Ace-Garageguy

Great write-up, Rob. All pretty much common sense, but very helpful to have it spelled out so succinctly.

I probably won't go for a ride this time. Last time it was about $350 if I remember right, which is perfectly reasonable when you think of how much fuel she burns, how rare parts are, and how much work it takes to keep her flying. The plan this time is to get to the airport close to dawn, and to try to get some nice pix. Maybe wait around to see and hear her light up and take off, then split. There's a Ford Tri-Motor coming to the Gainseville Airport at the end of the month. Rides on her are only $75, so I'll probably do that one. EDIT: Just checked. This year it's $435 / $475 for the B-17 ride.

Wow. All that beautiful craftsmanship is just way too pretty to cover up with paint. Man, that is some fine, fine work.

In a word, yes. But generally, most of today's engines are more "durable" (although this is really subject to how you define "durable"), and 200,000 miles with no major mechanical problems (and very little maintenance) is common. The old engines would be considered to be doing well if they made it to 100,000 miles, though they were good for a lot more with careful maintenance and competent repair when required. The original Chrysler Firepower hemi, intro'd in 1951, came in 331, 354 and finally 392 (built through 1958) cubic inch displacements. Advertised horsepower ranged from 180 to 375, and the engine's design was perfectly adequate at those power ratings, and considerably more. The problem arose when the engines were spun at a lot higher RPM (for racing) than they had been intended for. The cast-iron main bearing caps were a little on the weak side, and could "walk" or go oval-shaped if they weren't reinforced with steel bars, or replaced entirely with forged steel caps, or a full girdle. The bottom end wasn't configured to make a 4-bolt cap configuration easy, as the main bearing webs next to the bearing saddles were quite narrow. They didn't allow cross-bolted mains like the deep-skirted Ford FE block did, either. A full main-bearing "girdle" was the best way to get it all to stay together for a little while in a racing application, and lotsa blown Chrysler Firepower hemi engines ran very successfully in fuel dragsters. The later 426 hemi ('64) was an entirely different design, with a deeply skirted block, and provision for 4-bolt main caps, cross-bolted through the sides. It's a much stronger design right out of the box. I have no direct experience with the current Gen III Chrysler Hemi engines, but I would have to assume they're pretty stout, as nobody is going to warranty a factory engine capable of the power a Hellcat or Demon puts out if there's any possibility of bottom-end failure. The high-output engines have 4-bolt main caps from the factory, and some even have 6-bolt caps.

I usually assemble everything that's the same color on an engine and paint it all as a unit...just like on a real engine. You'll also get better results usually if you carefully file the mating surfaces flat prior to gluing things together. Very often, for instance, the front of the engine (after you've glued the block halves together) won't be square and flat. If you just glue the timing cover / water pump on without getting the surface flat first, you may find you have a large unsightly gap on one side. Same goes with the bellhousing in the back if it's a separate part. The cylinder head mating surfaces also often need a little truing up too.

My best guess...1/32 scale Matchbox / AMT

The earlier cars were indeed called "Fairlady", but the JDM (Japanese domestic market) Z-car was known as the "Nissan Fairlady Z". Beautiful model, perfect color. I've always longed for a longnose with flares just like yours.

Cool. I'm not much of a guitar player, but I have a real soft spot for tube amps.

Very nice. That's a hobby I'd very much like to pursue once I get away from the horrible urban light pollution here.

Agreed. They certainly have their own beauty, and I can understand the pleasure a collector might get from just looking at them.

I'm not going to argue the point, as different people have different ideas of "fun". Suffice it to say that I was in my early 60s last time I drove that far, in a tiny little buzzing econobox (that could barely manage 60 MPH on the long climb up to Albuquerque), and I had a ball. I'm planning another long road trip in the Spyder as soon as she's roadworthy again...with no heat, no ac, and no roof.

I agree 100% Rob. I LIKE electric cars for doing what they do well...limited distance commutes, shopping, etc. The tech exists to use residential rooftop-generated clean energy, as I've been harping on for decades, and the prices will naturally come down as users increase. But coal doesn't HAVE to be dirty. Again, as I've said numerous times before, in the short term it's a lot cheaper and easier to clean up existing coal plants than it is to replace them all with "clean" sources of electricity. We have about 300 years of coal right here in the good ol' USA. It's stupid not to use it. And the CO2 cleaned out of the flue gas using algae (again, the tech exists) can be cost-effectively converted to biofuel if it's done on a large enough scale. This is good, because there are SOME applications where IC engines will remain the power-or-choice, just as steel will ALWAYS have its place in spite of the much flashier materials like carbon fiber.

