Mark

The sprues in newer kits are in many cases straight, and are round in cross-section. I save those. The odd-shaped ones usually get tossed unless there are duplicates in the same shape. If I see possibilities with the shape, I'll keep them, at least for a while. If I don't get around to doing anything with them in a reasonable amount of time, I'll toss those next time I re-organize the scrap plastic box. Besides sprues, the box contains small scraps cut from styrene sheets, and other items made of styrene like broken CD jewel cases, a couple of cores from Scotch tape rolls, things like that. I've used sprue to scratch distributor caps. Cut one end of the sprue at a 90 degree angle, and drill the holes for your plug wires. Sometimes the holes aren't spaced to my satisfaction (they'll end up looking like three rows of three holes). In that case, cut the offending area off and start again. Leave the other end of the sprue alone, to make handling easier. Once you are happy with the hole spacing, you can file the diameter of the cap closer to that of the circle of holes just drilled. You want the diameter to stay slightly larger (taper outwards) towards the base of the cap. Vertical grooves can be sliced/filed in between each hole. Once you have the shape, cut the end off of the sprue at the desired height of the cap. I'll use these caps on engines that have the distributor at the rear; for engines with more prominent distributors I'll stick with the molded pieces. As for sprue glue as a filler, the shrinking problems happen when it is applied too thickly in a single application. Shrinking is more likely to take place when cement is used to dissolve the styrene. Something added to the cement slows its drying time, and in large quantities contributes to the shrinkage. I have used MEK, and have heard of others using "hot" lacquer thinner without the shrinking problems. "And now, I'd like to take a moment to talk about shop safety". Whenever using these or any chemicals, paints, cleaners, solvents, or other similar products, be sure to wear protective gear and work outdoors or in a very well-ventilated area. Generally, the better something works, the bigger the skull-and-crossbones on the container needs to be...

GM probably stuck the "Chevelle" emblems on a concept car to keep their claim to the name for licensing purposes. Like those "Jeep Willys" concepts that appear every few years. That name hasn't appeared on a vehicle in the US since the Sixties. Chrysler/Fiat will never use it on a production vehicle again, but they do want to hang onto the licensing...

Chrysler didn't stop drag racers from doing neutral starts, NHRA did...after a spectator was blinded by flying shrapnel from one. At one national meet, "no neutral starts" signs were placed at the base of the Christmas Tree starting lights. The Chrysler guys were caught by surprise; Chrysler had been sending truckloads of prepped Torqueflites to replace broken ones as needed...

All of the items in that pack were issued in the Sixties as parts packs: the T-bucket body, the engines (the Allison by itself, the others in packs of two), and whatever else is in there. The T body is designed to fit the Fiat chassis in the Double Dragster kit; the parts included (roll bar) are made to fit. If the plated frame is included in that pack, it isn't the DD unit (the differences are as I described earlier).

The parts pack chassis is not the same as the Double Dragster (Fiat coupe) unit. It is plated, and the frame rails are round (same diameter as many parts trees, by the way). It has torsion bar suspension that actually works to an extent. It resembles an oversized Kurtis Midget chassis. It is slightly too big to fit inside the old (large scale) Monogram PC-1 Kurtis body, but might fit if narrowed and shortened slightly. The Double Dragster's Fiat chassis is mostly unplated, has square frame rails, and has a single leaf spring front suspension (and a solidly mounted rear axle). The AMT "Hot Rod Shop" (parts pack) T-bucket body is made to fit the DD's Fiat chassis, though.

torinobradley, on 12 Dec 2011 - 12:50 pm, said: I don't know where this fits in but my '71 (IIRC) by Johan had '73 or '74 ovalish taillights. Even the instructions show the correct rear but how this thing got the later lights... I will have to order the correct ones from Modelhaus or somewhere and fix the body to accept the correct lights. Were there any other changes I need to be aware of? If your kit has the '73/'74 taillights, it will have the later body as well. The '71/'72 body has a raised rib (1/4" wide or so) running down the center of the forward portion of the roof. For '73, AMC smoothed this area on the 1:1 Javelin/AMX, and Jo-Han did likewise on the kit body. I don't think Jo-Han offered a '73 kit, but AMT offered the Jo-Han kit in their packaging as a '74 annual.

Aluminum (floral arrangement) wire is available in a number of gauges (diameters) including some that should work for exhaust pipes. Copper wire bends pretty easily, but is harder to cut and tougher to file.

You already have the numbers for both kits. The '70 Donohue car was released by Jo-Han only, and the '71 was offered only in the AMT box.

