Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

A Detailed Preview of Revell's Upcoming '30A Chopped Five Window Hot Rod....


Recommended Posts

Is it just me....

It seems to be "a lot of air" between the engine and radiator.

At this point (no real production kit on the bench yet) I agree. I personally find these look better if the rad shell is just barely forward of the front-axle...which would give you rather more frame horn forward of the grille-shell, assuming the horns are supposed to represent stock. 

Once again, not hard to adjust to more pleasing proportions.   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point (no real production kit on the bench yet) I agree. I personally find these look better if the rad shell is just barely forward of the front-axle...which would give you rather more frame horn forward of the grille-shell, assuming the horns are supposed to represent stock. 

Once again, not hard to adjust to more pleasing proportions.   :)

And now I remember...same "issue" on the roadster, when using the model a frame(chanelled version)

Edited by Johnny99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The test shot photos confirm the whoopdee on the rear header primary on the driver's side. Kind of a shame, as it's usually not necessary to hula-hoop the header to clear the steering on one of these in 1:1, if things are engineered in advance of cutting and welding steel. The whoopdee on the header is just one more thing that will have to be corrected if the what-could-have-been-perfect-generic-smallblock-Chevy-in a hot rod-headers are to be used on something else.

Not too hard to fix though. :)

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  

Edited by tim boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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  

Guess I didn't make myself clear. My complaint was about the hooyah in the rear pipes making the header assemblies unsuitable as bashing-fodder to use in OTHER chassis without removing the hooyah. If I build the kit more-or-less OOB (unlikely), I'll put the steering where it should have gone, and correct the header hooyah there too.

This isn't a bash at Revell...it looks like a super kit across the board and I'll buy several, just as I did with the '29 roadster...but simply a statement of fact about the header design, the steering box location, and the really unnecessary hooyah. Google pix of channeled (or not) '30-'31 Fords with Chebby engines. You'll see.

Speaking of Chebbys in Fords...I wasn't much of a fan of the old Ford / Chebby bellybutton combo for years either, but now that I'm getting my own full-scale '32 rails off the ground and beginning to mock up my own rod once again, I'm starting to lean heavily towards little Chebby power for exactly the same reasons they were so popular in the late 1950s. I have a lot of junk ones, amassed for close to free. I have some pretty cool parts, like a 3X2 manifold and a pair of double-hump fuelie heads, that have kinda fallen out of the sky too. Little Chebbys rev tight, they're almost bulletproof if you use a brain during building and driving, and they're light and powerful for their weight.

All very good reasons to use a Chebby, and laugh at the engine snobs I'll be leaving in the dust. :D

PS. I'd really LOVE to run an Olds Rocket in this thing, or maybe a 289 Ford...but I don't have any parts for either of those...yet. The 394 Olds I DO have is going back in the '63 convert it came out of. 

Chebby's looking pretty good. Fast. Cheap. Light. Reliable.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine just blew the engine in his Subaru. A few google searches later and I'm gobsmacked by the cost of replacement parts and engines. If only it had a small block chevy!!
If I had a car that needed a V8 swap, I'd find it very difficult to avoid the allure of the cheap, reliable power represented by the SBC. As much as I love the "cool" engines...Olds Rocket, Cadillac 331, early Hemi, Ford flathead V8, Nailhead, and so on...they're pricey to rebuild and just too precious for an amateur like me to tackle. If I ever wrecked a SBC...welp, there's more where that came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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    

.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ( 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.) 

 

.  

Last week I was looking at an old R&C mag ('60s) that had a mini-feature on four different rodded A roadster pickups. Amazingly, all four had 289s. Even more amazingly, this fact was not highlighted or mentioned in any way in the feature....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Man I love this hobby!  And to each, his/her own....  

