Aaronw

Thanks, I thought it was a cabriolet but was having a hard time deciding. Off to get the Monogram kit. Not sure on the full definition of roadster vs. cabriolet, but at least on the '36 Ford the windscreen seems to be the giveaway feature. The roadster has a very narrow frame and wind wings, the Cabriolet has a little more substantial frame around the windshield. Since it has roll up windows I guess it doesn't need the wind wings. Roadster http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/photogallery/1936-ford-roadster-ps.cfm Cabriolet http://www.ebay.com/itm/371311376619?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT If I had an extra $67,000 laying around I wouldn't be just be looking for the Monogram kit.

A little late getting back to this. I'm having a hard time deciding whether I'm dealing with a roadster or a cabriolet. This is the car I'm looking at doing, it says roadster but I think it is really a cabriolet. The photos are not that great and I'm not that knowledgeable to begin with, but it looks like it has a fixed windshield which I understand it the major difference between the two. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_510370-Ford-V8-De-Luxe-68-1936.html Thanks

I bought a slightly used 1989 Toyota Tercel in 1990. I owned it for 8 years and put more than 200,000 miles on it before deciding it was time for something else.

Does anyone know of a RHD conversion for this kit? I had the idea of building an Australian bush truck, but the steering wheel is on the wrong side for that.

I would think so, the dump was last out around 2000 and we got the Stevens re-issue of the tractor in 2008 or 2009?

We had a 1972 "regular size" VW bus when I started driving. I used to literally have nightmares of it tipping over ridiculously easy, dreams of it tipping over from a light breeze while stopped at a light. Driving that thing would scare the heck out of me as an experienced driver.

No, I work at an off grid fire station out in the forest that runs on a generator. I've done a lot of research over the past 2 years looking for alternatives to burning 8-10 thousand gallons of propane every year (plus an unholy racket that really ruins the whole working in the forest thing). Solar was the best option we found and it has been estimated to save the government at least $10,000/yr. The proposal was successful and I've been told they expect to break ground on it sometime this summer or fall. Solar was our best option, but there are also some pretty neat developments in low volume / high pressure hydroelectric power. I visited a small resort (8 or 10 small cabins) in Northern California that gets all of its electricity from a small hydroelectric system powered by the runoff from a spring on a hillside about 500 feet above the resort. The power generation is pretty low tech, about 800 feet of 3/4" pipe and a water wheel about 6" in diameter. Due to the elevation the water comes into the system at around 200 psi so generates a lot of energy with a small amount of water. The water is then diverted to their water filtration system and storage tanks so not only provides their power, but also eliminates the need for a well.

Indirectly. Subsidies have led to increased demand, which have led to reduced cost, but the prices quoted do not include government assistance. So not only have the prices plummeted, but you can still get tax breaks and direct subsidies to help offset the lower cost of going solar. The Chinese play a part as well. They were trying to undercut the solar market, but instead of driving everyone else out of the market, it led others to find cheaper / more efficient ways to make solar panels. Solar had not seen a lot of change in basic technology over the years. When the Chinese tried to artificially drive the cost down it led to a new push to develop the technology. Lighter, cheaper, more efficient and less resource heavy solar panels have been developed in the past decade to compete with cheap Chinese panels. Also worldwide use of solar has nearly tripled over the past 5 years, and as with anything as production increases the cost to manufacture goes down.

If they put 1940s/50s style fenders on it, I think it would look a lot better. I agree, but always thought that was what they were going for. The Juke is a little jarring, but I kind of like it. It is certainly stands out in a world filled with largely look alike cars.

Solar panels have dropped in price from $77/watt in the 1970s, to about $0.74/watt today. Recent demand and improved manufacturing techniques have cut the cost tremendously. Solar panels stabilized at $7-10/watt through the late 80s and 90s eventually dropping as low as $5/watt in 2008. From 2008 to now the prices have plummeted by 80%, and it is estimated that costs will drop another 40% by 2017. The EPA has estimated the average grid tie system will pay for itself in 5 years (modern solar panels have a 20-25 year life expectancy). The costs have dropped so much that even full off grid systems (panels, inverter, batteries) is cost effective when compared to getting your power from the grid.

It is probably worth talking to drivers who do different kinds of driving to see what interests you. While from the outside it may seem like driving is driving, there are differences. My brother has been driving a truck for probably close to 10 years now, mostly hauling gravel in bottom dumps. He recently got some work driving a dump truck which he actually finds more enjoyable.

See that used to be a clip on device you could attach to your hat, now available in your car. Seriously, they were a little buzzer with some sort of device (probably just a ball bearing) to sense the angle. If your head tipped forward as it would if you started to doze off, the buzzer went off to wake you up. I can remember seeing these for sale at truck stops when I was a kid.

