buffalobill

Beautiful build! re: Morgans having wooden frames - the frame rails are actually steel; it's the framework for the underlying structure for the body panels that's always been constructed using wood - mostly 'ash' - a hardwood similar to oak, if I;m not mistaken. The door frames, door jambs, the structure under the rear quarter panels where they attach to the rear deck (around the spare tire opening), the cowl & dashboard area, door sills, etc have non-structural pieces of sheet metal screwed to the wood structure. The floor boards are made of plywood. (note: I restored a '60 Morgan Plus Four roadster years ago after I all but totaled it when I rear-ended a '62 Ford Galaxie)

Continental Mk II - is this just a wish-list hopeful, or more than a strong rumor?

This would be a neat Community Build subject!

The doors on Jimmy Flintstone's resin '34 are too long. '33-'34 Ford roadster doors were the same length as those on Ford's '33-'34 5 window coupe bodies, while those on Cabriolets were the same length as those on the 3 window coupes. It would be relatively easy to re-scribe the correct length doors on the Flintstone resin roadster body. He has captured the look of a roadster's cockpit surround reasonably okay, and many 1:1 hot rod '33-'34 roadsters have had the area behind the seat modified to clean up that surround, as has been done on the Jimmy Flintstone resin body. The grill found in Revellogram's ZZ top is close to being an accurate '33 grill. They're maybe photo-etch '33 shells available from an aftermarket source - not sure. '33 hood sides had slightly curved louvers in the side panels that slanted forward from the top to bottom, while those on a '34 were straight, and slanted forward.from the top to bottom. The hood sides in the ZZ top version are custom, and do not represent either year stock side panels. Also, '33-'34 hoods were 4 piece units w/ a hinge down the center of the top, while the ZZ hood top is a single piece w/out the hinge. The hood found in the earlier non-chopped '34 kits does have a correct hood top. The chassis under Monogram's original & early releases of their '34 unchopped '3 window/cabriolet is fairly accurate to do a stock or vintage-styled hot rod. As I recall, one will have to remove the molded-in single exhaust system to build a hot rod's exhaust system, but, other than that, it's a decent chassis for the basis of a more-current type of suspension, rear axle, etc. To get it to sit lower, a Model A type front cross-member could be done, thus dropping the front end a couple of scale inches. The dropped axle in the ZZ top kit is rather awful, however, and one would also need to scratch-build the entire f & r suspension, as the ZZ Top kit's suspension is not very accurate. As was pointed out by Bill, there are significant differences between a roadster and a cabriolet body in addition to the door length - it's primarily in the cockpit surround area - the cowl, the rear deck behind the seats, the door tops (and how they are integrated into the shape of the surround behind the windshield on a roadster, and the windshield frame, itself. Best bet would be to do an online search for photos of each body style, as well as the differences between a '33 and a '34. It may be just as 'easy' to use AMT's '34 five window coupe as a starting point, and add the hood, side panels, & grill shell from their much maligned '33 2 door sedan kit. Either way, you'd have to redo the same areas (except for the length of the doors) on the AMT kit as that on the Revellogram kits, but you'd be working in 1/25th scale where there's a huge amount of hot rod parts that could be used to build almost any era '33 roadster. Also, AMT's chassis should be easier to work with, having a separate exhaust system. You might be able to modify the windshield frame found in Revell's 1/25th scale '32 roaster kit, as the width and design are very similar to that on a '33-'34. Maybe Revell will eventually do a series of '33-'34 Fords in 1/25th scale, in the same theme as their '32 Ford kits. It's really surprising that there's been such a lack of correct '33-'34 Ford kits, as well as '28-'31 Model A kits in 1/25th scale.

In addition to model car building over the past 50+ yrs, I've also been building both HO scale, and more recently, large gauge (1/24 scale) model trains - kits, kit-bashed, and scratch-built. I've been planning to build a large 600+ sq ft HO model RR in my basement, but now that I have the space, both the cost & the time involved to undertake such a project, plus, competing for my time are my modeling interests in model cars, and more recently, in WW2 and Korean War era allied aircraft; consequently, I've relegated starting on such a large model RR on the 'back burner' - at least for the next few months. The main issue w/ creating a large model RR is money - or lack of it - as the costs have sky-rocketed over the past decade, and the hobby is fast becoming a rich person's pursuit. It also involves a huge amount of time to do justice to all but the smallest model RRs. I'm not sure if I can justify tying up so much funds in a model RR, esp w/ being semi-retired in the midst of a crappy economy. Besides, I'm having a terrific time getting back to working on models of mostly traditional rods & customs.

