Ace-Garageguy

Some nickel-and-dime-obsessed bean-counter fool probably decided to save 2 cents per car by eliminating the zinc coating on the steel brake lines. And the donuts, bagels and bottled water they had at the meetings to save the 2 cents per car probably cost more than they saved.

Gee...it's SUCH a good idea to have everything electronically controlled, instead of using old obsolete Luddite things like mechanical linkages, right? Tech-happy morons.

I shipped a Lamborghini crankshaft to Spain from mine, no problem. But that was several years ago. Maybe, like most things, service is deteriorating? Then again, UPS is based here.

This car gets used a lot, and has made several long trips (hundreds of miles each way) with no issues...in HOT weather. It was built almost entirely by the owner, a guy in his 40s (on the far right in the second picture).

Only little problem using a Cosworth V8 is that in reality they're high-winding, not-massively-torquey little (2.5 to 3.5 liters, approx.) motors designed for 1500 pound road-racing cars, and probably wouldn't be real happy trying to accelerate a much heavier car like the Thunderbolt. The stock V8 Fairlane, on which the T-bolt was based, weighed about 3000 pounds. The T-bolt was reputed to be about 700 pounds lighter, but that's still 2300lbs. To get all its power from such small displacement, the Cosworth motors have to rev very high, which means wild cams, fast idle, and not friendly street manners at all. Pretty much impossible to use with an automatic gearbox, too. BUT, if you were to build an independently-sprung, VERY lightweight T-bolt way-beyond-pro-touring update (which COULD be done in the real-world using a tube-frame and carbon body-part copies), and a six-speed gearbox, you could conceivably come up with a real mind-blower.

Gorgeous. More, please.

Since you asked about a "modern" engine, I'll answer your actual question rather than try to tell you what you should build. Rob's right about the "Coyote" being the most modern. The Boss 302 version is factory rated at 444hp. Possibly more readily available is the older 4-cam engine, and it will make some serious horsepower. The Ford "modular" 4.6 litre 4-CAM, 4-VALVE PER CYLINDER V8 was last available from Ford in the 2004 Mustang Mach I, rated at 310hp. An iron-block version of the same engine, but supercharged and rated at 390hp, came in the 2003-4 SVT Mustang Cobra. Konigsegg thought enough of the engine to put a twin-supercharged version of it, rated at 806hp, in their CCR. A pretty decent modular 4-cam is available, usually cheap, in the AMT Phantom Vickie kit. The engine isn't supercharged, but it's not hard to make something up. It also has a not-too-accurate 5-speed manual gearbox. The rest of the kit is a great parts donor, with a nice independent front suspension setup that easily adapts to other cars, nice wheels and tires, a generic repop '32 Ford frame and other '32 bits.

My favorite cars are convertibles (I have 6...not all running unfortunately) and if it's not raining or snowing, the top is down. I CAN see the possible merit of having filtered cabin air on a long up-top trip, just to help mitigate the fatigue factor. But I'm an outdoor kinda guy, and I don't really mind getting sweaty or dusty. Kinda feels good sometimes to be a little less "protected". I lived and worked in the Az. desert over a period of 2 years, all that time also living with my car's top down. Just took an air hose to the interior occasionally. I'm still alive, with no adverse health effects form breathing all that horrid real outdoor air.

Works for me. CVT can be built to be entirely load-sensing, with no need for computer control. Physics instead of electronics. Additional precision of control CAN be added with electronics. Simple electronics. My personal favorite is the hydrostatic CVT, which can allow hub-motors to be utilized, much like electric hub-motors in electric vehicles. It also allows highly innovative packaging of engine and drivetrain components, to maximize efficient use of vehicle enclosed-volumes.

Sounds like Honda and Nissan are doing the...right...thing. No incidents yet, but a potential problem has been identified. Better to fix it BEFORE there's a fatality, eh?? Corporate foot dragging and hoping nobody would notice (like a 3-year old child) AFTER the problem was identified is the central issue with GM's problem.

