Ace-Garageguy

Kool. Love a Loewy Stude on the salt, or anywhere.

Yeah, Betty P. and a Gee Bee in the same pic...put a Pennsy S1 in the background, and you'd have my 3 favorite machines of all time.

I believe both the Challengers and the Big Boy engines were built by the American Locomotive Company, also known as Alco, in New York. I always thought Baldwin was in Pennsylvania, but Lima Locomotive Works was in Lima, Ohio.

Like I said...

Sorry fellas, but the angle between cylinder banks is a determining factor to firing order, and 60 degrees between banks is the typical angle for V6 and V12 engines, 90 degrees for V8 (and V4) engines and it has to do with dynamic balance issues, what's called "rocking couple", and being able to use common rod journals on opposed cylinders, thereby shortening the crankshaft, allowing a smaller engine and making it easier to manufacture. Unfortunately though, even 60 degree V6 engine designs do not allow sharing of crankpins by two rod journals. You can see that a typical 60 degree V12 (Lambo Espada in this case) does indeed have two con-rod journals sharing crankpins. 60 degree V12 engines like this are lovely and smooth, and are essentially two inline sixes sharing a common crank. A 90 degree V12 will have peculiar balance and roughness issues that have to be dealt with by using split crankpins to achieve even firing impulses. Yes, GM DID hack off two cylinders from a V8 to make a V6, and it ultimately got what is now referred to as an "even fire" crankshaft, where the rod journals are staggered to get smooth , evenly-spaced firing impulses. Some of the cranks were prone to cracking through the staggared journals, and the non-even-fire engines felt like they were running rough, all the time. You could, of course, machine an even-fire, staggered-journal crank to work in a 90 degree V12. That's what I was wondering about...what it looked like, and if they even bothered.

Guess you missed post #63. (By the way...I was an A&P...aircraft airframe and powerplant...mechanic for several years, and years before that an ASE certified Master Mechanic, as well as having ASE ratings in body and paint). I quote myself: "A Cirrus SR 22 is a 200 MPH, 4-passenger airplane. It weighs about 2300 pounds. It has extremely sophisticated onboard electronics (much MORE capability than any car ever made) including 2 10" flat screen redundant multifunction displays, a backup electrical system, navigation equipment, anti-collision system, dual comm radios, GPS, storm-scope (plus, the aircraft autopilot can fly itself over a predetermined map course while you read or snooze...if you trust the system enough), a wing de-icing system, sat-com capability, AND A PARACHUTE TO LAND THE WHOLE AIRPLANE safely in a catastrophic emergency. Tell me why a car to take one probably overweight ass to work and back REALLY needs to weigh 3800 pounds (or more)." My point being: a lot of onboard electronics and wiring for sophisticated systems is not sufficient reason for bloated surface-vehicle weights.

Thank you sir. You have just reinforced my earlier remarks that really significant improvements in vehicle efficiency are better sought by reducing vehicle weight overall, allowing smaller engines to drag them around happily. But lots of 'Mercans still like big cars and trucks, with big ol, thirsty engines. And the efficiency improvements in those...of similar weight and engine displacement to their '50s predecessors...aren't that impressive for the millions and millions of bucks spent to get there. Funny...the recent cheapening of gas prices over here is spurring a return to buying gas hogs en masse. Little car and electric sales have flat-lined. I guess now that gas is selling for 1/2 of what it was a couple of years back, the popular perception is that it's going to last forever.

The Tognotti kit is pretty rare and sometimes pricey, and what you need most from it is the flat-end T fenders. Here's a couple more kit sources...not that they'll be any easier to find, but you never know...

Ah yes, but it's not 3 times as efficient for the same weight, same engine-displacement vehicle. THAT'S the point. And the drivers of the manufacturer's cycles aren't driving like real-world drivers either. Nothing ever returns the EPA estimates that are on the window sticker. They're fancy smoke-and-mirrors fantasy.

I think part of the "truck" thing comes from market research, and how small trucks get used these days. Look around. Most shiny new trucks are "lifestyle statements", have bed covers, fancy interiors, and rarely get used as work or offroad vehicles, if ever. Most of the individuals using trucks for actual "work" (you know, where you get dirty and have to carry heavy, bulky things) are running second or third hand units, and the manufacturers don't give a rat's rear for them. Materials often get substituted in places they have no rational or practical reason for being, like the obsession with fake carbon-fiber trim, and real carbon-fiber wheels that are exceedingly fragile and easily subject to dangerous road damage. Steel belongs in truck chassis. It's tough and relatively easily repaired compared to aluminum.

I'm not disagreeing with you...not at all. Your real-world experiences are exactly what we need to hear.

I didn't say that diameter wire would be a good fit in the tube. I said those diameters would be good scale approximations of the 1:1 dimensions. Look at a real shock...the rod is significantly smaller diameter than the body. You will have to shim the inside of the tube with other pieces of telescoping tube, or some other method, to get a snug fit.

