Aanderson44

Gentlemen, Isn't the real issue here simply the old adage "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? I think so. I find it almost ludicrous to hear that a battery, any battery, has no environmental hazard involved--that's NEVER been the case, and I suspect it's not at all true of Hybrid automobile batteries either. I've never heard of a battery that didn't contain some sort of heavy metal, or an "exotic" metal of some sort--all one has to do is to look at the various EPA warnings about metals, or better yet, the MSDS (Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet) on the various metallic components going into batteries--I am more than willing to bet those well document at least some environmental/occupational hazards in either their manufacture, or their disposal. The same just about has to be true of whatever these batteries use for electrolytes--those are either acidic, or base in their PH--how else do they conduct electricity? At last I looked, about the only completely safe liquid out there is pure distilled water, and yet "hydrogen dioxide" is the most hazardous chemical on the face of the planet. (with a bit of tongue-in-cheek here!) As for the replacement cost of a hybrid battery pack, yes, with increased interest in hybrid vehicles in the marketplace, "economy of scale" does come in (Econ 101, remember?), and while the price of a new/rebuilt battery pack will never reach the status of a "blue plate special", they won't be exactly cheap either--HOWEVER, It may well turn out that replacing one might just be one of those deals that makes sense, instead of going out and buying a new vehicle--just because the battery pack went bye-bye on the current one. But still, there will be disposal costs, and environmental concerns, of that I am positive. Ethanol isn't going to be the "free lunch" either. As some are just now beginning to notice, ethyl alcohol won't give the mpg of gasoline--I note that in motorsports, ethanol (or methanol, for that matter) gives only about half the fuel mileage of gasoline (but there, it's used for safety reasons, as much as anything), simply because it doesn't have the thermal efficiency of gasoline. Ethanol isn't necessarily less expensive, either--a lot of the interest in it right now is due to tremendous incentives being given to promote the development of an ethanol production/distribution/use infrastructure, but at what offset? Agricultural experts are already quietly (because of PC, sometimes even they have to be careful!) warning that there is simply not enough acreage that can be planted in corn, soybeans, wheat, whatever you want to convert to motor vehicle fuel for a nation which will pass the 300-million population mark this month (if it hasn't already!) Certainly not if we want to continue to eat beef, pork, or chicken--all of which consume the majority of the corn and soybeans now produced. The rush to build ethanol plants (really big moonshine stills, BTW)will push up the price of corn on the commodities market, and while the extraction of the sugars in corn that ferment into ethanol still leaves most of the solids behind that can be used for livestock feed, that feed won't be quite as nutritious as it would otherwise have been. Also, by extracting the sugars from corn for distilling into alcohol like this, the availability of this commodity is going to tighten noticeably. Even though we've all lived our lives in an age of crop surpluses, those surpluses have kept prices at the supermarket much lower than in just about every country on the planet, eliminate the surplus of grains, and what do you get? Higher food prices. Higher commodity prices also translate into higher values for farmland (back to Econ 101, folks!). While that may well have some benefit over the long run, in the area of transportation--after all, higher priced land likely will mean less of it used for subdivisions, in the near term, it can well mean higher costs for new housing (slowing urban sprawl perhaps?). However, in all of this rhetoric I've spouted, I think it's wise to keep in mind that while bio-fuels won't be the magic bullet that shuts down the oil fields even within our lifetimes, they will certainly serve to "extend" the supply of say, gasoline, but they aren't going to replace it entirely, certainly not in the next couple of decades. But, what will happen is, the spreading of the cost of fuel across areas of our economy that most of us have given little if any thought to, even with just the few areas I have mentioned. Back to the original thrust of this thread: While it is true that most of the purchases of SUV's sure seem to be based on some mental desire to find "safety", or security, or an ability to drive wherever there is a place wide enough to get the thing through, frankly the vast majority of us would NEVER take a 4WD into the backwoods, mud bogs, you name it. Also, most of