, when more than 6,000,000,000 cars were produced. It was 1955 before that was topped, and then it took until the early 60's before even 1955's record was exceeded. Car production wasn't driven by the Interstate Highway System, but rather, first by the reaching of real affluence by the WW-II "Greatest Generation" (Tom Brokaw's words, not mine), and then in the 1960's, by their children--the onslaught into adulthood by the Baby Boom Generation. 3) Gasoline cheap at 30-cents a gallon in the late 1950's? Not so fast please! The average annual earnings of an American household was about $5000 a year in the late 1950's, which translates down to about $100 a week or so. Gasoline was actually as expensive, relatively speaking, as it was this past summer, when considered in 1950's dollars! As for the American appetite for big cars, well that was well underway by the early 1930's. Unlike virtually every other country on the planet, as paved highways made intercity, even transcontinental driving a reality, people took to the road, the "Great American Motor Vacation" becoming the annual dream of just about every American family by the late 1930's. Couple this with the simple fact that President Herbert Hoover's (incidently, I am a distant cousin of Herbert Clark Hoover) campaign pledge of 1928, "A chicken in every pot, and two cars in every garage", didn't really take hold (the car part anyway) until perhaps the 1970's, the one car in most households had to do it all, take Dad to work, be the grocery getter, and then load up the entire family, with luggage, for long trips. Big also bespoke affluence--small was looked upon as being low on the totem pole, the food chain. This was just as true with houses as it was with the family car. By contrast, the countries of Europe, for the most part, had to make do with 100% imported oil, certainly Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK--none of those relatively affluent countries had any known oil reserves within their borders--the Persian Gulf oil fields had only just been discovered, and we, the US, were 100% self sufficient in oil--remember your history classes? The oil industry started in the US, in Pennsylvania, not long after the Civil War (now don't you wish you'd stayed away in that class?). 4) Yeah, we Americans do like "New" anything--it makes us feel good about ourselves, makes a statement that we individually have achieved something, always has, likely always will. Why would cars be any different in that regard? 5) American cars poorly engineered? Whoa baby! For decades, those huge American cars were marveled at world wide, for their durability, their speed, their comfort. We yanks didn't have anything like Lord Lucas, "The Prince Of Darkness", nowhere in the rest of the world, until the VW Beetle came along (itself legendary for dependability, reliability, and endurance) did there exist a car at a popular price, that could match the cars made here. It may come as a surprise, but while the British Royal Family had to be seen in cars the likes of Daimlers and Rolls Royces, privately, from King George V through Edward VIII, even George VI, English royalty preferred BUICKS!!!! So much so, that when Rolls Royce began to think about OHV engines, they settled on Buick's excellent engines to emulate. When Rolls decided that the Silver Cloud needed an automatic transmission, what did RR select? Would you believe the GM Hydramatic??? Yup, they did! Check it out. And the famed Jaguar XK-120? What did Jaguar do for transmission and rear end gears? Uh, would you believe 1948 Ford units???? Yup. Much has been made of Detroit's penchant for "Bedspring Ride" and "Diarrhea Drive", but did you actually believe those were foisted on the American people? Nope! Americans besieged Detroit looking for cars that rode smoothly on the often rough and uneven pavement of years ago, and they wanted to be free of constant gear shifting--so soft ride, and automatic transmissions were snapped up right and left, as cars with them became available. Our ancestors wanted their comfort, and they wanted effortless driving. In fact, Independent Suspension was developed (almost concurrently with Mercedes) by Cadillac, who were the first to put IFS on the market, a full year before Mercedes Benz, purely for comfort, not for superior "handling". Lousy handling? Well, not if you consider that American drivers seldom ever encountered anything like the cowpath roads that wound through countries such as France and the UK, until those countries began to develop "Autobahn/Interstate" style superhighways, most