Matt Bacon

It also turns off half the cylinders when they aren't needed, has direct fuel injection to allow higher compression ratios, variable valve timing, and a combustion path and chamber design that took 6 MILLION HOURS of computational fluid dynamics analysis to fine tune. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but your dad's 'vette V8 it ain't... ..and besides which, all of that achieves EPA figures of 17/29 mpg. And you wonder why large-capacity V8s aren't the solution to 21st-century gas mileage requirements? bestest, M.

Wow. That video is a real eye-opener. As far as I can see, the 2009 Chevy doesn't even get its windscreen cracked... That's another one for the "factor of three or four": deaths per billion auto miles travelled in 1951 = 70; deaths per billion miles 2010 = 17... bestest, M.

Crazy, isn't it? We had "oil price shocks" in 2007-8, 1990, 1979, 1974 and 1956. The one thing that's certain is that gas is going to cost 2-3 times what it does now some day in the next ten years. The last shock almost killed the US car industry. Talk about those who don't learn from history being condemned to repeat it... bestest, M.

Which website is blocked? bestest, M.

Nope -- the point is that manufacturers are addressing the problem by NOT building same-weight, same engine displacement vehicles. The 2015 Golf Bluemotion will carry four adults comfortably, safely and quickly on any journey the 1951 car could have made, with air conditioning, great sound system and no less than six cupholders into the bargain. I know the EPA estimates and manufacturer's drivers aren't real world -- my point was that the Mobil Economy Run isn't either, and that the manufacturer's figures, based on optimised driving to achieve maximum economy ARE more comparable with the Economy Run, which was also based on optimising driver's technique to achieve economy, and picking a journey with lots of long open highways and very little city traffic. The Honest John 56 mpg figure IS real world, gathered from people who own the car and drive it every day. So compare that to the SoCal Car Club 1951 numbers, and you STILL get a factor of 3 improvement. You want to see what happens when the engineers turn it up to 11 and REALLY focus on economy: http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/futures/xl1 That gets 120 mpg in the real world -- a factor of two more than a mainstream current car. I'd bet that we'll see 80-90 real world mpg from a practical mainstream small family car by 2020. And I'm really looking forward to seeing what the XL-1 Sport's like with a 200 BHP 1200 cc Ducati engine in it... http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-ducati-powered-vw-xl-sport-is-a-slice-of-ultralight-two-cylinder-awesomeness/ bestest, M.

I hardly think that's fair -- a bunch of cars on a long distance run, driven by people who were specifically trying to achieve high economy and who'd received coaching on how to do it achieved between 20 and 25mpg. If you're going to compare that with anything, it should be with the dedicated "motorway" section of the tests, where they are also trying to achieve economy. Today's VW 2 litre Bluemotion engine gets a Golf to recorded 78.5 mpg. That's 3-4 times the economy achieved in 1951. And yes, you can say that's not a "real world" number, but neither are the Mobil Economy Run figures -- where the report says "Driver training is the reason for the performance obtained during the economy run." If you want to compare real-world figures 1951 to today, the report kindly provides them. 1951 gives us 8.7mpg in urban traffic, up to 22.3 mpg on a free flowing highway. Lets call that about 15mpg in a combined cycle. According to Honest John's real world figures from real drivers, the Golf 1.6 Bluemotion gets about 56 mpg, day in day out. Again, that's a factor of MORE THAN 3. OK, so a factor of three improvement may not seem so much for a technology in these days of Moore's Law, but for mechanical engineering, personally I'd say that being three times more efficient is indeed coming a pretty long way... bestest, M.

Exactly. The 2-litre turbo diesel in my big comfortable Skoda has run a real world day to day usage average of just over 45 mpg over the last three years. And get it on a nice long motorway run at 65 or so, and it's nearer to 60 mpg. And that's with 170 BHP and 260 lbft of torque. That's three times the economy of a "not bad at all for a V-8", which is why auto makers want to find an alternative... bestest, M.

