Mark

The short stacks on a small-block Chevy seem right...anything I ever read about that type of fuel injection suggests that longer tubes result in more torque while the short ones enable the engine to rev, which was what the Chevy could do. A lot of those old gassers with small-block Chevy engines used the formula of a high-revving engine coupled to a heavy flywheel to get the car moving. The lower class cars that lugged more weight down the track were probably more prone to be parts throwers. But the formula seemed to work, based on how often it was tried...

That original roof, when installed the way it's designed to be, leaves the area over the windshield with an unfinished look. I don't know why they didn't just cut the roof at the tail end of the B-pillars, and include a larger window that went all the way across. The 1:1 converted Nomads and Safaris that I have seen (only a couple) used rear glass from either an early Comet or four-seater Thunderbird as I recall.

That is, if he owns the original company, and not just the tooling...

Has anyone else ever noticed that a few small changes were made to the Nomad kit between the first and second issues? The pickup roof in the first issue is different, though it may have been altered for the second issue rather than replaced. The first issue pickup roof replaces the entire wagon roof except for the vent window frames, and is smooth on top. All issues since require cutting the stock wagon roof about halfway over the doors, following a crease in the headliner on the underside of the roof. Too, the fuel injection intake tubes were lengthened. Looking at a couple of first issue kit hoods, they don't have the cut lines molded into the underside. So the first issue kit parts weren't as tall as they are now. That's in addition to those nice gasser front tires disappearing after the first issue.

So (maybe) nobody can do a direct copy of an old Jo-Han kit. But who would do that? They currently have no licensing agreements with any major auto manufacturer, and have little if any usable tooling for the older subject matter. I don't recall seeing anything regarding Revell, for example, having to have any interaction whatsoever with any company other than General Motors regarding permission or licensing on a new '71 Olds 4-4-2 kit. The only "past design" owned by any other company would involve the "design" of the original kit, which nobody would copy directly anyway.

Rear wheel openings should be trimmed to fit the slicks, cut lines are provided on the inside of the body. To keep the stock wheel openings, you'd have to use smaller slicks or rework the wheels, inner wheel wells, and possibly the chassis to move the slicks in.

Or, fix the marks on one wheel and make castings.

Retail price on Revell car kits HAS gone up recently, so said one of the vendors at the Three Rivers show this year. Not $40, but $38 as I recall. I've got a guy pestering me to sell another one of my Revell Austin gasser kits (I let him have a surplus one for $20 a couple of years ago). Nope, next time it's out again it will top $40 with sales tax included, and quite frankly it ain't worth that. I'm not selling one for $20 only to have to spend $40 to replace it...

Ask that guy who made the wood mockup of the Gar Wood garbage truck body about "owning the design" of it. Round 2 couldn't reach an agreement with him (who knows why), so they redesigned it from scratch (and improved it). If it can be done with a garbage truck, it can be done with a car body.

But, to defend such a thing (if it is even possible) you must be able to afford to do so.

I don't understand this "rights to past designs" business. I don't think it is possible to copyright the "design" of a kit, or to prevent another company from making a kit of any particular subject just because one company made it in the past (whether or not they can make it again is irrelevant). The original Jo-Han company couldn't do anything about Ertl doing a new '69 4-4-2, even with the new kit's engine being a near-perfect copy of Jo-Han's "design". If anyone copied the "design" of a model car kit, it was the original Jo-Han company. Compare the parts layout, decals, and instruction sheet from a 1959 Jo-Han annual kit to those in a 1958 AMT or SMP kit...

You know that, over the next few years, the quality of available gasoline will go right down the dumper...it's just part of the way you will be "encouraged" to go electric, whether you want to or not. I bought an electric lawnmower this year. The six-year-old gas one I had...no choke, no throttle adjustment, no adjusting anything. If you turn the mower on the wrong side to dump the gas out for the winter, carb goes bad and needs to be replaced. And the logical way to turn the mower (which would put the gas filler at the bottom) is of course the wrong way. Meanwhile, this spring I finally got around to putting a new carb on a near 40 year old snowblower that I got for free, with the understanding that it needed a new carb. I've had the thing about ten or twelve years, it took five or six before I bought the carb, and only got around to putting it on this spring. This carb has a choke, has a throttle, and can be adjusted. Bolted it on, hooked up a new fuel line linking it to the cleaned fuel tank. Started on the second pull...would have started on the first if dummy had remembered to open the fuel petcock...

I tried the Dart hood, I can make it work by removing the recessed section at the front and piecing in a flat section from a second hood.

I thought it lost seven wheel covers. Maybe it was five, and two were still on the car at the end.

In days of old, several resin casters offered conversion kits (grilles, header panel, taillight panel) to convert to a '68. Some included a hood also. '69 hood has that peak that rises towards the front (later Dodge Dart Sports used that same hood) while '68 is flatter. MPC put the '68 side markers on the '69 body for the Judy Lilly Super Stock issue, those remained until Ertl revamped the kit into the 383 version that exists to this day. I've got one of those kits, and someone's old '68 conversion but no hood. I think I can piece a hood together from a couple of the Revell Hemi Dart hoods.

