Ace-Garageguy

Me too. I saw parts of the build thread, but missed the completion. Pretty fine. Like your dogs, too.

Oh man, I love 'em all, especially the 84s and 86s. Had a friend years ago who had been an F-86 instructor. He flew civilian Connies too as they were being phased out. He said as the engine oil-pressure dropped below the mandatory overhaul limit, the pilots were instructed to just put a piece of black tape over the gauges rather than ground soon-to-be-replaced revenue-producing airplanes for expensive engine replacement.

Exactly. As I said in post #2... "The temperature at which plastic warps and takes a permanent shape is called the "glass transition temperature", or Tg. For common "polystyrene" that kits are made from, this occurs at about 100 deg. C, or 212 deg. F. "Polystyrene" is a generic term encompassing a wide variety of specific formulations. The exact temperature depends on the exact plastic formulation." Here, I should elaborate. The cheapening of the polystyrene used in kits to save a few pennies has caused these seeming inconsistencies in kit-plastic behavior. Add that to the fact that different runs of kits may be made with different batches of plastic with different specs, and you get even more inconsistencies. This is also reflected in the varied kit-plastic sensitivity to solvents in paints these days...paints and primers that wouldn't harm an old Johan kit, for example, will horribly craze and ruin some of the recent Revell offerings.

Here's a complaints list on the car, with additional info on subsequent screens. http://www.carcomplaints.com/Buick/LaCrosse/2006/ At first glance, it looks like a pretty good car. I'm sure there's much more data available online. Here's more: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2006/buick/lacrosse/recalls/

Well, that one might get built too. I have a Jag 4.2 engine in the shed, and a gluebomb Big Jag, plus a few 1/8 rod kits I bought when they were cheap. The real Jag 4.2 is about as heavy as a Hemi though, with nowhere near the power. Not what I'm after at this point in time. Light, quick, and agile is the name of this game. Exactly. Tamiya 1/12 240Z and Porsche 911 donors. Easier for me to scratch a '32 frame and body shell than to do accurate engine and driveline parts.

Geez Louise, that thing looks awful in the box art photo. Thanks for putting this up. I've only ever seen little photos of it and never really looked close. I WAS thinking of buying one too, but after this...never. How does a kit this bad make it into production? Was everyone on vacation but the janitor, and the dog ate HIS homework?

Great project. I love seeing ambitious scale-engineering, done well.

And I still contend that EVERYONE in the design and engineering cycle (and this includes accounting and management personnel) in EVERY car company gets paid enough money, has a good enough working environment (good lighting, heat and AC, comfortable chairs to sit in front of their little computer work-stations in, and plenty of bottled water, coffee and croissants during meetings), and has good enough tools (state-of-the-art computers and design and engineering software) to get the VAST majority of this stuff RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. No, there's no perfect car, but there is plenty of stupid and un-necessary complication, and just plain misguided decision making.

The Revell gassers get a lot of bad press as kits, and they were certainly beyond the skills of the average younger, less experienced modelers (I was responsible for a less-than-stellar Anglia myself) but again, they COULD (and still can) make very nice models with enough time and patience.

You can get an idea of how truly bad the Palmer kits were from these shots. A picture, as they say, is worth a lot of typing... Apologies. Web-sourced pix disappeared

Yup, the Pyro (reboxed as Lindberg) kits were pretty bad too, as you pointed out. But they were so much better than the Premier and Palmer kits as to be in an entirely different class altogether. At least Pyro kinda got the general proportions kinda right, the kits can supply a good basis for radical customs, and the Lincoln can be built into an attractive model with huge extra effort. This one was done by Jeff Sauber. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26396

Yeah, both Palmer and Premier were so horrible that surely they rank as the worst car kits imaginable. Scaling was poor, details non-existent, and they rarely even looked much like the supposed subject matter unless you squinted your eyes while peering through a coke-bottle. Most kits from the real manufacturers have some redeeming quality and can be built into nice models with extra effort and applied skill. Not so with the two big Ps.

Cool little car. You have a lot of work in front of you. I've owned a couple of these over the eons and have done just about everything imaginable to them. Feel free to ask questions, as I'm still in the resto business (and have been off and on for over 40 years).

Being "at the mercy of subcontractors" is rather like saying "the dog ate my homework". Something has a GM badge on it, it's GM's (or Ford's or Chrysler's, etc.) responsibility TO VERIFY PART QUALITY ON A CONTINUING BASIS. Excusing poor quality because of poor quality-control procedures doesn't get it; neither does placing the blame on subs. The BOSS of the job carries the responsibility for the quality of the job.