A fantastic kit of a uncompromisingly old school super car: What a beautifully engineered kit, especially around the "working" features. Literally the only place I used filler in the whole build was a small smear to fill the join line UNDERNEATH the black wing mirrors -- a real "because God can see" moment... There's a bit of extra wiring on the engine (the only bits you can see are the four wires from the cylinder heads disapperaing under the airbox, and then only if you look. The OOB engine is pretty good. Interior paint is mostly Vallejo and Citadel, plus Tamiya Rubber Black and NATO black. Exterior is Zero Paints Giallo Orion and Tamiya Rubber Black from a rattle can. The wing has a masked "carbon" texture, not that you'd notice in these pictures! The main thing I learned from this is that if you are spraying a two-layer colour (yellow base overlaid with gold "pearl"), then you need to keep the pieces physically as close together as you can while you spray, to make sure they come out an even colour. If you look carefully, the doors and airscoops are a very slightly darker yellow than the main body. I've distracted as much as possible from it with big black decals etc so it's not too noticeable, but it's a lesson I've hauled on board. bestest, M.

Thanks, guys. I'm calling this one done now: More and better pics in Under Glass when she's had a visit to the studio... bestest, M.

That's a shame -- I had hoped that they were needles moulded from a solid mix of grit n resin, so they'd stay "sharp" even as they wore away. In that case I'll stick with my hand carved nail files! bestest, M.

It was those needles I was trying to find! Where are they from, then? bestest, M.

Not sure what relevance the B-52 has to the discussion -- I didn't say that old technology couldn't be reliable. There are enough 1920s racing cars, 1940s warbirds and 1900s steam engines around in the UK for that to be a given, for me, not to mention the odd 150-year old wooden ship. You're the one who is claiming that NEW technology is bound to be less reliable because it's more complex -- where's the evidence of that from a B-52? Secondly, the 777 is pretty far from all-composite structure -- about 10%, IIRC. I covered aerospace for an engineering materials magazine in the early 90s, and saw the parts being tested at Boeing, so I know what goes into one. You want an ALL-composite airframe, you'll struggle to find one since the Beech Starship -- maybe the Rutan/Virgin White Knight... The 787 is up to about half composite materials. And of course, it's "yet to be seen" how long aircraft with significant amounts of composite material fly for -- they're designed to fly for a lot longer than they've been in service for. What I do know is that all the materials science, all the extensive fatigue testing to get the things certified over the last 20 years, and all the increasingly incredible computer modelling work that's been done on the materials and structures suggests that they have massively better resistance to corrosion and fatigue than any metal. ...and I wasn't thinking of the F-22 or F-35. If the Pentagon wants to procure aircraft designed to "fight the last war rather than the next one" that's its prerogative, and it's up to you as US taxpayers to tell them whether you want them to or not. Anyway, that's a doctrinal problem, not an engineering one. As for "serviced in combat conditions" -- what does that really mean? The track record of serviceability of Russian supplied MiG 29s around the world isn't anything to write home about, let alone in an actual combat scenario (if you can find one...). A Mig-35 is state of the art modern fighter with the latest Russian and Western electronics systems onboard, intended to compete (note, not "fight") with the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen. It's hardly an "austere" fighter for lengthy remote deployments in the field. I don't doubt that it's much more easily serviced in the field than an F-22, but then so's the Starship Enterprise, as has been repeatedly proven... Anyway, I'm not saying that older technology is unreliable. You're asserting that new technology inevitably is. None of those points provides any evidence for that... bestest, M.

Yeah, this new-fangled technology is so unreliable that they're designing airliners that will be flying 100 years after they entered service, and frontline fighter jets that'll operate for the same timespan that separated the Wright Brothers from the Bell X-1. All they'll get is software upgrades in that time. People don't get rid of two year old smartphones because they don't work, they get rid of them because fashion and "look at me" make them want to. You're not going to fix that with engineering, no matter how good it is. For a long time, American cars were designed around bad but straight roads, long distances, cheap gasoline, and the frontier ideal that anything that the good ol' boys at the local blacksmith couldn't fix was a pointless complexity. That past is another country; we do things differently now. And as someone once said, "If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and I'm darn glad that Ford has decided to be part of the solution... bestest, M. (and no, I don't spend the whole day with my head under the hood; equally, I don't think that the fact that you guys don't spend your lives designing mobile phones means that you're unable to have an informed opinion about them, either...)