How about an update - this is going to be way too nice to let to gather dust on your workbench!

Where did you source those chrome reversed wheels from? I'm going to follow this build when you get back on it. . .

There were 3 versions of a 2 door coupe for the '60 model year. At first, there were the bare-bones 500 model and a more nicely trimmed 700 model. In January 1960, the 900 Monza series was introduced, and it came w/ bucket seats and other upgraded trim & badging. It was soon after known simply as the Monza, and quickly became quite popular. The interiors of the '60-'64s had very little in common w/ the later '65-'69 series. Dashboards were completely different, and the seat patterns and door panels changed some for each model year. Those changes are well documented @ various on-line sources such as (www.Clark'sCorvair.com) - it has a wealth of info and photos of almost everything to do w/ Corvairs, esp interiors, as they manufacturer complete interiors for each model Corvair ever made. It's also an excellent resource for all of the trim and mechanical parts that made up each Corvair model from '60-'69. Clarks' has both an on-line catalog and a very thick print version.

Thank you!

The '68-'69 Dart has a 3" longer wheelbase than the '68-'69 Barracuda, but that should be an easy fix. I'm planning on building a '69 'Cuda 340 using the chassis from Revell's Dart and the 340/trans from AMT's Duster. The Barracuda's body looks okay to me & the interior shouldn't be that difficult to improve on. . .

Anybody know what the theme(s) of the 2014 show will be? The host club's website is apparently quite messed up - it has been on & off for awhile, so I've not been able to find out anything from ACME's Forum. Thanks.

I don't claim to be a Studebaker expert by any means, but I'm very partial to the '53-'54 coupes, Hawks, the first few production years of the Larks, and to a lessor degree, the Avanti. (in my opinion, the Avanti suffers from too tall of a cowl, clumsy side & rear window shapes, and the windshield was a bit too upright. But it was unique and generated a lot of good press for Studebaker when introduced, but the hand writing was on the wall - in that, Studebaker was running out of money, and were finding it increasingly difficult to compete w/ "The Big Three" who were introducing new models & new powertrains every couple of years, while Studebaker was relying on many components dating back 10-15 years. No matter how cleverly and inexpensively Studebaker was able to introduce 'new' models (the Scotsman, the Larks, the Hawks, and even the Avanti), underneath they owed much to the '53 Studebaker product line. Their V8 dated back a couple of years even before that, and the block was simply too small internally to ever be produced much beyond the 304.5 cu in found in R3, R4, and the R5 engines. But, it was a very rugged design w/ a super strong bottom end, a forged crank, a nickel alloy engine block, etc. It shared much design-wise w/ the early Cadillac ohv V8 that was introduced in '49, and that's no surprise, as according to rumors, a certain key Cadillac engineer was also involved in the design & engineering of the Studebaker V8. The more I researched the R5 engine, the clearer it has become that only one (1) R5 engine was actually completed and officially raced. There were some critical spare parts produced, and from what I've read, it would have been possible to build a clone of the R5 - if one had the resources. Granatelli, and not the Studebaker factory, built & raced that R5 in a specially prepared Avanti for the Bonneville Salt Flats. It turned approx. 196+something mph in a basically stock-bodied Avanti, that benefited from a hood scoop, an air-extraction slot in the rear valence panel, and it sometimes ran w/ rather ugly skirts on the rear wheel openings. No wings, no spoilers, no ground effects, no diffuser panel - nothing extra! It had a reasonably - but not radically - modified suspension, Halibrandt magnesium wheels, and very tall (33" or so) rear tires to achieve the needed rear end ratio to hit its intended 200 mph goal. Its R5 engine had dual Paxton superchargers, and was apparently tried out w/ dual Carter AFB carbs, but it achieved it's numerous records w/ a Bendix fuel/injection system that was 'borrowed' (literally) from Granatelli's Novi Indy race car. (that f/I system was sourced initially off of a helicopter's engine!) The R5s heads were extensively modified w/ huge valves, and it ran headers, a radical cam, a magneto ignition, but did not have a dry-sump system. No horsepower figures were found in my search, but it would be reasonable to assume that it was in the 550-600 hp range. (not bad for just over 300 cu in, and esp that it didn't blow apart on those long high speed runs on the Salt Flats. Horsepower figures for the other 'R' engines that were either production line options like the R1 & R2, or very limited available R3 & R4 engines direct from the factory, select dealers, or from Granatelli (who, allegedly, engineered & built all the original R3 & R4 engines) are: R1 non -supercharged 289 (single AFB) - 240 hp R2 Paxton supercharged 289 (single AFB) - 289 hp R3 Paxton supercharged 304.5 cu in (single AFB, hi-perf. cam, mod'd heads) - 335 hp R4 non-supercharged 304.5 cu in (dual AFB, hi-perf cam, mod'd heads, & 12.1 compression) - 280 hp note: Granatelli ran Paxton, and Studebaker owned Paxton. According to some old-time Studebaker fanatics, the factory tended to downplay hp #s, so that the NHRA would not penalize them - esp their supercharged products, by bumping them up a class when they ran @ the drags. On the other hand, Granatelli may have bumped up the hp numbers, but, his results @ Bonneville cannot be ignored, esp considering the many records that were smashed w/ various Studebaker models in '62 & '63. Studebaker smashed 337 USAC records w/ 12 different cars in 6 classes @ Bonneville in '63, and also that year, Granatelli drove an Avanti R3 that broke 6 records, incl a two-way average of over 170 mph. Both the R1 & R2 engines could be ordered in most any Studebaker (Larks, Hawks, and the Avanti), but only nine (9) of the R3 engines were delivered in Avantis, and no production cars that were sold directly to the public had an R4 engine, although some sources claim that approx. 130 R4 engines had been built. Some dealers did sell the R type parts & complete R engines, however. A well prepared showroom stock base-model Lark 2 door sedan equipped w/ an R2 engine & a 4 speed could turn 12 sec/110+ mph, on street legal tires. Road & Track tested an automatic equipped R3 Avanti, achieving a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds. re: your question re: the frames - the Hawks, Larks, and Avanti all shared the same basic frame and chassis design as the '53 Studebaker, but the convertible Lark's frame w/ its added X-member, was found under the Avanti; the Avanti also shared the same wheelbase as certain Lark models. The '53 Studebaker coupe's longer frames were essentially the same design as that under the Lark & the Avanti, but lacked the X-member - they are the same wheelbase as that found on all of the Hawk variants. There's lots of info re: Studebakers on the Internet, but trying to sort it all out, and nail down specifics, can be a challenge.

