Ace-Garageguy

Similar to the above: beer, olive oil, chopped garlic and onion, cumin, paprika, cayenne and cracked black pepper, maybe a little salt. Marinate at least an hour, turning the chicken at least once. Longer is better. Sorry...I never measure this stuff, just throw in some of this and some of that. I don't see any reason to leave out the lime juice, jalapenos and honey either. +1 on the Kahlua idea (instead of the beer and honey), but you don't really want to get too much going on, as the flavor can get muddy and blah. Probably one of those times when making up a little, recording the proportions, and trying it on a coupla pieces would be wise. I've made some experiments that even the dog wouldn't eat. PS: I use coffee, chocolate, and even maple syrup in chili sometimes. You never know what's going to be really great until you try it.

Gorgeous work, and worth the wait. Top-line stuff.

Agreed 100%. Body-in-white based "stock" cars would return the connection with reality that this particular arm of the sport used to have, and has lost entirely. But who knows how long that could last. With American manufacturers losing interest in actually building cars (as opposed to trucks and SUVs), surely "stock-car" racing is running on borrowed time.

By 1970, all Mopar cars were unibody. Chrysler Corp. began the big transition in 1960, and by '67, the last line (Imperial) had made the switch. There was a bolt-on front subframe, however. And there are some folks here who really know their stuff as to what should be what color with these cars. You'll be hearing from them.

Well, you can be certain it won't be this.

I will never understand why telling the truth about how something actually works would be considered "touchy". The OP was not critical, or rude, or abusive, or singling anyone out. He made a simple truthful and very general statement that he'd noticed some models could have been more correct from a functionality standpoint if an additional link had been provided where it would be required on a real vehicle. The knowledge of how a real car works is available to anyone who has the interest to look for it, but no modeler HAS to care if his model correctly represents reality The knowledge I offer is for those who would like to get things right, not to hammer on or denigrate those who don't see the need. I really wish that was more widely understood.

Depending on the specific geometry of a 4-link, a Panhard-bar or Watts-link may or may not be necessary. Parallel links need one or the other, while non-parallel links may not. This setup needs a Panhard-bar or Watts-link (Panhard-bar is shown). This setup does not need a Panhard-bar or Watts link. Leaf spring rear suspensions can benefit from the additional predictability in handling a Panhard bar or Watts-link offers as well. Below is a Watts-link. It also limits side movement, like a Panhard bar, but doesn't introduce its own slight side-to-side movement like a Panhard bar does. The white bellcrank in the middle pivots as the axle moves up and down, keeping the axle centered. Getting the basics of how a car's suspension is made isn't "rivet counting". Rather, it's showing a little interest in and respect for knowledge of how the real things work. EDIT: A lot of transverse "buggy-spring" equipped cars were lowered back in the dim recesses of time by using long shackles. While this did drop the car, it also allowed it to "sway" from side to side as the shackles worked. "Anti-sway" bars, actually Panhard bars, solve the problem. But over time, the term was shortened to "sway bar", and incorrectly applied to "anti-roll" bars, which do something entirely different. Lotsa people use the terms interchangeably now, few know what they really mean, and most things called "sway-bars" are actually anti-roll bars.

Chrysler's (Bendix) system was electronically controlled. There was a box of resistors and diodes and capacitors and relays and other goodies that were in effect an early ECM. The same parameters were monitored as in today's systems, and interpreted into signals that controlled injectors that lived on a fuel rail. Though not successful in that configuration, it formed the basis for the Bosch solid-state systems that appeared later. The Corvette (Rochester) unit used more of a fully mechanical, more-or-less constant flow system, sharing general functionality with the later Bosch CIS systems. The unit shown above on the 409 is a fully mechanical timed direct-port system, similar to what would later be found on the early Porsche 911S, several Mercedes models, etc. Three very different systems...which are different still from the original mechanical Hilborn system (though the Hilborn is similar in some functions to the Rochester).

With durian on the side, no doubt.

NOTE: The only real "trick" to doing these things is to work carefully, pay attention, and be sure you can see exactly what your tool of choice is doing (my work looks a lot better since I started using a magnifying visor). Not a trick at all...just implemented common sense.