Me. Though my father was a tinkerer and model builder (and encouraged my interests in trains and cars and planes) my mother ruled the roost. When she read an article about some kid getting his fingers whacked off by a gas-powered model airplane, that ended that. Then she read that kids were sniffing glue. Rather than seeing that I wasn't a moron who wanted to get high, but just loved building things, she made certain all the models went in the trash. Every few years I'd manage to sneak a kit, but it always ended up the same way. I'll spare you all the rest of the details of growing up a prisoner of a status and safety obsessed parent...but it can cripple a child intellectually and socially. Anything to do with science and art, on the other hand, was encouraged (even when "dangerous" things like soldering were involved)...for which I'll be eternally grateful. But what she accomplished, rather than making me a chicken-exhaust little wuss, was to give me a rebellious streak a mile wide. There's no question I would have taken my "formal" education more seriously and tried harder if I'd been allowed the latitude to follow my OWN interests as well. The interesting thing is that many of the skills I first began to develop as a young model builder serve me well to this day as an engineer and maker-of-things. But overprotective parents who fail to understand that each child comes with his or her own individual set of talents, and needs to be given something of a free rein to explore them...in spite of the "dangers"... are fools. I also think much of the thing with the "younger crowd" has rather a lot to do with the alarming decrease in testosterone...the hormone responsible for making men adventurous and willing to take risks in the real world. And anyone not familiar with the facts here really needs to look into it.

This is, unfortunately, the logic disconnect the whole electric car movement falls prey to. Where do you suppose the electricity is going to come from, for the most part, to recharge them?

Both shortcomings of the cast-iron Chrysler hemi for road-racing have already been mentioned. 1) It is a heavy beast. Though it makes good power, the heads are huge and sit up high on the engine, obviously; this raises the center of gravity of the vehicle, and that's NOT where you want weight on something that has to go around turns fast. 2) The bottom end of the factory engines is somewhat weak compared to other choices. Though Mickey Thompson had a lot of experience going fast with Chrysler hemis, he chose the Pontiac V8 for his LSR-attempt Challenger I specifically because the bottom-end in the Poncho was a lot tougher than the Chrysler.

Same guy had this built.

I'm with you, but I think those of us who consider a long road-trip to be fun, especially a straight-through nonstop event, are a dying breed...and have been few and far between for some time. Last time I drove cross-country (here to almost-Nevada, Az.) was in a Geo Metro 3-cylinder. At 40 MPG, she'd go just far enough on a 10-gallon tank for me to need to get out and stretch anyway, but it only took a couple of minutes to fill her. Grab a chemically-preserved burger, a bag-o-chips, a coffee, and on the road again. Just won't work with an electric.

Yup, pretty much.

Several very viable options. 1) Biodiesel. Conventional diesel engines running on completely renewable bio-derived fuel oil. Interestingly, these can be made from the algae used to clean CO2 out of coal-fired powerplant flue gas. Even an old Mercedes diesel will run happily on Crisco. 2) Diesels modified to run on gaseous fuels. Suitably modified diesels run very well on compressed natural gas. They can also run on pure hydrogen, and as the weight of construction equipment is not terribly important, onboard storage of hydrogen fuel is quite possible. 3) Hydrogen fuel-cell hybrids. Several manufacturers are hard at work developing hybrid tech for heavy trucks, and other heavy-equipment uses, including locomotives. https://www.kenworth.com/news/news-releases/2017/may/advanced-prototype-projects/

Beautiful model. Your use of colors, textures and varying levels of gloss reminds me of Harry Pristovnik's work...high praise indeed. Welcome.

Much nicer proportions, it becomes a good looking car. Unfortunately, the real one is so tiny, nobody much over 4 feet tall could drive the chopped-and-sectioned version.

You run the "vacation with fishing" app on your iPhone, preferably while riding in your self-driving glorified golfcart to Walmart to stock up on useless Chinese-made junk. Brave new world indeed.

