Ace-Garageguy

Yes, but truckers with hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles on the road aren't 30MPH mommies either. Highly skilled driving professionals are a far cry from the clueless dweebs I see with their little screens in front of their faces every time I'm on the interstate. And I'm sure there's been more than one car squashed by a trucker who was momentarily distracted by a CB channel change, etc.

60 years ago, some cars had record players..I'm sure the curmudgeons said the same thing then.. Think about this. Record players (which only worked when a car was immobile anyway) tapes, radio, CDs, any other stored music palyback system...no big deal. But there are TWO kinds of distractions available in a car. Music, radio, etc. doesn't require your PRIMARY attention to be diverted from the task of driving. On the other hand, texting or using any mobile device that's not voice-activated (or that requires looking at ANY kind of screen) DOES REQUIRE YOUR PRIMARY ATTENTION TO BE DIVERTED, at least momentarily. A 5-SECOND diversion at 55MPH is the length traveled of ONE FOOTBALL FIELD. A lot can happen in that span of distance and time that you might miss, fatally. Fitting cars out as mobile entertainment centers, and then expecting people to use the technology responsibly, is simply ignoring the facts of human nature. Law enforcement people need constant mobile communications, as do arguably medical professionals and some others. But what is really so important that Joe or Josephine average needs to risk his or her life...and MINE...by diverting attention from the task of driving? Research has proven conclusively that even having a conversation with someone else in the same car is a significant and dangerous distraction for most drivers. Can we get real, please?

Interesting new and very annoying glitch... I just wrote a long and thought out technical response to a question asked, hit "submit reply", and the site took me to a "404 error, the page you're looking for does not exist" screen and dumped my reply. Nice.

Some interesting statistics to back this opinion are quoted below... The LAST thing we need in cars is more options for distraction. Many drivers are barely competent to handle a 3500 pound projectile, carrying 20 gallons of highly flammable fuel, travelling at 60MPH with NO distractions. So give 'em more, right? Yeah, that's a good idea. Far as the old 45rpm record players in cars went, they wouldn't track when the vehicle was moving anyway. General Cell Phone StatisticsNote: These are the most recent statistics available The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.Texting while driving causes a 400% increase in time spent with eyes off the road.Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.94% of drivers support a ban on texting while driving.74% of drivers support a ban on hand-held cell phone use.

There's an IMC / Union T-70 full detail kit in 1/25. For the T-222 chassis, I'd think the Accurate Miniatures 1/24 McLarens would be a good start.

I assume you're wanting to avoid lengthening the roof, as is necessary using some chopping techniques. I've done several tutorials on various forums. What do you want to chop, and how much? The methodology is different depending on the era you're working in.

Firefox was my browser of choice for years on my old XP machine, but since I got this rebuilt 7 machine, I've been running Chrome. Always works everywhere with zero issues. It has useful add-ons like ad-block and "please don't track me" too. Fast, reliable, free. What's not to love? It's also easy to import your favorite website lists from other browsers.

Funny you mention that. The fridge was bought in 2001, so it's pretty old as far as kitchen appliance lifespans go. But this was the first time it ever had any problems in all those years, so I figure I've gotten my money's worth out of it. The repair guy said the average age of a refrigerator that needs repair is four years old! So I lucked out big time, going more than three times that long before needing repairs. We'll see how it goes. I may be good to go for another 14 years. Or it may break down again in a month. It's a Kitchen-Aid, which is supposedly a good brand. We'll see... Yep. But one of those things you don't think sbout until you wish you had it! Funny how everybody is always harping on how much better cars, appliances and every other piece of carp under the sun is today. We have a vintage fridge in the shop been running since 1955. Never repaired, just engineered and designed with top-quality parts and materials to operate well, and not cost-engineered into trash. Of course, it doesn't have any iPhone apps, and it doesn't connect to the internet to remind you when your box of wine is getting low...it just keeps food cold. What a concept.

There are several ways but this one always works. You'll have to have p-bucket AND the MCM forum thread you want to put the photo in open in two browser windows simultaneously. 1) Bring up p-bucket and open the photo you want to load into your thread on the MCM forum. 2) On the right side there's a menu called "share links". Left-click on the "IMG" one. It will momentarily turn yellow, to let you know it's been copied. (Sometimes depending on your browser, who's been diddling with the p-bucket functionality, or the phase of the moon, you won't get the yellow flash. In that case you MAY have to right-click on the "IMG" address and copy it). 3) Go back to your thread page. Position the cursor where you want the photo to appear, and press "Ctrl-v" ("paste"). The photo address will come up in the thread window. 4) When you hit "post", the photo will appear. OR.... If you're looking at thumbnails in a particular album, hover your cursor over the photo you want to put on MCM. 3 little white bars come up in the lower left corner of the thumbnail. Hover over the bars and another menu opens above them in the thumb. Left-click "share links" A big white box will drop down with another menu on the right. Left-click the "IMG" choice, which will flash yellow as above. Same steps 3 and 4 as described above.

Looks like Plastruct has T-section styrene in 1.6mm, part #TFS-2, and 2.4mm , part #TFS-3. Do you need 2mm exactly?

Beautiful sunny day, humidity only 58%, down from close to 100 for weeks. Got out of the shop early. Simple pleasures for simple minds.

