17 replies to this topic

[MAGNUM4342]

This is actually a three parter. I would like to know, in your own opinion, which kits in 1/25/24th scale has the best:

 

392 HEMI?

 

426 HEMI?

 

Modern HEMI?

[Longbox55]

A stock 392 is a no brainer, the Mobeus 300. For a drag version, my vote would go for any of the Revell '41 Willys (new tool) kits or the Miss Deal Studebaker.

[MAGNUM4342]

A stock 392 is a no brainer, the Mobeus 300. For a drag version, my vote would go for any of the Revell '41 Willys (new tool) kits or the Miss Deal Studebaker.

Aaaargh! I just traded away my Stude earlier this evening!  What do you think of the AMT Chrysler 300 HEMI?

Edited by MAGNUM4342, 16 February 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[gtx6970]

I've got a complete miss deal kit I'll use to trade with (doesn't have to be stryene either )

 

I've also got the intake from the Johan cuda if you still need it.

 

As far as an accurate 426 I think it depends on what your trying to replicate,

[Rob Hall]

For a modern Hemi I like the Revell Magnum or Challenger (6.1 SRT engine).   For a base 5.7 engine, the Testors Charger R/T engine is better than the AMT 300C engine, IMO.

Edited by Rob Hall, 17 February 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[Ace-Garageguy]

For a modern Hemi I like the Revell Magnum or Challenger (6.1 SRT engine). 

I agree, BUT (big but) I have both of them on the bench right at this moment and the Challenger block and heads are almost 1/4" inch shorter (in length) than the Magnum. I'm still trying to get a 1:1 measured to find out which one is correct (they're both supposed to be 6.1 Hemis).

 

Another nice racing early (gen1) hemi is in the AMT parts pack, though the detail on the block sides is missing if I remember correctly.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 17 February 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[mole53]

The 426 out of revell's 67 Charger or any of the 67 mopars are nice ones.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Revell modern 6.1 Hemi...Top white one from the Challenger kit, lower gray one from the Magnum kit.

 

 

Which is the correct length ?? Anyone have one to measure ??

[LoneWolf15]

Bill.

Isn't bigger always better ? Lol ! Da bigger da motor , da faster she goes . Unless your name was Bill Jenkins , of coarse !

Edited by LoneWolf15, 20 February 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Rob Hall]

I've got several of each of the Magnum and Challenger engines to use in Pro-Touring style builds..I figure I'll use the smaller one where it fits better.

[Monty]

Revell modern 6.1 Hemi...Top white one from the Challenger kit, lower gray one from the Magnum kit.
 

 
Which is the correct length ?? Anyone have one to measure ??

Wow, looks like someone tried to do their homework on the bus. That's a huge difference in length, even in this scale. I'm not a Mopar expert by any means, but I'm inclined to believe the white piece replicates the 1:1 more closely.

Where are all our experts? I thought we'd have this resolved in half a day.

[cobra]

I've always had a soft spot for the look of the 392 in the Hemi-Hydro.

[Longbox55]

I've always had a soft spot for the look of the 392 in the Hemi-Hydro.

That one is the same engine found in the Miss Deal Studebaker, only with a different intake, the prop drive for the boat, and it doesn't have the separate rocker shafts that go on the heads that the Miss Deal has. Either one is a very nice rendition of the 392.

[Rob Hall]

The AMT '29 Ford roadster had an early Hemi IIRC (at least the version I built in the late 80s (molded in red) did....the new tool Ala-Kart had one, but IIRC it was said to be undersized...

[Erik Smith]

Revell modern 6.1 Hemi...Top white one from the Challenger kit, lower gray one from the Magnum kit.
 

 
Which is the correct length ?? Anyone have one to measure ??

This is an interesting question. Doing some searching, I found this:

http://www.hotrodlan...easurements.pdf

Also, I found the measurements for a custom oil pan for the 6.1 - it is 24" long. I don't have a Revell kit to see which is closer to that.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The AMT '29 Ford roadster had an early Hemi IIRC (at least the version I built in the late 80s (molded in red) did....the new tool Ala-Kart had one, but IIRC it was said to be undersized...

Just for accuracy's sake (though I believe the original question was about the 392 Chrysler Firepower Hemi specifically):

 

The Red Ram 241/ 270 cube (small early hemi) engine in the FIRST TOOL Ala Kart / '29 Ford kit  has an early (about '39) Ford 3-speed trans set up for a closed driveline (torque tube). For the bazillionth time (no offense intended) the ORIGINAL ISSUE ALA KART RED RAM (the one also in the later AMT '29 Ford kit) IS CORRECT (more or less, close enough). The RETOOLED more recent Ala Kart Red Ram is SEVERELY UNDERSCALE. I've posted the actual measurements I made from 1:1 engines on several forums over the years, and this has been confirmed by others in the 1:1 field. The numbers don't lie.

 

Another early and interesting Hemi is the DeSoto Firedome 276 / 291/ 341. There is one available in the AMT '53 Ford pickup. It also is backed up by the ubiquitous Ford early 3-speed, but the pickup has an open driveshaft.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 21 February 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[Ace-Garageguy]

This is an interesting question. Doing some searching, I found this:

http://www.hotrodlan...easurements.pdf

Also, I found the measurements for a custom oil pan for the 6.1 - it is 24" long. I don't have a Revell kit to see which is closer to that.

 

Thanks to Erik, the modern Hemi question is resolved. The dimensioned photograph on the page he's linked us to concurs with these findings. The pan for the white Challenger engine measures .945". Multiply by 25, we get 23.62"...much closer to a scale 24" than the pan for the gray Magnum engine that measures 1.144" and scales out to 28.6".

 

So Revell, uhhh...how about explaining a 5" scale discrepency on these engines ?? Ummmm, it's not like one had to be made smaller to fit. It would have cost LESS to use the same tooling for both engines, or at least the same set of basic dimensions. What's up with that ???

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 21 February 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[Ace-Garageguy]

That one is the same engine found in the Miss Deal Studebaker, only with a different intake, the prop drive for the boat, and it doesn't have the separate rocker shafts that go on the heads that the Miss Deal has. Either one is a very nice rendition of the 392.

Yup, which is also the same one issued as a Revell Parts Pack #C1102, quite rare now and originally labeled as a 413cu.in. engine.