PeeBee

Saw an i8 parked on 69th and 1st in Manhattan the other day. Other interesting cars I see parked in the street, in that neighborhood, include a '66 Mustang GT fastback (clean); a '70 AMC Gremlin (a real beater); and a Jag XK120 roadster (good driver). All registered daily drivers. I was out in Brooklyn not too long ago and came across a '70 440(?) 4-speed 'Cuda convertible parked on the street. I don't think there was one inch of straight steel on that car (it was really bent up!), but it was a registered driver.

I've been using Alclad for over ten years and the application directions haven't changed, and I haven't seen anywhere that they have issued different instructions for different users (why would anybody do that?). It's very simple: Apply a base coat of gloss black ENAMEL (not lacquer, not acrylic) and apply MIST COATS of Alclad @ 12-15 PSI. Of course, you want to make sure the surface you're spraying the base coat on is clean and smooth as glass; Alclad will reveal every imperfection, spec of dust, etc. And, I read on this forum that spraying the mist coats of Alclad at an angle to the work, rather than direct application, will help achieve the chrome-like finish your after. I tried this and it was a noticeable improvement over previous applications I had performed. PB.

Interesting topic in as that I started to modify a new-tool AMT '57 Chevy Hardtop to accept the new-release Revell '57 convertible top. That Revell body is just so far off, and the engraving so soft, that I decided I would not be happy with the results if I built the convertible out-of-the-box. Especially when compared to (IMO) the superior AMT '57. Even the wheels and dashboard of the Revell kit are off. Anyway, after lopping off the top of the AMT body, and some careful sanding, I found that the Revell top lines up pretty close at the windshield, although it is a tad narrow there, and then way narrow at the back. If you compare the two bodies, they are close to dead-on width and lengthwise, but Revell has managed to get the relationship between the convertible top "C" pillars (for want of a better term) and the top of the rear fenders very close when compared to photos of a 1/1 car. I think I may have to widen that top; It won't look right if I just go ahead and add material to the AMT body to close up the gap between the interior and the top. Maybe I should try out an original issue AMT '57 before I start cutting that top, though. Hmmmm. The remaining guts of the Revell convertible will serve as a donor for the MCW '57 Nomad. I am going to build the Nomad as the Hollingworth car so that solves the wheel issue. Another parts interchange I performed recently was the adaptation of A Revell '59 Chevy convertible top and windshield to the Trumpeter '60 Bonnevile convertible. This has been more straightforward, with minimal modifications. Fixing the interior on this kit is a whole other story, however, so it's still on the bench. PB.

Whatever happened to Dr. Cranky? I haven't seen any posts from him for more than a year(?). PB.

I use cheapo store-brand aluminum foil (it's really thin) in lieu of BMF. Microscale sells foil adhesive that works very well and is always consistent as long as you apply it carefully (don't let it puddle, use CLEAN, smooth strokes, etc.). I'll prep several sheets at a time and store them in a shoe box. Shelf life is good past a year (maybe more) as long as you prevent the foil from attracting dust and dirt. And, there's no backing to contend with. I have found that aggressive burnishing on the flat side of the foil (if your trying to simulate anodized or burnished aluminum or stainless) tends to shine the foil up and you begin to lose that effect. I begin burnishing with balsa wood (approx. 1/8" square strips) and then, very carefully, go into the tight spaces with a toothpick. Always start burnishing from the center and work your way out to the edges. I try to not burnish the segments that are to be removed too aggressively in order to minimize residue. Adhesive residue is the downside to this whole method, especially if you're working with a sheet of foil that's been coated recently (within hours to a month or two; foil with older adhesive is easier to remove and leaves less residue). To avoid a bumpy finish, sand the paint covering the trim until it's smooth (I use 1500, 1800 or 2400 micron "polishing" sticks, depending on how aggressive I need to be), and make sure the surfaces are immaculate. Foil reveals every imperfection. I try to use as few pieces of foil as possible, and to keep the application simple and straightforward. This, however, requires a degree of planning before diving in. Be mindful of how the foil's going to wrap around contours to avoid wrinkles and tears. ALWAYS use a fresh blade going in. And, if you're not in the mood, too tired, over-caffeinated, pumped from a work-out, had too many cocktails, whatever, go work on something else. PB.

