Ace-Garageguy

Thank you, sir.

Thanks, Carl. That's exactly what I've been trying to do for the past few years.

Sectioned, channeled, V12 Lincoln powered '40 Ford taildragger custom

Challenger Sportwagon Concept

'29 Ford Ardun-powered lakester, almost done actually...

"Loreena", chopped '31 Ford woody...

Squashed T coupe w/ blown nailhead...

Chopped Chevillac lead sled:

Chopped '38 Ford pickup...

Thanks. But I won't be fully moved or benching for a few more months yet. WAY too much stuff to do yet.

Orange Hauler-based showcar/racecar transporter?

Barris' AlaKart rethink, Viper guts...

Predicta 2.0

A heavily flared V8-powered Z-car convertible (again, a study for a real build).

'34 Ford truck driven by a Ferrari Boxer in the bed?

Or a dieselpunk twin-turbine-electric hybrid ?

How 'bout a chopped and channeled '32 Ford sedan, with a streeterized big Offy for go and big-car QC center-section slung between Jag IRS parts out back?

Here's one that was over on Scale Auto. I don't think I ever posted it here, but I'll be looking. It's a mockup for a real '31 Ford roadster on '32 rails, 240 Z-car power with a Porsche 944 torque-tube, Z independent rear suspension, a rear-mounted Porsche 944 Turbo gearbox, and Porsche 911/914 torsion bar front suspension and brakes...a project intended to use up some junk in the shed. A later iteration shows the same thing with a little V8 Chebby.

Compare the shape of the fuselage of this pre-computer, pre-CFD, etc. 1931 Macchi-Castoldi M.C.72 to the shape of the fuselage of the electric wonder. Notice any similarity? NOTE: On 23 October 1934, Francesco Agello piloted the M.C.72 at an average speed of 709.207 km/h (440.681 mph) over three passes. This record remains (as of 2019) the highest speed ever attained by a piston-engined seaplane. After this, the M.C.72 was never flown again.

Yup. At least two manufacturers make ram's horn cast iron exhaust manifolds for the Ford 239-312 Y-block...though not for the "Lincoln" engine (*to the best of my current knowledge).

Yesterday, a CD I bought from England, reference blueprints, data, and photos of the Supermarine S6b, arrived broken in half. Well packed in a stiffened envelope with internal backers, clearly marked "do not bend", no external damage to the envelope, very obviously just some mean-spirited jackass in the delivery chain bent it until it snapped. EDIT: TRY to break a CD. It takes some effort.

Judging from the instructions for that kit, raising it should be easy. At the rear, shim the springs, parts 31. You'll probably have to fiddle the shocks, parts 38, to accommodate this. The easiest way is to cut the skinny end off, lengthen to fit the mounting holes (with a small styrene shim the same thickness as the spring shims), cement back together. At the front, the object, if you want to raise the model, is to lower the stub-axles on the spindles, parts 24, relative to the rest of the car. Sometimes, if spindles of this type aren't symmetrical, you can simply swap them side-to-side. Other times, it's necessary to cut the stub-axles from the spindles and move them relative to the vehicle (with the vehicle being right-side-up, naturally). To get the strongest result, drill the spindles to receive short lengths of styrene rod the same diameter as the original stub-axles, glue in place with liquid cement, and allow to dry thoroughly. MEASURING before and during the procedure is critical to get good results, and to get all 4 wheels on the ground.

The issue I addressed initially, as requested, is the fact that there is no mounting flange on the bottom of the crankcase. What is represented is mechanical gibberish. The mounting flange, which SHOULD be represented as part of the crankcase, is instead represented as being part of the base. There is no actual provision for mounting the crankcase. Something made as represented would be impossible to assemble, particularly if the "base" is supposed to be a fuel tank, as there's no access to the bolts from the underside (assuming, of course, that there's supposed to be some imaginary elaboration we can't see that actually holds the crankcase to the base, or 'tank"). The bolts, as represented by the model as-is, appear to hold nothing down. They just go in holes. Regarding the primary issue, a gasket or damper is totally irrelevant. A separation between the mounting flange and the base needs to be created, and the separation between the crankcase and the flange needs to be filled. After that correction, the bolts would appear to actually hold the crankcase to the base. EDIT: OR, one could simply create a mounting flange for the crankcase that matches the outline and bolt-layout of the rectangular mounting ring cast into the base, bond it to the crankcase, create a fillet at the join, then install the hold-down bolts so as to appear to be actually holding something down. Put a gasket, or dampers, between the newly created crankcase flange and the mounting pad on the base if desired.

There still seems to be some confusion. Maybe I can clear it up. 1) The Ford and Lincoln Y-blocks were generally similar designs, but two entirely different engines in specific design detail, that being the reason the "Lincoln" or "truck" ram's horn manifolds don't bolt to the Ford heads. 2) Some Lincoln Y-blocks, or minor variations, were indeed used in trucks...complete with the ram's horn headers. 3) To illustrate this, again, let me direct you to this website: http://www.ford-y-block.com/lincoln.htm Scroll halfway down the page. The two smaller photos show the "Lincoln" 279-317 dressed as truck engines with ram's horn exhaust manifolds. 4) The "truck" ram's horn headers were not installed in passenger cars that were powered by the 279-317, even though they'll bolt to the heads, because the independent front suspension in the passenger cars does not provide enough room for a downpipe. Scroll halfway up this page to my post showing a '54 Lincoln engine bay. You'll see the clearance issue. 5) A Lincoln 279-317 CAN be equipped with ram's horn manifolds if it's installed in a vehicle...like a traditional hot-rod or a truck...that has a beam front axle located in such a position as to allow physical space for said manifolds and downpipes, as long as no other parts or accessories physically interfere. 6) There ARE indeed FORD factory cast iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to the FORD Y-block 292-312 series of engines. Again, they were used primarily when the engines were installed in trucks, and they're a popular choice for traditional rod builders who want something different. SEE: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/traditional-y-block-s.68476/ 7) There are also aftermarket cast iron ram's horn manifolds for the FORD Y-blocks. Summing up, there are two distinct series of Ford-produced Y-block V8 engines, and there are two distinct designs of "ram's horn" cast iron exhaust manifolds that will fit them. EDIT: I do NOT know all the possible permutations of Ford vs Lincoln Y-blocks...but I DO know that there ARE factory cast-iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to at least some of the "Lincoln" Y-block engines, and there are other factory (and aftermarket) cast iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to the Ford Y-block engines...and the bolt patterns and angles are indeed different. NOTE: I'm currently double checking for factual accuracy, but at 09:38 EST, Jan. 23, 2022, I believe the above information to be correct.

Nice. Thanks.