us aren't going to go out busting snowdrifts--some do live in parts of the country where that is a possibility--most of us do not. On the flip side, some of us can get along very well with compact, even "crampact" cars in our daily lives, but most of us probably cannot--any car or pickup we buy winds up doing a wide variety of tasks. And, in all the discussions about fuel usage for motor vehicles, I note, every time I travel from here to Ft Wayne, Toledo, or west across Illinois to St Louis, I see train after train made up of semi-trailers that roll down the rails completely without benefit of flatcars to carry them--the particular railroad in question running a dozen of these intermodal trains each way daily, and each one 200 trailers or more. The fuel savings are tremendous--one single 5000hp locomotive winds up burning a fraction of the fuel per trailer than 200+ Peterbilts do. And, I haven't even mentioned how that many trucks would clog the highways that run between Detroit, Toledo and Cleveland to St Louis and Kansas city all that more than they are already. Again, wise use of resources can come into play here, and that is food for thought. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have been most thankful that Wheat's Nostalgia, one of the leading vendors of original promo cars, has created the "Memory Lane" line of new 1/25-scale promos based on The Modelhaus' 1/25-scale resin cast kits. The Memory Lane promos are not cheap, but they are beautifully finished and they do not warp. One of the things that I've particularly appreciated is that several models or body styles have been offered which were not originally available as 1/25-scale promos or kits. It is also possible to specify any factory original color combination when ordering the models. To date, I have purchased the following models in the series, which have been a great addition to my collection of original promos and dime store frictions: 1957 Buick Roadmaster 2-door Riviera 1958 Buick Roadmaster 75 convertible 1958 Buick Limited 2-door Riviera (never available previously in 1/25-scale) 1959 Pontiac Bonneville 4-door Vista (never available previously in 1/25-scale) 1961 Buick Invicta 4-door hardtop (never available previously in 1/25-scale) Okay, I'm a Buick guy, but the selection of other marques, particularly the Chrysler products, is most impressive. Check out the current available promos here: Memory Lane Extras Art, any comments about the dime store frictions, which were typically offered along with the original dealer promos and the kits? </div></div> Joe Wheat's Memory Lane cars are very, very nice. For what it's worth, those are done from the excellent resin kits by The Modelhaus. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art - my interest in plastic models surrounds the Pontiac GTO. Any good stories on any of these? Jon. </div></div> John, Only that every significant year of the GTO was made, at least at some time, in a 1:25 scale model kit 1964-72, and then '04-05 (Nobody made the Chevy Nova-based GTO's of the mid-70's in kits though). Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wanted, any information on the 1930 Oakland Indy Race car. Finished 11th in race. Car owned by Ira Vail, Driven by Claude Burton and the mechanic was Geo. Howie Contact John e-mail jarmst2@columbus.rr.com jarmst2@columbus.rr.com </div></div> Information may well be rather sketchy about that car, which is pretty typical of "back markers" in racing, not only in those days, but even today. Indianapolis Motor Speedway, indeed the AAA Contest Board (forerunner of USAC, CART and IRL) put forth the same formula for Indy as for the rest of what was called back then "The Championship Trail". In early 1929, AAA's Contest Board, along with Indianapolis Motor Speedway's owner, Eddie Rickenbacker, decided to abandon the 1.5 liter (91.5cid) supercharged formula that had been in place starting in 1925, due to declining fields, and even waning attendance. In a moment of "idealism", Rickenbacker and his associates determined to return Indy to what its original mission had been, a venue for the auto industry to try out new cars, to test their cars in competition with the others--so superchargers were banned, "pure" racing engines were allowed up to 183cid (3 liters), and "stock block" or production engines could be up to 355cid. To encourage factory chassis, a "riding mechanic" was again required, after having been eliminated for the 1923 season and beyond, making a wider frame and bodywork necessary. Enter of course, the declining economic times--1930 was a year of deepening recession, sponsor dollars were drying up, even wealthy car owners were finding it a bit difficult to spend serious money on their racing hobby by that year. So, it was not at all surprising that a man such as Ira Vail could easily come up with say, a thousand dollars or so to buy a new Oakland, knock the body