And if Coke and all the other fizzy drink guys think aluminum is so cheap as to be disposable, what's the real reason for not seeing it more in lower-cost vehicle structures? Granted, the profit margin on sugar-water and beer is way higher than it is on cars, but come on...most of you throw the can away.

And here's my big point. Look at the results of the 1951 Mobil Economy Run. Here's a link. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1191/1/Kyropoulos.pdf (scroll to the bottom of document, page 15 for the results). A very old-school, heavy, big Studebaker, with zero computer-controlled OR computer-designed anything managed 28.621MPG on an 840 mile trip from LA to the south rim of the Grand Canyon, via Death Valley and Vegas. Here's an article on the event. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1181/1/Economy.pdf With the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on R&D in the past 64 years, and vastly complex engine management systems, we really haven't come all that far, as far as fuel mileage goes. Yes, we can get more power out of a given amount of fuel used, but the theoretically possible improvements in overall efficiency just haven't materialized, and the current numbers aren't as impressive as one would imagine they should be.

I've never really built a resin model, but these look so good, and I like the subjects so much, that both will have to get in the lineup at some point.

Just try to focus on how much better you're going to feel a couple of days afterwards.

And that's why I WISH we got some of the European fuel-sipping little turbo-diesels over here. 45/60 MPG is WORTH some extra complexity.

Gee, I hope you're still building then. I've got more than 10 years on you and still build real cars for a living...grunting, straining, lifting, bending and getting under the things...in an unheated, un-air-conditioned shop...every day. I didn't know mid-60s was all that old.

What you're asking me to deliver is an overview of a program that would be developed by a very senior, very well-paid engineer. I'll put a little time into it and get back to you.

Sorry. I missed that post. Taking 1000 pounds out of a 3800 pound Challenger ought to be theoretically possible when you take into consideration that a '68-'69 Barracuda is listed as 2899 pounds, wasn't really a "light" car, and was built entirely without benefit of CAD or high-strength lightweight steel. I'd dearly love to be "King of Mopar Engineering" to see if it could be done, at reasonable cost. Somehow, a little Corolla weighs 2800 pounds these days. In 1968, they weighed in at about 1550.

I don't personally care much if the majors quit making V8 engines. I know where to get all of 'em I'm ever likely to need...if I live to be 130. Far as unnecessary complication goes, the current Ford Escape has a 1.6 EcoBoost turbo that gets 10 horsepower more than the vastly simpler normally aspirated 2.5 liter V6. Fuel mileage is about the same in the real world. That little 1600cc turbo engine will be a high-revving, hot-running little screamer, beating its guts out before the 2.5 V6 has worked up a sweat. And it needs a very complex 6-speed automatic gearbox to keep it in its narrow torque band. All that extra complexity and reduced long-term life, just for 10 HP? Doesn't make any sense to me.

See post #69, post-edit

All it takes to do it is the desire. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-09/bmw-backed-researchers-closing-in-on-cheaper-carbon-fiber.html Ford was experimenting with soy-based composites in the 1930s. http://ushistory4you.hubpages.com/hub/Henry-Fords-Hemp-Car Germany has been building all-composite sport aircraft since 1957. Lotus was building composite-chassis cars in 1959 (the original Elite). It coulda been done CHEAPLY by now if anybody had really wanted to do it.

The FAA has standards that just might be a little more stringent than anything the NHTSA / EPA / CAFE have come up with. Oh, and the airplane has to fly, too. Masses of weight COULD HAVE been engineered out of cars many years ago, but as usual, a knee-jerk expedient path was chosen, rather than rational long-term development goals that were attainable. And know-nothing government agencies were allowed to set arbitrary standards, in the "just-pass-a-law-to-make-it-so" SOP. Easier also to continue building heavy, steel battering rams than to take a more enlightened approach and try something different. And the lawyers would prefer lots of steel. It reminds them of boilerplate, and there are no "unproven" concepts to have to defend in court when Mommy stops on the Interstate, is crushed by a semi, and the husband sues the car company. But the world IS changing in a good way, in places. Some gutsy manufacturers are turning to composite materials as the price comes down and understanding of how to make composite structures "crash safe" in the car world increases. Less weight=more efficiency=smaller engines=same performance while burning far less fuel. Now, if there was just some way to get people to actually be competent and careful drivers, every day. Then you COULD build a sub-2500 pound steel car that would carry four.

Yup, and rubber cement works well to glue the sandpaper to sticks as well. I have a Starbucks-addicted friend who saves her stir-sticks for me. I have to agree with the guys who don't much care for the sanding needles. Good idea, poor execution. Grit goes away almost instantly, and there's a big ol' mold seam running down both sides of them.