Ace-Garageguy

That was in my inbox at about 9:15 PM. Best news I've had in months, about anything.

I think it's a pretty safe bet Mazda wouldn't invest the resources and capital on something like this only to exclude it from their most lucrative market...North America. Nor, probably, would they have shown it at the New York Auto Show. See 'em at your local dealers beginning in March.

Fine looking CAD work, really great to see somebody who knows how to use this technology so well. Unlimited potential, fascinating project. Do you have access to a real GT40 to get your dimensions for all the little details?

Question: It looks to me like you built your firewall and door jambs out of high-density foam. Correct, or is this something else? I've used a lot of various foams for aircraft structural and tooling prototype work, and your material here looks very familiar.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I've been fascinated by the exhaust system design in your photo for years. It tends to defy what was known about the theory of header design at the time, and must certainly be the result of dyno-testing that showed significant improvements over the "scientifically" designed theoretical version. I can only surmise that the unusual collector configuration resulted in a broader torque band than a more conventional design would have made. To address your specific question: this photo of the '64 S/SA Plymouth of the Golden Commandos, which was a factory "Hemi lightweight" package like the Ramchargers' Dodge in the same class (I believe) seems to show what looks at first glance (to me) a header somewhat similar to the A/FX system shown in your photo above. But careful study of the photo below indicates the header design has reverted to the more conventional 4 equal-length (but very long) primary tubes merging into a single larger-diameter collector. The two primary tubes visible from this angle appear to end at the same place relative to the collector, rather than being staggered along it as in the A/FX system in your photo.

I snagged one of those not too long ago (mine is molded in an off-white, almost beige) as I think it's one of the best-looking big cars ever designed. The kit is pretty nice, with separate torsion-bar front suspension, and one of the best versions of that engine and front-wheel-drive ever kitted (plus an optional Latham Axial-Flow supercharger). The only downside is the molded-in rear suspension and exhaust, but that's typical for the era...and in my mind, the quality of the rest of the kit and what appear to be spot-on proportions easily make up for that.

I don't know (Mr. Guthmiller does, I'm sure) but that sure is a nice collection of vintage kits you must have to go with all of those.

Most excellent. It's always great news to hear somebody is bucking the dumb-is-cool trend.

That would be YOUR opinion, and you're welcome to it. Remember that other people are allowed their opinions too, and if somebody wants to be scale-correct, or accurate for the era they're modeling it's OK.

Glad you guys found it useful. Avoiding "cutting up good frames" is exactly what I was thinking, and a lot of guys have expressed interest in doing rear buggy-springs on these things. That fabricated rear crossmember and the mockup procedure work equally well in reality...and doing things in accordance with real practice is always one of my considerations. Thanks to Richard and Andy for your comments as well.

I'm extremely familiar with every variant of Corvair ever made, having owned most of them and raced one. Yes, there were two factory versions of the car equipped with turbochargers...a 150HP version and a 180HP version. Both cars used a single turbo, no intercooling, and no blow-off valves as OEM equipped. A twin-turbo setup on a Corvair engine is well within the realm of feasibility, but there are certain basic elements of any turbo system that are necessary. Exhaust piping from the downstream side of the turbines is required on every turbo in the known universe to direct very hot exhaust gas out of and away from the vehicle (whether it be a car, aircraft or railroad locomotive) and it's missing from this model, as represented above. When something is "freelanced" it's still good practice to respect basic principles of engineering, operation and function, which the engine, as represented in the instructions shown above, does not. In the kit instruction page shown on the opening post, the necessary piping that would be connected to the part labeled "turbine exhaust gas outlet" in the illustration directly above, is missing. If it were left off in real life, hot exhaust gas in excess of 1000 (one-thousand) degrees F would be vented directly into the engine compartment.

That is VERY interesting... I soaked an old AMT Indycar frame in brake fluid to attempt to strip it, and it did exactly the same thing...except it never regained its strength. Every time I'd glue a repair section in, something else would crumble. One of the few times I've actually given up trying to repair something. It's pretty much just a pile of powder in the bottom of a box of loose parts now.

