Ace-Garageguy

The harmonic balancer is the BIG pulley on the end of the crankshaft, not the little pulley-looking thing on the "water pump". A water pump won't have a "balancer" on it, harmonic or otherwise. You're right about the braided lines running from the block ports, where the water pump normally attaches, to under the engine, and there are short lines not connected to anything yet, from the water ports on the heads, where the crossover and thermostat housing attach on a nailhead Buick, which this engine is. While there are many designs for electric automotive and marine water pumps, here's one that is visually similar. My guess would be that the kit designers may not have fully understood the function of the part, and therefor didn't really try to get the appearance 100% prototypically correct. That has been known to happen on occasion...believe it or not.

Agreed, but cutting weight would be more to the point across the board. The current Challenger, for example, is much heavier that its '70s namesake, in spite of all the ballyhooed implementation of high-strength steels, etc. Really tight engineering ought to be able to shave 1000 pounds out of it, or at LEAST a couple hundred less than the original. Less weight to drag around=less horsepower required to do it=less complexity needed to achieve power from a tiny engine=more robust product=longer lifespan=less cost to maintain.

Paragraph 1. 1920s racing cars, warbirds, et al aren't currently deployed operational military aircraft. The B-52 is, and one reason it is still capable of performing its (obsolete) job is that it has much added contemporary technology. It's a blend of the old and new, and it works pretty well. Paragraph 2. I mis-typed 777, meaning 787. The 787 has composite wing spars. It doesn't get any more "structural" than that. The Cirrus SR 20 and SR 22, which I spent a significant part of my professional career designing field-repair procedures for, are ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURES. So are the Columbia, and several kit planes. Also just about every sailplane manufactured in Germany since 1957. These aircraft are regularly re-certified for more allowable hours on the airframes, as properly designed composite structures don't fatigue. I'm not opposed to technology. I'm opposed to needlessly complex technology. Any engineer can cobble up an overly-complex mess. It takes a good engineer to do the same job with simplicity and elegance, and to make it as easy as possible for the poor SOB who will eventually have to work on the thing. One idiotic design flaw I just recently encountered...almost EVERY front end suspension component in a well-maintained 150,000 mile 2001 vehicle I had the pleasure to do extensive work on is completely worn out...simply because the designers failed to incorporate any means to lubricate the tie-rod ends, ball joints or "sealed for life" wheel bearings (which require the suspension to be entirely dismantled to replace, at significant expense). Another $5 to $10 per vehicle (at most) would have saved the current owner somewhere around $1000, once everything is replaced with OEM quality components. By contrast, my own 275,000 mile truck has a nice, tight, son-squeaky front end that doesn't wander all over the road and holds alignment...simply because it has grease fittings at the wear points, and easily-serviced bearings that only require removal of the wheels to access.

Not my point, and it always gets misinterpreted, just like I'm always attacked for wanting "perfect" kits when I make valid criticisms of glaring errors. I'm pro-technology, when deployed rationally and intelligently. I am fully aware that without onboard electronics and advanced computer-modeling of engine specifics, vehicle internal combustion engines running on gasoline couldn't achieve today's levels of exhaust cleanliness. But so much of what we get today is needlessly complex, and poorly thought out, and knee-jerk reactionary design rather than pro-active lets-make-it-efficient AND relatively simple. Every week, I see or have to work on something that, had the designer given any thought to how you'd service the thing (which should come from working with your hands, in the field, BEFORE you get the cushy design job), could have been a piece of cake, or might not have failed the way it failed anyway. There are usually better and simpler ways to do most everything I encounter, and it has nothing to do with cost. Occasionally i DO run across something that is very well thought out, easy to access, and robust enough to last well into the 2nd or 3rd owner's possession.

Three minor points...the B-52, which entered service in 1955, is expected to continue as an operational aircraft into the 2040s. Metal commercial aircraft have operational lifetimes determined by structural metal fatigue limits, and are usually on the order of 30 years. It's yet to be seen how long all-composite-structure airliners like the Boeing 787 will fly. I've seen many large aircraft grounded and scrapped that probably could have delivered many hundreds or thousands of additional flight hours, because the engines, wing airfoils, and avionics / electronics were hopelessly outdated and inefficient. Cheaper sometimes to just start over, if you do all the numbers, than to try to keep old tech operational. BUT THESE ARE HUGE, REVENUE-PRODUCING AIRCRAFT, not something you get to the corner Wendy's in. Far as front-line fighters go, both America's F-22 and F-35, very complex and technology-dependent, are now pretty much universally regarded as being unfit for combat, out-performed easily by the much simpler Russian Mig 29 / 35....which is also MUCH more easily serviced in combat conditions. What a concept. A combat aircraft you can work on in combat conditions.

See post #41, post-edit.

