Bernard Kron

The two models are different scale. The Monogram Roadster is 1/24th and the highboy-friendly 5-window 1/25th. So the first think to do is check to see if the roadster body will sit properly on the 5-window kit frame. I no longer have any of these roadsters in my stash or I would have checked it. I once did the conversion to a sort-of highboy, but I did it with a full bellypan so the rear of the frame was hidden, and in fact didn't exist. Perhaps others can share their attempts at a fenderless Monogram roadster. Here is mine, but, again, it doesn't have the visible frame rails that are an essential part of the classic highboy look. BTW, the older, now discontinued, Revell 1/25th scale Deuce roadster kit trades regularly on eBay US for around $20-25.00 USD before shipping costs. They are quite common. Is this an option worth considering? Here's my bellypan Monogram roadster. Just about everything you see except the headlights is from the Monogram kit. The tires are the hot rod big 'n' littles from ThePartsBox.com and fit the 1/24th scale Monogram chrome steelies perfectly.:

Just for reference, the 4 bedroom, 2 bath house my parents bought in 1958 in a small suburban town outside NYC, which cost them $12,500 at the time, now has an estimated market price (per Zillow) of approx. $550,000, a 44 fold "appreciation". In 1958 the minimum wage was $1.00/hr. and the average (median) household income was $5,100.00. Today those numbers are $7.50 and approx. $51,000.00, seven and ten fold "appreciation" respectively. A Chevrolet 4-door family sedan sold for about $2,500.00 then and about $32,000.00 now, a 12.8 fold "appreciation". So it's understandable if some things which are less popular now than they were then, and thus less efficient to market and distribute, "feel" quite expensive when many of the basics like transportation and housing have increased in cost far more than household earnings. My local LHS sells new-release (including re-issues...) model kits from the US "Big Two" for between $26.00 and $30.00 these days.

The Cord had a Lycoming V8 under the hood:

Space frames. the ultimate in post WWII engineering elegance. Of course the birdcage was an example of Italian rococo; perhaps the final challenge - synthesizing a monocoque from a matrix of small tubes. Personally I have always admired the minimalist discipline of Frank Nichols of Elva fame. Either way, I can't wait. The funny thing is we do think alike. I have a space frame Deuce roadster ultralight on the boards for this year some time (although I'm beginning to fall behind with too many starts already on my bench). That's what I like so much about auto modeling in particular (as opposed to the more replica-oriented traditions). It allows so much freedom of expression.

Great! At last a curved bellypan that's deep enough looking to make the difference. And thinned to body thickness to boot. Obviously you wouldn't go to all this trouble if you weren't planning on showing us a tasty piece of chassis work...

Your pics make the water routing super clear. Even with the little 1/25th castings in front of you if you haven't seen a motor or aren't thinking in terms of the Lincoln V12 being 1 + 1/2 Ford V8s it isn't very obvious. It's easy to lose your way. Aftermarket parts don't generally come with instructions! Those heads on the blown engine look real sweet. From the looks of the blower drive and other details that looks like all modern stuff. Are those modern heads?

Thanks for the clarification and the detail pics. I always take one end or the other of the coolant routing as a given. This time it was the ports at the front of the heads which are included in the Early Years castings.

Thanx Mike. The curvature of the nose is just lovely. I understand now that this will be a modern rod, not a traditional one. I'll look at it through those eyes as I follow along. I have long term plans for a carbon fiber monocoque Deuce 3-window with four wheel independent suspension and a contemporary motor. You have my full attention towards that end. Thanks also for the pics on the Seven build. Obviously the larger scale helps, but in the end I've always felt that if it's possible, regardless of scale, an approach that approximates the construction of the source inspiration, usually a 1:1, is the best solution. After a run of drag cars I'm in the midst of a customizing projection and your bodywork approaches serve as an inspiration. It looks like you've got plenty of 'pan showing and are well on your way to a pretty slick Modern Rod... Build On!

