Ace-Garageguy

Some of the online photos show the car with a later Allison turbine engine. The color photo below is more correct as the car was originally (at right), powered by a Continental TS325. Testors metalizers would be best for the engine colors. I think non-buffing "steel" would be about right for the hot section (which is stainless steel), non-buffing "aluminum" for the outsides of the exhaust ducts (which would appear darker inside and discolored outside after running), and other colors from this chart as you feel are appropriate. (colors are only approximations, at best).

First let me say that I was a car enthusiast almost from the first day I opened my eyes. My parents used to joke that my first word was "Ford". I noticed cars, and who had what, from an early age. I think the answer to your question all depends on the particular class-level you're looking at, and all I can offer is my particular experience. During the 1950s, we lived in a neighborhood that was solidly middle class (though we were probably at the lower end if it, income-wise), in a two-story brick apartment building, across the street (lined with mature hardwood trees) from mostly brick, fairly large and comfortable houses. The apartment dwellers typically had only one car. I remember we traded new cars fairly regularly (from a '48 Ford convertible to a '51 Studebaker, then a '53 Stude to a '55 Olds convertible, etc.).The families across the street typically had at least two. Upward mobility and striving for the appearance of material success (they called it "keeping-up-with-the-Jonses" then) were as prevalent then as today, though most middle-class wives still were primarily home-makers. Most people who could afford two cars had two, so the wife could do the shopping, have coffee with the girls, transport the kids, etc. and not be stuck immobile all day, carless. And families who couldn't comfortably afford them often stretched to have 2 cars, just to keep up appearances. I recall many of my parents' conversations about just that. Whether the second car was new or used would of coarse depend on the specific family income. Our family doctor, who still made housecalls, drove a new Thunderbird every year, but sometimes would show up in his wife's Ford wagon, which was not replaced annually. The family of another doctor whose son was in my grade got 2 new cars every 2 years, but the family of the insurance guy down the block (who had a great HO train layout) had two cars that were more than 5 years old, though they looked like new. The family of another classmate whose father owned a small construction company, had at least 4 cars in 1960 or so (the one that stands out was the dark-green-repainted-from-white '57 T-bird that the parents were later killed in). We never quite got beyond the low end of middle-class, as my father's income kept up with inflation, but not much more, apparently. We moved around the country fairly regularly (he was a construction engineer), so I probably got a fair idea of who our peers were. From my experience, I'd have to conclude that two-car families were common in the mid-1950s middle class, and became more common as the years progressed.

Any of you guys remember the NSU Prinz 4, introduced in 1961? Anything look a little familiar??

Great looking '32, and one of the very few builds that I like the 3-spoke wheels on.

Let's see...I owned a '60 4-door automatic (bought for $5), a '64 Spyder convertible (150HP turbocharged), a '65 Corsa 4-speed (140HP, 4-1 bbl carbs), a '66 4-speed race-car (gutted, loud and tremendously fun to drive on the street), a Greenbrier automatic van (for a very short period, when I had to foreclose on it for an unpaid engine rebuild bill), and a '66 Spyder coupe (180HP turbocharged). Apparently miraculously, not ONE of these ever killed me...at least as far as I can tell.

Good looking model, really clean chop. Love the graphics too. And the fade-painted driveshaft.

They are similar internally and share some parts. The Corvair box also uses a hollow main-shaft so the input can come from the wrong end. Corvair '66-69 "Saginaw" 4-speed: Front-engine Saginaw 4-speed...

I always though ti was an OK little car, insipid and uninspired, but OK. That said, I'd hoped for a lot more. I recall GM announcing that they'd spent 3 BILLION dollars on developing the thing, and that they'd bought and dissected a bunch Fiat 128s (and other Euro FWDs) to figure out how to build front-wheel-drive cars. Somehow they managed to distill out all the character and interest of the studied cars, and build the blandest, most nothing tail-dragger ever. And the Caddy Cimarron version...give me a break.

The Corvair transmissions were unique to Corvairs, being designed to accommodate a rear-wheel drive configuration. The Corvair 2-speed automatics, and the later 4-speed manual "Saginaw" Corvair boxes were similar to front-engine designs internally, and shared some parts. And "turbocharged" would be the correct term. "Turbo-powered" really implies a turbine engine. Europeans had been building unibody cars for years, the Citroen Traction Avant of 1934 being among the earliest, and the Nash 600 of 1941 being America's first entry.