Wow, so bad it didn't even obtain cult status! I think I recognize some members of the cast from XXX flicks we used to sneak into on Times Square when I was a kid.

Roger that, Bill Engwer. A couple of years ago Porsche rented one of the exhibition spaces at Grand Central Terminal (these spaces used to be the waiting rooms, filled with pews. In the '70s-'80s they became bunkhouses for bums, so the MTA removed the pews and they now rent out the space to exhibitors) to introduce the new Boxster (or was it the Cayman?). Anyway, they brought along that million-dollar mid-engine Carrera thingy and an impeccably restored '50s 550 Spyder to display alongside the new model they were introducing. Guess which car was drawing the crowd? That 550 was jewel-like and sitting next its younger siblings it really made it apparent how heavy-handed and bloated modern Porsches have become. PB.

When my oldest son was in high school he worked for a scrap-metal guy who based his operation at our local dump. My son was always bringing home discarded stuff. The best was the mid-70s AMF snow-blower he hauled home about ten years ago. Somebody got rid of it because it wasn't running. I rebuilt the carburetor and fired it up. Been using it ever since. 8HP, 26" blade, electric start. Pretty good deal, I'd say...

I don't believe Duesenberg ever had pivoting headlights. Ruxton had them.

...in all caps.

All of the above and you take great pictures, too. PB.

That is just one great-looking model. It sits right and you've really drawn out the rakish lines of this convertible. You're in Minnesota? Where's all your snow? You guys must have sent it all east this winter; I still have a 3-foot-deep glacier running through my yard! PB.

YIKES!

Cool that they chromed the dash. Saves one the trouble of spraying it with AlClad and then painting around the raised chrome bezels and trim to pick out the chrome details. The gauge bezels look a little heavy-handed in the photo, though. PB.

Slot cars with headlights just brought back some funny memories. I had a huge HO set-up in my basement when I was a kid. Aurora track with T-Jets (and later the AFX cars), along with a few of the Tyco cars thrown in. I think the slot cars with headlights were called Flamethrowers. This name, along with our predilection to turn off the lights while using these cars (of course), inspired us to try something that would look really cool with the lights out: douse some of the old, lousy cars with gasoline and run em' around the track on fire! Why not? Gas enhanced all of our other play! It worked great on army men, GI Joes, and, of course, our model cars; especially when combined with explosives! And, how about sending model rockets up in flames with M-80s attached! Classic. We weren't aloud to blow anything up inside the house, though. And after the episode with the burning slot cars I was forbidden to bring gasoline into the house, too. Parents could be such kill-joys when I was a kid. PB.

MASTERFUL job. I had that kit and was about half-way through it when my cave was consumed by fire, taking the Bugatti with it. I had the LM wheels as well. These are beautifully cast but very challenging kits, for sure. Kudos. This build is astounding. PB.

I remember when kit box tops were secured to the inside/bottom portion of the box with two small strips of masking tape (or similar tape) before shrink wrap was adopted. Thus it was easy to verify what was in the box before purchasing the kit. PB.

I had, and built, the Heller Gullwing many moons ago and it's long gone. It was OK, but typical Heller: high parts count but soft detail; horrible tires, etc. I don't think it was too far off proportionately, overall, but there were inaccuracies. The AMT kit is way better, and in my opinion one of the better kits of any car subject from that era. I like that Tamiya modeled the entire chassis. The tubular space frame on that car was carried over from the racing 300SLs/SLRs and is the very reason that the car was a gullwing. I always liked that about the Gullwing - no gimmick there - just form following function. I may build the Tamiya kit just for that chassis. PB.

Yup, nuthin' like a V8. That guy was really tip-toeing through the curves, though. I would have liked to have seen him making more use of the gears, torque and brakes that he had at his disposal. Bang it down to third (or second), trail-brake going in, and then lay it on at the apex. Maybe hang the tail out a little bit coming out. Catch my "drift?" Sorry. But yeah, that kind of driving would be a bit aggressive on that road at that time of day.