Not sure if people are looking at the article or not but it includes photos of some of these quirky cars if you haven't had a peak. I kind of liked Ford's entry, a bigger, heavier LTD with hydraulic bumpers. DOT spec headlights are terrible, the light is blotchy and it creates a lot of glare to other drivers. I've got an older car with sealed beams, so I replaced them with a set of Hella composites (separate bulb inside a lens as you find on modern cars). They look identical to a sealed beam, use the required 55/65w bulb, but the lens is made to European specs, not DOT. The difference is amazing, much better light on the road and reduced glare to oncoming traffic.

I notice a lot of grumbling on this site about the effects of safety in auto design. I ran across this article that shows where some of this came from. http://ranwhenparked.net/2013/01/10/developing-the-death-proof-car-2/ In 1970 the US Department of Transportation started their Experimental Safety Vehicle Program, which was designed to get the auto makers to look into ways cars could be made safer. While some of the ideas were impractical, the program did lead to many of todays common safety features like the 5 mph bumper, better control, side impact protection, air bags and anti-lock brakes. A few of the more notable concepts (some practical, some not). AMF (best known for sporting goods) included bumpers with 30" of travel. MG developed a drunk proof car, the driver had to follow a series of colored lights to start the car. Toyota included a radar to detect obstacles in the road. VW had a system connected to the steering to help compensate for a cross wind. Most of these ESCs have faded into obscurity, but Volvo's entry heavily influenced the design of their 240 series which they built from 1974 to 1993.

Neat video, I never realized the Pacer didn't have very good fuel economy but not really surprising with a big 6 or a V-8 under the hood. Looking online it looks like it was rated 18/24 by the EPA which isn't bad for an American car in the mid '70s. Not quite as good as a Vega (19/28) or Pinto (18/26) but comparable. On the other hand you could do almost as well with a larger Chevy Nova (16/21) and even a Camaro with a 350 V-8 (13/20) doesn't look too bad. Compared to the imports though really poor. If you were worried about gas prices in 1975 you could buy a Datsun B210 (27/39), Honda Civic (27/39), Toyota Corolla (21/33), or VW Rabbit (24/38). Really not surprising the US auto industry lost the fight over the economy market in the 70s. I wonder if anyone has put a rotary engine in a Pacer (donated from a Mazda RX-7 maybe) to show what the Pacer might have been. It wouldn't have helped fuel economy (the 1975 Mazda RX-3 had a rotary engine and got 14/20 mpg), but it might have made it more sporty.

It isn't bad looking, but isn't at all practical. I have no use for all these not a real trucks that come along every few years (Avalanche, Explorer Spot Trac etc). At least with the old Utes based on larger cars you could marginally haul some 2x4s, a sofa or sleep in the back. A 4 foot bed is basically useless. A Camaro Wagon though... Still wouldn't buy one, but it would be a neat car for a road trip, sporty performance and room for some luggage, they could call it a Nomad for retro appeal.

I've posted some photos of a local 1926 Mack AC in the reference section for anyone interested in building one of these trucks. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=100746 I've got a few in the stash but not sure if I will be able to find the time to get one going during April.

With several people talking about building the Monogram Mack AC I thought these might be helpful. This is a local truck that shows up at various old equipment shows in the area. It is almost a perfect match for the Monogram AC dump truck kit.

I think the distribution is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Certainly the oil companies are not doing anything to encourage distribution of alternative fuels at their stations, but there is also the demand side. With only a relatively small number of alternative fuel vehicles out there (and those not all using the same alternate fuels) it often isn't cost effective to a station owner to "waste" a pump on those fuels. Of course the number of alternative fuel vehicles is also limited due to the poor distribution of fueling stations. I'm in a notably green part of the state, so there is a higher than average number of alternative fueling stations available because more people around here own cars using these fuels. Still nowhere near as convenient as getting fuel for a car using conventional fuels, and of course travel out of the area can become an issue. Those that offer dual fuel capability are a logical stepping stone. We have a truck at work that runs on compressed natural gas, but it also has a regular gas tank it uses when the CNG runs out. Plug in hybrids use gas when the batteries run down so it isn't a major problem if you don't have a charging station away from home. Bio-diesel vehicles can be run with regular diesel and I believe the E85 cars can also run on regular unleaded when E85 isn't available. That flexibility will help the alternative fuels spread by making the cars less of an issue to own, while slowly creating the demand for these other fuels.

That is because corn is a poor choice for fuel. Corn is barely better than 1 to 1 fuel consumed in production to fuel produced. Other stocks produce far better ratios, Brazil is using sugar cane which produces 8 gallons of ethanol per gallon of fuel consumed in production.

I didn't even think about hex rod, makes perfect sense.

Lots of options beyond food stocks, in fact many of the non food based sources are superior, corn is actually a poor choice. The corn lobby has a loud voice though, like I said there are a lot of politics getting in the way.