:D Just on another 1:1 note...I'd vastly prefer to run a 289-302 in my own car simply for the sound. I think the little Fords are some of the sweetest sounding V8 engines ever made, and I always think Chebby's sound like they're missing on one cylinder. It's the differences in the firing orders, obviously, but to me, the Ford is THE engine of choice for sound...but I'll probably build this thing with a Chebby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine just blew the engine in his Subaru. A few google searches later and I'm gobsmacked by the cost of replacement parts and engines. If only it had a small block chevy!!
If I had a car that needed a V8 swap, I'd find it very difficult to avoid the allure of the cheap, reliable power represented by the SBC. As much as I love the "cool" engines...Olds Rocket, Cadillac 331, early Hemi, Ford flathead V8, Nailhead, and so on...they're pricey to rebuild and just too precious for an amateur like me to tackle. If I ever wrecked a SBC...welp, there's more where that came from.

and there in lies the reason we use the Chevrolet Small Block engine, not to mention the abundance of performance parts.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was building a real car, I wouldn't turn my nose up at ANY affordable engine, brand be darned. So SBF and Mopar engines would be in the running, too.

I don't think I've ever heard a 289 running...I know the Olds rocket can be made to sing, and the Studebaker V8 too...the stude is similar to Cadillac 331, so that engine probably sounds good also. My favorite, though, is the early hemi...those engines have such a full, throaty sound. SBC tends to sound like a bag of loose metal :( Especially straight-piped.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to be different, how about this '32 ford with a Boeing turbine engine?   Pistons are sooooooo overdone....

http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Ford/32_Ford_Turbine_Rdstr_DV-06-01.jpg

The fact is, anything and everything has at some point been used to power a hotrod. Any "rules" that someone tries to lay down about what goes where is purely the product of their own fevered imagination.

Edited by Richard Bartrop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and there in lies the reason we use the Chevrolet Small Block engine, not to mention the abundance of performance parts.B)

And, another excellent reason is their size. SBC's are identical in length and width to a flathead V8 and actually weigh slightly less, stock for stock. Below is a picture under the hood of my 1932 Ford Pickup and the '66 283 SBC that now resides there. No modifications were required to the firewall, steering gear/column placement, toe board panel and a mechanical fan clears the radiator with room to spare. It uses an adapter to connect to a '32-'39 3-speed transmission so no modification to the transmission cross member, pedals, linkage, anything was necessary. The front engine "L" brackets are original 1932 Ford V8. All that is necessary to attach them to the SBC is to relocate the upper of the two engine attachment holes down 5/8". After that they bolt right on the SBC and fall right back onto the mount cushions on the front cross member. The SBC attachment holes on the front of the block are the same width and up/down location relative to the crankshaft centerline. It's too easy. 

The only modification necessary was to remove a 1" by 6.5" long strip from the center of the front frame cross member to clear the crankshaft damper & pulley. 

I did paint my Chevy engine antique Ford engine dark green! :P

Hosted on Fotki

Hosted on Fotki

Previously the truck had its stock Model B 4 cylinder engine. This little 283 is completely stock and makes more than 4x the horsepower and more than double the torque. It's the difference between putting around town and cruising at 70 on the freeway. 

The reason more Ford small blocks (260, 289, 302, 351W) aren't used is because due to the way their timing cover is designed, even with the shortest water pump and shallowest pulleys an SBF is 4+ inches longer and physically won't fit in the available space without setting the whole engine / transmission back by that amount. It's just not practical unless you are building a rod from the ground up with a clean sheet of paper as the frame, driveline, firewall and floor will all require involved modification. 

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, another excellent reason is their size. SBC's are identical in length and width to a flathead V8 and actually weigh slightly less, stock for stock. Below is a picture under the hood of my 1932 Ford Pickup and the '66 283 SBC that now resides there. No modifications were required to the firewall, steering gear/column placement, toe board panel and a mechanical fan clears the radiator with room to spare. It uses an adapter to connect to a '32-'39 3-speed transmission so no modification to the transmission cross member, pedals, linkage, anything was necessary. The front engine "L" brackets are original 1932 Ford V8. All that is necessary to attach them to the SBC is to relocate the upper of the two engine attachment holes down 5/8". After that they bolt right on the SBC and fall right back onto the mount cushions on the front cross member. The SBC attachment holes on the front of the block are the same width and up/down location relative to the crankshaft centerline. It's too easy. 

The only modification necessary was to remove a 1" by 6.5" long strip from the center of the front frame cross member to clear the crankshaft damper & pulley. 

