Ace-Garageguy

The Y-block engine in the '57 Ford kit has approximately the same exhaust-port spacing as the smallblock Chebby, so that opens up your choices considerably...though there are no "contemporary" headers made specifically for the Y in kit form, far as I know. One thing about the Y-block though... because of the location of the spark plugs almost directly under the ports, many headers for these engines in reality tend to go up and back to give access. If you do a google image search of "Ford y-block headers", and compare the pix to an image search of "smallblock Chevy headers" you should get some ideas of what you can get away with to look accurate. A lot will depend on whether you want to do fenderwell-style gasser headers, or something more streetable that will fit inside the stock aprons, but any kits that have 265 through 350 smallblock-based Chevy engines (not LS) are possible donors.

Great paint and color choices, and I like the slightly-weathered leather look, and the just-beginning-to-rust exhaust. I sometimes forget how good looking these cars really were, and seeing one built so nicely stock is a good reminder. Nice job.

But it's more pervasive and runs deeper than just gadgets and gizmos. I first noticed many years ago (LONG before cars became rolling entertainment and communications centers) that Mercedes would use 15 tiny little bolts and nuts, plus various clips and brackets, and hide them all so they were almost impossible to get to...when two or three larger bolts, properly located for easy access, would have done exactly the same job. Mercedes engineers seemed to all be drawn from a genetic offshoot of the human species that obsessed in making things completely and unnecessarily complicated just for the sake of complication. This mindset has spread like a disease through almost every manufacturing industry...even into software...so much so that to me, it's a REAL source of pleasure when I encounter a well-designed, well-thought-out, and SIMPLE part or assembly in ANYTHING. Frankly, it's HARDER to make something simple and clean that works well, so piling on meaningless detail and clutter often is the sign of mediocre or uninspired designers and engineers who really don't understand FULLY what they're doing.

It's called "maximizing profit", yes, and if you cut through all the doublespeak and BS, THIS SINGLE PHRASE is the mantra of EVERY business, and when implemented without any moral or ethical constraints, it becomes the dark side of capitalism. There's NOTHING wrong with making money, but when that's ALL you care about, fiascoes like GM's current woes are what you get. When the primary focus is on MAKING MONEY, bad stuff happens. When the primary focus is on MAKING A GOOD PRODUCT, there will be plenty of money...but unfortunately not enough to satisfy the massive greed that has become the driving force of business today. Things need to change, which really means that PEOPLE need to look at what's REALLY important, and change how they do business to reflect some compassion and caring about the people who BUY the stuff. A little pride in turning out a good product or service might be a good thing too have, too.

Yup, and primarily because they're insanely complicated, for NO apparent reason...and difficult to service. I've worked on this stuff for most of my life, and the pointless complication that used to be a Mercedes trademark is becoming industry-wide.

You can road race them, or you can drag race them... ...both of which require a little functional engineering. Still, very nice job on the model.

Great info. Thanks for taking the time and effort. And your statement "It has been my experience that painting is a practice in patience, if you rush the process the more likely you will have problems" is absolutely spot-on.

But it's not as fast, or anywhere near as much fun to drive.

