Ace-Garageguy

...and Pamela Tiffin...

I very much like the low low beetle too...but it's far far removed from the toilet seat / rusty tractor parts / can openers / snot-welds style of "rat".

Casey's right...it's in the AMT '32 roadster kits. Detail is soggy, but it will pass for a 331, 354 or 392 Chrysler. It's backed up with an old Ford (think '39) 3-speed. There's also one in the Revell 5-window, which will also pass for a 331, 354 or 392 Chrysler. The Revell version has got very nice no-name, polished cast alloy aftermarket valve covers, but the exhaust port spacing is a little wonky for some odd reason (they SHOULD be evenly spaced, and aren't). Induction is dual 4-bbl, and the gearbox is a no-name manual. There is also an early Dodge "Red Ram" hemi in the AMT '29 roadster kits. The Hemi has been in the AMT roadster kits all the way back to 1959, though there are some engine differences in the later releases...

This old movie has finally made it to youtube in its entirety. Besides some very very nice period hot-rods, the experimental Chrysler Turbine Car is featured prominently. Worth a watch before the copyright police strike. Just look up "The Lively Set 1964" on YT. All kinds of technical errors in the dialog, but kinda fun anyway.

OK Greg, I'll bite. What's the deal with the long long radial? It looks like a Pratt & Whitney R4360 Wasp Major (Hughes Hercules "Spruce Goose" engines, among others) but it's twice as long. I give up.

Very attractive model. Did you open the decklid, or does it come open in kit form?

So far, this is the best CA glue product I've used on resin, and for bonding various metals to resin and styrene. It also makes a good edge-filler for getting cut panels to fit openings precisely. For ultimate strength, a high-strength epoxy would be better. I put a lot of load on joints while doing heavy mods with a lot of bodywork...that's why I go for strength overkill.

Yup, and the intercooler-cooled compressed air from the turbo compressors blows into the Roots-type supercharger inlet, and the Roots blower compresses it further, raising the boost. Entirely different plumbing from the red Camaro. Just to clarify for the audience: Turbocharger compressor inlets are facing the camera. Turbo compressor outlets blow into the intercooler. Compressed, cooled air comes out of the intercooler via the lower-left pipe and blows into the Roots blower (via the EFI throttle body) at the top of the picture. Roots blower is bolted to the intake manifold and blows directly into the engine.

Exactly. That would allow the nose of the car to 'point' lower, and make the rocker line either parallel with the ground, or slightly raked down-in-front. This would also bring the front of the roof down, but point the tail up slightly. The overall effect would be to match the slight rear 'sectioned' appearance Rob Hall mentions, and get the mass of the lower body to work better with the chopped top, as Rob Mattis refers to. From the windshield back, for a hot-rod road-racer '60s vibe, I think the car is just about spot-on.

How many teenage girls can fit in it ??

Absolutely, very well done and FAST.

Well, I watched the video walkaround (good shots of the plumbing start at 7:11) and the turbo compressor outlets are plumbed into an airbox that sits under the phoney injector hat, and over the carbs. Now I'm back to my original position on the rig...it just about has to lose all the turbo boost when the "injector" butterflies open. It can still run fine as a suck-through (carbs), mechanically supercharged engine, but the turbos aren't actually doing much of anything except perhaps SLIGHTLY raising the pressure above atmospheric BEFORE the carbs. Full blow-through carb setups are notoriously difficult to tune, and require things like sealed throttle shafts and interesting compensations to make the power-valves work, etc. http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/carburetors/how-csu-builds-blow-through-carburetors/

If you look carefully at the photos and the illustration of the Camaro (which I failed to do earlier) you'll see that the turbos are blowing into the manifold AFTER the blower. They would have to be blowing into the inlet side of the blower (the top) to have the effect of raising pressure above what the blower is capable of delivering when the intake side of it is at atmospheric pressure. Properly plumbed compound turbo-blower. Air filter to turbo compressor, to blower, to intake manifold. Yes, as you say, THIS setup will raise boost considerably.