Trumpeter needs to either get serious or get out when it comes to car kits. I bought one of the Falcons (the first version of the hardtop) and both versions of the Pontiacs and Novas. The Falcon's underbody is all wrong: inner rear wheel tubs are way too big, transmission tunnel is way too big, stock single exhaust runs down the wrong side, and the steering linkage looks like the linkage on one of those pull-down attic staircases. The engine looks like a Picasso sculpture of an engine. The body is passable but nowhere near perfect. At $50 retail they need to get better or concentrate on the military subject matter, where they seem to have a footing.

If you want inexpensive acrylic paints in unusual colors, don't overlook the craft paints sold at stores like Michael's, A.C. Moore, Hobby Lobby, and the like. If you catch them on sale, they can be as cheap as two for a dollar. These are 2 ounce bottles, probably way more of any particular color than anyone will likely use on model cars in a lifetime. I don't know how they would work for airbrushing, but when applied with a brush they level out nicely. They are best applied over primer (the craft stores sell "metal primer" in spray cans, which is nothing more than lacquer or enamel primer). I would use white primer under the bright colors. Even so, you might want to brush the paint on in two really thin coats as opposed to one heavy coat. I wouldn't use it for standard colors like black or gray (regular hobby acrylics are easier to use), but if you want a really unusual color you might want to try these. They are inexpensive enough that you won't lose much by trying them. That said, the home improvement stores do sell other paints and tools that are useful for model building. They have "architectural restoration fillers" which are basically Bondo in different colors. The catalyst/hardener is included with the product, but is sold as a separate item also. If the tube of hardener you have has gone bad (or is red, which can bleed through primer and paint) you can often find a tube of the stuff in another color.

The AMT '39 Wagonrod kit has a complete Art Morrison chassis. I'm not sure which (if any) OEM design the Morrison unit is based on, but I don't think it's a Mustang II setup. Others have already mentioned all of the available ones: Revell '37 Fords (all but the first issue sedan, which has a dropped beam axle), Revell Beatnik Bandit II, and Revell '41 Willys street machine. None of the Mustang II kits ever made had decent front suspension detail.

What year is it? The Jo-Han Javelin/AMX kit can be found as anything from a '71 to a '74, with the '73-'74 style (smooth roof) being the most common. AMT sold the stock '74 version in their own packaging also. The earliest '71-'72 with the "T-bar" styled roof are the toughest to find (particularly the '71). The early production '73-'74 kits (with wire axles) are the next hardest to find. These include the AMT boxed kit, which was sold as a '74 annual. Then come the later production '73-'74 with the thick plastic axles. The least desirable ones are the Seville Enterprises produced kits. They have the '73-'74 smooth roof body but a '72 rear bumper/taillight trim piece that doesn't fit properly (the '73-'74 taillight panel was larger, so the body was altered to fit, which leaves a gap around the perimeter of the '72 taillight trim). The parts in the Seville produced kits show a bunch of tooling wear, and are often molded in a reddish orange color. I left out the Trans-Am racing versions, which today seem to be worth more than the corresponding stock versions.

The MPB hoods were created by me. I started around 1987, and closed down in 1995 (but still have some items left). The first hood I did was the W-30 unit for the Jo-Han '70 4-4-2. Initially, I looked into getting tooling cut and having the hoods injection molded. Back then, the lowest estimate I got for tooling for the hood (just the hood, mind you) was around $5,000. And that was an aluminum tool, not a steel one; the number of parts that can be produced from it is very limited. I had no idea about how many hoods I could sell. To top it off, around that time I saw a Xerox copy of a 1987 AMT/Ertl catalog. In it was a "reissue" of the AMT '70 4-4-2, this time with a W-30 hood. Apparently nobody at Ertl knew that AMT's '70 4-4-2 was a re-boxed Jo-Han kit! Ertl couldn't reissue a kit they never had the tooling for. But would they tool a new kit if demand was there? I decided not to try an injection-molded styrene hood. (Ertl did issue an all-new 1969 4-4-2 under the MPC brand the following year.) Vacuum forming allowed for lower startup cost, and fewer parts had to be sold to break even. The drawback was that assembly and fitting was required. The positives included the ability to undercut the price of resin cast hoods at that time. The vacuum formed hoods were made of white styrene, same material the kit was made from. Since then, resin casting supplies and information have spread like wildfire, so the advantage now lies with resin. Today, builders generally don't want to spend time cutting, fitting, and assembling a hood when they can get a resin casting that, in many cases, fits the kit body like a glove. I do still sell a hood or two every now and then, though. Methodology in the selection of items to sell wasn't exactly rocket science; I just did parts I wanted for myself. I figured that if I wanted it, there would be enough people out there who thought like me and wanted the same parts. The 4-4-2 hood was formed over an epoxy mold. I used the same material to make my molds that professional vacuum formers (sign and package makers) used to make theirs. Later on, I figured out how to get fairly sharp detail by making the molds in reverse and forming the plastic into them as opposed to over them. When the molds warmed up during production, some of the detail and shapes were heat-stamped into the plastic. The 4-4-2 hood could not be made in a reverse mold (if it were possible to do so, I would have created a new mold). Most of the other hoods and other parts I sold were reverse-molded. I used that method wherever I could. The production was done by one of those professional guys; I'd make the molds and he'd stick them in alongside other jobs he was running. He supplied the material (which was on the margins of the "main" job, and would have been scrap had my molds not been there alongside his). He had the professional quality vacuum forming equipment, with more power and heat than anything I could build. I'd leave the molds with him, and he'd call me after having run the "main" job for someone else. I'd go pick up a pile of stuff, he'd get paid for material he would otherwise throw away...everyone was happy. I should call him and see how he's doing. I remember looking at that Oldsmobile pace car kit ('85 Calais); it was by KG Models. I passed on it at the time, should have bought one of them.