That's kinda how it appears, though the split exhaust before the turbos could also be intended to represent a blow-off valve arrangement. Either way, there would also have to be additional exhaust pipes from the turbines themselves to direct hot gasses out of the engine bay after they spun the turbines...and the plumbing as-represented is incomplete, at best.

Sometimes mechanical cutting is the only solution. I'm currently separating the cam-covers from the cylinder head of a 1/8 Pocher Alfa Romeo. The builder used almost enough tube-glue per-cover to do one whole 1/25 scale model. The tool of choice for this is a set of photoetched saws from Model Car Garage. They're only .007" thick, and work a treat...but you HAVE to go slow. And sometimes, there's just no substitute for brute force with a grinder (another 1/2 tube of glue holding this 1/25 '32 Ford grille shell to the hood, and the hood to the body shell):

White spirit (UK) or mineral spirits (US, Canada), also known as mineral turpentine (AU/NZ), turps (AU), turpentine substitute, petroleum spirits, solvent naphtha (petroleum), varsol, Stoddard solvent or, generically, "paint thinner", is a petroleum-derived clear liquid used as a common organic solvent in painting and decorating.

A semi-friend of mine was a really gifted freehand sign painter. When the market began to turn to mostly vinyl lettering jobs, he bought the equipment and went in that direction. Then almost everybody in this market seemed to be hell-bent on wraps, and he threw in the towel. Now, he makes his living as a process-server for the sheriff's department.

I understand 100%. And I don't think you should view it as "sad". There's no right or wrong way to enjoy this as a hobby. For me, the design phase is the most fun, and working out all the niggling little engineering details that would let something actually function if it were blown up to full scale runs a close second. Once I have a very accurate mockup, and I've figured out HOW to do everything, actually going through the motions to complete it does indeed sometimes seem like work. I HAVE to go all the way with stuff in my real life, and I rarely get to do radical modifications to fulfill my OWN vision; rather I get to put my own spin on somebody else's vision...which isn't the same thing at all. Building models gives me the greater creative outlet my real-life work lacks, and if I had the perfect real-life job, I'd do the design and engineering and hand-off to others to actually make, paint and finish most of the stuff. So, I design in scale, and when it gets close to being hand-off time, my enthusiasm tends to wane. I've paid my dues learning the skills and getting to where I'm usually pretty well satisfied with my own work (and I'm a picky SOB), and I don't really feel I have much more to prove (to myself anyway, except for seeing if I can master a couple of skills like BMF and flocking). I AM trying to finish a couple now and then, because you don't fully get the sense of how something REALLY looks until it's done, but as others have said, the models I have that ARE finished just sit on the shelf, mostly forgotten. I'll look at them occasionally to remind myself what I'm capable of (and see how they could be better) but that's about it. To me, that's kinda sad.

Believe it or not, to some of us it's the journey that's important, not so much the destination.

Sounds like life in the service biz. I now work primarily as a self-employed subcontractor to established hot-rod, custom and restoration shops, and in many cases, it's much the same as what you describe. Even when I have a good 1:1 relationship with the car owner (and supply all my own parts and materials), quite often a shop will try to end-run around me to try to squeeze a couple more nickels out of a part (and in the process, ignore the research I've done and get the WRONG part...but hey...it's cheaper!). I get so sick of the BS and antics like you describe above, there are people I simply won't work for anymore. I also try to get everything in writing, signed work-orders detailing the work in depth, and if somebody wants me to do something halfassed or just flat wrong, I just tell 'em "no".

Great looking model, love the wood. The lighter color is exactly as I've seen some slightly-yellowed varnish on older cars. Perfect. The Caddy engine looks right at home in there too, and would give the old beast a lot more go than a flathead. A box-stock '49 331 Caddy from a junkyard would make about 50 HP more than the OEM Mercury flathead, and by '53, the difference could be as much as 100HP. With multiple carbs and other mods, a lot more. ...Which is of course why flatheads were considered boat-anchors for many years, and were frequently replaced with more modern powerplants by people who wanted to actually use their cars.

