Harry P.

There's a perfect example of the poor product planning and bad management decisions I referred to in other posts... Detroit caught with its pants down again! The Japanese were busy cranking out stylish, fuel-efficient cars to better meet the challenges of the times, which they apparently had no trouble recognizing, while Ford and the rest of the Big Three, smug in their US market dominance, did very little to bring out smaller, more efficient cars. When they finally realized that the market had shifted and people now wanted more efficient cars, they had nothing in the way of new product to sell, so last-minute "new" cars like the Mustang II were created to fill the demand for more efficient cars. Most American compacts of that time, meant to go head-to-head with the Japanese imports, were poorly designed, poorly engineered and poorly executed. Remember GM's Vega? It began to rust away before you got it home from the showroom! Same with the mid-70s Aspens and Volares from Chrysler. And the Ford Pinto had a nasty habit of exploding into a ball of flames when rear-ended even slightly. Cars like that cemented the notion that American cars were just not up to snuff, and Japanese cars were better. And that was true in the 70s. Nowadays, I really believe that American cars as as good, if not better, than their Asian competition, but the perception of poor quality lingers on in the minds of consumers. "Buy domestic" is still a tough sell for the US automakers (as can be seen by their current situation!), but Detroit has nobody to blame but itself. They really shot themselves in the foot by putting out the ###### that they did in the 70s... and they never recovered from that image of "Detroit junk", even though it's not really true anymore.

Anybody seen George lately?

I don't think Ford is in a financial position to be bringing out any totally fresh, all new, from-the-ground-up models at this time... They're too busy figuring out how they're going to keep the lights on.

I couldn't disagree more! The "retro" styling of the Mustang, Challenger, etc. isn't why Detroit is in the dumper! Look, the Mustang and cars like it are meant to appeal to a certain demographic, they are deliberate reworkings of classic American models from the past, meant only for the American (not worldwide) market. Ford didn't do the current Mustang in retro style because they can't do anything more "forward looking"! It was done that way very deliberately, to appeal to a certain target audience. The current Mustang is NOT meant to appeal to everyone... it is NOT an American "Camry", and it is not meant to compete on the global market. It is a uniquely American icon. The problems US automakers are facing have nothing to do with the relatively few "retro" styled cars out there. They have everything to do with poor product planning, constantly playing "catch up" with the Japanese in terms of technology and fuel efficiency, spending millions and millions fighting and trying to stop government fuel efficiency standards, a far too large reliance on BIG gas guzzling monsters and not enough serious effort into small, economical cars, and the crushing legacy costs they must pay out to all ex-employees. GM's cost to cover its employee contract/benefits agreements is approximately $1,500 per car! Toyota, by contrast, has a roughly $100 per car cost. So in effect GM is forced to compete with Toyota by giving Toyota a $1500 "head start" on price. Nobody ever won a 50 yard dash by giving the other guy a 25 yard head start!!!

Interior looks good. I really like the steering wheel... "retro" yet new at the same time. And I love the "dual cove" shape of the dashboard, very 60s Mustang!

"Something better" is very subjective... as is automotive styling to begin with. If you happen to like "retro" type styling (I love it!), then the current Mustang looks great, no changes needed (IMO). Of course, if you don't like the retro look, you'll be hoping for something "better" in the future... but for me, that something "better", in the case of Mustang, is already here!

Looks good to me... except the rear end. The current style looks better. Change for the sake of change never excited me too much.