It wasn't $48 when I bought it, but I bought the plug-in unit some years ago. Used it the first few times, seemed okay. Used it again a few months later, motor didn't work. Opened it up and found a bunch of junk attached to the power cord to convert the battery motor to plug-in operation. I found another, slightly larger motor and adapted it. That included some grinding on the inside of the case where the motor attaches, as well as enlarging the hole in the eccentric so it would fit the output shaft of the new motor. It has worked fine since then. The band for holding the paint container in place dried up and fell apart after a short time. I use a rubber band now, works okay. The shaker might work on paint that hasn't been sitting too long, but for settled paint you need to stir it, either manually or with a motorized stirrer. If I knew then what I know now, I'd get the motorized stirrer before spending money on the shaker.

That's the early Eighties reissue of the Turbo Shark. The 1:1 Turbo Shark was built by Carl Casper in the late Sixties. I've got both kits but never had them side by side to figure out what changes were made. The Turbo Shark had Cragar S/S mag wheels, and the rear glass was tinted red. Besides the wheels and tires, the interior in the Demon 'Vette might be slightly different too. The Turbo Shark had the two-wheel tilt-bed trailer that came in the MPC Mako Shark (II), '68 Impalas, and '73-'76 Caprice kits, but the Demon 'Vette has no trailer. The Turbo Shark was molded in white styrene, the Demon 'Vette in black. There were only those two issues, no others. Some parts in these kits (basic engine and chassis) are shared with the MPC Mako Shark and its various descendants.

Somehow "Bondo" and "Professional" just don't go together, at least not for me...

If both are solvent cements (in this case, they are) then you should have no problems mixing them. Both are probably made up of mostly the same chemicals, the slower curing one has something added to create that effect. I often use a 50/50 mix of Testors liquid and tube cements. The tube glue adds some thickness to the liquid, and the mix has the ability to fill minor gaps where 100% liquid cement does not. The mix can be applied to larger areas before it begins to evaporate.

Those are AMT Turnpike tires. They were used on the 1/25 scale cars made for the AMT Authentic Model Turnpike sets (the cars were sold separately too). AMT used them in only one kit, the first issue Trophy Series 1958 Impala. Two soft Firestone slicks were also included in the Impala kit. AMT also offered the tires separately in a parts pack called "Soft Rubber Darlingtons and Slicks". The tires were probably used in the Impala and parts pack because the Turnpike related items didn't sell anywhere near the numbers expected. When the Impala was reboxed for its second issue in 1966-67, the soft tires and slicks were replaced by conventional vinyl tires that other AMT kits used.

Do the instructions mention anything about how these are made, or how to apply them? Are they printed on the glossy photographic type of paper, or ordinary white paper? Plain white paper will yellow over time, the glossy paper might benefit from a coat of clear scrylic or enamel. You'd have to experiment though; the ink might smear when you attempt to brush on the clear. Printed paper seems to be a cheap substitute for decals in my opinion. Depending on the engine, you might look at Fred Cady's decals. There are still a bunch of them floating around online. The sheets for the various musclecars (and some of the racing cars) often include air cleaner and valve cover decals, sometimes more than one set. You might already have some of the Cady sheets on hand, if not do an eBay search. People selling decals will include a picture or scan of what they are offering, and you can see if a particular sheet has something that you can use. In particular, the Mopar sheets have duplicates and extras, sometimes not related to the car for which the decals were created.