She was born in '45 and is still a stunningly attractive woman (2012 photo)

Slipshod engineering done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge and experience, and who are out-ranked by bean-counters who don't know anything about anything but beans is an industry-wide problem. These numerous recalls speak for themselves, and verify the truth of my assertion. Chrysler Corp is not without its share of idiots either. I have one of their products in my home shop right now, and the stupidity of some of the engineering and design decisions that were made on the thing boggle the mind.

Holy cow. The photos of the in-primer model are almost impossible to believe...that it's a model in 1/35 scale is just mind-boggling. Your primer work appears to be flawless as well, with zero texture or filling of those beautifully engraved details. Man, that is some beautiful work (both yours and the model manufacturer's).

I did a Google image search for "wicker texture". Lots to choose from. Find one you like, manipulate the image into the scale you need (possibly repeating it enough times to get the coverage you want), get one of the guys here who makes custom decals to do you a sheet or three. I seem to remember that Chief Joseph will do custom work. Maybe Scale-Master ? Just a thought. There are also several online tutorials on making wicker furniture items in scale for doll houses. I'm sure the techniques could be adapted to model car bodies. Seems like a lot of very small and tedious work, but it sure would be unique. http://miniatures.about.com/od/dollshousefurniture/ss/Weave-A-Dollhouse-Miniature-Wicker-Change-Table.htm Here's a book on the process.... http://www.amazon.com/Making-Scale-Wicker-Furniture-Dolls/dp/1861082843

Interesting thing about the Z is that, apart from the molded-in flares and air-dam, it's more-or less a factory piece for the Japanese home market. I guess you and I know a different selection of ten-year-olds.

Not if I build it right. It would be more of a potential problem with a swing-axle setup like old VW Bugs, an almost non-existent potential problem with upper & lower control arm geometry (which tends to keep the wheels more vertical in general). Though the old Jag rear end that you see under a lot of rods uses the axle as the upper control arm, the geometry is essentially the same as upper and lower arms. Tire scrubbing is not an issue given adequate clearance, as the wheels don't lean in much during suspension movement. And there's a fine line you have to walk, getting the distance of the tires far enough from the body for clearance without looking goofy. The 240Z rear suspension uses a lower control arm and a strut (with a coil-spring). The strut limits how far in the rear wheel can lean under bump and roll conditions. It's not as good geometry as upper-lower links, but is adequate for a very light car on radial tires. Both 240s and 911s can be made to handle phenomenally well using this suspension. The 911 front suspension uses a lower control arm (with an internal torsion bar for springing) and also uses a vertical strut to control wheel movement. I'd prefer to replace the strut with an upper control arm (primarily to allow me to use a lower headlight mounting position, as the headlight buckets as shown are positioned to anchor the tops of the shock-struts internally). These particular difficulties are why I want to do a 1/12 model before I start in on the full scale build. I also want to incorporate period-look "hairpins" to substitute for parts of the stock control arms, and working this all out in scale, at least partially, will save me a lot of time and expense on the real build. I've learned about as much as I can from the 1/25 scale model. The reason I'm using this odd conglomeration of parts is because it's light and it's some of what I had left over in the basement from years of building stuff. My Z engine has triple Weber carbs (and has a glorious sound !!) and the gearbox is 944 Turbo actually, so the rotational direction problem is already solved. Plus, the gearbox, originally sourced by Porsche from an Audi truck, will take anything the Z engine can possibly put out.

What does the "boiling point" have to do with this question?

I'll probably use a Minicraft '31 body shell for dimensions in 1/16, scale up to 1/12, and scratch build the '32 rails. I have real ones and blueprints for reference. I'm about to commit to building this in 1:1 (this is 1/25), and I have most of the mechanical parts in 1/12 (911 gearbox and front suspension, 240Z engine and rear suspension). I'm kinda wanting to do a large-scale model to work some things out before I start cutting and welding steel.

I may have been mistaken. I could have sworn I came across a '32 in 1/16, and was surprised because all I'd seen previously were the Minicraft 1/16 '30-'31 Fords. I've been looking for the '32 today and so far, no joy. Most likely, I mis-identified the Minicraft "Rockin Roadster" kit as a '32 due to its painted grille shell and V8 engine. If anybody should know better (and should have looked more carefully before ASSUMING) it's me.

Cool cool cool.

Still watching. Still looking great.