Don't we wish that a decent Hawk GT resin body or esp a kit was available? Stude V8 engines were incredibly rugged; I know first hand, as my first ever car was a '54 Commander post coupe (a $50. rust bucket that caused me to learn how to do extensive rust repair and mechanical work, esp after it suffered from the exploits of a 17 yr old). The '53-'54s and the Hawks have been forever favorites of mine. And, the Larks - esp the early production years - are sensible, yet, still very cool cars, and should have fared better in the market place than they did. According to the Studebaker Drivers Club forum, there was only one R5 engine ever built, but some have questioned that. It was essentially a 304.5 cu in R3 engine w/ dual Carter AFBs & dual Paxton superchargers; and it was also tried out w/ Bendix fuel injection - the same system that the Granatellis used on their Novi V8 Indy-car engines. However, the parts to build a R3, R4, or even a R5 engine were available back then if one knew the right people, and had enough money to have one built. There's lots of mystery, disputed info, and basic bench-racing type lore floating around about just how powerful the R5 engine was. An Avanti or a Lark FX drag car would be an interesting and eye-catching project. Hope you get around to doing one. . .

Or, how about something different - You could build a Studebaker that might have been done around 1962-1963 using a Studebaker R5 engine that had a pair of Paxton superchargers. Granatelli set a bunch of records @ Bonneville w/ that engine. Not sure if such a car would have been 'legal' in any of the then current NHRA classes, except possibly in an Altered class, due to it's altered wheelbase and that it was also supercharged. Also, the tube frame would probably have to be replaced w/ modified stock frame rails. There were FX classes such as B/FX & C/FX for smaller displacement engines, but I'm not sure where such a Studebaker could have, or would, have been 'classed'. FX classified cars were limited to either current or I yr old bodies, but the original style Hawks were still being sold in '61, and the '53-'54 body panels were basically a bolt-on deal on those Hawks. Back then, most anything could have been possible in drag racing, as the rules were in a constant state of flux in order to accommodate the manufacturers. . . But, such a drag car would have been different in that it did not have a huge big block in it. . .Would it have been competitive? Who knows?

The Carson-style top and the wrap-around windshield are especially well done! A very nice custom, overall. . .

Revellogram's '55 Chevy Indy Pace Car release (#2496) has a non-continental kit rear bumper.

