Biscuitbuilder

You said "Airflowish"??? And this car is.....? (It may not be what you think it is!) Biscuitbuilder1

Except that Duesenberg NEVER built an automotive engine with more than 8 cylinders, and never a flathead engine with their name on it (although Augie Duesenberg did attempt to produce, on his own, circa 1940, a flathead inline 6 marine engine!). Now, in boat racing, Augie Duesenberg, on his own in his race engine shop, did build a couple of W-24 engines for Horace Dodge Jr's Delphine, an unlimited hydroplane. Biscuitbuilder

Jairus, You are partly right, and partly wrong. Now, which is which? Biscuitbuilder1

Remember, not the name of the engine itself, but the name of the man who designed it! Biscuitbuilder1

"Maybe"???? Well you just "May-be" right, Ismael. It is the one and only inline 12-cylinder engine ever built--Packard, in 1930. Installed in a '29 Packard, it was driven until 1945 by Alvan MacCauley, President of Packard. If a straight 8's virtue was "smooth" this one had to be as slick running as a wet otter on STP. It was a bit of an engineering nightmare though--in order to prevent excessive crankshaft twisting under acceleration, each main journal of the crankshaft was progressively larger in diameter than the ones in front of it, the rear main being over 3" in diameter. Long? You bet it was--considering that the head of a Packard 110 6-cylinder is approximately 30" long, this 12 has to be at least 6 feet in length. I've seen one picture of the car, taken in the late 1930's (it was scrapped in 1945), and the hood looks to be nearly 8 feet long. Add to that the cowling, the seating position of the driver, and the length of the front bumper brackets--Mr MacCauley had to have had to plan on at least 15' of car out in front of his eyes! Biscuitbuilder1

Lotta fun, this part of the '27 T hot rod project--detailing the inside of the body shell: Biscuitbuilder

OK, now what is this engine?

I've seen museums dedicated to things stranger than model cars--out in Iowa there is, or was, a museum of barbed wire fencing! One of things that sets Mark Gustavson's museum effort apart is that it's not just a museum of collectible old stuff, although there is a lot of that there, nor is it a museum of a bunch of old builtups by now-deceased modelers having some fame in the hobby (that few in the general population at large really knew or understood), nor is it a museum dedicated to the artistry of scale model cars--no, it's all that. While of course, the National Model Car Builder's Museum in Salt Lake City is heavily weighted toward customs and rods of years gone by, with a very nice side dish of the old Oakland Roadster Show (massive and intriguing diorama that!), it does also tell a story of this hobby as no other has, or does. I can easily see a model car museum as telling part of the story of a unique generation--the boomers, if you will. Face it, model car building is OUR hobby, we were the first to be enamored with the idea of taking a bunch of plastic pieces, gluing them together, then upon learning that the models we built could be customized to each our own whims and imaginations, well to put it mildly, we baby boom kids went wild, and did so for the next 15yrs or so after the first 3in1 customizing kits hit the hobby shop shelves. Along the way, we also learned now to replicate stuff that we saw in real life, or wished we had seen. And with this, we boomers have been able to not only exercise our own thoughts as to how a car ought to look, we also became able to create in miniature the history of the automobile itself, from the beginnings to today. Along with all this, we modelers can also recreate the greatest moments in all forms of motorsport as well--the list of what we do is as long as the list of modelers by name. So, go for it, if you can! Biscuitbuilder1

Then, I might suggest hanging around a Mercury dealership for awhile, watching to see who all drives on the lot--chances are you will see as many white heads of hair there as any place at the mall on Wednesday afternoons at 1pm--their customer base averages out at nearly 50yrs old, in my experience, having sold Lincoln-Mercury for about half a year some years back. Biscuitbuilder

