611 replies to this topic

[Greg Myers]

Great work, thanks for the information. Now how about that grill insert? I'd like to see a bunch on one card so I don't have to buy all the other stuff I don't use.

[Brett Barrow]

Few more pics - here's the engine block sprue.  It's a little flashy for a new tool, but that could just be from not having the mold clamping or injection pressure quite right.  

 

Small-block Chevy w/ deep T sump oil pan and Tremec TKO trans: 

 

 

 

 

[jrherald420]

I wish the oil pan wasn't molded to the block. Seems lazy to me and ruins a nice pan.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

That got my attention too, but because of the deep-sump shape and a factor called "draft angle" in molding - the capacity for a part to be removed from a mold without damage or distortion - it looks as if there's no economical way to do that oil pan as a single separate piece.  It would need to be split, molded to the block or not.

 

Doesn't look as if filling the seam will be all that difficult...

[johnbuzzed]

It shouldn't be difficult to remove the seam but it is unexpected in a "new" mold/kit, especially one that seems to be very popular.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Hmm. Actually, that does bring up an interesting question - bearing in mind the oil pan pretty much has to be done as two pieces, and the simplest way is probably the same longitudinal split you see in the one molded to the block, what would you have preferred?

 

A separate two-piece oil pan? Or molded to the block as it is?

 

Anybody pipe in who wants, I'm just too lazy to make a poll.  

[Casey]

Hmm. Actually, that does bring up an interesting question - bearing in mind the oil pan pretty much has to be done as two pieces, and the simplest way is probably the same longitudinal split you see in the one molded to the block, what would you have preferred?

 

A separate two-piece oil pan? Or molded to the block as it is?

 

Anybody pipe in who wants, I'm just too lazy to make a poll.  

 

Think of the finned Cobra oil pan in some the Monogram '65/6 Shelby GT350 kits. The "sump" area is a separate piece, but when put together with the upper piece, the completed oil pan is far from convincing IMHO.

 

The trans looks good, though. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

One thing's for certain...if the amount of speculation and commentary on this kit is anything to go by, Revell has winner on their hands. Though there are things I'm not hog-wild about, I'll be having a few.

 

I'd also have preferred to see a separate oil pan, but I'd prefer the whole engine to be made like the old Parts Pack version as well...separate everything. The draft-angle issue is indeed a problem and precludes a one-piece pan.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yup.  I think they could do a one-piece upper, closed on the front half, open and flaring out on the back half (as the GT350 piece didn't particularly do) to accept a separate sump pan - but it seems like that would call for a pretty convoluted mold, likely too much so at this price point.

[Erik Smith]

Separate oil pan - easier to paint and modify. It's also nicer when the sprue attachment points are on top, since you never see that on the built model. Still, very cool parts.

Weird about the amount of flash on the transmission - looks like an MPC kit

I am going to buy this kit. Probably three.

[Draggon]

Best thing....well...Revells doing a great job. Despite the funky chops on the 48 Ford and the 49 Merc, theyre great kits. Then comes that wonderful 32 5 window, and now this. Were lucky guys, even taking into account all the errors us traditional guys get obsessed about. 

[Greg Myers]

Funny you should bring up; all the errors the traditional guys get obsessed about. Granted the original car

, Stacey David's "Rat Roaster" has an I beam front axle, but traditionally rodders of yore were looking for the smooth look obtained by using the "Tube" axle found under a'60 powered flathead '36 Ford.

As for tradition, things often change, i.e. the venerable flattie, up until the late fifty's the darling of the hot rod crowd. Then , probably the early fifty's some went looking for more power. Remember "If some is good, and more is better, then Too much should be just about right." thus the OHV engines, 303 Olds, Pontiac, yes even a Studebaker V-8. But then along came the little Chevrolet 265 V-8. Cheep, power to weight numbers were up there too, and just about every after market company was on the band wagon.and with the help of a company called Wil-Cap you could bolt up just about any combination you could think of.

So I don't think Revell did so  bad.

Edited by Greg Myers, 23 January 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[tim boyd]

 

I'm not a Chevy guy, but the reason the smallblock Chev is in EVERYTHING is because, in 1955, when real hot-rodding was defining itself, it was THE state of the art in overhead-valve, American V8 engines from a power-to-weight-ratio standpoint, and from an availability standpoint. Huge numbers of Chevy V8 engines in production made early junkyard-sourcing possible for low-bucks, and the low engine weight, high revving capability and small overall size made it the perfect package for any hot-rodder interested primarliy in performance. Please remember that going fast, cheaply, was the name of the game in those days. When the Chevy 265 was introduced in '55, there was NO WAY to go as fast with a Ford in a Ford. The idea caught on, and stuck.