of our driving was on fairly wide, surprisingly level highways, certainly compared with most of the rest of the world, even better than all but the relatively short stretches of Autobahn in Germany prior to the late 1950's. Durability? Hmmmm, try telling those Cuban drivers of no-newer-than-1958 American cars--they seem to keep on going, and going, and going--sheesh, they should all have been painted pink, fitted with a bass drum, and given long pink fuzzy bunny ears! In the fall of 1945, after almost 4 yrs of wartime curtailment of car production, preceded by reduced production due to the Great Depression and its aftermath of some 11 years, the average age of the American automobile was something like 13 years, more than it is today. And even in 1970, there was a surprising quantity of 1950 American cars still on the road--AND something like 2,000,000 Model A Fords were still registered and driveable (JD Powers). Just look at the sheer number of 60's cars that are still running and looking good, particularly in regions where rust is not an issue. (BTW, most imported cars of the 50's, 60's and 70's were just as prone to rustout as any car made by the Big Three and AMC!). Give the "durability argument" a rest please. 6) Yes, the "energy crisis" of 1973, spawned by the Arab_Israeli Yom Kippur War of that October, did send American car buyers into a frenzy. However, our penchant for big cars with big V8's went back far enough to be ingrained in our consciousness. Every US auto company, starting with the likes of Willys-Overland and Austin/Bantam in the 30's, to Crosley, Kaiser, Willys, Nash and Studebaker in the immediate postwar years, to Chrysler (Valiant), Ford (Falcon) and GM (Corvair) in 1960, offered economy cars to a less than enthusiastic public. It wasn't long before the American passion for "get up and go" replaced the fashionable high gas mileage. About the only people who really took up fuel efficiency were college professors in their tweed sport coats with leather elbow patches, and Henry Mitchell (Dennis' dad) types, with their horn-rimmed glasses, and pipe between their lips (Henry Mitchell drove mid-line, full sized Fords throughout the run of "Dennis The Menace" though). And at that, Dad's 1954 Hudson Hornet 308cid Twin-H with Hydramatic easily racked up 23mpg on a 5000 mile vacation trip from Indiana to Arizona and back in 1958, with my parents, and three kids, all the luggage and accoutrements for 3 weeks away from home, and that on mostly 2-lane blacktop, but at highway speeds (both Mom and Dad had lead feet!!!!). But, by 1972, EPA regs forcing those gawdawful smog pumps dragged gas mileage for a V8 American car down into the very low teens, and single digit mileage around town--gotta love the politicians on Capitol Hill--NOT!). So, it's little wonder that Detroit had no cars that merely sipped fuel by the the cubic centimeter from eyedroppers! 7) The Germans, French, Italians, British, and Japanese HAD to have fuel efficient, small cars, not just because of their roads, but consider this: Gasoline sold for more than $2 a gallon US, in those countries, IN the 50's, when it was around 30-cents a gallon here, simply because A--those countries all had to import EVERY drop of crude oil they got, and B--because it was taxed till hell wouldn't have it. Also, particularly in the UK, cars were taxed, BASED ON THE DIAMETER OF THEIR ENGINE'S CYLINDER BORE! (Anything to sock it to the "rich--they were the only ones who could afford cars), and the French and Italians weren't far behind. 8) Absolutely true--for reasons denoted above. 9) In the 5th grade (1954-55), my teacher, Mr. Loren Spear, first spoke to me and my classmates about how our wage rates, and standard of living, was so much higher than anywhere else in the world, that most people overseas could not afford to by products made in the USA. 10) One need only to look at the UK, to see what out-of-control unions, and governments politically aligned with them, can do to industry--other than Morgans, are there any cars produced in the UK anymore? As for France, that country has one of the highest unemployment rates of any in the G-7, and Germany isn't very far behind France. 11) The US Department of Energy is just about as useless as tits on a boar-hog, frankly. Other than regulating rather successfully, the manufacture and existence of radioactive material, they just don't do much, because they can't! One would think that DOE, in the manner of USDA (who does promote agriculture pretty well, BTW) would promote the production of energy supplies, but the so-called "environmentalists" and the NIMBY's (NIMBY--Not In My Back Yard) crowd has pretty much emasculated and castrated USDOE. (Think Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi here, please!) 