True Grit wasn't really a "remake", but another treatment of the original novel. John Wayne's version had a few tweaks to make it more of a "John Wayne movie", and that's OK. He knew what his fans wanted, and he delivered. The Coen Brothers' version supposedly stayed closer to the book, which I haven't read. Both versions are great as far as I'm concerned. But yes, most of the remakes don't make any sense. The theatre within walking distance of my house had The Warriors on the marquee a couple of months back. I asked a guy I know about it, who is more into newer movies. Yup, a remake. "Why?" Apparently some of the supposedly up-and-coming directors have a thing about remaking their favorites. They'd be better served by coming up with original ideas, but I guess those are hard to come by. Why Bullitt? Besides the chase, it's a run-of-the-mill late Sixties cop movie. The Musclecar Review article on it claimed the chase was added after production began, that Steve McQueen and a few other people involved knew the film was a turkey as originally planned (without it). Most people who have seen it multiple times couldn't remember the overall story if you quizzed them about it.

It all boils down to subject matter. If HL has something you're interested in, chances are that on those "40% off" weeks it will be cheaper there than anywhere else. Even with the Revell kits coming in there at $40 now, $24 plus tax is likely as cheap as you're going to get that particular item.

I was just looking at some "extra" '65 Chevelle stuff, thinking about what I should do with this already-paid-for stuff before the new kit touches down. Seems like most kids who built these things back in the day had to use half a tube of cement to stick the windows in, applied to the strips that connect the windshield and rear window. I've got one really nice Chevelle body, the others are messed up to the point that the trim around the back glass is distorted. The last couple of winters, I've been piecing together junk and doing repairs that take a lot of work. Splicing quarter panels into bodies, fixing radiused wheel openings, things like that. I think I can piece together a stock Malibu body from one El Camino, one AWB Chevelle, and one extra Modified Stocker body (the only one with a good roof!)

Looks like a corner of a Monopoly board.

For an easier swap (but with way less detail), MPC '75-'76 Dart would be another alternative. Same underbody again, but the 'Cuda interior clashes with the Dart chassis around the inner rear wheel wells, and the little pocket on the underside of the 'Cuda interior bucket that is there to allow for the fold down back seat. Dart chassis has no front suspension detail, also has a couple of exhaust pipes (but no mufflers) molded in as a unit. Pre-Round 2 issues after the '76 annual don't have those though. As for the 'Cuda, some issues (early Seventies through early Eighties) have '68 side markers on the body. Rest is strictly '69 (hood, grille, taillight panel). Sox & Martin did have one retrimmed as a '69 as I recall, but for Super Stock the Hemi cars must be '68s.

The bigger the skull and crossbones are on the package, generally the better the stuff actually works. That said, though, take all possible safety precautions when working with anything as nasty as MEK. I used to use it to make "sprue filler", but have since been turned on to an epoxy putty that works even better and without the extended wait time the sprue filler needed. The discontinuance of a lot of these things is probably less due to problems with occasional handling of the stuff, than because of harm brought on by long-term exposure effects on the people involved in the manufacture of it.

Underbody from the Revell '68 Dart should work, with the wheelbase shortened a bit. 1:1 Dart and Barracuda shared that part of the structure, with the Plymouth having a shorter wheelbase. The current/most recent issue of the Dart has the Hemi, has both the 8-3/4" and Dana 60 rear axles, has other parts needed. Engine compartment will need to be cut from the Dart body. Not having looked at a Dart kit in a while, I believe it has separate door handles that can be used too.

Both, when possible, provided you are stretching the roof. And, try to make the cuts in the "straightest" area; that is, where the least amount of "slant" or "transition" is. Depending on the shape of the roof being chopped, there are times where that really isn't going to change too much. If you are chopping a race car body, try to get as much information as possible about class rules. NHRA Gas class rules allowed for chopped tops, but you weren't allowed to alter the slant of the windshield or rear window. You had to stretch the roof to keep those angles the same as stock. Bonneville classes seem to have allowed changing the slant, as well as changing the shape of the windshield opening. With something like a '49 Mercury, there are articles out there on how to chop that particular car. The successful Merc chops keep the stock windshield "slant", shift most of the roof forward just a bit, and lean the area around the rear window forward to close much of the resulting gap. The rear window opening itself is left stock, as the tempered glass cannot be cut. Other cars with curved rear glass got Plexiglas rear windows in cases where the shape of the window had to be changed. The earlier stuff with flat glass all around makes for a good starter project, just figure out what you want the end result to look like and start cutting...

Too, whenever possible, I try to put a jog or zig-zag in the cut. The pieces then self-align, and there is more surface area to join as opposed to just a small joint between two pieces butted together.

I cut the A pillar perpendicular, not at an angle. The tape can be used as a guide. If you do that, you might go with two pieces of tape, on the outside of the cut line. That way, if you slip, you only damage material that you are removing anyway.