I did paint my Chevy engine antique Ford engine dark green! :P

photo41-vi.jpgHosted on Fotki

 

The reason more Ford small blocks (260, 289, 302, 351W) aren't used is because due to the way their timing cover is designed, even with the shortest water pump and shallowest pulleys an SBF is 4+ inches longer and physically won't fit in the available space without setting the whole engine / transmission back by that amount. It's just not practical unless you are building a rod from the ground up with a clean sheet of paper as the frame, driveline, firewall and floor will all require involved modification. 

B)

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

  • 289/302/351W
  • Reverse Rotation
  • Driver Side Inlet
  • 1.75" Shorter Than Old-Style Pumps
  • No Provisions For Fuel Pump
  • Overall Length 27" Pump Pulley to Bell housing

Again, 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

 

Edited by tim boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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  

So a SBC is more wrong than that roof opening and firewall?

A SBC doesn't go for (it's a hot rod, any modification will do)?

But I'm gonna put a nailhead in one of the coupes and maybe a y-block in another ;-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a SBC is more wrong than that roof opening and firewall?

A SBC doesn't go for (it's a hot rod, any modification will do)?

But I'm gonna put a nailhead in one of the coupes and maybe a y-block in another ;-)

 

I'm not sure what it's about either.  Nothing wrong with having preferences, but he keeps going on about it like it's somehow relvant to the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what it's about either.  Nothing wrong with having preferences, but he keeps going on about it like it's somehow relvant to the rest of us.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, this is mine.  Sorry if I offended you.  TIM 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, but to me nothing screams hot rod more than a SBC powered model a coupe.

It's ok, but I just don't understand why everything is ok but a Chevy smallblock?

But let's be happy that we all will get the opportunity to build something nice out of this.

 

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, this is mine.  Sorry if I offended you.  TIM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 289/302/351W
  • Reverse Rotation
  • Driver Side Inlet
  • 1.75" Shorter Than Old-Style Pumps
  • No Provisions For Fuel Pump
  • Overall Length 27" Pump Pulley to Bell housing

Again, 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

 

Tim,

That is some very interesting information that you provided. I'm not the ultimate authority on the subject but everything I have known up to this point has told me that it is not possible to fit a SBF into a '32 (or other early) Ford in the same manner in which I did the SBC. Meaning, fitted into an original vehicle and adapted to original trans. Everything I have known to this point says that the available space in the engine compartment won't accommodate a SBF, even with the most compact accessories. Close, but no cigar. Perhaps that has changed in recent years and is now a possibility? I am a bit skeptical of that 27" dimension for the crate motor. That seems really too good to be true. 

I've been aware of the short water pump for years. It came on 5.0L engines in '94-'95 Mustang's and '96-'00 Explorer's and probably other vehicles, too. From what I know, though, there is no standard rotation pump alternative (?) so one is locked into using a serpentine belt system. Which isn't a bad thing, but doesn't suit a traditionally styled rod very well. 

You are correct about the SBF (except 351W) being narrow and, in that regard, being good for use in early Model A's and also in T's where the hoods (and cowls) are considerably narrower. 

Not trying to stray this too far off topic but on a side note I think it's really cool that you had any kind of involvement with the Motorsport SVO group. I'm a total SVO parts / 5.0 Mustang geek. I'm stuck in the late 80's / early 90's. Below is my daily driver '87 GT. It's all original paint and one of rarest color schemes offered. It has a few Ebay-scored N.O.S. Motorsport goodies on it. :D

Hosted on Fotki

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've been aware of the short water pump for years. It came on 5.0L engines in '94-'95 Mustang's and '96-'00 Explorer's and probably other vehicles, too. From what I know, though, there is no standard rotation pump alternative (?) so one is locked into using a serpentine belt system. Which isn't a bad thing, but doesn't suit a traditionally styled rod very well. 

Short pumps for smallblock Fords, standard rotation, for V-belt pulleys, have been available for the 40 years I've been building cars. Typically about 2" shorter than stock. Last time I used one was a 289 swap in an E-type Jag.

Here's one from Speedway.              http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Snow-White-Small-Block-Ford-Shorty-Water-Pump-2-Groove-Pulley,58832.html

Here's one from Ford Racing, 1.5" shorter...   http://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-8501-e351s/overview/make/ford

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...