But the new engines are built with materials, engineering tolerances, build quality and full computer modelling of combustion, heat, flow etc that engineers even ten years ago couldn't dream of. That's why companies are increasingly happy to extend warranties out as far as seven or more years -- you don't think they'd do that if somehow things were becoming LESS reliable as technology progressed, do you? A turbo's not actually a complex device. And my brother in law's built enough of them over the years to know how dramatically things have moved on there, as well. These days, there's no argument for Keep It Stupidly Simple as an engineering principle... bestest,M .

There are some options: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234971934-ultimate-sanders/ http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234971924-moulding-flash-sanders/ http://www.artcotools.com/sanding-sticks.html http://www.riogrande.com/Product/Half-Round-Sanding-Sticks/337593?Pos=2 http://www.ratomodeling.com/reviews/flory_sticks/ or even: http://www.walmart.com/ip/BMC-9pc-Assorted-Sized-Mix-Ombre-Colored-Glass-Manicure-Nail-Buffer-File-Set/39323720 With the nail tools, they are usually a sanding grit surface on top of some foam on top of a hard polythene base. You can cut and shape the ends to any size/width/point you want... In general a visit to the "Nail care" section of your favourite local chemist/druggist/pharmacy/superstore often turns up useful modelling tools! bestest, M.

Money's no object, eh....? In no particular order: 1. Series "1.5' Jaguar E-type coupe, "fine-tuned" by Eagle 2. Aston Martin DB4GT Zagato 3. Ferrari 250 SWB 4. Alfa Romeo 6C 1500 5. McLaren F1 6. Jaguar XKSS 7. Avro 720 Mirage 8. Lotus Elan S2 9. Audi RS6 Avant (gotta have at least one "practical" car) 10. Ferrari 458 Italia Speciale (honorable mentions to the Eagle Low Drag GT, 240Z, Triumph GT6 and Alfa Giulietta Sprint GTA) bestest, M.

I'm saying model. But probably not the one that's sitting in my cabinet... bestest, M.

...straight six sounds a LOT nicer than any gnarly old V8, anyway... just sayin' ;-P I'm not sure why there's such a fuss about "the last Ford V8/Ferrari V12/whatever"... Technology moves on. I doubt they sat around for long in the 20s lamenting the "last 12 litre four", or the "last of the real two-cylinders". Personally, I think it's staggering how quickly over the last ten years the power and performance of small turbocharged engines and hybrid drive systems have developed. No one's repeating Clarkson's claim from a couple of years ago that "the supercar is dead", are they? The P1, LaFerrari and 918 are the vanguard of a new kind of supercar that the new NSX and GT are following, and I say "more power to them!". I expect most supercars in the future to have small, high-revving fossil fuel powered generators driving electric powertrains with KERS and batteries, and if one day Jaguar manage to build one with microturbines instead of reciprocating engines, then "Allelujah" say I. The big difference from the 90s and earlier is that today, the things (power/weight, battery technology, energy recovery and management, maximum fuel efficiency, aero, active electronics...) that people learn about from building these hybrid hyper cars have direct relevance to mass market mainstream cars as well. You couldn't really say that about a carbon-tubbed wedge with a V12 that runs to 9000rpm, or an unaerodynamic lump propelled to stratospheric speed by a 7-litre V8... I think if you base your judgement of the quality/value/importance of a car largely on what the engine sounds like, you're missing a few other important points... bestest, M.

Assembly more or less finished (though I mustn't forget to add the little front quarter indicator repeaters or reflectors). The sharp-eyed will notice that I've turned the wing round, thanks to a timely heads-up from a fellow modeller. And yes, the doors do open, and stay open. Now to find out if they close! Clean it up, touch up the paint, and then time for decals... bestest, M.

Definitely Hasegawa. If you have luck, and the $$$, you can get this one: Otherwise, the standard curbside "early production" is still on sale in some places, and there's another curbside race version around that appears every now and then on auction sites. None of them have an LH drive dash, but at least the dash top is symmetrical, so the surgery to "flip it" is probably do-able, but certainly not easy. bestest, M.