Crown Manufacturing made the mid-engine kit, intended to use a Chevy smallblock. A fella I had run against in autocrosses showed up for an SCCA meet at Road Atlanta with a big-block Chevy in the back seat of a Corvair convertible. It was classed as ASR...A Sports Racing...which was also the class for McLarens and the like. It was fast until the flywheel or clutch exploded. Quite a noble effort, I always thought.

I like wagons, Crown Vics, and big or old 4-door Jags. Otherwise, nah. Well, maybe a Tesla S.

I wish to god they'd beam me up. I've yet to find any intelligent life on this planet.

I have a little experience with the stuff. This is Testors Wet Look Clear. 2 coats shot medium-wet, one last full wet coat. The paint has NOT been sanded or polished in this shot...it's just as I laid it down. That's the value of practice. (If you look closely, you can see just a touch of peel in the corner of the decklid. It all went away with a wetsand-polish process. Sand it right and you barely even need to polish, and very fine machine-glaze will usually get it.)

Correct.

Neither. GM didn't have the nads to stand up for the Corvair, which was a perfectly adequate and GOOD HANDLING car after the rear suspension was tweaked a little. Instead, GM tried to discredit Nader by alleging he was a homosexual (and what that could possibly have to do with car design beats me), and other shady tactics. Had they just stood up like big boys and defended the car on its merits, we could well have seen some interesting descendants of it today. But no...GM let it die a quiet death, preferring to try to sweep the whole episode under the rug.

Wrong. The 1960 through 1964 Corvairs had swing-axle rear suspension, virtually identical in geometry and layout to all pre-71 Beetles and all 356 Porsches...among many other cars, including Mercedes. The flaw with swing-axle rear suspension is its tendency to let the outer, more heavily laden wheel in a turn "tuck under" during cornering, exacerbated on the early Corvair because of an unfortunate specified tire-pressure to give a softer ride. The odd tire pressure differential was not often maintained correctly by owners, and In the hands of an un-skilled driver, this could cause massive oversteer, or a rollover. BUT with properly inflated tires, and a "camber compensator" transverse leaf-spring added under the axles (added by the factory early in the Corvair's history) or other camber-limiting device, rear-swing-axle cars handle very well. I've personally owned and raced several...and VWs and Porsches with the same rear suspension design. It's sometimes good to know what you're talking about before making sweeping pronouncements. PS. For 1965, GM re-designed the Corvair's rear suspension entirely. The '65 through '69 cars used a design that was more sophisticated than Porsche 911s of the same period.

One of the best looking builds I've seen of that kit, which is really very nice (other than the absurdly under-scale engine). Great color and finish.

1960 was the first year we had 2 cars. My father commuted 60 miles one way to work in NYC, and bought a brandy-new Falcon so my mother could keep the '55 Olds at home. In '63, the '55 was replaced by a new one, and in '65, my father replaced the Falcon with a Mustang. In '71, the Mustang went down the road, replaced by a Cougar, but my mother continued driving the '63 Olds. By that time I had my first car too...a totally clapped '62 Bug I'd rebuilt during the summer after high-school graduation. We were not particularly well-off, but most of the families of my classmates prior to 1960 had 2 cars. We were kinda late to the party.

You should really test on a model you don't care about FIRST. Develop a technique that WORKS FOR YOU. You can get 100 opinions, all slightly different, and they are not a replacement for learning how to handle ANY new material BEFORE you commit to painting a nice model. "Mist coats" are fine, but they're also a sure-fire way to get loads of orange peel if you shoot them too dry. "Wet coats" will give you a nice gloss, but they are a sure-fire way to get runs and sags if you shoot them too wet. TEST and PRACTICE FIRST.

Is that metric or dog years?

Interesting photo Greg, and it shows up a lot in Challenger-related articles, but that was not the final configuration of the Challenger 1 driveline. The as-raced versions had two Pontiacs mounted backwards in front of the car, each one driving through a conventional clutch, 3-speed 1937 LaSalle gearbox, and a Cyclone quick-change rear gear carrier. Same layout at the rear of the car, but the engines were mounted facing forwards in the usual manner. EACH engine had its own 3-speed gearbox and QC rear. 4 clutches, 4 transmissions, 4 QC rear ends.

I'm sure the AI driving the thing is vastly more competent than most drivers. I'm also very aware that computers fail. At inopportune times. A failed AI in a driverless car could have consequences much more spectacular than some drunk fool running down the interstate the wrong way at 100 mph. And just how friggin lazy do you have to be to find it's ooh too much effort to drive for yourself?