Like Mark said. Once upon a time, back in the early days of hot rods (1940s-50s), a car that was built "on the cheap" by a kid in his back yard from whatever parts he had available or could afford was simply a "hot rod". They looked the way they did not because there was a conscious desire to make them look that way... that's just how a miscellaneous collection of (sometimes) unrelated, cheap parts looked when put together. Fast forward to the late 80s-early 90s or so... hot rods had gone "upscale" and the trend was for lots of hi-tech looking billet parts, chrome, expensive wheels/tires... basically the opposite of what a "real" hot rod was back in the day. A "protest" arose against that sleek engineered look, a sort of back-to-basics, more traditional look, with "vintage" style engines, intakes, wheels, etc. Somewhere around that time the term "rat rod" came into use, to describe a car that had the look of the old hot rods...maybe it was still in primer, maybe it had parts from several different manufacturers, maybe it wasn't exactly "showroom fresh" looking... but the difference between the original hot rods and the new "rat rods" was that the rat rods were built to look that way on purpose. Then a whole rat rod "lifestyle" grew around that style of cars (similar to the "biker lifestyle" revolving around Harleys). The rat rod movement included lots of pseudo-50s clothes, tattoos, and of course ratty looking cars... the rattier, rougher looking, the better. As Mark said, these cars became extreme in their "rat rod" look, and soon became a parody of themselves...the whole "rat rod" lifestyle was nothing more than a fake "tribute" to the original cars, and the current-day "rat rods" became more and more outrageous and cartoon-like, and many were in reality not even drivable. Most guys who were into hot rods back at the beginning cringe when they hear the term "rat rod", because to them it signifies a phony throwback to the "real" hot rods that were were being built back then. They were never called "rat rods" back in the day, they were "hot rods". I also have to agree with Mark... regardless of the "validity" of a current day rat rod, they're fun to build as models. Personally I like the look, and the fact that you can't build one the wrong way. Anything goes! Parts box, here I come!

Ok, Art... let me respond to some of your your post points individually: Harry, There is no guarrantee whatsoever, short of intensive government intervention, to the point of making say, GM, some sort of government agency (those do have unlimited life!) that whatever is extended to them won't end up failing. That's why interest rates in the first place--the "rental of the money" of course, but also the risks involved (will the money eventually get paid back?). Charging interest rates does nothing to guarantee repayment. Take a look at the massive amount of foreclosures in the country as "exhibit A". And, IIRC, WPA and its derivatives, such as the TVA, did produce fairly quick results by providing what was in the 1930's, an alternative form of energy. That's my point! It worked before... it can work again. Thousands of unemployed auto workers ("skilled" workers, by definition) could be trained in short order to build solar collectors and wind farms. Not immediately, of course... training would take some time. But the money spent training them would pay dividends down the road vs. the money we'd otherwise throw down the "big auto"" rathole in a misguided "bailout" of Detroit. ...as a rule we Americans haven't much cared for government, be it Congress, or some body of bureaucrats in Washington dictating what we can or cannot buy and drive. For us, our car is still an extension of ourselves in so many ways. True enough, up till now. But times change, society's needs change. We have a new reality to face. Can anyone out there... anyone... give me a rational argument in these current times in favor of vehicles like Hummers, et.al.??? Consumers have no inherent "right" to cars like that, any more than we have an inherent right to own a rocketship or aircraft carrier. Bailing out say, General Motors, while failing to address the true underlying causes of their financial problems won't do a danged thing but prolong the agony, delay the inevitable. It's not the cars that GM makes, or doesn't make that are at the root of the problem, but how much it costs them to make what they make, VS what they can sell them for. And that is the hardest part of the equation to solve, as production costs are directly related to the human factor. It's going to be a tough sell for any politician to go with something that means dramatically reduced compensation, but then, when GM pays almost twice what any of the transplants pay, for essentially the same services, something will have to give in order to solve the situation, make the company sustainable. Exactly what I'm saying! GM wants free money from the taxpayers? Then the taxpayers have the right to make the rules, like mandatory renegotiation of UAW contracts in order to get a handle on legacy costs. The UAW doesn't want to budge? Fine... then no taxpayer money. Simple as that. If the UAW is truly interested in saving jobs, and counting on the taxpayers to bail out GM, then they'd better be prepared to play ball according to our rules from now on. Cutting back, way back, on the overall bureaucracy at a huge company such as GM should be a key to the solution as well. Just as with government agencies, in a mega-corporation, it's too easy to base the need for more "cogs in the gears" to higher pay for those who must direct the activities of others. The more "reports" any manager (in government, institutions and large companies) has, the more he/she can demand in compensation. One has to wonder, just how many engineers, stylists does it take say, Toyota, to operate as huge an operation as they have, compared to GM? Again, I agree. The "foreign" companies run a much tighter, more efficient ship, while at the same time making better cars! Why in the world can't (or won't) US automakers do the same??? But to give goverment the power to dictate what sort of products GM (or any other manufacturer for that matter!) shall make is a very slippery slope. Yes it is a slippery slope indeed, and one that I prefer not to get on! But giving a private company taxpayer money is the beginning of that slippery slope. Giving taxpayer money to a failing private enterprise to keep it afloat is by definition nationalizing that private enterprise. So if you advocate getting on that slope and bailing out the automakers in the first place, at least put some conditions and rules in there that will benefit the people who would now be footing the bills (that would be us!) Ultimately, if we are to have any sort of free market system, where the consumer dictates what gets made, based on sales or the lack thereof, is what will solve the problem of what cars will be built, whether there is to be such as a high performance Corvette (or Ferrari, or whatever), or not. And there you have perfectly underlined my point! In a free market system, companies succeed or fail based on the marketplace, not by artificial propping up by government bailout.