ledsled, Nice try, if it worked, but frankly, it won't. Mercury started out in '39, simply because the sales department at Ford convinced Old Henry (who signed the checks) and Edsel, his son and the figurehead president of Ford, that a new car was needed to fill in the imagined gap between Ford and the Lincoln-Zephyr (at that point in time, Lincoln Zephyr sold in the price range of the middle of the Buick lineup). Valiant try it was, but for one failing: Sales numbers never got close enough to justifying a totally different car (only the engine and mechanicals were shared with Ford, chassis and the body were unique to Mercury only in '30-'40. So, from '41 through '48, a Mercury was a Ford body, all dressed up, with a 6" longer chassis up front, along with a longer and somewhat unique front clip. Enter 1949: For '49-'51, Mercury got again, a unique body shell, longer frame, still a more potent flathead V8 than Ford, and guess what? For all the "icon" status that bathtub Mercs have today in the enthusiast world, it never was a car for the buyer under age 40 or so--rather it was pretty much another car, solid and plump, for solid and plump middle aged and older buyers--sales never really took off, at least not enough to warrant an all new unique body for 1952. And that loyal, dedicated fan base for those '52-'56 Mercs? You guessed it, by and large, middle aged and elderly car buyers. But there's still more! For '57, Mercury got an all new chassis, and completely unique body shell, which shared almost nothing with any Ford or Lincoln, apart from mechanical stuff. Its Chassis was that of the Fairlane 500 series, and seems to have been positioned as it was, to amortize new tooling for the coming-for-'58 "Utopian Turtletop", AKA the Edsel Citation. While Edsel sales tanked right out of the starting gate, Mercury sales for '57-'58, even in that era of glitz, glamor and kitsch, were abysmal in comparison to the rest of Fomoco, even worse when compared with the rest of the industry. Even the Cougar, when introduced in '67 didn't really break that mold--while Mustang-based, but longer, and with some of the prettiest styling of the 60's, sold only tolerably well, but apparently barely enough to justify it's existence, so those Cougars floundered pretty badly as well. All this is proof that a marque having a history of only marginal sales, no matter what is done to enhance it, only serves the manufacturer if it can give additional sales and market penetration using existing tooling shared with another marque to offset the costs associated with marketing it, and manage to enhance the bottom line along with it. If that goes away, then why throw good money after bad? Mercury almost never has had the young market enjoyed by Ford, or any others in the low priced field, even with buyers more affluent. As Harley Earl observed, years ago: "You can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man and old man's car", and from all appearances, Mercury never was able to attract many younger buyers, for whatever reasons. And, the bottom line in all this is the bottom line, period. It goes like this: "When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep is your downfall". You should know that from your own life experiences. Trust me, in business, it's no different. Biscuitbuilder

Mercury? Sorry, but for most of its history, Mercury has been the car for the middle-aged, the elderly--and that perception I have goes waaaaayyyy back, to Uncle Perry & Aunt Neva's '51 Merc 4dr. No way did I want to be caught dead riding in that car, even though those two people were a pair of the nicest "greats" I ever had. Mercury has only had a unique body, chassis and engine a couple of times in its history, I believe--1939-40 (its first two years) and from 1957-59, otherwise it's pretty much been a badge-engineered Ford, even a cheap Lincoln for a couple of years in the 50's ('55-'56), if memory serves me right. Oh yeah, there was that '99-'02 Cougar (advertised as being designed for women, for the female market--didn't much appeal to them either). But, other than those few years of unique Merc's, mostly it's been an "upscale" Ford (Even the '49-'51 was originally designed as the first post-war Ford, until the "whizz kids" HFII hired at the end of WW-II realized it would be too big and too high-priced to go head-to-head with the likes of Chevrolet and Plymouth). most years using Ford body shells, on a longer wheelbase, same or similar engines, same transmissions, same everything that mattered. But why keep it around? Simple: Having multiple marques, while sharing everything back and forth across product lines, in good times expands the dealer network, broadens the customer base. But, when times get tough, not a good idea to have an otherwise strong dealer (the local Ford store) going head-to-head all the time with a weaker store selling essentially the same car, even if for a few dollars more. Mercury's introduction was meant to keep Ford buyers buying Ford product as they became more affluent, by giving them a bit more car, with its own identity, but yet having that upscale appeal--pretty much following GM's lead (you know, start them with Chevies, then move them up to Pontiac, and when they got more income, to an Olds, and if they reached VP of the bank, a Buick, and for those who hit the bigtime, with the penthouse office and exec washroom--Cadillac), but it never really did work for Fomoco like it did for GM. But, even for GM, those days are pretty much gone forever. This is the age of specialization--even Toyota and Honda aren't truly able to meet all needs for all people--otherwise there wouldn't be more automakers out there than anytime since the 1930's--and Ford may just now be waking up to the fact that they can't really be in every market without specific cars tailored to any niche they choose to enter. Chrysler found that out a few years back--hence the demise of Plymouth, GM discovered that no matter what they did, it still WAS your father's Oldsmobile (and even he, in his later years, didn't much care for the new ones). Times change in the auto business--they always have, and always will--I think that's pretty much a fact of life. Biscuitbuilder

You got me! This is the second time in row over the last two weeks that I've had the problem--posted those T-bucket pics on the "other two message boards" with no problems whatsoever! Biscuitbuilder

Where you gonna stow the tire iron Danica shoulda had when she went looking to take the head off that clown who took her out of the 500? Man, with the fire in her eyes (they melted her face shield away!) and that determined march down pit lane, she'd have taken his head clean off, not even scratched his helmet! Biscuitbuilder