In my opinion, GM has been making seriously questionable decisions for a long time. Of note: 1) Their failure to incorporate a camber-limiting device on the original 1960 Corvair, a cheap and reliable fix for the odd handling of swing-axle-equipped cars (and advocated by the engineers working on the thing) was a short-sighted cost-driven disaster. 2) Their subsequent failure to defend the entirely-redesigned and great handling '65 and later Corvair, and instead to focus on looking for things in Nader's personal life that could be used to discredit him was just pathetic. A well-engineered and forward looking small car was allowed to die a quiet, slow death. 3) Dumping Oldsmobile. Oldsmobile was one of the 4 oldest car company names on Earth. While Mercedes makes good use of their heritage as one of the founders of the automobile industry, it never seemed to occur to GM to do likewise with Olds. The division had a significant racing and performance presence in the '50s and '60s. An Olds V8 powered the very famous Stone-Woods-Cook-Willys gasser. They built the first turbocharged production car in 1962 (Turbo Jetfire, which had a 215 alloy V8 with water injection) and the first modern front-wheel-drive US car in 1966, the Toronado. In the late '80s-early '90s the Olds Aerotech set impressive records with race-prepped versions of both the Quad 4 and Northstar production engines. In the early 2000s, I was in the body shop biz, and was very impressed with the engineering and build quality of the Aurora...much better than most of GM's other concurrent crapp. But why oh why would anyone want a division with a heritage of engineering excellence in the lineup? Gone in 2004. 4) Dumping Pontiac. Of course, Pontiac built the GTO in 1964, the world's first targeted factory hot-rod. The engine that powered it is a classic, originally to have been introduced in 1953 as one of GM's lineup of entirely new overhead-valve V8s. The same engine went on to many racing victories in a variety of venues, and 4 of them (supercharged) powered Micky Thompson's Challenger I to become the fastest wheel-driven car ever built in 1960, running slightly over 406 MPH. Pontiac's original Tempest placed the gearbox in the rear (with a front engine) and had all independent suspension...a specification later featured by some of the world's premium sports marques, including Porsche and Ferrari. Pontiac's inline overhead-cam 6 was technically interesting, with one of the earliest uses of a toothed rubber belt to drive the cam AND use of hydraulic lifters on an OHC engine, both now industry standard practice. Pontiac's engineers built prototype OHC versions of the V8, too. The little Fiero, America's only ever transverse-mid-engined sports car, evolved into a very competent and good looking machine by the end of its run. And the last GTO, from 2004, an LS-powered Holden with all independent suspension is a fine, world-class factory hot-rod worthy of its original predecessor. The Solstice was a fine little sports car too, more in the Euro / Asian tradition, and sold over 65,000 units. But all this coolness was allowed to wither on the vine, and crapp like the Aztek were put in the lineup. Pontiac was shot in the head in 2009. 5) Dumping EMD. General Motors Electro-Motive Division was largely responsible for the dieselization of America's railroads, beginning in the 1930s. EMD is almost universally regarded as having built simply the best diesel locomotives on the planet...and some of the most iconic, like the F series and the GP-SD series. Many EMD locomotives that are 60 years old are still in daily use, a testament to the excellence of the engineering and design. Why would anyone want one of the most important players in US railroad manufacturing history, again with a legacy of superb engineering, under the corporate banner? Sold off in 2005, EMD was acquired by Caterpillar in 2010. Now, the design of a reliable ignition switch seems to be beyond GM's corporate capability. Granted the Corvette is still a world-class supercar, but it's hardly representative of the company as a whole. Deciding to dump the IC engine for a total-electric future may well be another costly mistake. Of course, to most consumers these days, a car is an appliance much like a toaster or a fridge. It stands to reason that a non-gearhead corporate culture would evolve to play to that market.

Great stuff. Thanks. I'm just starting to build heavy trucks, and I know very little about them. Your pix will be very helpful.

Another sad fact few people are aware of is that technology exists to scrub pollutants from coal-fired plant emissions, to capture CO2 in coal-burning plant exhaust using algae, and to recover energy in several other ways. Here's a little bit about that: http://www.oilgae.com/ref/downloads/Analysis_of_CO2_Capture_Using_Algae.pdf None of these green technologies are being exploited widely however, and the carbon-credit trading shell game just obscures reality. Besides that, some estimates still say we're sitting on 300 year's worth of coal. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves Well, yeah they do actually. Virtue-signalling is the name of the game these days for a large part of the affluent populace, and whether their hybrids or plug-in electrics are actually as green as they've been led to believe (they just aren't; my 1991 Geo is actually significantly more energy efficient if total life-cycle energy consumption is factored in), there's a smug holier-than-thou self-satisfaction many buyers of these things relish. Yup. ,