 

Because of its rapid proliferation into the hod-rod, fast-car scene, the aftermarket climbed on the smallblock Chev bandwagon, and made many more go-fast goodies for it than for anything else in history...a situation that contines to this day, and has kept performance parts for the little Chevy cheaper than for most other engine makes. Price is an important factor in many people's hot-rod building equations. Though the little Ford is also a fine engine, in some ways superior to the Chevy, it still lags far behind in terms of how much stuff you can get for it, and how much that stuff costs.

 

Frankly, I used to be put off by all the cookie-cutter, smallblock Chevy powered everythings, but over the past few years, since I've become totally immersed in building period-correct 1:1s, and researching the history of the sport / hobby, I've come to understand how the mouse motor came to be as much an icon of hot-rodding as the flathead Ford engine, and the '32 Ford itself. It's simply a very VERY good engine.

 

Bill...I get your point and actually I agree with your first paragraph, which is why I said I sort of understood why late 1950's to 1960's build period Deuces would use Chevys.  But once the Ford Small Block started turning up in junkyards, it should have become the engine of choice in Deuces.  More expensive, yes.  More expensive aftermarket parts, yes.  But hot rods and street rods were and are about style as well as performance, and once Ford again had a competitive V8, the Chev=Deuces should have stopped. 

 

Then when the 5.0L Ford was reborn in the 1980's, then all the arguments about cost and aftermarket parts went away too.  The 5.0L today is what the SBC was to the aftermarket in the late 50's to late 70's.  So I fundamentally disagree that cost of the engines and aftermarket parts is a valid rationale for an SBC in a Deuce build today.  And as for ultimate street/strip peformance potential (without cost considerations), did anyone notice that Ford V8's engines swept all the top spots last year in the Popular Hot Rodding Magazine Engine Masters (Ithink that is what they call it) competition?  

 

You'll notice I didn't say anything negative about the Hemi in the Revell '32 Deuce 5W, and I would be first in line for a first gen Olds or Buick nailhead in one of Revell's Deuce kits.  In fact, I've kitbashed these very conversions and they are sitting in my display case. But as for Chevy in a '32 Ford, those are just fighting words.  Plain and Simple.  Just like the Chevy guys would scream - and rightly so - over a 5.0L in a '69 Camaro.

 

I realize, have listened to, and listened again to all the arguments about SBC's, but morally they are just wrong in one of Ford's most iconic products ever.  

 

And so, until I see 1/1 and 1/25th scale Camaro Ford 5.0's....lotsa them....I'm going to continue to call the automotive and scale model world out on this point.  

 

So I've stated my position, I realize most of you do not agree with me and for good reasons from your point of view, and I thank you for your patient responses nonetheless!  

 

Best regards all....TIM

[MachinistMark]

Chevys are still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper to build than fords.

[Casey]

Chad took and posted pics of the kit's contents in his OTW topic here: http://www.modelcars...showtopic=69796

[Ace-Garageguy]

Chevys are still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper to build than fords.

Yup.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

 

Bill...I get your point and actually I agree with your first paragraph, which is why I said I sort of understood why late 1950's to 1960's build period Deuces would use Chevys.  But once the Ford Small Block started turning up in junkyards, it should have become the engine of choice in Deuces.  More expensive, yes.  More expensive aftermarket parts, yes.  But hot rods and street rods were and are about style as well as performance, and once Ford again had a competitive V8, the Chev=Deuces should have stopped. 

 

Then when the 5.0L Ford was reborn in the 1980's, then all the arguments about cost and aftermarket parts went away too.  The 5.0L today is what the SBC was to the aftermarket in the late 50's to late 70's.  So I fundamentally disagree that cost of the engines and aftermarket parts is a valid rationale for an SBC in a Deuce build today.  And as for ultimate street/strip peformance potential (without cost considerations), did anyone notice that Ford V8's engines swept all the top spots last year in the Popular Hot Rodding Magazine Engine Masters (Ithink that is what they call it) competition?  

 

You'll notice I didn't say anything negative about the Hemi in the Revell '32 Deuce 5W, and I would be first in line for a first gen Olds or Buick nailhead in one of Revell's Deuce kits.  In fact, I've kitbashed these very conversions and they are sitting in my display case. But as for Chevy in a '32 Ford, those are just fighting words.  Plain and Simple.  Just like the Chevy guys would scream - and rightly so - over a 5.0L in a '69 Camaro.