Yes sir, there were "issues", but the kind of collisions we're talking about here are far from the norm that a car will be expected to have to endure. It doesn't seem fair to me to imply that the Crown Vic was an inherently unsafe or poorly designed vehicle because it failed to contain its fuel in situations like this. It is impossible to design for every eventuality, and in the second photo, the tank would most probably have ruptured whether the mods had been performed or not, and whether or not any shielding was in place. The next photo shows the location of the Crown Vic tank, on the left. It's obvious the designers went to some considerable effort to locate the tank where it would be protected in any collision a car would normally be expected to deal with. Many other cars had the tanks extending almost all the way to the rear bumper. Ford tried to put the tank in a safer location. Quoting from a citation on wiki-pee: "The reports that the cars were more prone to fires during a rear collision was a simple combination of three things. First, most law enforcement agencies rely heavily on the Crown Victoria as their primary vehicle, meaning that any police-related auto accident is very likely to involve a Crown Victoria. Second, the accidents occurred as the result of the officers intentionally parking their vehicles close to active traffic to shield a stopped motorist—something most civilians would never do. Third, the impacting vehicle was often traveling at, or above, the posted legal limit (65 to 75 mph (105 to 121 km/h) in most jurisdictions). The condition was exacerbated by police equipment installers drilling over the package tray in the luggage compartment. Due to the gas tank's orientation, drilling through the package tray may result in drilling into the gas tank. Installers also used screws set directly into the bulkhead and facing the fuel tank. In the event of a high-energy collision, these screws could be forced into the tank, both rupturing the tank and possibly acting as a spark source. Long bolts for mounting heavier equipment were also directly suspect. The manufacturer provided an aftermarket shield to help prevent these items from puncturing the tank during impact. Further, many investigations, both performed by federal/state agencies, and the police department themselves, have found that removable items in the trunk were improperly stowed. These items became tank-piercing projectiles during the rear-collision scenarios. Ford's second solution came in the form of a recall kit including patterns to mark unsafe areas (to drill) in the luggage compartment. Also included were rubberized kevlar and hard ballistic nylon shields for the differential cover lower shock bolts. They also included a kevlar-based trunk liner.[42] Ford used similar kits on early-1980s model passenger vehicles. For 2005 and newer models, Ford offers an optional on-board fire-suppression system for the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor units. The system itself is integrated with the anti-lock braking system as part of the activation, and can be activated manually. However, Ford does cite several system limitations regarding fuel loss and impact speeds.[43] "

Actually, it was the Pinto that was having its fuel tank punctured by a bolt on the diff (and I owned 5 over the years, not one of which ever exploded). The Crown Vic was vindicated of any inherent design "flaw", and no vehicle can be expected to be "safe" in a VERY high speed crash. Quoting from the Palm Beach Post of June 5, 2011: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Crown Victorias are involved in more high-speed, rear-end crashes because of the math of market share, says Ford's Lampe: There are more of them on the road than other types of police cruisers, and so there are more crashes . The modern Crown Victoria passes Ford's own 75-mph rear impact test without catching fire, he pointed out. And Ford maintains that nothing can be done to prevent fire in ultra-high-speed rear-end crashes. Take the death of Faith Mascolino. The car that struck the patrol car where Mascolino sat handcuffed was traveling at an estimated 100 mph. Most important, says Lampe, are three independent judgments about the safety of the car. In two court cases on the gas-tank issue, juries found for Ford. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's inquiry found no safety defect, concluding that the risk of fire was comparable to similarly built vehicles. And the Florida Highway Patrol has concluded that "there is no definitive report that indicates the vehicle is inherently unsafe." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's good to try to keep things in perspective. Granted, a fuel tank that's positioned behind the rear axle in a rear-drive car is more vulnerable to collision impact than one that's located ahead of the axle, but that location was industry-standard on front-engine, rear-wheel-drive cars for many decades. When a car is hit so hard the rear bumper ends up at the rear window, it's pretty much impossible to avoid fuel spillage...unless racing-style fuel-cells are employed...and they don't ALWAYS contain fuel either. Don't get me wrong...I'm not sticking up for Ford in this case, because they were aware of the rear-mounted fuel tank vulnerability in the 1960s, and decided to go ahead with designs that located it there anyway. BUT, it all comes down to things like amount of space in the trunk, again, for marketing and perceived usefulness reasons. Mounting the tanks high over the rear axle and less vulnerable to impact would also adversely raise the cars center of gravity, with heavy fuel sloshing around, and it would decrease the amount of usable trunk space in that location. These kinds of inter-related issues are faced by car designers constantly, and the solutions aren't always the best... but they're not exactly the same as a corporate culture that knowingly covers-up and ignores problems.

The 1/18 Burago diecast 1936 Mercedes 500K roadster apparently had Englebert-labeled tires... ...also some 1/18 aftermarket parts...about 44mm in diameter... http://www.scuderiamodelli.eu/product.php?shop_id=SF14~spoked%20wheels%20-%20burago%20/%20polistil,%20........

I guess, looking back, the REAL "cash for clunkers" program was the GM bailout...

