Ace-Garageguy

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.

I haven't used Smooth-On products. I have, however, used a number of products made by Freeman Manufacturing for professional model building, prototyping, and mold-making / casting. If you need information, they have a FREE online series of instructional videos, here... http://www.freemansupply.com/video.htm Smooth-On also has a collection of how-to videos here... http://www.smooth-on.com/media.php

Agreed 100%. I want to maintain the instantly-recognizable A roadster shell this thing would have been built on. SCTA did actually have some rules as to how much a "roadster" shell could be modified before it became a "streamliner", and I'm already pushing what I remember as the limit to cowl mods as it is. I probably ought to look it up.

I love high-performance, whether packaged as hot-rods, exotics, tuners or Euro sports and rally cars. I even like lowriders and trucks, and certainly respect the work and skill it takes to make ANYTHING that's well-done. I could never possibly build everything I'd like to have available to drive, so modeling lets me mediate that disconnect somewhat. I don't think of myself as a collector, but when I look at my shelves, it's pretty obvious I'm more collector than builder. I just must like having all of that potential waiting for my particular muse to turn it into part of my creative vision. My own 1/25 scale junkyard that covers acres and acres... Kinda like having a gun...better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Thanks again, everyone, for your continued interest and comments on this one. No toe-stepping going on Tim. I appreciate input and ideas. There is actually a reason I won't be blending the hard tonneau into the helmet-fairing. The tonneau is going to open, as is the hood and deck. The parts will be pinned together with the pins hidden. The story is that the tonneau would have to be hinged to enter the car (which it may actually be) and that the helmet-fairing would make it unwieldy for the driver to handle alone, if it was attached and faired in. The helmet-fairing is also kinda intended to represent an addition that the builders might have added to mediate some buffeting you could get with the windshield the way it is, at very high speeds. Might also pick up a MPH or two from a little more drag reduction. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Thanks for the interest on this one too, gennelmen. Last time i worked on her, I decided to replace the hood sides and make a factory-looking insert for the underside of the decklid. Got the pix for the decklid from a real car, and started drilling the valve covers for plug wires...broke my .015" drill bit. Once the '49/'50 lakes '28 has some primer drying, this one is first in line to re-boot.

My guess is that the Ecto wagon would have started life as a custom stretch-job in real life. Independent coachbuilders used to do limo and ambulance conversions of the big Caddys. You can stretch ONE chassis like Tom shows with cleanly-done sheet styrene parts and achieve an effect very similar to what a coachbuilt stretch job might look like underneath.

Man, I'm just not getting where this hostility comes from. Originally all I said is, for the last time "IF YOU LOVE OLD PORSCHES...", never "YOU HAVE TO LOVE OLD PORSCHES OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT", which is apparently what some of you perceive my meaning to be. Now it's been turned into a "love fest". Gosh...I didn't know that that was the thread I started. I think it's sad to see ANY cool old car left to rot. I know that old cars will run forever if maintained and repaired correctly, and if stored with just a tiny little bit of applied intelligence, they can last outside for many many years until somebody gets to them. Senseless destruction is stupid, wasteful, and sad to watch. Just my opinion. Yours may vary.

Thing is Snake, I KNEW the problems with the old AMT 4-eyed Corvettes, and bought it anyway because I LIKE the box art. I just might have had second thoughts had there been a pic of the model on top to remind me of its shortcomings, rather than the illustration. After the second thoughts, I probably would have bought it anyway. The kit WILL become something I've been thinking of for a while, without having to hack up a nice Revell '62, which would have cost a lot more than the $11 I paid for the AMT kit on the clearance table. I'm HAPPY with the AMT kit, as it has some kool old parts and very nice tires. And I like the box illustration so much, I'll probably cut it out and frame it. EDIT: Thanks Greg. You posted just before I did.

What he said !

This is an interesting two-sided thingy. On the one hand, I prefer the stylized illustrations from an aesthetic and emotional standpoint, BUT (big but) I prefer to see how the model actually looks from a "how hard is it going to be to get it to look like the box-art" standpoint. No way I would have bought the AMT "Sock it to Me" Corvette (expecting it to be a good base for the results I want, anyway) if there had been a decent photo of the front of the thing, and the chassis, on the top of the box. No matter how cool the illustration is, I'd really appreciate seeing a box-stock photo of the built model, big enough to tell how good or bad it really is, on one of the long sides of the box. This was the last one that really p'd me off. You can NOT build the box-top version shown without aftermarket parts...like wheels and tires. I'd expected everything necessary to be in the box. Nope. Not in the one I bought, anyway.

Thanks Scott. This is another one I'd build in 1:1 if I had the resources. Thank the gods for modeling.

So...this is pretty much what I had in mind at the beginning, a cross of an old asphalt car and a dry-lakes roadster, and about as slick as you could get without building a belly-tanker or streamliner. There's some tweeking to be done, but this is the look. The only real deviation from this mockup will be to a switch to skinnier front tires, for a little aero-drag reduction. This is where the "work" part of the build starts for me, and where I usually flame-out...doing all the less creative final fitting, sanding, detailing, etc. Gonna try to keep her going this time. We'll see.

I got Lefty to sit in the car while I started mocking up the wind-screen. I'm going to copy the way Monogram did it on their old Kurtis Indy car, so it snaps into place. Nice engineering there, so you can only put a dot of glue on each end to keep it from coming out, and you're done. Being an inanimate object, Lefty has infinite patience. He didn't mind sitting in the car while I started building up a helmet-fairing from sheet and strip styrene. (Lefty got his name after a near-tragic bench mishap, during which his right arm was lost. It reappeared as I was cleaning and packing to move, and was re-attached.) While I was in Bondo mode, it seemed like a good time to take the center bellypan, fixture it to a good '29 shell, and begin the final shaping so it will actually fit well. The helmet-fairing is progressing here too. For the rear bellypan, I'll be using sections from the unit under Revell's classic Orange Crate kit. I had a painted glooey one, so I'll cut that up instead of a new one. Here's the rear pan in progress, with the louvered center-rear section cut from another original Ala Kart gluebomb. I actually bought several of them specifically to salvage the louvered bits for this project.