The concept is that pressure isn't necessarily additive. IF the Roots-type blower is making, let's say, 20psi (pick any number, really...don't go arguing about how much boost a blower will make), and IF the turbos are only delivering air at say, 10psi, the 20psi will leave the intake manifold heading into the lower-pressure turbo impellers, and stall the airflow coming from them. In principle (juggle the numbers as you see fit) a 20psi output from one airpump and a 10psi output from another airpump, both blowing into the same manifold, will not make 30psi. Maximum manifold pressure will only be equal to about the maximum pressure available from the compressor that makes the most boost. COMPOUND turbo-supercharging (or compound mechanical supercharging) works, usually, because compressed air LEAVING one compressor (either the turbo or mechanical supercharger) is fed into THE INLET OF THE OTHER compressor, which raises the pressure even more.

Indeed. I'd like to learn more about getting power directly from the grid, I assume, during operation. Nicola Tesla had supposedly developed technology making it possible to "broadcast" electrical power sufficient to do actual work (as opposed to weak broadcast energy streams like radio). I have a 1955 copy of Motor Trend that has an article about an early hybrid (yes, 1955), the builders of which also claim to have broadcast energy technology...and it was to be the next step after the hybrid.

Duh...my dumb. I wasn't noticing that it's the intake side of the turbo compressors that's plumbed into the injector hat, so you're entirely correct. Where does the output side of the turbo compressors blow? Into the manifold under the Roots-type blower?

Much good stuff there, including some most excellent vintage babeage.

The only real problem with the design I see is that the nose sits too high. Move the wheel openings up in the fenders, and drop the nose. I think you'd like the results.

So what happens to the pressure when the butterflies open??? Think like a manometer. It blows out the front (it will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance, and it's easier to flow out the front than it is to flow through the restrictions under it). Or correct what I'm not getting here, please. EDIT: I completely and stupidly failed to notice that it was the intake side of the turbo compressors that is plumbed to the injector hat, so there will be 'suction' (negative pressure) behind the butterflies with the engine running, rather than positive pressure as I mistakenly wrote above. My apologies for my momentary lack of brains.

Nice tail.

THANKS !! You must have read my mind...I've just started rounding up bits for a late-model (2006) interpretation of this car. I always liked the roofline and the fuel-fillers in the sail panels.

I have to heartily (and respectfully) disagree. Why should a guy, like me maybe, have to keep a vintage vehicle that's HARDLY EVER DRIVEN, contributes almost nothing measurable to environmental pollution (and is located in an area where there IS NO measurable pollution because of weather patterns and low population density) as clean as a late-model vehicle that's driven constantly, spends probably the majority of its time idling in traffic jams or the lazy-line in front of the fast food emporiums (WASTING the majority of the irreplaceable fossil-fuel it burns) and spews many many more times the volume of effluent into the environment?

Wow. A real Super 7, just very small.

I've gotta chime in here, having had much professional experience with a wide range of adhesives. First, you'll probably have pretty good luck with JB Weld if it's fresh, and mixed right (but entirely dependent on the area of the bond). I've used it successfully, on the road, to glue a fitting into a radiator on a car that HAD to go another several hundred miles. It was exposed to fairly high temperatures and a little pressure (16psi) and held for years. Thoroughly sand (180 grit) and than clean the area to be joined with 90% isopropyl alcohol for best results (which goes for any epoxy based product). 5 minute epoxy, in my experience, has almost zero strength, and it's really only good for temporary holding while a real adhesive is prepared. If you want to actually glue diecast-potmetal together permanently, and have sufficient strength to do bodywork (and all the sometimes rough handling that implies), which I think is the actual question you're asking...the minimum you're going to need is model aircraft 30-minute epoxy, and you'll need to reinforce the joints inside with some fine fiberglass cloth. In general, the LONGER any epoxy product takes to cure, the STRONGER it will be. AND, un-reinforced epoxy has very little shear-strength when used on a butt-joint, such as you get when chopping up a model. JB Weld can be disappointing if the bond area is small, as on a butt-joint. I personally use a high-strength epoxy made for structural repairs on real aircraft, which I have access to for free after it's gone out of date (still works fine, but can't be used on aircraft). The longer-is-stronger relationship is why I recommend the 30-minute RC airplane stuff as a minimum. It's generally the strongest stuff you can get at the LHS...and it will have to be reinforced with some very fine glass cloth on the backsides of the joints if you really want to insure against disappointment. I don't know about you, but nothing ruins my day faster than having a crack appear in finished bodywork.

Great comparison pix, Rob. There's enough info there to measure and scale out everything that needs to be done, and your analysis of the major differences is spot-on. X-actly.