Got the rest of the AN fittings in today to finish the plumbing on the '47 Caddy, and did it all before lunch. Also got the little part that broke, making my expensive flaring tool a useless piece of scrap. $8 part, $12 shipping. They could have put it in an envelope (which they did) and sent it USPS for less than a buck, instead of UPS for $12. Oh well...at least I'm up and running with that tool again. Grainger wanted $31 for the thing.

Welcome back from lost in beyond-the-site-barrier.

I've got some vintage Revell and AMT slicks i'll measure, if you're interested in old stuff. It IS nice to know the outside diameter and rim diameter if you're trying to hit a particular look.

I do. Doesn't everyone? Dial calipers are available under $30, and are an indispensable modeling tool. Hmmm... Does your caliper show for instance what 1 1/32" equals to? Not exactly, but sorta. All my digital calipers have a button that switches the readout from decimal inches to metric and back. Very handy, as you can also use it as a simple conversion tool. And the prices can be as low as $15 here.

Yes. Click here. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/

Ebay, unbuilt mint in box, right now, bid at $65, probably go for less than $100. I see them every few months or so.

If you're running Chrome as your browser, just enable adblock plus. It blocks ads here, there and everywhere. Quite nice, actually. And free. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?hl=en-US

I would suggest you try 70% isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. Isopropyl alcohol is also available over here commercially in a 91% concentration, which is probably too harsh...might remove your paint. 70% iso makes an outstanding wax and grease remover for fully cured painted surfaces. I began using it on models after it saved my bacon on a full-scale aircraft paint job that was fish-eyeing even after being swabbed down with an industrial wax/grease remover made for the application. Just be sure to test it on an inconspicuous part of the model, so in case there IS an adverse reaction with your paint, it won't be visible.

Thanks Brett; much appreciated. I did, of course, read the rules upon joining, and never once since.

The exhaust side of a 221-302 Ford is not that wrong as the ports are evenly spaced, the two middle ones needs to be a bit further appart to be correct tho', the intake ports on the Ford are also evenly spaced and the middle ports are siamesed on the Olds so you probably have to do something about that as the intake is quite visible. Good point about the intake port spacing being very different on the little Ford from that of the 215. However, though the two inboard intake ports on the 215 are paired and close together, they are not "siamesed". "Siamesed ports" (the term derives from the old "Siamese-twins" term that has been replaced by the PC term "conjoined twins") are present when two adjacent cylinders share a single port, or two adjacent ports have no dividing wall between them. The Olds 215 intake port arrangement is shown below, third from left. You can see there's a dividing wall between the paired center ports. These old AMC heads show the difference between siamesed ports and closely-paired ports. The upper head has siamesed inboard exhaust ports, while the lower head has closely-paired intake ports (the hole in the center is a heat riser passage).

The Buick blocks have cast-in bosses that appear as though they would accommodate the additional row of 4 head studs in the inside of the V, but I've never tried to make this work either. The Buick ports are tiny, so I've always used the Olds engines for 215 applications. It's difficult for me to grasp why Buick would leave the top row of stud holes blank if a simple machining operation would have provided much improved cylinder sealing over time and heavy use. Olds... Buick... I have a 1/25 Johan '62 Olds F-85 which definitely has a 215 in it. Though it's got a big ol' hole in the engine for a wire axle, it's a decent starting point. Starting with a 1/25 289 Ford to get a 1/24 215 probably is a pretty good idea, as long as you change the shapes of the heads, valve covers, and exhaust port spacing. Few people have ever seen an Olds 215, so with some gentle massaging, you ought to be able to do a believable one from the 289 Ford.

The Buick / Rover 215 differs significantly from the Olds 215 V8 block that the Australian Repco Formula 1 engine is based on (though they're closely related). The Olds / Repco block had 18 studs per head (six around each chamber, some shared) because of Oldsmobile's intention to use the engine in a turbocharged application. The Buick / Rover block won't take the 18-hole heads of the Olds version, having only 14 studs. The Buick 215 has more vertical-looking valve covers, reminiscent of the old nailhead, like this... ...while the Oldsmobile version has entirely different heads, with more splayed valve covers, like this... Repco replaced the pushrod heads and valvetrain with much more exotic (at the time) single-overhead-cam heads (SOHC, or one overhead cam per cylinder bank), ultimately evolving into a 4 valves-per-cylinder DOHC that met with very little success and was canceled. Supposedly 6 of the 3-liter SOHC engines were assembled on Olds bottom ends (but using a single-plane crankshaft) and the later Repco SOHC V8 engines, though still based on the Oldsmobile block architecture, used specially cast and reinforced non-GM blocks. The SOHC Repco engine was quite successful.

Being the somewhat embarrassed recipient of my first "never expires" warning point, I tried to look at the posted material explaining said points, and found this... Ok... we have a new and revised set of forum rules that we hope will make things absolutely clear to everyone, with no possibility of mis-interpretation. We have also detailed the "Warning" system for you so you know exactly how it works. I suggest you all scroll down to the very bottom right of the page and click on the "Board Rules and Guidelines" link and read the rules, especially the rules regarding the warning system. Well, I tried that. There's nothing there. So then, I found this... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules but when I click it, all I get is this message... Sorry, there is a problem The page you requested does not existError code: 2S100/6 Please direct me to the place where the point system is explained.

Easy one for me. I bought an engine for one way back when they were first built.