 

I realize, have listened to, and listened again to all the arguments about SBC's, but morally they are just wrong in one of Ford's most iconic products ever.  

 

And so, until I see 1/1 and 1/25th scale Camaro Ford 5.0's....lotsa them....I'm going to continue to call the automotive and scale model world out on this point.  

 

So I've stated my position, I realize most of you do not agree with me and for good reasons from your point of view, and I thank you for your patient responses nonetheless!  

 

Best regards all....TIM

I agree with everything you've said, except for the 5.0 Ford part and only for the simple reason that I do not think any engine made after 1980 belongs into a hot rod from before 1950. This is just my personal opinion.

 

Everything else you said about yes to Hemi, Olds, Nailhead, and no to SBC today I totally agree with you.

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

Bill...I get your point and actually I agree with your first paragraph, which is why I said I sort of understood why late 1950's to 1960's build period Deuces would use Chevys.  But once the Ford Small Block started turning up in junkyards, it should have become the engine of choice in Deuces.  More expensive, yes.  More expensive aftermarket parts, yes.  But hot rods and street rods were and are about style as well as performance, and once Ford again had a competitive V8, the Chev=Deuces should have stopped. 

 

Then when the 5.0L Ford was reborn in the 1980's, then all the arguments about cost and aftermarket parts went away too.  The 5.0L today is what the SBC was to the aftermarket in the late 50's to late 70's.  So I fundamentally disagree that cost of the engines and aftermarket parts is a valid rationale for an SBC in a Deuce build today.  And as for ultimate street/strip peformance potential (without cost considerations), did anyone notice that Ford V8's engines swept all the top spots last year in the Popular Hot Rodding Magazine Engine Masters (Ithink that is what they call it) competition?  

 

You'll notice I didn't say anything negative about the Hemi in the Revell '32 Deuce 5W, and I would be first in line for a first gen Olds or Buick nailhead in one of Revell's Deuce kits.  In fact, I've kitbashed these very conversions and they are sitting in my display case. But as for Chevy in a '32 Ford, those are just fighting words.  Plain and Simple.  Just like the Chevy guys would scream - and rightly so - over a 5.0L in a '69 Camaro.

 

I realize, have listened to, and listened again to all the arguments about SBC's, but morally they are just wrong in one of Ford's most iconic products ever.  

 

And so, until I see 1/1 and 1/25th scale Camaro Ford 5.0's....lotsa them....I'm going to continue to call the automotive and scale model world out on this point.  

 

So I've stated my position, I realize most of you do not agree with me and for good reasons from your point of view, and I thank you for your patient responses nonetheless!  

 

Best regards all....TIM

I said at the outset I'm not a Chevy guy, and if I'm any kind of American-engine guy, it would have to be Ford. I've preferred the little Ford V8 ever since I had one in my '65 Mustang, many many many years ago. One thing I especially prefer is the exhaust note...Chevy V8s always sound like they're missing on one cylinder to me, but the little Ford just sings. I've swapped 289s and 302s into old Datsun Z-cars, Triumph Stags, a big Healy and a Jag XK-E when all the other guys were doing Chevies. I'm about finished the design work, fabbing a modular 4-cam Ford swap for my Jag XJ-6. And I've built more 351C engines, while specializing in Panteras for a time, than most folks have built Chevys. I personally prefer seeing a Ford in a Ford...unusual as that is...but in reality there are more smallblock Chevy powered Deuces than anything else, there are more every month, so it's only reasonable that a kit manufacturer would finally reflect what most of the people seem to want.

 

PS. Soon as things shake out a bit, I'll get back on my own 1:1 hot-rod on Deuce rails. One engine that WON'T be in it is a Chevy.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 23 January 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Funny you mention that - my Chevy LS1 was mighty impressive for the time, but it always had this flatulent, droning sound in the lower rev range.  Knew that was characteristic of the Gen 4 firing order, but never suspected that about the older small blocks.

 

Both 5.0s I've owned - the '93 pushrod and the new Coyote - sing like freakin' Pavarotti.  As did the '70 302 I drove in high school, and the '67 289 my ma bought new.

[southpier]

 

....SBC's, but morally they are just wrong in one of Ford's most iconic products ever.....

 

 

this.

 

we need to respect.