Just to add my kudos....that's about the cleanest (and most realistic appearing) build of that kit I can recall. Interestingly, when this kit first came out (in the Buttera Tudor Sedan form), I dropped everything and did a 24 hour build. It was even Testors Candy Blue over silver (when that spray paint dried in minutes/hours instead of days/weeks). The kit just about fell together for me. At the time, I considered it the best-ever Revell kit I'd built, a ton ahead of most of their 1960's tooled kits. It was then, and is still now, one of my all time favorite street rod/hot rod model kits. Thanks Greg for bringing back those memories, and again, great job on that model! Cheers...TIM
Dennis...you are far, far more qualified than I on this topic. However, at one point in my various assignments at Ford, the SVO Marketing guys were part of my organization and they were all well respected street rodders. They developed the shorty water pump, oil filter adapter, and other parts specifically to counteract the dimensional issues with using SBF engines in Ford hot rods/street rods. So I understood the length dimension to largely be a moot point. Your post suggests otherwise. So I just did a quick google search "Chevy Small Block V8 dimensions vs. Ford Small Block V8 Dimensions" Here are the results from the website http://www.onallcylinders.com/2013/01/10/engine-dimensions-for-popular-swaps/: Engine Measurements Chevrolet 262-400 Dimensions: 26 inches wide, 28 inches long, and 27 inches tall Weight: 575 pounds Sump Location: Rear Starter Location: Right Ford 221-351W Dimensions: 24 inches wide, 29 inches long, and 27.5 inches tall Weight: 460 pounds Sump Location: Front Starter Location: Left NOTES: 351W height to carburetor pad in 23-3/4 inches. 289-302 height to top of pad is 20-3/4 inches. Length for all 221-351W Ford is with short serpentine water pump. So based on this information (again, presuming it to be correct and an apples to apples comparison), the SBC is "only" 1" shorter in length, .5" shorter in height, and actually 2" wider in width compared to the SBFord. Not to mention being 115 lbs. heavier than the SBF. (Personally, I'd take this weight comparison number with a grain of salt...sounds a little to good to be true in favor of the SBF...) The Jegs website shows one Ford Performance (SVO Successor) water pump yielding only a 27" length (pulley to bellhousing): http://www.jegs.com/p/Ford-Performance/Ford-Performance-Water-Pump/753291/10002/-1 289/302/351WReverse RotationDriver Side Inlet1.75" Shorter Than Old-Style PumpsNo Provisions For Fuel PumpOverall Length 27" Pump Pulley to Bell housingAgain, you are the expert here, not me; I've never built a 1/1 scale hot rod as you have. So fire away if I've misinterpreted something in copying this dimensional comparison data.
I should also note that SBF's were often seen in 1960's/1970's Model T and Model A based builds, in part because they are narrower (by 2" per the above sources) than the SBC. And that 2" made a big difference under those stock/"resto rods" Model A hoods....
TIM ,PS - that's a super clean engine/compartment in your 1.1....TB . r
Harry....fully agree, as long as the "mistakes" cited by participants turn out to be factual, not fabricated. Problem becomes when non-factual first impressions are taken as fact by most/all who read this board, and then acted (or not acted) upon in error.... TIM
Chuck....valid points, all. What I am concerned with is that it seems often in these forums, "facts" on kit errors are presented that eventually turn out to be, well, not factual. (For reference, the recent brou-ha-ha on the seven vs. eight nubs on the Revell '30 A Coupe kit distributor). Now I am not even remotely an expert on 1965 Cyclones, but I am sure Moebius scaled a 1.1 in detail during the kit's development, and I am reasonably sure that they did not make up the design of the wiper motor or the engine compartment brace on their own. Plus, in the 1/1 muscle era restoration business we are finding more and more often that once-accepted "facts" about what was production-correct were in fact not correct, given the variability of plants and assembly processes back then. And internet images/information does not always turn out to be correct, either. My comment here on "facts" and "kit errors" here does not apply specifically to the Cyclone kit, but instead to all internet forum discussions on kit accuracy. Comments on kit accuracy backed up by specific, in-print resources (which even here can be wrong at times) should be given more credibility in these discussions....and I guess what I am saying overall is...factor in what you read here and elsewhere, but don't accept it as hard fact just yet...form your own opinions and judgments, particularly after you've researched the subject yourself, then bought, examined, and yes, built the kits being discussed here. Now...I need to get busy at the modeling desk....TIM
All valid reasons to use an SBC....but Ford Small Block V8's (with a few easy adaptions like shorter water pump and revised oil filter mount) are a far more artful and brand-appropriate choice, can be just as powerful (I presume some of you read Engine Masters et al), are now reasonably affordable....and so much more appropriate to use in a Ford hot rod body. ( If you start looking in detail at hot rods from the mid 1960's on, many of the leading edge builds used small block Fords, not SBC's. So they are era-correct after all, and a far less generic, more creative choice.) Plus, these are models we are building here, not 1/1's. Great opportunity to be creative with your engine choices (and not just Ford small blocks...why not Y-Blocks, Olds/Pontiac/Buick, or Dodge Red Ram/Desoto Firedome/Chrysler Early Hemi et al)...with better than ever first gen OHV V8 newly tooled kits brought to market in the last ten years or so? Man I love this hobby! And to each, his/her own....Cheers..>TIM .
Best solution? Use the Nailhead from the '29A kit...fits the '30A kit without modifications... including the sidemount Nailhead headers without the jog around the steering column.... (As you guys know well by now, I've still got a severe allergic reaction to SBC's in hot rod Fords, Honda 750 fours in Harley frames, etc., etc.. at least until we see tons of 5.0L Fords appearing '67-'69 Camaro builds....(smile)) TIM
For those that missed the earlier post, here are the details (so far) on the new kit....TIM http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/111545-a-detailed-preview-of-revells-upcoming-30a-chopped-five-window-hot-rod-no-pictures/
Quite some time ago, when the possibility of this kit derivative was just under discussion, several different engine induction options were considered. I was contacted for input. At the time of the discussion, my somewhat vague recollection was that the final agreed direction was for the engine to have a new dual quad carb system with a different application-specific intake manifold. It was to be patterned after specific aftermarket components (regrettably, I do not have my notes at hand from that time). I do not know if that plan made the final kit contents or not, but I do recall thinking that it was a good solution at the time.....TIM