I'll take a swing at it from the point of view of someone who developed a very bad reaction to a glue they were using. In my case it was Cyanoacrylate or CA based cement (Super Glue). Like you, onset was very sudden. In just one day I developed severe allergic reactions - like the worst hay fever anyone could ever imagine. No amount of antihistamines would shake it. I didn't get better or worse with the pollen count, just super-bad all the time. At first my doctor couldn't diagnose it either. After a friend of mine stumbled on a comment on a modeling site about CA "rejection" I consulted with my doc who was able to confirm Cyanoacrylate as a good candidate. I stopped using the stuff and, rather slowly, I'm afraid, I was cured. What followed was a long process of determining substitutes. The point being that while I work in well ventilated areas, it was a severe intolerance to a specific substance, even in small amounts, that was the problem. Nowadays I use various solvent based cements for styrene and also epoxy for dissimilar materials and for on-plastics. In the case of non-styrene. So I would say discuss a plan of attack with your doctors. What exactly happened to make you so sick? How general is your intolerance? What are the risks of being exposed to other types of cements? Which pose the least risk? Will they interfere with your recovery? Incidentally, I tried the limonene based solvent cements. They work fairly well, much like MEK (Methyl-ethyl-ketone or butanone) based liquid cements (Tenax, Plastruct Plastic Weld, Ambroid Pro Weld, Tamiya Thin, etc.). The difference is that the non-toxics dry more slowly but are initially more aggressive. So they're a bit messier than the toxic kind, but the final bond is quite strong.

Very, very nice work. Properly done a bellypan Deuce can be very dramatic! The work required, however is definitely non-trivial, so, just as in the 1:1 world, it's relatively rare. I've done three '32 Fords with bellypans over the years, progressing my technique on each one. The approach you're taking is similar to what I evolved. None of my bellypan Deuces have had a full chassis since it is entirely hidden by bodywork. I suspect you are taking the same route. A couple of hedz-upz to consider: The biggest challenge for me has been getting enough visual impact out of the bellypan - fashioning a bellypan that's deep enough to get the dramatic effect Only on my 3rd build have I begun to approach what's needed aesthetically. Even then this was primarily because the sides of the fairing were relatively straight sided, since it was a lakes car. On my 2nd attempt I was aware of the issue but, because I had made more of a roll along the bottom edge of the sides, the depth became more muted and less dramatic than I would have wished. On my next attempt I'm certain that the sides of the bellypan fairing will be at least the depth of the frame rails on a highboy to "sell" the full-pan effect. Beware of the fact that if you include a motor you'll have to account for the oil pan. On 2 of mine I had to cut a relief in the bellypan for it and fashion a fairing. This is often done in the 1:1 world as well. Another approach is to do a dry-sump system with a shallow pan. On my second bellypan Deuce, which ran a flat head, I avoided this issue by dropping the bellypan somewhat forward of the firewall to clear the sump. Similarly at the rear, depending on the type of differential you are using, you may have to do the same. I did it on my first bellypan build but have omitted any rear axle detail on subsequent ones to allow for a smooth pan. In the 1:1 world the famous Khougaz channeled Deuce roadster which had a full bellypan had a small fairing to clear the rear quickchange. The most evolved of my three attempts was (naturally) the 3rd and most recent. You might want to check out the w.i.p. for any pitfalls to avoid, here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=64354&hl. The result is seen here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66573 . Pan on Bellypan Deuce #1 (a roadster): Totally smooth pan on Bellypan Deuce #2: Pan on Bellypan Deuce #3 (a 5-window coupe):

Super chassis work. I'm having fun trying to figure out what you're combining. Looks like an AMT Phantom Vicky chassis with a Revell front crossmember and suspension. The rear axle looks like it might be from the Orange Crate but I'm not sure. In any case, a fine representation of a more contemporary chassis. Can't wait for the "reveal" of what body (or bodies?) your using! From the firewall area it's at least part Revell... Definitely one to follow! Thanx for sharing.