The reason I started thinking about buying a Rio is that I kept noticing them and wondering "what's that cute but still aggressive looking little car?" I happened upon one in a parking lot and read the badging, looked in the windows and checked out the fit and finish. After reading the response in post #2 from Carl, I'll definitely be testing one soon. The published "road tests" I've seen so far have read more like "Consumer Reports" than "Road and Track", and how the car feels and reacts when pushed hard is of importance to me. I rarely carry passengers and have trucks for big hauling jobs, so this thing looks to me like just the ticket for a gas-sipping daily grocery-getter. I also enjoy LOOKING at what I'm getting in to drive, and if there's no visual appeal, it's not for me. I just wish it didn't have any silly electronic gadgetry. I'll definitely be going with the 6-speed manual gearbox, too.

A "shift kit" in the older transmissions was installed from underneath, requiring only the oil pan to be dropped, not removal from the vehicle. It effected the valve body, essentially a hydraulic / mechanical speed and pressure sensitive computer that controlled shift points and shift firmness. Upgraded clutches and bands did require removal, and they still do. Varying the stall-speed of a torque converter can not, to the best of my knowledge, be accomplished by a computer. The point at which a "lockup" converter locks CAN be varied, but I believe that's all. Yes, the computer-controlled trans can make sense where every last bit of economy is being squeezed from a slushbox-equipped car (avoid the problem entirely...drive a manual gearbox), and where a "performance" valve-body analog and late converter lockup are desired. It's STILL over-complication for limited gains in reality. The question is whether the tiny ACTUAL improvements in economy and safety are really worth the complication, expense, and over time, frailty and un-repairability of many of these perceived-as-necessary systems. I currently own 4 over-25 year-old vehicles that have been rendered USELESS by aging onboard electronics. I know America has become a throw-away culture, but it's being almost enforced. The typical owners of these things simply couldn't justify the expense to get and keep them running again. Crush 'em, and buy new? Nah. I'll deal with it.

I'd really like to see an unbiased engineering analysis of just how much "efficiency and economy" are realized by computer-controlled transmissions, as opposed to well-designed and calibrated valve-body controlled transmissions. A hydraulic valve body is nothing more than a speed-and-pressure-sensitive liquid / mechanical computer anyway, and the non-computer 700R4 I swapped in to my Jag XJ-6 accelerates much better than the standard Borg Warner, and still returns 23mpg on the highway. Not bad for a big, heavy car. Active head restraints? Just more silly bell whistles to fail. Again, I'd like to see unbiased engineering data on the actual EFFECTIVENESS of them, as opposed to marketing "feel-good", sense of security BS. "Cars are more complex today, that's just the way it is in the 21st century." Yes, and not always for good reasons...just because, as you say, that's just the way it is. Nobody seems to question the actual NEED for some of the idiot stuff that's creeping into everything. Engineering philosophy used to have as its mantra "the SIMPLE solution is the better". I guess simple and elegant is out of fashion too.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. There is NO compelling reason for automatic gearboxes to be computer controlled, or at least not as heavily software-dependent as they currently are. Neither is there for head restraints. There is a propensity today to think that EVERYTHING has to be computer-controlled, and mindlessly over-complicated "technology" is fashionable. I'm expecting computer-controlled toilet paper to enhance the butt-wiping experience in the near future. More complication IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER. "Drive-by-wire" is a perfect example. It takes several sensors, stepper motors, many wires and connectors, and an electronic throttle control module and software to run it...just to replace one little cable that was ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO THE GAS PEDAL AND THE THROTTLE BUTTERFLY. Simple, idiot-proof, and dead reliable...and not subject to "unintended acceleration". Please. "Fly-by-wire" was a system introduced on the F-16 fighter for a VERY GOOD REASON. To make the aircraft extremely responsive, it was designed to be slightly unstable. It was SO responsive that it reacted to pilot input far FASTER than any human could anticipate and correct, so a computer interface was developed to dampen out pilot over-input and make the thing usable by humans. Cars ARE NOT F-16 fighters.

And a car needs software to run the transmission and the HEAD RESTRAINTS...why, exactly???

That's some real rusty looking rust. Entirely believable. Some of the best body weathering I've seen. The black hood is a nice touch too. Looks like it came from a different car. Again, perfectly done.

Ummmm...ANY car is sensitive to severely under-inflated tires. That's a good way to get yourself killed. Over the years, I've owned one of just about every Corvair made (except the pickup, and the gen-2 4-door) and autocrossed a couple. Good handling, responsive cars (even the first-gen cars when equipped with the "camber compensator"...basically a transverse leaf spring to limit wheel tuck-under in roll...or simple axle-travel limit straps). The camber-compensator was also the hot setup under my Porsche-engined VW slalom car in the late '60s.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. In MY experience, painting a model car is exactly like painting a 1:1 car, only smaller. Virtually EVERYTHING I've learned over many years of painting the real ones has translated to painting models. No, it's not the "same"...film thicknesses are much less, sanding grits are much finer, etc....but the PROCESS and the THOUGHT required to get outstanding results are, for me, absolutely identical.