The man gets the point. And a reasonably competent shop could repair those vehicles, even if the owner couldn't. Shops that can actually diagnose and repair the ever increasingly complex vehicles are increasingly few and far between. But believe whatever you want. I know what I experience in the business, day in, day out.

Of course, manufacturers are going to do their level best to make sure the vehicles make it through warranty. And that's ALL they're going to do. The point is...if you buy one of these things or keep it AFTER WARRANTY expires, you're going to be screwed. I see enough earlier EFI-computer-equipped pre-insane-complexity vehicles scrapped or abandoned (because their second or third owners cannot possibly keep up with the repair costs) to have a pretty good idea where this trend is headed. Increasingly complex and tech-dependent vehicles will become rapidly obsolete and disposable, like smart phones. It will not be cost-effective to repair them, so consumers will be forced to keep the new-car-needle stuck in the financial vein. Even now, there's no good support for a 1989 EFI American vehicle. I've had to convert one of my trucks back to a carb. There just isn't going to be any way to do that when something being built now is that old. A typical owner of my '89 truck would junk it, or face more repair cost than it was "worth". If you live under the hood every day, I'll respect your opinion. Otherwise, well...

There's also the issue of insane complexity and just exactly what you're going to do with the turbo-charged tiny engines AFTER they're out of warranty. The car manufacturers don't really give a damm about that, but consumers just might want to devote a little thought to the issue. Servicing will be complex, and expensive. Parts will be expensive. Small-displacement engines asked to make big horsepower, even with turbochargers, can only do it with high revs and high boost pressures. High revs and boost pressures mean more rapid engine wear. More rapid wear means earlier engine replacement or major repair. Think about it. So far, in my somewhat broad experience, I've seen a lot of turbos needing replacement at around 80.000 miles. These things spin at 30.000rpm, run practically red-hot, and have internal seals that fail, letting the turbo "coke up" with burned oil. The turbo slows and stops. You lose whatever power it added, and you're left with a tiny engine trying to drag around an unnecessarily heavy vehicle. Gas mileage and drivability go to shitt, and you have a BIG repair bill, coming directly out of YOUR pocket. When there was just a little rationality still loose in the world, one of engineering's basic tenets was "the best solution is the simplest solution", widely known as KISS...keep it simple, stupid. Unfortunately for the real world, the blind obsession with "progress" comes at the cost of idiotic levels of complexity and shortened service live, and the resulting VERY high cost to keep a post-warranty vehicle operational. Research the Ecoboost under-warranty problems and fixes, and extrapolate the cost of maintaining these things once the factory no longer foots the bill under warranty.

Looks fast just sitting there. Perfect color, love the hood scoop and head-fairing.

Great project Bernard !! I have only one tiny disappointment regarding it...you've beaten me to the punch. I started a very similar build several years back, now on the "resting" shelf, having solved the scaling issue by extending the lower part of the body shell the same as you have. A masterful decision on your part, if I may say so. I'd started to make the car first Ardun- and then old-Hemi-powered, but found a gluebomb chassis from an AMT Watson Indy-car that would take a flathead, but nothing wider. Recycling the Watson chassis into a different form of race car seemed to make a good story, as many the last of the big Indy roadsters got recycled into super-modifieds, and it wasn't uncommon to rebuild race-cars that were almost completely destroyed in those days, sometimes into something entirely different. I love seeing your project, and will be following along as it progresses. Best of luck getting her done by deadline. I imagine she'll be quite a hit at the show.

Very nice work.

The PT Cruiser that was such a total PITA is performing perfectly, the owner is happy as a clam, and wants me to do the rest of the remedial work it needs (everything in the front end is worn out, because Chrysler didn't bother to spend the 15 cents extra per unit to put grease-fittings on stuff) to be back in good-as-new condition. It's nice to do work for people who have an emotional investment in their vehicles, and would prefer to keep a paid-for old friend running right than dump it for a shiny-new-car-payment.

Exactly.

I love engines...any engines. I love V8 engines, radial aircraft engines, flat-six and flat-four opposed engines, inline four engines, turbo'ed V6 engines, big 'ol inline sixes like Jags and Chevys, potatoing Harley V-twins....all of 'em. They ALL make sweet sweet music to my ears, and I think this thing sounds great. But one of the prettiest-sounding V8 engines in history was the Triumph Stag unit...and a horrible horrible engine it was. If the real reason Ford is building this is at least in part part of a plan to return to LeMans, I say whoopee. 'Bout damm time.