12) The price of crude oil has been anything but stable over the years, just like any other commodity, just think for a minute about say, wheat, corn, soybeans, pork bellies and such. It's actually a very volatile market, except where the Arab Oil Cartel has been able to prevail. Incidently, until James Earl Carter finally realized that it no longer made any sense whatsoever (oil wells in this country were simply being capped, and no new ones drilled!) in the late 1970's for US crude oil to be limited to a measely $3.50bbl at the wellhead, oil exploration not only died during his administration, thousands of wells were simply capped off (no different that farmers withholding grain from the market until the price went up, BTW!) 13) Absolutely correct! Labor and other costs within the Big Three and AMC were such by the early 1980's that they simply could not produce compact, fuel efficient cars profitably--AMC nearly went under, aligned themselves with the French Government (who has owned Renault SINCE late 1945, lock stock and barrel) and still faltered, until bought up by Lee Iacocca's Chrysler Corporation), so they concentrated on a market they knew was profitable, and products they knew would sell, those being full-sized and luxury cars, and then in the 90's the SUV craze. The full-size van craze of the late 70's pretty much fizzled away with the Iranian Oil Embargo of 1979, never to recover, and other than Chrysler, no one else in Detroit ever had much lasting success with minivans. 14) Absolutely correct! I can remember, vividly, the carping of the then Democrat minority in Indiana in 1986, because our then-governor, John Mutz had yet to land a Japanese transplant operation--Ohio (Honda), Kentucky (Toyota), Illinois (Mitsubishi), even MICHIGAN (Mazda) all had them, why not Indiana? (Subaru-Isuzu Indiana--SIA--came to Lafayette in 1987, and Subaru is a HUGE player in our local economy still!). And the deals continue! Honda just opened a new plant in Southern IN, Toyota started up a new assembly line in SW Indiana several years ago. However, it's hard to fault state and local governments in all that--after all, in 1938, similar deals were made to get Alcoa to locate what is still one of the very largest aluminum extrusion mills in the world here in Lafayette, just in time for WW-II and beyond. 15) It's almost as if our Senators and Congressmen WANT to see the end of any US-based auto manufacturer, frankly. However, just how to rescue Detroit without its becoming little more than a Government takeover of the US domestic auto industry? Geezus!!! Have those loonies forgotten the mess that the Soviet Union made of industry in that failed country???? 16) Even more tragic is, that government interference in the prudent and businesslike operation of banking and finance, led us into a massive implosion of the credit markets (laws forcing lenders to make mortgages available to almost anyone, regardless of their income, their ability to repay, all that, out of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS", a situation while completely unconnected to the auto industry, has had a devastating effect on ALL automakers, not just the US Big Three. And yet, like the legendary lemmings, who periodically march to the edge of the cliffs overlooking the North Sea, so they can fall over into the waters and drown, we keep on electing the same bunch of incompetent, idiotic, self-serving nincompoops (this is a family-friendly board, or I WOULD USE MY MOST GRAPHIC TERMS TO DESCRIBE OUR LEGISLATORS, ALL OF THEM!!!!!). 17) What I wouldn't give, for the chance to sit there behind a microphone, as a "friend of the ____" and then cut loose with a stream of invective-laced rhetoric, that surely would land me in jail for "Contempt of Congress" (who are they to hold ME in contempt, after all, I have little BUT contempt for the whole lot of them, period!)! 18) Thomas Jefferson, God rest his soul, made a statement once, that politicians and certainly bureacrats wish no one would EVER hear,---to whit: "We need to have a little revolution every so often" (or words to that effect). Would God that this mess had exploded, say last July! Would there have been heads that rolled? You better believe it--now, REMEMBER all this, file it away, in BOLD, ALL CAPS, and vote accordingly in 2010, 2012, and so on!!! Phew! Most venting I nave ever done!!!! Art