and fenders off of it, and pay out perhaps $500 or so to have someone beat out an aluminum racing body for it, and go racing. Probably very few pictures exist of that car, or for that matter, most race cars of the era--there just wasn't the interest in recording them for history. I would guess that the only source of pics of this Oakland race car readily available today are whatever official photographs were taken at the Speedway. Contact Indianapolis Motor Speedway's Photography Shop (or if you can get to the Speedway, it's still on the second floor of the Hall of Fame Museum, I believe). They do have, I believe, at least the official qualifying portrait of the car, with driver and riding mechanic on board--and if the car were involved in any serious action during the month of May, 1930, perhaps some other pics as well. Also, IMS has, I believe, all the entry blank information from that era, check with Donald Davidson (the English immigrant who does the historical perspective for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Radio Network, and is also the official historian of IMS), to see what he can either tell you, or dig out about this car. Regards, Art (who used to be a crazy model car builder of Indy cars!)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art - thanks for the excellent tour of model car history. I downloaded it all, printed it, and it is stored with my collection of unbuilt plastic models. Jon. </div></div> Hey Jon, thanks for the appreciative comments! Even more intriguing is the history of model car kits in general, how some of them came about, and some of the stories surrounding their development! I'm currently converting the old MPC kit (reissued by AMT/Ertl in 2003, BTW) of the Beverly Hillbillies car, which is a well-worn '19 Oldsmobile Touring, cut down sometime in the late 20's or early 30's into a Joad Family-style flat bed truck. This project is to become a 1920 Oldsmobile 1-ton truck, which means an all-new chassis, scratchbuilt rear springs, wooden truck cab and body (out of real wood in miniature, the body to be an ice truck delivery body). AMT Corporation produced a now fairly rare kit of the Thomas Flyer of New York to Paris fame, and a couple of stories about that kit's development are almost hilarious! Maybe for another post, huh? Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art, do you think AMT, JoHan, etc, still have any of the old dies they used back when, or were they all scraped? </div></div> Most of AMT's promo tooling, from 1958 onward, was revamped to produce the almost concurrent 3in1 model car customizing kits, don't have any idea about pre-58, but my guess it that most of those went to the scrapper. JoHan tried hanging on to all their tooling, but due to either theft (the long standing legend) or negligence, very little of that survived--although JoHan did reissue something like 30-35 old promo's in non-warping styrene 1978-90, under the brand name X-El Products. MPC never did reissue any promo's in later years (they were bought out by AMT/Ertl in 1987), so who knows? Ditto with PMC, although in the early 1990's, PMC's owners either produced, or leased out tooling to someone else, to reproduce some of the International Harvester pickup truck promotionals. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art, thanks for that history lesson.. When I was young, my brothers and I would collect & build dozens of model cars. We also collected promos in various makes and models. It was very interesting to know where the JoHan name came from.......A few years ago I bought 15 JoHan models from a man who used to own a AMC store. He would give them out to potential customers. The models ranged from Hornets to Ambassadors. </div></div> Yes, that would have been a nice find! Having spent most of my life in the scale model car hobby (I started building models of antique cars in 1952, at the wizened old age of 8!), including a stint with the former Playing Mantis company designing diecast Johnny Lightning cars and assisting with Polar Lights model car kit projects, it never fails to amaze me how those companies managed to have promotional model cars in dealers' showrooms by new car introduction time back in the 50's and 60's. I do know that AMT (and I would assume MPC, PMC and JoHan as well) worked very closely with the automaker's styling departments, well in advance of new car introductions, to create their products. Just as with several Johnny Lightning diecasts, even the 2004 Pontiac GTO and '05 Ford GT model kits we did, the model companies back then worked with pictures and drawings of the approved styling clays, often having to revise their newly created tooling as trim and grilles were finalized (which often didn't happen until only a few months before production changeovers). Back in the 1970's, I built probably 75% of AMT Corporation's display models, along with models to