Yes sir, that is absolutely a side-benefit of electric-assist on power steering...assuming , as you say, the key is on (also assuming the ignition switch isn't one of the automatic-unintended-shutoff versions that's the subject of the BIG scandal), and assuming the battery isn't dead, and assuming the power-supply to the steering isn't controlled by a computer-interface that's subject to glitches that can inadvertently turn it off...like the current transmission failure recall.

There are basically, currently, 2 kinds of "electric" steering. They both use an electric motor to augment and assist the normal mechanical linkage, just as the engine-driven hydraulic system does. If it's built sufficiently robustly, which it probably isn't, an electric-assist system should last indefinitely and be stone-reliable. Both systems also rely on many little plastic and metal parts that have a cross-industry problem with poor design and long term reliability, because of poor material selection or other design flaws. The perceived benefit of "electric" steering is that, because it draws power from the vehicle's electrical system more-or-less on-demand, it allows for a slight fuel-economy improvement over a system that requires an engine-driven pump running constantly. Sufficiently developed, it also enables "self parking" features, for folks who just shouldn't be driving anyway. Here's an informative overview, for anyone who's interested. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/electric-vs-hydraulic-steering-a-comprehensive-comparison-test-feature

But in so many instances, the complication is NEEDLESS !! It's techno-gimmicks that do NOT make the car better...only perhaps more "fashionably-desirable" from a marketing perspective. And today's vehicles are designed to last through the government-mandated emissions-related period, no more. That's interestingly about as long as you can finance one for, too. There is often very little engineering or design thought put into making vehicles SERVICEABLE; the primary thought is put into ease of assembly, not getting to things AFTER the car has been built. Of course there are exceptions to these generalities, just as there are cars coming in to our shop constantly that have been running well for 50 to 70 years. It all has to do with the relative intelligence and mechanical understanding of the designers and owners, and how well the vehicles are maintained. Cars built in the '50s and '60s were NOT un-reliable junk, as some prefer to paint them. And pull up films of post-WW II L.A.., if you're interested. An awful LOT of cars going an awful LOT of places, and amazingly (if the un-reliable old car bull is to be believed) the sides of the road AREN'T clogged with break-downs. As an automobile aftermarket-service professional and disgusted observer of the entire industry, I can say without reservation that it's vehicle abuse, poor maintenance and poor repairs that caused the major portion of vehicle down-time, until fairly recently...when vehicles became stupidly complex.

There's no question that today's technology makes it POSSIBLE to deliver a product that's superior in almost every way to what was being built 50 years ago. But the corporate culture and the competence of management determines whether that POTENTIAL will actually make it to production vehicles en mass. And for all the techno-hype, unfortunately, vehicles are really NOT markedly better or more reliable than what was being built 25 years ago. My 1992 GM truck, with 270,000 miles on it, still runs like a new one (the engine). It's had normal wear issues like ANY vehicle will have...brakes, universal joints, a couple of electrical switches, a starter and alternator, etc. But it's a good overall vehicle and gets very acceptable mileage for something big and heavy and as aerodynamically efficient as a barn door. It's NEVER failed to get me home, and it's never been in for a recall, even if there was one. And my 1989 GM truck, at 200,000 miles, even though it had been owned by morons and abused in every way imaginable, was stone reliable and solid until a massive failure, last week, of the onboard electronic engine management components. This excellent reliability is typical of reasonably well-maintained vehicles built 25 years ago. If you read the history of the automobile industry, you'll find that it was W.E. Deming, an American, who was largely responsible for teaching the Japanese how to overcome their poor quality (both in reputation and in fact), which allowed the Japanese car builders to ultimately surpass the Americans. Deming's basic tenets (from wiki-pee): That the problems facing manufacturers can be solved through cooperation, despite differences. Marketing is not "sales," but the science of knowing what people who buy your product repeatedly think of that product and whether they will buy it again, and why. That In the initial stages of design, you must conduct market research, applying statistical techniques for experimental and planning and inspection of samples. And you must perfect the manufacturing process. But piles and piles of regulation, statistical analysis and documentation do NOT guarantee a good car rolls off the end of the assembly line. It takes real commitment and UNDERSTANDING by management...not just endless lip-service paid to the concept of "quality".