I have an old Dremel corded variable speed that I control with a foot pedal, which allows me to run it at very low RPM. I've been expecting this method to burn out the motor, but it just keeps running. PB

The top image is ORIGINAL ART, the actual illustration that was rendered in gouache or egg tempera by the artist for use on the main (top) box art. The other four panels are obviously printed lithography. Whether they are from actual printer's proofs, or just box panels cut up from a mint original model box isn't clear. If they were printer's proofs they would have value if they were on the printer's form, which would be a large sheet with artwork resembling an unfolded model box with crops for the die-cut, bleeds, CMYK and spot-color ink information, etc. Extra value would be added if it were a proof with art director's and pressman's notes for color adjustments, etc., or, with the art director's dated approval to run the job. It would be cool if all the other original art was included in the sale. This "original art" is a commercial illustration, which, in the day, had no value beyond the commission (or salary, if done "in-house") paid to the artist who executed it. Unless, of course, the artist was a "super star" magazine cover, movie poster, children's book or graphic artist along the lines of Norman Rockwell, Bob Peak, Maurice Sendak, Milton Glaser, etc. However, people are collecting the more garden variety "anonymous" stuff now (yes, in the art-collector world Al Borst would be considered an anonymous commercial artist), such as ad and packaging art, especially if it complements a hobby or era that they're interested in. Although it doesn't matter what one pays for something if they really have to have it and money is no object, $7,500.00 seems way too high for this piece (by about $7,250.00 for a starting bid). If you had it appraised, or tried to resell it, you'd probably end up very disappointed and wished you'd spent that money on something else. If you ask me, the seller is being unrealistic (Uninformed? Delusional? Greedy?). But hey, you never know. It'll be interesting to see if this auction goes anywhere. PB.

Here's my favorite girlie car. Joanne Woodward in "The Fugitive Kind," 1959.

Nope. Not an exaggeration. What year was your Z? The 1970 cars were substantially quicker than the '71s and subsequent model years. After 1970, performance suffered (just like the American muscle cars) from more draconian pollution control measures and lower compression, etc. And then by '73 Zs started to gain weight due to safety legislation, battering-ram bumpers, more "luxury" features, etc. My girlfriend's sister had a brand-new '70 240Z and her boyfriend would beat on that car without mercy, hence my witnessing, first-hand, the front wheels exiting the tarmac on the 1-2 shift. My sister bought a brand-new '71 Z-car and I was stunned at the drop in performance for that year. It was a different car. And, yeah, my '73 T/A (455SD) would dispatch 240Zs and just about everything else on the road back then. Even on the curves (we have a lot of them in the northeast). It didn't pull wheelies, though!

An early-to-mid '30s Morgan 3-wheeler cruised past my office on 3rd Ave and 39th St. in mid-town Manhattan yesterday. When you think about, actually a sensible car for driving around the city with it's maneuvering and parking advantages. Although, the weather's getting pretty cold and foul now to be driving without the top on, if the guy even has it.... Oh, and the rear end of an immaculate 67-68 Camaro SS poking out of the garage of a guy who lives up the street from me. I imagine he was giving it a tune-up in as that the dual exhausts were puffing away. PB.

Craig Irwin, you are correct in regard to the origins of the 914. When I was a teenager me and my buddy usually had a couple of 914s laying around the driveway. We never registered them or used them for transportation; we'd pick them up at auction with other cars, clean them up and get rid of them. I built several Cal-Look Bugs and 'Ghias back then. A lowered Beetle punched out to 2 liters w/cam and Webers could dispatch 914s with ease (along with non-TII 2002s , the pitiful, wheezing Corvettes of that time, and all of the British sports cars save for a local TR6 that was very potent). Of course, my hottest engines only lasted about 20,000 miles, tops. I always wondered what were they thinking when they released the 914. It had to compete with the 240Z, which I believe was lower-priced than the Porsche. The 914 could barely get out of it's own way; in a '70 240Z you could yank the front wheels off the ground banging into 2nd! No exaggeration. OK. Back to work...