The early 60's AMT Deuce kits all "suffer" from a fundamental inaccuracy which is that they have an upward curvature along the bottom of the body ending at the firewall. Like the 1:1's, the Revell kits are straight in this area. As full-fendered cars the Revell looks far more accurate but as a channeled rod the AMT models have their own "drama" that makes them quite unique and which many of us has think has a lot of "soul". On the other hand all the Revell kits are built strictly as fairly contemporary hot rods with tubular front axles, air bags (!!????), enormous trailing rods to locate modern 8" rear axle, etc., etc. Indeed, even as "contemporary" hot rods they are becoming quite dated. The tires, in particular, are becoming a real 90's throwback as the modern "traditional" rod movement has taken over popular tastes. Revell's failure to change this when they introduced the 5-window with it's steelies was particularly galling! We had to wait for the otherwise absurdly indiosyncratic Stacey David Rat Roaster for a decent set of tires and wheels from this line. So the AMT kits are a fine historical document of an important era in both car modeling and hot rodding. They are certainly far more crude with their metal axles and "soft" molded-in detailing but taken on their own terms they can result in some fine builds. The Revell kits are crisp, well detailed, and, with work, make superb replicas of hot rods of any number of eras. On the other hand making a showroom stock '32 Ford from a Revell kit can be quite a challenge! This is a chopped and channeled AMT 5-window coupe in a somewhat "rat rod" style I did a few years back. The actual body is a resin casting by ThePartsBox.com but other than the chop the AMT aspects are completely intact. It was built as a tribute to that Australian company's fine line of aftermarket parts, hence the right hand drive. I don't think a Revell 5-window would have quite the same funky vibe that this does, even with a severe chop.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Revell chassis is based on these popular ready-made chassis from the period. The whole Parts Pac approach was created to emulate this important trend at the time. Both the rod chassis shown in the ad would be relatively simple to build using styrene rod and provide a great deal of control over issues like wheelbase and stance.

Thanks! Which one? The w.i.p. page for the 27T has tons of chassis pics, especially on page three: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57098 The V12 powered dry lakes car w.i.p. also has lotsa pics, especially on page 2:http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52567&hl= . The Under Glass page has some additional chassis photos: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53542&st=0&gopid=615227

Thanks Bill. That is pretty close to the Monogram T-Bucket out of the box. The original Little (and Big) T was a model of a car Monogram commissioned from, of all people, Darryl Starbird, perhaps best known for his bubble-top shows cars such s the Predicta, the Forcasta and the Ultra Truck. The Little T has been re-issued many times and undergone numerous detail changes to reflect "contemporary tastes" but the original release is still the best. Starbird's car is itself very heavily based on the Ivo-T. Tommy Ivo has always had an incredible for form and function in his cars and his T-Bucket, his first hot rod (!), offered a taste of what was to come. Grabowski's Kookie Car (so named because it was featured in the television series 77 Sunset Strip as driven by hipster parking lot attendant Gerald Lloyd "Kookie" Kookson III, as played by Edd Byrnes) took the exact opposite direction with exaggerated rake and proportions. In my opinion both cars are wildly successful I achieving what they set out to do and throughout the years to follow rodders have struggled to equal them. The original Ivo-T: If a T-bucket can be elegant this is it... Of course Tommy raced it, his lightning quick reflexes even then allowing him to take the occasional top eliminator: Norm Grabowski's T-Bucket: A little cropped but a rare contemporary color picture of the original. The car was very successfully cloned by Von Franco. The original exists but has been considerably changed. Iconic! Norm relaxing at Bob's Big Boy in 1957 (note skull shifter - this car had everything...): Edd at the wheel: The Starbird Big T:

