Jumping right in with your form intersections, you're definitely showing a very well developing understanding of how these forms interact with one another - and that goes for the simpler flat-on-flat intersections, the more complex flat-on-curved as well as the much more difficult curved-on-curved ones. As a whole, very nicely done.

Your cylinders in boxes are similarly well done, save for one thing - I can see that you're using an ellipse guide here, and it likely puts you in situations where those ellipses don't fit entirely perfectly within a given plane, which in turn forces you to make certain adjustments and logical jumps to identify the actual contact points and such. As a whole, in these circumstances it would probably still be better to freehand those ellipses, focusing on having it touch all 4 edges and align as well as you can to the minor axis.

Continuing onto the form intersection vehicle exercise, it's actually strangely uncommon for students to actually do this exercise correctly. Often they jump straight into the more complex subdivision-based construction, but what you've done here is exactly what was requested - putting down simple primitives in an arrangement that matches some vehicle, but only that. This helps to remind students that everything still breaks down into simple components, and it goes a long way to keep students from falling into that trap of simply laying down a bounding box and then trying to draw the entirety of their vehicle within it, skipping many steps in the process.

This understanding carries over extremely well into your proper vehicle constructions. I'm especially fond of that first Ford Model T - it came together with a great deal of solidity, and the precision of your overall construction really helps keep everything in line. I can see you employing the constructing-to-scale techniques (using the ellipses to build out a unit grid), and you're very clearly holding to that idea of building up forms within that space, which carries over from the previous exercise.

That said, there are other constructions that do definitely end up taking that other turn, where you end up focusing more on drawing your whole object inside of the bounding box, rather than building up to it. The superleggera is a big example of this, and we can actually see why it went this way by simply looking at your orthographic plans.

If we look here, you've laid out a 6x2 grid, though the vast majority of features on the car don't actually align to those limited proportional landmarks. The end of the hood/start of the front door appears to hit that 1/3rd mark, and I was able to infer based on the fact that the wheels are 1 unit tall circles centered on the 1/6th and 5/6ths mark that they start at 1/12 and 3/4, and end at 1/4 and 11/12 respectively. But when it comes to everything else - including the height of the car, the positioning of its side mirror, the positioning of its lights, and much more, you're leaving yourself to eyeball a ton of it.

Conversely, your NASA Crawler-Transporter goes hard in the other direction. Here you went to incredible lengths to be incredibly precise in your plan, and that all carried over very nicely into the 3D construction. Needless to say you know how to do it correctly - but I can definitely understand that with something more organic with swooping curves like a sports car, it can be daunting. To that point, it's best to take those curves and describe them using straight edges/flat faces, as explained here in Lesson 6.

While I certainly picked hard on that sportscar, you show your capacity to approach your constructions correctly across enough of your drawings that I am confident in marking this lesson - and the course along with it - as complete. There is of course room for continued growth and improvement, as I've outlined here, but when it comes to the core focus of this course - developing your spatial reasoning skills - I am proud to say that you've done a great job. Congratulations, and best of luck on whatever it is you'll be applying these skills towards.