be photographed for boxtop artwork and catalog selling sheets. In this, I was in and out of AMT's Troy Michigan headquarters & plant on average about every 6 weeks or so. AMT, back then, had a huge archival display of their history, a full collection of all their products from the very beginning, in glass cases in their huge meeting/conference room. In their display of promo's were countless early test shots, models of cars having trim on them that you see only in pictures taken behind the scenes at GM Styling Division, Ford Styling, or Chrysler's Design Studios back in the day. When Lesney Corporation bought AMT in 1978, and closed the Maple Road facility, an awful lot of those very rare test shot promo's made it into private collections, seldom are ever seen today, trading only in private sales. By the mid-70's, the handwriting was on the wall for promotional model cars, though. Only a handful of promo's remained in production--notably 73-75 Olds Cutlass 442's, Cadillac Eldorado hardtops through '76, AMC Hornet's through 1974. Of course, there were promo's of Pinto's, Vega's and Monza's, and in 1978-80, the newly downsized Monte Carlo. Then a dry spell in the 80's, until 1989, when a still unidentified company (not AMT/Ertl, and not JoHan!) provided Buick dealers with 1:25 scale promo's of the '88 Buick Regal coupe and Reatta coupe. AMT/Ertl had continued the MPC line of Corvette promo's (which are the longest running promotional model cars of all) when they bought up MPC in 1987, and in 1989, they introduced a promo of the Taurus. Off and on during the 90's, there were promo model cars made, but most were marketed more as souvenirs than anything "promotional", and a new player came into the marketplace, Brookfield Collector's Guild. Brookfield did GMC Suburbans as diecast banks in '92, then Dodge Intrepids and Chrysler LH sedans in '93, also diecast. They produced a beautiful little Dodge Neon series in 1996, along with the Oldsmobile Aurora, in factory colors, as well as the Indianapolis and IRL pace cars, these in both plastic and diecast. Brookfield also produced the 1996 Monte Carlo, both in factory colors and as the Brickyard 400 Pace Car. AMT had also produced the 1994 Chevy C1500 Brickyard 400 Pace Truck, along with 1988-91 Chevy C1500 long bed Fleetsides, the '92 C1500 Sportside, and the SS454 Chevy pickup of that year. In 1996, AMT also produced a C2500 Extended Cab Chevy 4X4, and the new Dodge Ram 4X4, finishing off with the S10 Blazer. AMT/Ertl also produced a few "retro-promo's" in the mid-80's, notably an all-new rendition of the '53-'54 Corvette, the 1962 Corvette Mako Shark I dream car, '64 Ford Galaxie 500XL Hardtop (from original tooling) and a very nice series of 1966 Fairlane GTA's. AMT, in 1997, produced the Oldsmobile Intrigue as a promo, their last true promotional model outside of Corvette. A newer area of promotional model cars is in 1:64 scale diecast miniatures. Maisto has produced these for Chrysler and GM several times over the past 4-6 years, and at Johnny Lightning, we created, on a crash-program basis, the Chevrolet HHR for GM, which was used as a nationwide giveaway by Chevrolet with the introduction of the HHR at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January 2005 (lotta stories about that project!). Revell-Monogram is issuing "Easy Build" (snap-together) model kits of the Dodge Magnum SRT8 and the '06 Chrysler 300C, and from all appearances of this series from them, they could easily be produced as promotional models, should Daimler Chrysler decide to bite on a deal. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting ! Even though it's badged as a "Chrysler", this appears to be a '55-'56 Plymouth chassis/body...RHD too ! </div></div> Chrysler tended to use older sheet metal dies for fairly low production cars in other countries long after they'd gone to new syling in the US--that '56 Plymouth styling remained in production in Australia into the early 1960,s I believe. Australia, as in most countries of the former British Empire, uses to this day, right hand drive, simply due to driving on the left side of the street/road, as does Japan. As for the Ute (stands for "Utility"), those are an institution in that country, being a cross between a passenger car and a pickup--the inspriration for Ford to introduce the Ranchero in the US in 1957. Incidently, Ford also introduced the concept of the wide-bed pickup, with the bed solidly affixed to the cab, with the low-production 1931 Deluxe Pickup in the US, then the 1934 Ford Ute in Australia. One of their better ideas that caught on, big time! Art