Yeah, I read that sentence. I understood it too. That doesn't change the fact that you need a broad general-knowledge base to intelligently determine where on the internet to search, and to determine where you find accurate information, based on an ability to think logically and follow a chain of reasoning. The broad general-knowledge base of high-school graduates (and many university graduates, as well as advanced degree holders) is becoming sorely lacking. Not requiring essay-style answers and research papers that help develop logical reasoning skills and comprehension compounds the problem. Reading comprehension in general is falling rapidly too. Combine those three factors, and you get a populace that can't determine the validity of the information they're confronted with...no matter WHERE it comes from. This is why we get large groups of people who believe that the Earth as a sphere (more-or-less) is only a "theory", mindless and ignorant racism (though the study of mitochondrial DNA has just about proven beyond doubt that everyone on the planet is descended from a common, probably BLACK ancestor), the idea that the climate isn't getting warmer (it really is), that the warming is man-made (nobody really REALLY knows)...and a host of other things legions of people believe because of ignorance.

The world didn't change as fast when I was a kid, so not-quite-current information wasn't as much of an issue in science and technology as it is today. BUT...you'll find a lot of outdated information on the web, too (besides being just flat wrong). I always try to find dates on what I find on the net, and quite often it's at LEAST two years old...when it's dated at all. That is why I subscribe to several technical and scientific journals and web services and belong to the Society of Automotive Engineers (as well as other professional technical groups)...so that the information I consider to be important will be relatively current when I get it, or so that I have access to searchable and DATED databases for same. I certainly don't disagree that having the web makes current and correct information available better than ever before in human history (as I've stated before in different words), but to get full value from a particular resource, you need to be able to judge its validity, and this requires a broad knowledge base that's becoming lacking in today's "educated" masses. And THAT is what the main point of this thread is.

Re: Internet "learning" Let's take two accepted sources of information and compare them...traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia. In the bygone days of my youth, you could rely almost 100% on whatever you read in something like Encyclopedia Britannica, because the entries were edited, in large part, by acknowledged experts in their respective fields. Effort was put into fact-checking extensively to insure that information presented was true and correct. Now let's look at Wikipedia, the "source" many people now accept as the repository of all knowledge. Wikipee is great as far as it goes, BUT entries can be posted and edited by any fool who's mastered point-and-click, and who can type with one or two fingers...whether he actually KNOWS what he's talking about or not. I've encountered so many errors in Wikipee over the years I stopped counting. It seems to be getting more accurate, as more responsible volunteers make an effort to correct things that are patently wrong, but it's STILL subject to presenting information put up by idiots...and believed by masses of other idiots. The internet is probably the greatest tool in the history of humankind for distributing knowledge, surpassing even the printing press. It also has the greatest potential for distributing lies and BS. It takes an informed user with a sound knowledge BASE to know the difference.

On the surface, that seems to be a perfectly logical position. Unfortunately, there's a lot of WRONG information on the internet (much of it repeated so many times that many Google results return the same incorrect gibberish from what appear to be multiple sources) so that someone lacking a STRONG base of what used to be termed "common knowledge", and with poor critical-thinking skills, is apt to accept mindlessly repeated BS as fact. I encounter this constantly when trying to piece together ACCURATE information on a variety of technical subjects. I firmly believe that, at this point, a large number of internet "expert sources" are completely worthless, and "fact checking" before publishing material seems to be a largely unknown concept within the electronic media. What passes for internet "journalism" is often a joke (if the reader is at all familiar with the subject, anyway). My more intelligent peers agree. You HAVE to know a fair bit about something in the first place to be able to distinguish between fact, opinion, and just plain carp on the web...or anywhere else. The whole purpose of primary education is, in theory, to provide a foundation of basic knowledge, and a minimum skill-set (reading, writing, 'rithmetic) so that someone can absorb more complex and in-depth information after they have a basis from which to understand and interpret it. From what I can tell, primary education is lately failing to provide that basis.