The Forums will be down, Friday, November 24th starting 8 AM PST for upgrade.We'll probably be down until 1PM PST, but it might be longer. I'm doing a major forum software upgrade, so I expect the forums to operate somewhat differently when we come back online.
Just to add fuel to the fire here (now I would never do that, would I???), I have been told by executives of at least one company that I recall, and possibly another, that it was standard kit development practice to increase (not decrease) engine size by 10% relative to the rest of the model. This was to done to deliver, in their judgment, a more realistic appearance for the model builder and observer. Obviously, in cases like the Buttera kit, this would not apply due to space considerations. I was further told that due to material stackups (again, the issue of the thickness of model car hoods in styrene vs much thinner metal in real cars), as well as the 10% size increase, these same engines were then sometimes sectioned (horizontally, like the body of the "Polynesian" Olds built by Valley Customs in the early 1970's), to fit into the completed model's engine compartment. Again, I can't recall all the specifics, but I do believe that this applied more to muscle car era model kits and drag racing kits, than it would to hot rod kits where space is a big constraint. Let me caution again that, I am familiar with one or (perhaps two) product development staffs that took this view, but I would not suggest that it was an industry-side practice, nor that the staffs in question applied this philosophy to every model kit that they developed. The take away from this is that the modeling companies and their product development staffs had very strong views about what constituted an accurate appearance in a completed model, and they were not shy about departing from precise scaling of components if it led (in their minds) to a more desirable end product. As the modeling world has changed over the last 30 years or so (i.e., the adult modeler became the majority source of kits sales), the leading edge of the hobby (represented in part by the participants of this forum) have become much less accepting of products that do not scale exactly to the cars they are intended to replicate. Having said that, the late Racing Champions era AMT/Ertl engine faux pas such as the second gen Ala Kart engine, and the Y-Block engine in the 1956 T-Bird American Graffiti kit (which is so woefully misshapen to the point where one does not need calipers or rulers to document the mistakes), remain a mystery for all of us, other than they point to the mistake RC made when they laid off all of the remaining, highly experienced Ertl model kit development staff just after the turn of the century. TIM
As a zone manager for Ford in the late 1970's I asked some of the older dealers in my rural zone about the Unibody pickups. The answer they gave me was that the pickups were engineered to easily handle the rated payload capacity, but farmers being farmers (their words), they typically vastly overloaded the pickups (beyond their rated capacity) and that resulted in the body torsional issues. (FWIW, and based on my personal and professional knowledge of how pickups are engineered, I personally doubt that a different type of frame crossmember would have made any difference.) TIM
Exactly. Rightly or wrongly depending on your own modeling POV and preferences, the buyer appeal of such a kit in today's market would be the hot rod angle, uncompromised in its execution. But I would advocate for a stock body shell (at least for the Roadster and Roadster Pickup versions), so that a kitbashing builder could use the AMT'27 T Tub chassis/engine/suspension as the basis for a showroom stock build. A stock roadster interior might require some kitbashing, but it could be achieved by a moderately experienced modeler. Believe it or not, the manufacturers, particularly Revell in this case (with their '29 Roadster/'30 Coupe Model A tool) do design some of their kits with kitbashing by their customers in mind....TIM
I've had this happen to a significant portion of my Testors Model Masters lacquer spray paint cans - both the "One Coat" metalfllakes, and the muscle colors series. I have not noted it in my Tamiya cans I have other Testors Enamel cans, Pactra, even AMT 1960's spray paints that to this day have never leaked like the Testors lacquer cans have after just a few years.. I'm generally a big fan of Testors lacquer paints, but I'd sure like to know what (and why) is going on here. TIM
This is a small production run by Model King, geared to sell out quickly and not result in a bunch of leftover kits for either the manufacturer or the retailer. Dave's heads-up is simply to let everyone know that this is a one-time run, and if you want one, buy it when you see it; don't hesitate because it may not be available weeks or months later. TIM
Dennis...ah yes, Steve's '27T Turtledeck. I believe that Mark Gustavson did a full article on that model as it was a big winner at one of the GSL's. As you said, Steve made a wood master, vacuformed the body from that, then detailed out that body by adding moldings and details to achieve the final appearance. The remaining build content/style was somewhat out of step with late 1980's/early 1990's hot rod design sensibilities, but from today's "traditional hot rod" point of view, it wast totally spot-on,. Last I heard, Steve still did not have email capability so he was/is not contactable in the digital world for any follow-up questions. But yes, that was a spectacular model at the time. Thanks for reminding us about it. TIM PS - thanks for the hint on the Bad News coupe...I'll look that up. .