After remembering that I have one of the Minicraft reissue Highway Pioneer '32 Ford hot rods laying around, I dug it out. The 1/32 scale chassis and engine parts actually compare quite well size-wise with the modern Revell 1/25 scale Kurtis midget parts. Of course, the modern parts are far more detailed. But it would be interesting to revisit the Rod & Custom Models article now, with the reissue Highway Pioneer hot rod kit in hand.

The article "Building the Gilmore Midget" appeared in the September 1964 issue of Rod & Custom Models. I too built one of those in the mid-Eighties. My older brother Mike had finished restoring an early Kurtis-Kraft midget around that time. He then acquired a Hillegas rail-frame midget, and was doing some work on that. He got that one up on four wheels, but lost interest in it and sold it (it was a V8-60 car, and he never had any enthusiasm for those). The Kurtis was powered by a Ferguson tractor engine (basically a four cylinder version of Ford's overhead valve inline six from the early Fifties). Henning's model used wheels and tires from the Revell 1/32 scale Hot Rod kit, a narrowed front axle from the Revell Ed Roth Outlaw (which used a Ford V8-60 tubular axle). Rear axle was the narrower of the two units from a Revell parts pack. Other parts were scrounged from various sources. Like Henning's, model, mine has parallel leaf springs in front, and a single transverse spring in rear. I used a narrowed front axle from an AMT altered-wheelbase '65 Nova funny car, rear axle is the same Revell parts pack unit Henning had used. I didn't have access to a Highway Pioneers Hot Rod kit, so I used 1/32 scale slot car tires and wheels, reworking the centers with six-bolt center hubs cut from some wheels out of the parts box. I used balsa for the body and frame rails. After first seeing this thread, I pulled it out of the display case; the sealed wood is still holding up well. Next time I have batteries in my camera, I should take a picture or two of it. It's not contest material by any means, but it was fairly easy to build. I'd like to revisit some of these earlier projects at some point...

The flip front pickup was an MPC kit, created when AMT and MPC were competing companies. No parts are shared between them. My reissue Nostalgia Series Double Flip issue does have the clear parts from the AMT kit, and they fit the ex-MPC body. (The AMT clear window unit has headlamp lenses molded in the area between the windshield and back window, which the MPC window unit doesn't have because the kit doesn't have clear lenses.) The issues of the AMT kit I know of are: -original (1963) -Wild Kat (1966-67) -Baja Patrol (1969) -Street Rod (1974) -High Stepper (1976-77) -Barris Cruisin' USA (1980) -first AMT/Ertl reissue (1984) -second AMT/Ertl reissue (1994) It was included in a few sets, too: -American Grand Prix (with trailer and Shelby 289 Cobra) -Modified Stocker Hauler (with trailer) (issued twice) -Grant King set (with trailer and sprint car) -Diamond In The Rough (with trailer and damaged '40 Ford sedan) There was a street rod set too, with (I believe) the '37 Chevy convertible and the '34 Ford 5W coupe. I think that's all of them, there might be something I missed though.

eBay. They're described as "haven't checked everything, but it looks complete" by sellers that "don't know much about these things" (but when you check their recent sales, model kits are all they have been selling)

Art: The '29 pickup and '31 sedan/Woody kits did not use the same stock wheels and tires! I've got original issues of both kits; the '31 uses 19" tires as you say, the tires in the '29 pickup are slightly, but noticeably taller. The tires in my '29 kit are still bagged so I can't make out the sidewall size detail, but a "20" is plainly visible on the tire. The wheels from the '31 would fall through the center holes in the '29 tires. It's a shame that only the original issue pickup has those stock wheels and tires; the tires are of the "plastic eating" variety. Every built example I have seen with the stock tires, has wheels that have softened into bubble gum. I'd rate the Revell A kits far above all the others. But the AMT '29 roadster has something neither of the Revell kits ever had: accelerator, clutch, and brake pedals!

The Jo-Han '64 hardtop was originally a Fury. The original annual Jo-Han kits (hardtop and convertible) had Fury trim and could be built stock. Both included a 426 Wedge engine. Jo-Han converted it to the Petty Belvedere around 1968. That reissue, and all since, have the Fury trim removed from the body along with the stock parts. The Wedge engine was replaced by the Hemi. The first reissue (in the flat box) includes an early Logghe Brothers funny car chassis.