tim boyd

Yes.....good example....I built two blower intake manifold pop-off valves for this engine in my 1972 MPC National Customizing Championship entry. They're there, behind the upper blower drive pulley. I know they're there, but the MPC judges at the national finals that year (1972) probably missed them, as they totally ignored the far more important instructions with the model that instructed them to remove the header extensions to place the model on its matching trailer/pickup companions, and thereby disqualified the latter two pieces from my entry. There were certainly some well qualified judges at some of the MPC contests, but sadly that was not always the case. As many complaints as I still hear today about model contest judging, it is in totality still much better today than back then, when model contests were sometimes judged by those who knew little or nothing about model cars or kits....TIM

Dennis.....proportions and stance are everything with hot rods, and you've superbly nailed "everything" here, big time! What are you thinking about for a color scheme? TIM

My first job at Ford was very similar to the one the quoted by the gentleman in the link above. But I didn't get any requests for such a car during my time in that slot. TIM

Steve.....those are some way sharp model pickups. And that '70 Impala-Camino is one of the nicest car pickup conversions I've ever seen. Great attention to detail including the use of a wagon-based tailgate (just like the real car would have had, if it had been made). Thanks for posting these images.....TIM

The Ford Ranger (the current version, built in Thailand and other locations) is now the best selling new pickup in Europe......TIM

There are apparently at least three issues of this kit. The original double kit, a very rare reissue of the double kit with the box art showing actual buildups of the models set against a scale landscape (e.g. model railroad type scenery), and the cardboard box version referenced by Mike above, which was molded in black and the stock version only (no second body or hot rod parts). The original kit dates from 1963, the cardboard version came later. possibly in the very early 1970's. Author Graham's statement that Monogram still has the molds is news to me. Never say never, but highly unlikely is my view. I built both versions of the kit around 1980 and covered them in my "Modeler's Corner" column in Street Rodder at the time. Though they were in total more accurate than the AMT '34 5@ dating from 1975, I would find it hard to recommend the kit for anyone other than kit collector. The 1/24th Monogram and 1/25th AMT-Ertl 5W Coupe are far more accurate models. TIM

Here's a link: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/correcting-or-kitba/193031-model-a-roadster/ to 12 overall and detail photos of a brand new Brooksville Roadster all metal 1930/31 Roadster body. I was hoping to be able to do a quick kitbash from the Revell '30 Model A Coupe body ( or some combo of that and the Revell '29A Roadster body), but as these photos show, there is more to it than just that if you want to do a truly accurate Roadster body. Still.....personally I would love to see one of this Forum's highly talented model hot rod builders take on a project like that with posts on their progress.....TIM

I took this on (doing a 1/25th scale 1934 Ford kit based on the earlier 1/16th scale assembly kits) point blank with Revell management (maybe ten years ago or so). I was told that they loved the idea, but it was physically impossible to pantograph a 1/25th scale tool from a 1/16th scale kit, and the original wood masters were long, long gone. Having dug the kits out a few years ago to refresh my memory, I somewhat sadly noted that what was truly state of the art in 1988 is WAY out of date for today's hot rod/street rod design aesthetic. Anyway, I too would love to see a Revell 1933/34 kit series developed in the same vein as the current '32 series. But personally, I'd like to see a '26/'27 T Turtledeck (and derivatives to follow) first, because the AMT/Ertl '34 Five Window is already a pretty good starting point, and as we all know, there is no styrene equivalent for a ''27 T turtledeck at this time. TIM

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

Thanks guys for the feedback.....glad you enjoyed the show and the coverage.....TIM

Sure looks like it.....(both kits)... but I'm sure the Polygasser 2 is based on the AMT/Ertl 1962 Catalina tool, not the original AMT 1962 Bonneville as was the c 1969 PolyGlasser release....TIM

"Wide whites" were still factory equipment in the 1961 model year. The switch to thin whitewalls occurred industry-wide at the start of the 1962 model year....

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

Scott....you can add the '48 Ford Woody version to that list if that appeals to you....I did a kitbash of the chassis/engine of the '48 Custom Coupe with the Woody kit a few years back.... For those of you who aren't familiar with the kit Scott is describing above, here's an on-line kit contents review I did when the '48 Ford Custom kit first came out....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....

Those are both excellent questions - in the first case, the '34 body was downsized to fit the shorter '26T wheelbase of the Buttera kit tool. I recall thoroughly chastising Revell for that at the time. Not only that, but the original box art issue of this kit did not show the body that was actually in the kit, it was a faux buildup cobbled together from prior '34 kits from other manufacturers - I believe it was the Monogram but I don't have the box handy to look at right now. (Update - I see Mark already pointed this out above....) In the case of the second question, on this one you and I are in 100% agreement. I pointed this out in a kitbash article I did using this kit a few years ago for Scale Auto (I made mine a fenderless coupe with a corrected wheelbase). The too short front clip and the very misshapen grille shell are hard to fathom given how nice the rest of the body is in this kit. TIM

Bill....OK.....as has sometimes been the case in the past, we agree to disagree. But thanks for relaying your experience; next time I have the two kits out I will try it for myself. TIM