Even more intriguing were the ground auxilliary power units built by Kurtis-Kraft (famed for their Indianapolis Roadsters in the 50's) for the North American F-100 Super Sabres. Those were powered by Nailhead Buick V8's, and equipped, I believe, with Dynaflow transmissions. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hi guys, Does anyone know the origin of promo car models? I have a few I acquired over the years {and fondly remember some that I had as a child in the 60's - where I got those, I do not remember}. I'd be curious to know who was the first company that started making/using them, and when, and if they were given away or sold; did you have to "know someone" at a dealership to get one? were they given away to {prospective} customers, that sort of thing. Or any other history about them you may have. Happy Motoring! jm </div></div> Promo model cars? While there were a few promo's produced in metal in the 1930's, the idea of promotional toy/model cars really hit in the late 40's, with the '47-48 Ford models by Master Caster and Aluminum Model Toys (AMT). The real start of promo's, as we model car guys know them, seems to have been 1949, with the end of the "sellers' market" in the industry, and the introduciton of the first true postwar cars by the Big Three. AMT began producing plastic models of Fords and Plymouths, Product Miniatures also Plymouths in a slightly larger, 1:20 scale, and Cruver Plastics in Chicago with their still-awesome-looking '49 Olds 98 4dr sedan. Hudson commissioned someone, perhaps Cruver (?) to produce a series of about 1:12 scale Step-down sedans, in multi-colored plastic, mostly as dealer display pieces--worth their weight in gold today when they come up for sale. In the early 50's, PMC and AMT were both doing wide varieties of promo's for both Ford and Chevrolet, and in virtually every factory color scheme--dealers could use them to create "color palettes" of body styles and colors, effective in those days before the huge dealerships we know now could even be thought of. John Hanle, a professional toolmaker (and exquisite scale modeler in his own right--his collection of scratchbuilt model aircraft has been on display at the USAF Museum in Fairborn OH for decades now) started Ideal Models, having to change the name almost immediately at the insistence of Ideal Toy Company over trademark issues--hence JoHan. Slowly, a pattern rather emerged: AMT did Fords, along with Product Miniatures (PMC), shared the Chevrolet line with PMC, and produced promo's of Studebakers, Buicks, and Cadillacs. JoHan did Pontiac's, Cadillacs after 1957, Oldsmobiles. Nash got produced mostly in banks, by Master Caster and Banthrico (BANk TRIft COmpany). Banthrico also produced a fair number of models yearly, for the banking industry ("Save for your new ____ at 1st National!" imprints), mostly of sedans, where the plastic producers trended toward hardtops and convertibles, with the occasional sedan or station wagon. By 1959, however, promo's were beginning to wane quite a bit, and PMC began to go away from the game. Of course, model kits, based on promo tooling, had been introduced in 1958, by AMT Corporation, their famed 3in1 kits, and were being wildly received by kids all over the place. What did dealers do with promo's? Of course, they did sell them; but more often than not, they used them for promotional efforts ("Come in, take a test drive, receive a beautiful scale model of the new Chevrolet"), or to sweeten a deal by giving the customer's kid a scale model toy car (I got one that way once!). By 1961 or so, interest in promo's by dealerships seems to have faded considerably, and by the late 70's, pretty much ended, although the occasional promo is still produced today, but no more do promo's hit dealerships almost simultaneously with new car introductions, often taking a year or more to hit, and are very, very limited in scope. Both the advent of mega-store dealerships in the 60's, and the rather disinterest on the part of kids for ready-built models (the 60's was the heyday of kids and model car building) pretty much seems to have been the root cause. Whatever the reasons for their rise, and their ultimate demise, Promotional Model Cars are fascinating, back then, and still today. I still like them, although I've never been much of a promo collector--had dozens of them as a young boy (did what I was supposed to do with them, wore them out playing with them), still have a few of the more modern ones, simply because they represent cars that were never modeled in any other form in 1:25 scale. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember, tetraethyl lead was introduced by Charles Kettering in 1924 and came into general use by 1926-27. No engine built before that time can possibly need leaded gas or lead addatives, because they weren't designed to take advantage of it. Also realize that 4, 5 and 6 to 1 compression ratios are really not putting a heavy load on an engine. Now 10.5 to 1 is something else. </div></div> Not to mention the manually controlled spark advance that was still prevalent in the 1920's. For that matter, even the relatively anemic 6's built in the 50's, even flathead V8 Fords, didn't require all that much lead to prevent knocking or pinging. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I once knew, but I've forgotten. Why can you shift an electric overdirve transmission (long since obsolete) without the clutch. In college, I had a '57 Ford with overdrive. You had to put the clutch in at stoplights, etc. but otherwise--as I recall--it was pretty much like Fluid Drive. You could shift between second and third without the clutch. Help me, I lost the formula. </div></div> Pretty simple, no formula required actually. Early overdrives were an add-on, not part of the transmission itself. For example, Fords prior to 1949, having torque-tube drivelines, could only be fitted (unless you wanted to pay out a lot of money to have the torque tube and driveshaft shortened!) with an overdrive unit in the rear axle itself, the Columbia unit, which required only the replacing of one side of the rear axle housing to install. Overdrives used with the more widely used "Hotchkiss" driveshaft system (two universal joints and an open driveshaft) got their overdrive units as add-on's replacing the standard tail shaft of the transmission and its housing. Thus, those early overdives were controlled separately from the normal 3-speed gearbox transmissions. Starting in the late 1970's, however, the 5-speed manual transmissions began coming, with 5th gear being an overdrive, as well as 4-speed automatics, with 4th gear being overdrive, and that's pretty much what we see today. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm trying to describe a piece of literature to list on eBay. For some reason I am absolutely stumped at the moment & can't remember if the term Woody/Woodie, should be spelled woody or woodie. What's proper??? Is there a right or wrong spelling to the term??? Thanks for your reply. Ellie </div></div> Potato, Potatoe Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe free wheeling was made illegal in '35 or so. '32 Packards had it. It allowed you to shift gears without using the clutch. Worked well from my limited experience using it but tough to adjust. On the Packard a vacuum cylinder literally sucked the clutch pedal to the floor whenever you took your foot off the accelerator. </div></div> If Free-Wheeling was outlawed back then, it would have had to have been on a state-by-state basis, as there were no Federal laws regarding the safety of automobiles until the mandates of the late 60's. What I have always understood from my parents was that Free Wheeling simply faded as people discovered the dangers of a car simply coasting at speed on the roads of the day, which were nothing like they are today. If you'd ever driven, for example, the 16' wide concrete highway pavement, with curbing no loess, in downstate Illinois, or Iowa before virtually all of it was busted up and replaced, you'd understand what I am saying. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it is indeed oil migration down the threads to the cover nuts (or bolts), I read just the other day a very clever way to reduce or eliminate this problem... Take a length ordinary string and a glop of silicone sealant in the palm. Saturate the string completely with silicone and hang out 'till dry. Then, one fastener at a time, unscrew that nut or bolt about 1/8", give the exposed stud or bolt shank a couple of wraps of silicone string and re-tighten. When complete, cut off the loose ends to finish the job. I would like to give credit where credit is due, but can't remember where I read it. </div></div> Oops! Have you considered that most common silicone RTV sealers contain acetic acid, AKA vinegar? That wouldn't be a very good thing to be using against aluminum, particularly old cast aluminum. I'd think that Teflon pipe thread tape might be a lot safer. Art Anderson

Gee, Anyone else remember the navy blue and bright orange of a Sears & Roebuck rebuilt engine in the 50's? Art

While I pay little attention to the exhaust note of modern cars, even those much past say, 1960, as a boy, a couple of my buddies and I used to pride ourselves on being able to ID a car merely from the exhaust sound, and other mechanical noises. Back in the early 50's, a Buick straight eight had, even with a fresh muffler, a deep, powerful but "throaty" growl to it, with a rather quiet starter--just no extraneous sounds other than that--of course, the exhaust note was really evident in a Dynaflow-equipped car, as the engine wound up, and the transmission struggled to catch up to the engine. Some other cars and pickups for comparison: Chrysler products with flathead 6's had an almost musical exhaust note, purposeful, but somehow a very mild, almost pleasant sound. Mopar starters, with their gear reduction, were always unique as well. Chevrolet 6's had a rather flat, "blatting" sound, very smooth note, and of course, their distinct AC starter noise. As a Chevy with 3spd stick wore a bit, you