Those look really great. Here's one source... https://www.ebay.com/c/883214937

Water-cooled.

Your masking and BMF are exceptionally clean. I envy your skill with those.

This is the way I do it. There are other ways that may work just as well, but this is the best and easiest I've found so far. 1) Get a pin-vise with collets on both ends. One collet will hold the smallest bits, the other one will hold larger bits 2) Start off with a reasonably priced set of micro bits in a little steel box like this. Usually around $15. 3) I usually use something like a .015" bit to drill a pilot hole dead-center in the end of the rod I'm using for a header or exhaust tip. Dead center is important, because as you enlarge the hole with a larger bit, you don't want an off-center hole that will possibly split the side out of your exhaust tip. 4) Then I finish up with one of these double-end countersunk bits made for flush aircraft rivets, or other applications that require accurate countersunk holes. I prefer carbide if I can get it. These things are way sharper than the typical junk Chinese bits sold by the "tool" warehouses. Sharp is necessary, because it allows you to shave a very small amount out of the hole with careful hand pressure. Many other bits will tend to dig in too fast, and ruin the hole by splitting the side out. You'll be using the small point. The larger shaft makes them easy to grasp and twist with your fingers. Twist it into your pilot hole by hand, not in the pin-vise (it won't fit, anyway). Get several sizes, as they work well for making very round holes in lotsa stuff. Twist it in until you've just got a few thousandths of wall left. Don't break out the side. Use a fine-tip black Sharpie to color inside the hole, and dress the end off lightly with 400 grit paper if necessary. NOTE: You'll see a lot of raggedy jaggedy holes on exhausts. Master this technique and your tips will look quite real.

A man's got to have priorities.

Body looks great. Glad you were able to save it after the weird paint problem earlier.

The P-bucket debacle only affected the free users. I've been paying about $3 a month since day one (they weren't getting any ad revenue from me, because I chose to use an ad-blocker to make the site load faster...and avoid the idiot screaming hysterical blanging-music marketing BS for useless garbage I'd never buy in a zillion years anyway), and my photos never stopped working...to this day. When you get free stuff, don't feel cheated when you get exactly what you pay for.

Thanks fellers.

Then copy and paste the link into your browser. Takes 5 seconds. Or left-click it, blue it, right click and click "open in new tab". Takes 3 seconds.

While researching front timing cover configurations for my blown 409-powered M/SP Corvette build, I came across this OEM mechanical fuel-injection developed by a Chevrolet supplier back in the early 1960s. Pretty cool. Sorry, but I can't post any shots to wet your whistles. The site has copy-block on the main page and I can't be bothered getting around it. https://hotrodenginetech.com/factory-409-fuel-injection-no-really-2/

Only time will tell. But to get ten-speeds-worth of mechanical guts packed into the roughly same size transmission, the internal parts have to be much smaller than what was in the old bulletproof Turbo 350 and 400, C-4, C-6, and 727 TorquefFlites that old codgers like me love. Those boxes would all happily go to 300,000 miles with decent upkeep (and non-idiot driving). Smaller parts are under more load, and so tend to wear out faster. Lots of today's many-speed boxes are going away much earlier, often around the 60,000 mile range. Parts and rebuild info is generally nonexistent (or was last time I looked in depth), so a second-owner, out-of-warranty vehicle will need an entire new gearbox, sometimes (including labor) exceeding the value of the vehicle. Again, the reason for the insane complexity is to satisfy arbitrarily imposed CAFE requirements by achieving a minuscule fuel-consumption improvement during the specified drive-cycle, by keeping the engine closer to its torque-peak more of the time...which results in almost constant shifting. Happy motoring.