How's come all of a sudden I am getting a notice, when trying to insert pics in a post, that "dynamic images are not allowed", when I am inserting them as per instructions, from my Fotki site just as I always have? Has something changed, or is there something in the water, just what is going on all of a sudden? Biscuitbuilder

BluesmanMark, I don't think honoring the living veterans today in any way cheapens the original purpose of a day set aside to remember first, those who gave their lives in our Civil War (on both sides), and ultimately in all those who died in all this nation's wars. Truly, as President Lincoln spoke, "...they gave the last full measure of their devotion...". While it is true that today is when the President of the United States, or his designated representative, places a wreath of honor at the tombs of the Unknown Soldiers at Arlington, this is also done on what was originally known as "Armistice Day" later to become "Veterans' Day" on November 11, the moment in time, at 11:11am, when the guns fell silent in France in 1918. Both holidays have, by tradition, become days to remember both those who died for our country, and those who went and served, particularly those who faced the enemy--for they were there, wherever "there" was, prepared if need be, to sacrifice themselves for those of us here at home. I once felt as you did, as a boy, a teenager, even a young adult. While I'd seen "The Longest Day" in the theater in 1962, it really didn't hit me until the 50th anniversary of that suspenseful and bloody June day, when it got to me--watching those old men there, on the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach, that in such a very real way, they and their fallen buddies did what they did, THAT day, for a baby boy, way back in a place called Indiana, who had another 5 weeks to go before he'd get born--ME. They did what they did, whether they really wanted to be there or not, for not only the grownups back home, and the kids they left behind, sons, brothers, cousins, nephews; but for generations of kids yet born--that we might have a chance to grow up in a world better than the one they found themselves stuck in. Also, thus it was, I prefer to think, of those who gave their lives for the concept of this country, in the Revolutionary War, the battles with the Barbary Pirates, The War of 1812, The Mexican War, our War Between The States, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War, and today in Iraq and Afganistan. Introspersed in those decades were the wars settling the West, and some unfortunate but then-considered-necessary incursions into Central America, which whether anyone of us today likes to even think of them, those events did help to shape this country we call home today. Honoring the living veterans today is just as important, I believe, as placing the Flag on each and every grave of each and every American soldier, sailor, airman or marine--after all, living veterans of all those years are our direct link to those who died to make or keep us free. And, I suspect that their grief is just as important--while the dead were lost to their families and friends at home, so many veterans saw the loss of part of another family--their "band of brothers". So today, I will softly and sincerely say, to any veteran I meet when I go to our local commemoration: "Thankyou for what you did, not just for your country, but for me." So, whether your slogan is Semper Fi, Over Hill Over Dale, Anchors Aweigh, Off We Go, or Semper Paratus--Veterans, I honor and thank you, and to those who gave their lives without my being able to express my gratitude, God, please take care of each and every one of them! Biscuitbuilder

Over the past 98 years, a number of different engines have won at Indy: Marmon 6-cylinder (1911), National 4-cylinder (1912), Peugeot 4-cyl (1913--the engine that introduced DOHC to auto racing world-wide, and the inspiration for every Miller, Duesenberg and Offenhauser ever built, BTW), Delage 4-cyl (1914), Mercedes 4-cyl (1915) Peugeot-Premier 4's in 1916-1919), Frontenac 4-cyl (1920--designed and built by the Chevrolet brothers), Frontenac straight 8 (1921), Miller straight 8 (1922-23), Duesenberg straight 8 (1924, 25, 27), Offenhauser 4-cylinder (1935-38, 1947-76), Maserati straight 8 (1939-40), Sparks-Thorne 6-cylinder (1946--essentially a 6-cylinder Offenhauser), Ford 255cid V8 DOHC (1965-67, turbocharged 169cid 1969-71), Cosworth-Ford DFX V8 (beginning in 1977)--lost track of how many different engines CART brought to the Speedway. Of course, IRL brought in the GM Northstar based Olds Aurora V8 in 1997, then Honda took over. As for speed "barriers" in qualifying, the first 100mph qualifying lap came, I believe, in 1916, 125mph barrier fell to Leon Duray in 1928, 150mph was passed by Parnelli Jones in 1961, 160mph barrier was broken by, I believe Mario Andretti in 1966, 170mph barrier fell to Al Unser Sr in 1970 I think), 180mph barrier and 190mph went away in 1972 with Bobby Unser, and 200mph fell to Tom Sneva in 1977. The current all-time one and four lap records were set, not by a CART driver, but by Arie Luyendyke in 1996, although in a CART-spec car, at nearly 138mph (or a gnat's whisker faster). Biscuitbuilder1