Thanks, Jon! Now the doors are on. The first thing I did was to apply silicone "Plastic Parts Grease" (from the bike store) to the hinge pins on the door arm, and the inside of the socket on the car body. This lubricates the mechanism and, more importantly, stops any kind of glue capillarying inside the hinge and locking it up. After some trying and cursing, I discovered the best way to deal with the door struts is to pop them into the hole in the body, and hold the body shell at angle so you can slide the relevant slot in the door over the hanging strut as you manoeuvre it into position. Once the door was solidly in place, I taped it shut and did the next one. There's a square cover that holds the door hinge in position inside the car. I'd scraped the paint off the plastic around the hinge, and left the cover unpainted, so we had a good plastic to plastic contact all around. I then used plastic cement to stick the cover in place, and left it overnight. I figure that sometimes you can get a lot of leverage on doors like this that might pop a superglued cover off, and I wanted to be sure that once the body was in place it wouldn't need to come off again to retrieve a tiny scrap of plastic. The extension of the strut inside the body makes it harder to put the body over the chassis, and you need to flex it rather more, which I also didn't want to have to do too often. Which leaves us here: The last thing I discovered was don't try to put the front wing on when the instructions tell you! I could NOT get it to fit properly onto a bare shell, but for some reason if you attach it last of all, with the chassis in place, it fits perfectly and attaches to the front edge of the chassis plate very nicely. So the body isn't coming off again. Acid test on the doors still to come, but at least the engine cover opens and closes perfectly! bestest, M.

Thanks! Now for a couple of updates in one, since I've been moving along but haven't got around to posting the pics. This is the insides coming together. It's great to have a separate headliner, which can be painted independently. The real thing is more grey Alcantara so this is Vallejo German Grey, heavily drybrushed, decals added and then matt varnished. The silvering on the decals is a lot less obvious when it's the right way up! Back end going together. This is where reading the instructions carefully at the start of the build to figure out all the parts that could be joined to the body and painted yellow at the outset. The instructions would have you add the extreme lower rear of the body shell at the same time as the wing. This way you can glue them on unpainted plastic for strength, prime and paint all together, rather than trying to tack them on at the end. The headlights are very neat, though you do have to wrangle some pretty tiny parts. My "dopping stick" (a cocktail stick with a very small blob of Blu-Tac on the end) came in handy here. It's best to open out the holes for the head light locating pins slightly, and also check the stalks on the back of the lenses for flash that might get in the way. Another mock up. The small "quarter-light" windows behind the doors are a bit tricky, and the instructions don't help much. If you look inside the car, on the interior roofline of the window, you can see a small tab and slot into which the projection on the top of the window fits. You need to engage these with an "up and under" that leaves the bottom edge of the window INSIDE the car body, and then swing the bottom edge out into position. You can't add the windows purely from outside, as the instructions seem to show... The engine completed. There are some wires UNDER the Y-piece that comes out of the back and around the exhaust box, but you can't really see them. The only wires that really make a difference are the two pairs coming from the front of the rocker covers and disappearing back under the intake manifold. I decided to go for raised inlets -- anything that separates the parts a bit will make it harder to spot the slight differences in colour between parts that were sprayed separately. The mirror close up is here for two reasons. First, it's really not so easy to see how the two parts of the mirror fit together in the instructions, and it's slightly counterintuitive when you are telling yourself that the "legs" need to mount onto a flat surface ahead of the door window. This is how they should look. The second reason is that the seam between the small leg of the mirror housing and the main part is the ONLY place on this entire model where I have used any filler at all. The fit is extraordinary. The second picture neatly demonstrates that if you put the mirrors on before fixing the doors, a dispenser of Tamiya 6mm masking tape is exactly the right thickness to prop the doors up with the mirrors vertical while your glue sets. These are attached with "Serious Glue", which takes about 3 minutes to "grab" and a couple of hours to set. But it's a lot tougher and more resilient than super glue, so if you knock a mirror it's not going to "ping off" taking some paintwork with it... Next -- putting it all together. bestest, M.

I think one of their flesh tones is more or less bang on: If that's the "tobacco" colour you're thinking of, of course... I think that's "golden flesh", IIRC. bestest, M.

The Fujimi, Heller and Union kits are all pretty easy to find, certainly this side of the pond, and they all have Gulf livery boxings... if you want one, they are out there. bestest, M.

I guess it isn't, strictly, a Ford. It was designed and built by Alan Mann Racing, with aerodynamics by a guy "on loan" from Ford, and a Ford 3 litre DFV V8. So it's really it's no more a Ford than the Lotus, Brabham, Matra, Tyrell, Lola... etc, etc. F1 cars that were built around the same engine... Maybe that's why... bestest, M.