One of my pet peeves is people who ignore the basic question being asked. But I'm afraid I'm going to do that to some degree. The comments and observations so far are excellent and give good direction. But I would suggest fabricating much of the chassis and using kit crossmembers. The stance of a good T-Bucket is pretty critical and fabrication will give you far more control. If you adapt the kit frames and mix and match suspension elements you'll land up having to do quite a lot of fabrication anyway, so why not start with the frame rails? Now to some comments on the various parts you listed. First off, what a stash! I'm envious. The AMT kit has nice rails, a great front crossmember and a "correct" tubular front axle and front spring. Unfortunately the front axle has those funky side plates which need to go, at which point you have a great deal of fabrication to do and will probably have to re-finish the chrome. This can be an issue if you don't AlClad or are loath to send things off to the plater. The AMT chassis is longer than most and thus gives you flexibility in layout. The rear crossmember and suspension are very nice too, but the hairpins and rear radius rods have always looked too big and long to my eyes. The Tweedie Pie frame is too unique and close coupled for anything but a Tweedie Pie variant. The suspension is OK but a little funky. My recollection of the Revell Parts Pac chassis and suspension is that they are essentially competition parts and not well suited to a street hot rod project. The Parts Pac body, which is essentially the Tweedie Pie body is as nice as they come and, IIRC, includes a turtle deck if you are so inclined. The Monogram "Little-T based cars are quite close to an Ivo-T type of machine but I would disagree that the 1-24th scale aspect of it is not an issue. I have built one and sitting alongside my 1/25th rods it is significantly larger looking. I did use 1/25th scale tires and wheels on it and it looked OK but I could tell the difference... I doubt that the Parts Pac body will scale to the Monogram chassis. It depends on what period of T-Bucket you are going after. The Ivo-T and the Norm Grabowski Kookie Car are both iconic precisely because they defined two distinct lineages of T-bucket. The Kookie Car is close-coupled and steeply raked. Longer than the Tweedie Pie it could probably be done using a lengthened Tweedie Pie frame with a modified AMT tubular axle or with a Monogram Little-T variant with the rear end brought in and the pickup bed shortened. The Ivo car has an almost pan flat stance and sits fairly low slung. The Monogram Little-T variants are the closest kits to his car. I think a replica would mainly involve shortening the pickup bed somewhat. Both cars used tubular axles, so either go with AMT in 1/25th scale of go Monogram in 1/24th IMHO. I have thought of starting another T-Bucket project. The last one I did was a lightly modified Monogram 1/24th. I am tempted to do a Grabowski style car, in which case I would most likely either use the Revell "Rat Rod" '29 RPU/'30 Sedan I-beam, just because I like the way it looks and the fact that it's posable, or consider the Monogram T front end (again posable) and keep my fingers crossed that it didn't look too big. I would probably go with the chromed rear axle bells from the Revell '39/'30 Ford kits and the AMT Halibrand quick change, conserving the chrome for a show-car look. I would also use the Revell '29/'30 rear crossmember and buggy spring. I'd most likely fabricate my own rails, front crossmember and suicide mount. For rear radius rods I'd use the ones from the Revell '29/'30 kits and for front hairpins I go with ones from the Revell Tony Nancy Double Dragster kits. The other style worth exploring is the mid-to-late 60's Fad-T look, in which case I'd consider using the entire front end from the Tony Nancy kit. The whole post-Tognotti IRS thing never exactly appealed to me so I would generally avoid it. Naturally the Buttera chassis is a big non-no in that case. But generally speaking I'd probably cut my own rails since everything else would require a good deal of modification. For reference here are pics of two chassis and the Monogram T I built that would apply to this discussion. Scratch built chassis for a '27-T lo-boy. Probably the closest I've done to what you might consider. The front suspension and most of the rear are from a Revell '29/'30 kit with an AMT Halibrand quickchange and AMT T-bucket front shocks. Tires and wheels are from Modelhaus. Rear end detail of a dry lakes modified chassis I made using a Revell '29/'30 Ford rear cross member, spring and rear axle. This chassis had less kickup but it shows the basic approach I would take for a Kookie Car. And lastly, the Monogram 1/24th T-Bucket (I think this was from the "Boomer T" issue). The wheels and tires are 1/25th scale pieces from the Revell '29/'30 Ford kits and in retrospect I don't think they scale quite properly. The rest is pretty much out of the box and all 1/24th scale. But the overall kit is very nice and I would happily use it as a basis for a 1/24th scale project. But I'm not a fan of the front radius rods... Now if only they would bring back the real Little-T with those wonderful tires and steelies!