Greg, You coulda watched Indy live, on indycar.com, with the radio broadcast instead of ABC. I did, as I live in the Indianapolis TV market, where the TV broadcast was delayed until 7pm. Biscuitbuilder1

Now, wouldn't, next year, a mad sprintcar style dash to the checkered flag between Danica and Marco be cool as hell? In fact, the two of them running all out, nose to nose for say, the final 20 laps? My desire for the finish though? Tom Carnegie intoning--"Where is Andretti?" (Just kidding, Marco has the fever and he has it even more so that his legendary grandpa!) Biscuitbuilder1

I am a member of IPMS/Souders Earhart chapter, which I co-founded (July 1976) with Doris I. Reeves from here in Lafayette (Doris was the first female member of IPMS/USA, in fact one of the founders of that national organization, and a devout enthusiast until her passing in 1999. In addition, I am a founding member of Lafayette (IN) Miniature Car club, which began in 1991. I was, for most of the 1980's, a member of Lake Michigan Model Car Club out of the west suburbs of Chicago, giving me the acquaintance of the likes of Dean Milano, Jack Willer, Don Sikora, and many others in the Chicago model car scene. Biscuitbuilder

Ecclestone wanted, as you state, all manner of improvements, for what was for IMS apparently a very low profit event--F1 held all the TV rights, controlled just about everything) and apparently wouldn't budge, so Tony George, acting on behalf of his mother and siblings, who own the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation (it's a closed, family-held corporation) refused to sign on for another contract. Not surprising, as one does not keep a multi-billion dollar family fortune growing by making stupid deals. In addition, it does appear that F1 just is NOT a major draw in Indianapolis, nor across the US, as a significant portion of each year's attendance did come to Indy, tourist visas in hand. Biscuitbuilder1

Ecclestone wanted, as you state, all manner of improvements, for what was for IMS apparently a very low profit event--F1 held all the TV rights, controlled just about everything) and apparently wouldn't budge, so Tony George, acting on behalf of his mother and siblings, who own the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation (it's a closed, family-held corporation) refused to sign on for another contract. Not surprising, as one does not keep a multi-billion dollar family fortune growing by making stupid deals. In addition, it does appear that F1 just is NOT a major draw in Indianapolis, nor across the US, as a significant portion of each year's attendance did come to Indy, tourist visas in hand. Biscuitbuilder1

Ecclestone wanted, as you state, all manner of improvements, for what was for IMS apparently a very low profit event--F1 held all the TV rights, controlled just about everything) and apparently wouldn't budge, so Tony George, acting on behalf of his mother and siblings, who own the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation (it's a closed, family-held corporation) refused to sign on for another contract. Not surprising, as one does not keep a multi-billion dollar family fortune growing by making stupid deals. In addition, it does appear that F1 just is NOT a major draw in Indianapolis, nor across the US, as a significant portion of each year's attendance did come to Indy, tourist visas in hand. Biscuitbuilder1

Except for the simple fact that only the "big box" stores have any sort of computerized reporting capabilities, which they can use to provide this feedback. When one thinks of it, what LHS owner has that kind of time to begin with, or the $$ to invest in POP systems (cash registers) that will gather that information? And, even if they did, what about all the little stuff we like to buy at the hobby shop without the UPC bar thingie? To draw conclusions from sales on eBay when considering a reissue, or new tooling of an old subject is pure and simple, the crapshot of crapshots, in my experience. The same is also true of swap meet collectors' pricing--those just don't give much information as to what might sell in the future. Oh, and don't forget one of the cardinal rules of Computer Science 101: GIGO, or Garbage In, Garbage Out. That said, when I was with Playing Mantis, specifically Johnny Lightning (and a bit of time once in a while down the hall at Polar Lights) we regularly got "sell through" information, compiled by a vendor of such information from sales data from the various -Marts out there. Trouble was, those retailers began quitting supplying that information. (sell through is the rate of sales, as a percentage of what was received at a particular store or chain, in a given period--generally 30-days). Biscuitbuilder

Let's try the supercharged Pontiac 4-cylinder (half of a 389cid V8) from the old Revell kit of Mickey Thompson's Attempt I dragster from about 1964-64. Biscuitbuilder

I'm not sure about 1963, but Studebaker's 1962 V8 engines were black, with light yellow valve covers and oil pan. As for the underside of the body shell, while it was completely fiberglas (as was the rest of the bodywork) a safe bet is that it was primered, probably in red oxide, with just some body color overspray just inboard of the bottom edges of the rocker panels. Chassis would have been black, most likely. Biscuitbuilder