When Nader attacked the Corvair, the real issue was that the swing-axle cars were EXTREMELY sensitive to tire pressures (because of very poor decision-making by management) and the owners just WEREN'T reading the owner's manual and following the recommendations. ALL Porsche 356 cars and ALL early VW Beetles pre-71 had the exact same rear suspension design as the early Corvair, but the suspension under those was "tuned" to handle acceptably and ride harsher than GM marketing thought was desirable. GM KNEW of the potential for disaster, and went ahead anyway...just like in the current mess. The swing-axle Corvair can be made to handle very safely and predictably with a very minor modification. When Nader attacked, GM, instead of acknowledging there was a problem and fixing it up front (there had been an "at cost option" fix available), they decided to attack Nader PERSONALLY, obliquely alleging he was a homosexual (which has what to do with what??) among other things. But instead of manning-up and admitting the problem and fixing it, GM hid behind its lawyers, called Nader names, and behaved like complete idiots. The rear suspension in the '65 Corvair was ENTIRELY redesigned, and the new geometry was as good as the Porsche 911, but once again, GM downplayed the redesign, never fought back on the issues, and let the poor old Corvair, actually a very good and interesting car, die a quiet death. There seems to be a recurring pattern of avoiding issues and going for cheap instead of safe and reliable...and when problems emerge, management sticks its head in the sand and hopes nobody notices. This is really a shame too, as GM is entirely CAPABLE of building vehicles as good as anything on the planet. They just CHOOSE not to.

I'm seriously thinking of buying one of these for general fuel-efficient, air-conditioned transportation and parts-chasing; all my old vehicles need WORK, and are becoming increasingly unreliable due primarily to lack of maintenance. Time to do the work. Anybody have any actual experience with recent Kia products? The factory offers a 100k warranty, so they can't be too bad, right?

The concept of "formulated for plastic" isn't worth the ink it took to print the words on the label, unless the SPECIFIC TYPES of plastic are spelled out in much more detail than any casual user will ever bother to read. The attraction of some of these non-model-specific paints isn't that they're "made for plastic", rather it's the interesting colors available. So, if you wanna use ANY hardware or big-box store rattle cans, TEST first.

I must live on a different planet. The Daimler-era Mopars I know are good vehicles. The '99 Dodge truck one friend has is on 165,000 miles with no major problems, still runs perfectly and feels like a 2-year old piece. Another friend has a 2002 Dodge truck with over 200k on the clock. Had to replace worn out front suspension components that most likely WOULDN'T have been warranty-covered anyway. Same deal with another friend's 2001 PT cruiser. Only issues are from poor repairs after a collision, and poor repairs after she let the timing belt go WAY past the point of safety. Again, issues probably NOT covered by a warranty. No extended warranties were purchased OR NEEDED on any of these vehicles.

...and extended "lifetime" warranties aren't going to do anyone any good when these now-new vehicles are 25 years old and on their 5th owner, like my old GMC. Without factory support for aging electronic systems (remember Microsoft and XP ??), it's going to be next to impossible to keep old cars running. Time was, any COMPETENT mechanic could keep a carburetor and a distributor functioning forever, even machining new parts as necessary. But just try getting a new chip or ECM module for an old vehicle that has no factory or good aftermarket support...and I don't mean Chinese fake parts (see post #1861 above). There was a time when the concept of "planned-obsolescence" was a dirty phrase in the car biz, but in the marketing-driven quest for idiot-over-complicated-bells-and-whistles, planned-obsolescence has become the shiny-bright business model, and nobody seems to resent the long-term screwing of the car-buying public.

Built Merc flathead, hydraulic brake conversion, chopped windshield frame. You don't get any more authentic than this. NOT a rat-rod, but a period-perfect hot-rod, in progress, daily driver.

Approximate 2.5" chop, hood and frame lengthened 2". Smallblock Chebby, dropped front axle on hairpins, quick-change rear, '40 Ford juice brakes with finned Buick drums. Chop and body metalwork done by Josh Mills.