Although I voted " If it's been done, I'm not interested in doing it.", the truth of the matter is more like "I think about it, but its very hard to do in the automotive world. " ​I've abandoned a couple of projects, like a chopped '40 Ford coupe, when I saw that someone had already done pretty much exactly what I had in mind, and did a really beautiful job of it too. I got to see my vision finished without having to do all the hard work. In 1:1, I have absolutely no interest in having another bellybutton '32 Ford with a smallblock Chevy, made "my own" by differences in wheels or color. A lot of people like to do what everyone else does, and that's OK. I'm happiest putting combinations together that haven't been tried previously, and hopefully, making them work...but in all honesty, everything I've ever designed or built has been influenced, sometimes heavily, by what's gone before. Me too, but what I like is usually different than what I've already seen. If I DO want to replicate something done by someone else, it usually won't be a priority project. If there's a picture of something finished that really moves me, I'd just as soon look at the photo of the original without having to take time and effort to copy.

VERY nice, very realistic. I love the diagonal boards on the outside walls...I remember seeing a lot of structures built like that. Nice correct framing, too.

I discovered a pretty radical concept called "labels" a while back.

Because i always have multiple projects going that are agglomerations of parts from multiple kits, i use old kit boxes to sort donor-kit-parts, gluebomb rescues and stash-parts into the new "kits" that are the new projects. I also use them to sort gluebombs and built-ups that are waiting to get disassembled and recycled. I have several boxes of "junk" '28-'29 Fords, for instance.

Quick GMC (Cameron) is 99% right, 99% of the time on what he's saying. It IS possible to do your own without an attorney (I've done it) but it is complicated and the language you have to use is somewhat arcane. The drawings have to be done exactly according to the rules, too. The first one I prepared went through with zero technical revisions because I followed the instructions I mentioned EXACTLY. Be VERY WARY of the patent mills that advertise a low filing fee, etc. They take your money to do crappy searches, and you usually don't ever actually get anything. If you have a patent attorney in your town, schedule a free meeting to get a feel for what they do, and GET A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT SIGNED BEFORE YOU TELL THE ATTORNEY ANYTHING. This is one of the patents I prepared, entirely without an attorney, for a client. http://www.google.com/patents/US6003333

I finally got the PT Cruiser from Hell back into the hands of its owner. The last monkeys who worked on it put a timing belt in 35,000 miles ago...(recommended replacement interval is 90.000 miles... and it already failed because somebody stretched/cut the edge while doing the job), and since then, the owner overheated it and weakened the head gasket. We nursed it for as long as possible, until the timing belt let go unexpectedly (it was a "reputable" shop that did the work). Everything that could possibly go wrong on a job went wrong on this one, and the thing is a total PITA to work on under the best circumstances. I did the entire top-end job in my unheated, un-enclosed carport, because she won't trust anyone but me to touch it anymore, and we've been friends for 30 years. Oh, did I mention that the last pack of thieves / morons / hackers charged her for a head-gasket last time too, and that it's never really been replaced?? Started on the first turn of the key, runs great, no leaks, everything works. What a concept.

I've done patents for clients, as well as all of the required drawings, etc. I have references. Whoever you use to do your work...MAKE SURE TO GET A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT signed BEFORE YOU TELL ANYONE ANYTHING. You need to file a provisional patent FIRST, which protects your idea for ONE YEAR, while you do all of the necessary research. It's cheap. Prepare it yourself for around $120. There are reasons to do a provisional patent first, BEFORE you do your research into whether anything similar has been patented already, and I'll be glad to explain them to you. If you want real answers and real help, feel free to PM me. I can turn you on to reference material that is understandable (which I used to get my own first successful patent for a client), and you can do the entire process yourself if you can follow written directions very carefully. Patent attorneys get a minimum of $3500, and you won't get far on that these days. I had a doctor client who had paid out over $10,000 before the attorney bothered to tell him his idea was already patented. The actual fees you pay the government for a patent are nothing compared to what some legal assistance might cost you, and as an individual, you qualify for reduced patent office fees as a "small entity"

You have to remember what its grand-daddy was.

Speed, mostly. The dry lakes like Muroc, El Mirage and the rest didn't have long enough runs to get some cars as fast as they'd potentially go. El Mirage is still in use (Muroc is now Edwards Air Force Base) and the acceleration run is less than 1.5 miles. Bonneville gives you 3-5 miles to get up to speed, so cars capable of over 200MPH are more comfortable there. It's a little more exclusive, so I understand, to do a 200MPH run at Mirage, as the shorter runup takes more power, and the dry mud surface is said to be not as "fast" as the salt at Bonneville either. Less available traction on dry mud than hard-packed salt, so you see the difficulties with a shorter acceleration distance. Muroc, Mirage, etc. were also within relatively easy driving distance from the LA / SoCal hot-rod scene at its good-old-days peak, and Bonneville is a pretty long haul.

I like it a lot. I'm usually kinda hyper-critical of most recent designs, but all of the swoops, whiffies, scoops, diffusers, splitters and ducts actually appear to have some valid aerodynamic purpose. I bet it will be a real knockout in the flesh.