That seems to be the old standard, and I've been using Duplicolor gray, white and red oxide, all in high-build OR sandable (sandable and high-build are 2 different product lines), depending on the application. What I DON'T like about Duplicolor is that it tends to clog sandpaper, even when wet-sanded. I've found a local CarQuest that carries Plasticoat, and I'll be doing some head-to-head testing shortly...along with the NAPA material recommended by jwrass. In my market, SEM self-etching and high-build are two different products. The self-etching flows out nice and slick if you shoot it wet, but it's hot for some plastics, and may badly craze the surface. Shooting it slightly dry will mitigate the problem somewhat, and it still flows quite well, leaving very little surface graininess. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the SEM self-etching black, shot wet over an ancient Johan body. The old Johan styrene plastic is tough enough to get away with it, and the primer flows out well, leaving a nice satin sheen. The gray is Duplicolor high-build (scratch-filling), shot medium-wet over bodywork. I should have masked the chrome detail under the fin to keep from filling it too, and that's why I stopped shooting the gray after one light coat. The high-build products are not as hot, and do seem to work well for filling bodywork. They also seem to be hotter than Duplicolor, and the solvents will attack underlying areas of other primers or fillers, so be sure to let them flash off very well before re-coating. I've done a lot of testing of SEM and Duplicolor in various layers over various plastics and substrates, and I've learned what works for me.

However you decide to present it, I'm sure it will be of value to builders who want to learn. I've ALREADY picked up several great ideas from reading your previous build threads, so a big "thank you" from me for taking the time and effort to give the benefit of your experience to the community.

Yes, and very, very sad. I'm sure this country's businesses spend billions on it annually too...a cost that's passed on to the consumer and that accomplishes absolutely nothing, for the most part, but making business busy-work and wasting time, effort and money. Yup. But the big pretense is that it actually accomplishes something. Another case of monkey-see-monkey-do management and the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. EDIT: For anyone not familiar with the "emperor's new clothes" allegory, here's a synopsis from wiki-pee: "A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but continues the procession."

Thanks for the heads-up. I was able to pick up a couple of extra '50 Olds and '57 Ford kits cheap. Ah, feed my addiction to kits I probably won't ever get around to building... But... for the low low clearance prices, I can almost justify buying them for parts. I needed a good Y-block and an Olds rear end.

Supplier issue perhaps, but where is the part of the ISO "quality management" protocol that's supposed to make sure bought-in parts and materials actually meet spec ?? And I'm certain GM has at least a few hundred people working specifically on ISO compliance and reams and reams of useless paperwork and documentation. If It WASN'T useless, they wouldn't be having the problems they're having. It's time to take stock of business practices, and to realize that too much busy-work management actually gets in the way of making a good product, by developing a false sense of security..."we're ISO 9001 (or whatever) compliant, so we MUST be doing a good job, right?"

Yes, there's no doubt a computer constantly sampling air and coolant temperature, atmospheric and manifold pressure, exhaust gas oxygen content, throttle position, ad infinitum, and adjusting fuel delivery and ignition timing constantly, can do a better job than a carburetor and a mechanical-advance distributor. No argument. But tech solutions for tech's sake are just stupid. There are LOGICAL places for everything, and just as carbon-fiber will NEVER replace the need for steel (they behave entirely differently and do different things well), electronic gadgetry is not always the best solution...especially when a simple mechanical linkage is cheap and idiot-proof, and stone reliable.

TEST the materials you have or want to use BEFORE YOU PAINT YOUR MODEL. Much easier to test on scrap plastic, extra parts, or spoons to get your effect sorted out than to have to strip a mess off of your model.

Nope. The owner originally wanted it chopped 4 or more inches, but Josh talked him into just 2.5, and he's REALLY happy with it. Next stop paint (a deep, non-metallic blue) and then interior (leather, but in a traditional style).

Congrats Billy. Looks like you did a huge amount of work on the Buick over the years, and judging from your modeling skills, I bet she's a real beauty up close. Nice going.