could always hear, from a pretty fair distance, the clutch and brake pedals thumping against their rubber stops as drivers took their feet suddenly off them once the clutch was fully engaged, or when releasing the brake. Dad's Hudson Hornets always had a very deep exhaust note, smooth, but speaking of power. Fords always had a somewhat cheap sound to them back then, certainly the starters, nothing like the "bleating" of a Bendix Drive starter! Particularly noticeable on Fords of the era was the metallic ringing of a manual transmission being put into low gear at a stopsign--for whatever reason, must have been either a genetic adjustment problem, or fairly weak synchronizers--very audible, often from a block away, in those F1 pickups! The flathead V8 had that very distinctive, for the day, throaty burble exhaust note, unique to the flatty, but the flathead 6's sounded just plain wimpy by comparison--the early I-block 6's sounding just as weak. Manual transmissions, of course, all had their unique noises--the unique whirring and whining of a GM Saginaw box in 1st or 2nd, the soft, but audible howling of a Ford 3spd, but Chrysler 3spds seemed just "silent" to us kids. Of course, time as a way of blurring memories, enhancing some, blotting out others, but over coffee a few months back, one of my boyhood friends and I were reminiscing about the games we'd play, seeing who could identify a car purely by sound--try that with today's cars! Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great web site "lead", but I couldn't find out what type of engine powered this vehicle. The trailer-generator unit engine looks like a small two cycle GM/Detroit Diesel. On further thoughts, I see where a cutout was designed to prevent smutting of the exterior panels...tells me it must have had diesel power. Any remarks?? Wayne </div></div> I recall the docents handling NATMUS' Futurliner at the American Truck Historical Society National Convention telling me that the engine is a correct vintage GMC 270cid inline 6-cylinder truck engine. On their website, there is a page of pictures showing the restoration of the carburetor for the engine. While it might seem "odd" that GM Coach would have installed the gas engine used in GMC trucks of the period, as opposed to the then new, state of the art 4 or 6 cylinder inline 71-series diesel engine, bear in mind that for all the bulky look of the Futurliners, they aren't really all that big, only 33' long, apparently didn't carry all that much heavy cargo (mostly displays), and the prevailing speeds on highways in 1939-40 for such vehicles probably wasn't much over about 50mph. I think the use of dual wheels all around was as much for appearance (certainly up front) as anything else--rear would have been appropriate, but probably to give a heavy-duty look to the front. This is a neat vehicle, and it's really great to see it restored! I remember vividly how "sad" it looked, when I first saw it in August 1994, when a friend of mine and I stopped at the ACD Museum & NATMUS in Auburn on our way to Meadowbrook Hall Concours. Both of us seriously questioned that this Futurliner could ever be restored--it was THAT badly rusted and battered! But, it has, and it's one astounding vehicle to see! Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok. Let me put it another way: If there exists some kind of documentation that shows windshieled opening dimensions (for body shop repair?) then we can compare 55-56 Packard dimensions with 55-58 chev. </div></div> There are a lot of variables to consider: Not just the template dimensions of the glass, but also the width across the A-pillars, angle (tumblehome) of A-pillars and the windshield glass itself, and perhaps most importantly, the degree of curvature across the bottom and top of the opening. Also, while 55-57 Chevies use the same glass for all three years, 58 Chevrolet glass is a different animal entirely, wider body. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no doubt that this box was modified to meat the needs of my relatives. This box has been used as a tack trunk for horse shows and cattle shows. I have no idea how long it has been in my family, as everyone who might now is now passed on. If it is or is not an origianl, it makes no difference to me. Would be nice if it were valuable (everyone likes money) but if it is just an old box, that is fine too. Thanks </div></div> Yes, It is a very original 70's era tack box. My ex- and I had one just like that, in different colors. Rest assured that it doesn't date from the 20's or 39's, but was purpose-built for horse tack. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">32-46 chev or gmc truck skirts???? </div></div> Looks like 49-52 Passenger car skirts to me--trucks generally didn't wear fender skirts. Art