This is one of the most memorable '27T Trad Hot Rods I've seen in the last few years. These images were shot in the Autorama Extreme basement at Cobo in March, 2015, poor lighting and photography angles notwithstanding.... AT least 15 more images (mostly closeup detail shots) here.....TIM
Dennis.....I also have inventoried at least five or six different resin Turtledeck bodies. I'm doing this from memory, so don't kill me if this turns out to be incorrect, but I believe that most of the resin offerings descended from the Ron Cash master. The All American Models version was somewhat different, at least the one I got. Again, from memory, a version from Tim's Resin Rods (out of NorCal) was one of the best in terms of proportions, but the quality of the resin and casting was not as good as some of the others. Yet again from memory, one of the issues with the Ron Cash derivatives was that when viewed from the top, the curvature of the rear passenger bulkhead/interior cutout at the rear had an inconsistent sweep from side to side. Yet another resin body offering came from Randy Frost in Canada; I recall that one as being very sharp but since it was designed for a Fuel Altered application instead of a Traditional Rod, it wasn't really usable in this context. I took a picture of all these bodies together a while back for a future magazine article; if it ends up being used it will be an interesting adjunct to this topic. So yes, I fully agree, we need a truly accurate '27 T Turtledeck body from the kit manufacturers! I have been advocating (for years) for a Turtledeck/Roadster Pickup combo with a certain kitmaker, but the idea of an additional (five window)oupe variant is fresh thinking and that might be enough to push the idea over the top. I will included it in my future discussions on this topics. BTW, really like both the real car and the model in your post above! TIM
Actually, it's the Phaeton kit interior that is closest to the interior in the 1975 Street Rod Series release. I've never built this kit (my example is still in the clear bag inside the box), so I can't say if it is exactly the same as the Phaeton kit piece. The Vicky interior is too short (lengthwise) to fit the Tudor body. TIM
In looking at the '65 "Gasser" 3D printed display sample and the earlier CAD file Dave shared with me, it has always struck me that this kit is very much designed in the current idiom of the word "Gasser" (what you might see today at a GoodGuys event or the Meltdown Drags), rather than the historically rules-correct Gasser class racer from the 1960's. In fact, based on my understanding of Gasser classes in the 1960's, I don't think a 1965 Chevy II could have been campaigned as a Gasser until very late in the decade, if at all. TIM
Bill got me going here...it's always (at least for me) risky to trust my memory of a kit I built 42 years ago (this one was a "clear the desk/first weekend you could buy the kit" start to finish build back in '75). Here are some photos of the engine in the engine compartment. The engine compartment (including the steering column extension into the engine compartment on the driver's side, and the alternator on the passenger side, just barely clear the hood sides. You can also see that from underneath, this is a very tight fit. Any added width to the engine would have made it not buildable. Added length to the engine might have worked - possibly - although pushing the front cover/fan belt forward would have probably caused interference with the alternator/hood side. But what really intrigues me is that I pulled out a Revell '32 Ford 302 Windsor V8 to compare. I don't have a Revell '26T 289 complete engine as a stand alone build, but comparing the 302 to the 289 short block only, the dimensions appear essentially identical. Which leads one to speculate - if the '26T 289 is undersized, is the '32 Ford 302 also undersized? Guess I need to do a full build of a new full standalone build of the Revell '26 T 289 and compare it to the 302 W in the last photo....