I'll get to your specific question in a sec, but if you read your owner's manual, you'll probably find you have the option of turning the system off...but you have to do it every time you manually start the vehicle. At this point in time, I believe most cars so equipped have an "off" feature...but after 2020, they won't. There is another option available to disable it. I'm not in any way affiliated with it, but it's worth looking into. https://www.smartstopstart.com/ Hokay. I rarely see new cars still under warranty any longer. The shop I'm affiliated with where I come into close contact with late-model stuff is primarily a high-end independent body shop that also builds a few hot-rods (that's me). The newer vehicles we get in are primarily on their second owners, as most people still seem to take new cars to the dealer shops for collision work. Problems seem to be showing up after about two years or so. The start-stop failures we're seeing range from odd software-related, "code-throwing" problems that even the dealers often can't diagnose (no surprise there), delayed re-starts, heavy vibration at re-start, transmissions shuddering and jerking into gear after re-start, complaints of inappropriate engine shutdowns leading to dangerous exposure in traffic, to needle-bearing failures on the armatures, brushes disintegrating, and battery issues. As starters for these things typically range from $250 to well over $500, and OEM spec batteries are usually at least double the cost of old-school top-line lead-acid jobs, the payback from the maybe $50 a year savings on fuel doesn't work when the systems fail after 2-3-4-5 years. If the car's in warranty, and the warranty doesn't exclude these systems, fine. Otherwise, you're screwed. And it's my understanding these systems add roughly $300 on average to vehicles so equipped. So there's that up-front cost to factor in as well. For contrast, three of the vehicles in my personal "fleet" have well over 200,000 miles (one's pushing 275,000). Of these three, the newest one is 18 years old. The oldest is 30. They ALL have their original starters and are on their 3rd standard cheapo parts-store batteries. When I finally have to replace the starters (assuming I can't just put brushes or solenoids in 'em) they'll cost from about $50 to $150 per. I used to have lotsa contacts within the car industry at several tiers. I'd get most of the actual truth of the issues being covered under warranty from dealership employees. I knew about GM's little ignition switch problem, and that they were hiding it, years before it blew up in their faces. Unfortunately, all the managers I knew are now retired or dead, and my info pipeline has all but dried up. Manufacturers are understandably reticent about publicly sharing their oopses, and the early failures of many-speed automatic transmissions, the fact that several of the tiny turbocharged "eco" engines fail to return the mileage they promise...but wear out really quick...and things like needle-bearing failures on rocker arms in some "hemi" engines are not common knowledge. Point being that at this time, I just don't know how much warranty grief the start-stop systems are causing the OEMs...and they're not talking. Also, today's motoring press is more about breathlessly (and often technically ignorantly) endorsing the latest-greatest useless technology or widget, and honest reporting on negative issues is all but dead. And don't forget, the stop-start wizardry was brought to you by the same folks who thought, wrongly, that 5-mph bumpers would save a lot of money, and more recently, pushed the cash-for-clunkers program. The start-stop system isn't really about saving fuel in any meaningful way anyhow. It's about fudging and juggling the car makers' CAFE numbers to comply with arbitrary knee-jerk standards set by a large group of the technically-ignorant, but duly empowered...pretty much the way everything works today.

One more FYI...and this pretty much seals the deal, logically anyway, why Roth would have used a reverse-rotation cam to get the Road Agent to work with the entire drivetrain package installed backwards, with the 2-speed automatic. I'd forgotten why the Corvair reverse-rotation cams were so readily available way back when; then the AHA!! of ancient memories snicking back into gear hit me. Corvair engines, being air-cooled, were a natural big-power swap into VWs. Except for one small problem...the engines rotated in opposite directions. To avoid the necessity for swapping the ring gear from side to side, as mentioned above (and just not possible on ALL VW gearboxes anyway), reverse-rotation cams made the Corvair spin in the same direction as the Bug engine. Pretty spiffy.

Good point. The early version is the typical jewel-like (but criticized as being "fiddly') Revell assembly of the period. The later one is OK, but requires some knowledgeable hacking up to use as a Tempest stand-in. Actually, to be reasonably accurate, the early one requires mods too, but as more of the components are separate, it's possibly more straightforward. Speaking of old vs. new...do you or anyone else, maybe Mark or Tim Boyd, know what happened to the original tooling?

Yes, but both kits depict the identical Corvair 2-speed automatic transaxle. BUT...because the Corvair runs its torque-converter within the bellhousing, where any sane engineering department would put it, the Road Agent kit is a better visual likeness for the manual Tempest transmission.