That's probably a valve gear eccentric, for controlling the valve action in the steam chest above the cylinder. Steam engines almost always were "double acting", meaning that steam worked against both sides of the piston, in an oscillating fashion, giving a single cylinder steam engine the effect and function of two cylinders. Art

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as personal flying "cars", would the "Ultralites" qualify? If so, I can understand why they're not catching on. Not a whole lot of protection for the body in those things. Another thought, can you imagine the mayhem in the air, if the same folks driving cars now-a-days are flying? Wayne </div></div> Not really. The whole concept of the "Flying Car" was to have a car for use on the streets, take it to the airport, bolt on wings, tail and propellor, taxi out, take off and fly through the air. Sort of a "Bi-Modal" transportation, if you will. Your point about what it would be like if there were a lot of flying cars, though, is very well taken. The airways at times are quite crowded, as it is--can you just see millions of cars up there too? Art

Of all the "Flying Cars" proposed over the years, I believe only the Molton Taylor Aerocar ever saw any sort of production, if one can call 6 or 7 examples built over the time period late 40's to late 70's. One Aerocar became very well-known, and was airworthy as recently as 2000, that one being the unit built for Comedian Robert "Bob" Cummings in the middle 1950's, and flown by him as part of the trailers for "The Bob Cummings Show" on TV circa 1959-61. That one was restored, and was flown annually to the EAA Convention at Oshkosh. The others all failed for one reason or another, either too heavy (the flying Pinto and the Flying Honda Civic, or for safety reasons (Convair's 1947 Flying CAr)--and ultimately, all of them failed to generate any sort of consumer interest. As for GM's Motorama, those got to be pretty expensive, for no more spectators than could actually view the exhibits--GM started these, of course, before Television had become a universal fixture in American homes, and ended them when it became apparent that something like 90% of American households had a TV (early 60's) and GM could better spend the money on both commercials and "Specials" introducing the new models come fall (remember the Dinah Shore fall specials introducing the "new Chevrolet's"? Those were in addition to her regular hour variety "Dinah Shore Chevy Show", and some of them were a full 2 hours! As for the Motorama dream cars themselves, at least one other dream car made it into production, albeit modified slightly, that being the 1857-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, which had appeared as a town car (open driver's compartment) in 1955, and then as a closed car in 1956. L'Universal, the Motorama-inspired do all things van of 1956-57 gave many of its features, and a lot of its shapes to the Corvair Greanbriar/Rampside/Corvan series of 1961-64. The classic 1950's wraparound windshield began with LeSabre, the famed 1950 Dream Car that Harley Earl drove as a personal car for a number of years. While there are many examples of dream car features making it to production (GM's 4dr hardtop "Sports Sedans" of 1956 were pioneered by a reworked 1954 Cadillac show car in the '54 Motorama's). Some dream cars were just too far out to be seriously considered for any sort of production, lead of course by Firebirds I, II and III--turbine powered cars just weren't in anyone's future. But if you look through the pictures of the GM dream cars of the 50's, even those from Chrysler and Ford, you do find many instances where the styling themes and touches did find their way into production eventually. Perhaps the most visible of these was the Nomad--first done as a Corvette'themed fiberglas sport station wagon on a '54 Chevy chassis, the roofline styling quickly adapted to the up-and-coming 1955 Chevrolet and Pontiac station wagons (Nomad and Safari respectively). In recent memory, of course, several dream cars (now termed "Concept Cars") have made it into production, most notable being the first generation Dodge Viper, the Plymouth Prowler, VW's "Millenium Beetle", Ford's last 2-seater Thunderbird and the 2005 Mustang, Chevy's SSR, and Chrysler's 300C & Crossfire. Those are all examples of styling which, while built to gauge public reaction, achieved enough acceptance to warrant creation of production versions. I never saw a Motorama, but I do remember vividly seeing the GM Powerama at Soldier Field in Chicago in September 1955, at the ripe old age of eleven, on a one-week vacation trip (got to be out of school for a week!!!) with my parents. Lotta stories I can share about that experience--what a show! Art

One would have to ask, "why"??? Back in the "day", Lincoln Zephyr top-loader transmissions were widely used in hot rodding, bolted up to Ford flathead V8's, for their durability. Also used, but not nearly as easily, were LaSalle toploaders. Art