You can find some of their stuff on eBay. Let eBay run defense for you...

Bruce, as you know I've seen this elsewhere but it's delight to the eye, wherever you choose to show it. Bravo!

Deano, on 02 Jun 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:So ... um ... on the engine with the finned heads, where do the radiator hoses attach? The Lincoln V12 had the same cooling system as the early Ford V8's on which it was based . It had individual water pumps on the front of each head to which were attached the radiator hoses.

Here's the Early Years Resin Hot Rod Lincoln V12 as I built it (link: http://earlyyearsresin.webs.com/engines.htm - middle of the page). Clean crisp castings, it goes together nicely, it's reasonably priced, and delivery time is short. Highly recommended. All parts from their kit except for the exhaust headers and intake stacks, the transmission (I used an Early Years supplied LaSalle because it was shorter which I needed for my build), and miscellaneous detailing. Here's a picture from the Early Years site of the kit as supplied - :

From a can. 4 colors of Duplicolor. Duplicolor Sandable Primer: white (which lately I've been using the most), hot rod grey or black. Duplicolor Primer Sealer in a light grey. Can be sanded too, doesn't fill as well but is an effective color block over colored plastics (red, blue, green, etc.). I buy it at auto parts stores for $5.99 + tax a 12 oz. can.

I prime all bodywork, larger parts in general (seats, interior buckets, engine blocks, etc.) to promote paint adhesion, and smaller parts if they're on the tree next to larger stuff. I find that even with brush paints a light coat of primer gives "tooth" and I get a smoother, more even coverage. Just go light on the primer for the small stuff. The major exception to all this is parts which will be painted in Testors Metalizer paints. Even though they are lacquers they are very mild and don't attack the plastic . I find that you can't beat smooth styrene as a substrate for a nice polished metal finish. Primer adds grain so I avoid it.

Very well judged upgrade indeed! That Revell Willys top end is the key, that and conserving the chrome. A Sanitary Rail!

I was having problems, too, even before I updated my IE version. I'm on IE11 as I write this and it's working very well now. I suspect Brett's advice about making sure this site is included in your Compatibility View list has a lot to do with it. Even when I was on IE9 I would have problems losing my cursor on the screen when I was typing so I didn't know where I was in the paragraph! That's all fixed now. The only problem I have left is that I still can't toggle easily between Rich Text Formatting mode (the regular view we all see by default) and BBCode Mode. If I switch to BBCode the screen goes blank and I lose all my work. I can start my work in BBCode and switch to the full formatted view but I mustn't switch back or everything will be gone. Weirdness indeed. But this is obscure enough that I haven't tried to reach out to the community for a fix.

Two things to observe here. 1) High speed technologies and cheap publishing costs have facilitated the proliferation of "voices" and hence noise. Which leads to point 2... 2) The distance between "If Walter Cronkite said it was so, by god, it was so, and few Americans thought to question it." and "there is a huge number of people in this country ... who tend to listen only to sources that validate their own beliefs" is not all that great. The gap is filled by lack of critical thinking, conservatism (with a small "c"), and conformity. These are qualities that have always been with us. It's just that now the cacophony of voices saying the other side is lying to us is so much louder and omnipresent. In the 50's information was more slowly distributed and easier to ration while today we are drowned in it. The effect is much the same and so is the solution - believe what you already know to be true. And for Pete's sake beware of the dreaded "media bias" (pick your flavor)!