Very nice... the subtle "used" look is very well done... obviously you paid a lot of attention to the details.. So I'm even more confused by the fact that there's no drive belt on the alternator pulley!!!

George? George? Where are you???

The last time GM tried to sell a Holden here, it flopped big time. Remember the new "GTO"? It didn't fool too many people here in the US...

Looks fantastic, excellent job! But why in the world would you paint the body first, then chop off the roof???

That's exactly the problem! They're standing there with their hand held out for free taxpayer money without changing a thing! That's why I said earlier that any taxpayer bailout money had better come with some major strings attached as far as requiring them to rework their business model to compete in the 21st Century. I'd also include the UAW in on this. You want your union jobs saved by the taxpayers? Then you must renegotiate the ridiculous contracts now in place and solve the "legacy cost" issue. If those changes aren't required before we give them free money, then we truly are throwing good money after bad. If the UAW and the auto industry don't agree to major changes, any bailout will simply delay the inevitable, that is, the ultimate collapse of the Big Three. In that case, why should we taxpayers be giving them huge sums of money, just to keep a bad business plan going for a little while longer before the ultimate collapse???

Hmmmm...GM creating a "help the auto industry" commercial. Sorta like Pfizer or Merck sponsoring a drug study!

That's cool!

OK, I'm going to rattle George's world this time with a Sunday night post! Real or model? The answer: MODEL!!

Link doesn't work...

Therer are plenty of other ways to strip paint, if you're unsure of brake fluid. CSC or Easy-Off oven cleaner... just to name a couple. In fact, if you had the August/September issue of MCM, you'd have seen the article comparing different types of paint strippers. Yet another benefit of subscribing to the magazine...

It happens to everyone! Strip the paint and try again... not much else you can do. Even the most experienced, talented modelers screw up. (they just don't admit it!!!)

Well, now you can say goodbye to any chance you ever had to get your work featured in the magazine!!!

It's all Gregg's fault... ever since he bought me that big box of 64 crayons with the sharpener in the back, I've just been going crazy...

You don't need an airbrush... Alclad comes in spray cans: http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&s...11&ct=title

The way I see it it's very simple: If what's left of Johan was enough to make a rebirth financially and realistically feasible, it would have happened already! The fact that it's been years since the "real" Johan went under, with no sign yet of it ever coming back, pretty much tells you what you need to know. The only way that Johan could come back would be as a new, "from the ground up" company with new tooling and new kits. Again, that's an expensive proposition! With the car model hobby in general decline, the odds are very unlikely that a new model company producing new product would arise in the present business climate.

Yeah, that could be done. But then you'd have to make the steel dies (molds)...then you'd have to have the injection molding machines... then you'd have to have a building to work out of... and packaging... and shipping department... etc., etc. Probably 8-10 employees to start, at least, all getting paid a salary. All that costs money! And that's where the "rebirth" of Johan (at least in its current incarnation) just ain't gonna happen. The good intentions may be there in spades, but the money isn't! What's known as "Johan" today is basically one guy who somehow bought or acquired the rights to use the name "Johan" that sells whatever odds and ends he may still have on hand at swap meets and on his website. There is no real "production" of anything to speak of, and without the money to mount a full-fledged rebirth, there's just no way it can happen.