You might also consider the Olds rear end found in Revell's ancient '41 ('Stone, Woods, Cook') Willys gasser kit / not their much newer-tooled Chrysler hemi-powered Willys kit.

That brings up a funny incident from when I was selling Cadillacs - I sold an elderly lady a new DTS in '02 or '03 (and it had DTS's standard bucket seats & console in it), and she was soon mighty unhappy w/ her purchase, since she was no longer able to keep her handbag right next to her and secured w/ a center position seat belt like she had been accustomed to in all of the other bench seat equipped Cadillacs that she had owned during the past 25-30 yrs, or so. She insisted on trading in her DTS for a base De Ville w/ its standard bench seat. I agree - the '00-'05 DTS was a very nice car, especially for a large 4 door sedan. Makes for a terrific used car buy today, too.

Rob - You are correct - I meant the CTS. Too many letter-labeled cars, and it seems to get worse every year. Thanks for catching my error, and I'll edit it right now.

No one has mentioned Audi in this topic, and perhaps Lincoln could take a hard look @ how Audi has marketed its products in the USA. Audi - in many ways - is a gussied-up VW product (and that in no way implies that there's anything wrong w/ the VW product line). The Passat and the Audi A6 shared the same platform for quite a few years (I'm not sure if they still do, however, since I haven't sold them for a number of years. . .) They have shared the same series of engines for many years, too. When I was selling Audis (in the same showroom as Jaguar & Porsche), Audi went to great lengths to tout the performance of their products, whether they were the TT, A4, A6, or A8, and that was especially true of the S-versions of the A4, A6, & A8. But, the average consumer was almost completely unaware of how much hardware that VW and Audi shared under the skin. Audi sold passion - pure and simple. The brand had style ( more great design, rather than just style, actually), it had excellent fit & finish inside & out, well designed & drop-dead gorgeous interiors, precise switch gear, responsive handling, silky-smooth powerful engines & drivetrains, and it had Quattro AWD, as an option. But, so did VW - but, they called it 4-Motion, and most consumers, as well as most dealer sales people, were unaware that the Quattro and 4-Motion were the same AWD system. (note: the AWD in the TT, and also available on smaller VW platforms - the TT shared lots w/ VW's Golf underneath - but, it was not the same system as the AWD in the A4 / Passat and larger Audi sedans) In most markets, VW and Audi didn't share showrooms, but even if they did, the 2 brands were marketed & sold very differently. VW's target consumer base was not the same as Audi, for the Audi was perceived as a desirable competitor of BMW, M/B, and to a lessor extent, Volvo, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, & Cadillac. Keep in mind that this was my experience from 10 yrs ago, and fast forward to today, it's interesting to note which brands have progressed, which have fallen behind, and that Audi is enjoying continued success in the USA. It's all about the product - and if it's good stuff, and the sales team knows how to market & sell it, the word gets out. Audi made sure that their sales team could effectively sell their cars by providing excellent selling tools, including sending us to high speed & defensive driver-training programs @ both Texas Int'l Speedway and Phoenix Int'l Speedway where we drove the daylights out of not just Audis, but also what were perceived as their main competitors in the US marketplace. (but, no VWs were amongst those perceived competitors - for not so obvious reasons, as I believe that VW-Audi intentionally avoided any comparisons between the 2 brands - esp to not challenge the upmarket prestige of the Audi brand). And, Audi's rich motor sport's history was drawn from in how they built their brand's image - from the awesome 12 & 16 cylinder Auto-Unions of the '30s, to Audi's rallying wins, their Pikes Peak record, their domination of Touring Car series both in the USA & overseas, and their multiple outright wins @ LeMans. But, perhaps most effective, was when the weather turned bad, and customers got to experience first hand how incredible was Audi's Quattro system. The key was getting them into the showroom, first! And, seldom did price become the go/no go for making a sale, since to discount a brand, is to cheapen it in the mind of the consumer. Also, consider that Audi had almost abandoned the US market in the late '70s/early '80s due to some highly inaccurate and equally sensational news stories re: 'unintended acceleration' on Audis (that were primarily equipped w/ auto trans). The entire thing was bogus, and was eventually traced back to the smaller size & the placement of the brake pedal compared to the typical American luxo barges that Audi's customers had become accustomed to before getting an Audi. Slowly at first, Audi's customer base changed, as they were either technically savvy enthusiasts that dis-regarded the notion that Audis were unsafe, and many were much younger, and often either professionals, or engineering-types. Audi intentionally had put a cap on how many cars they intended to sell in the USA as a result of that mess - even though there was nothing essentially wrong w/ their product - they simply didn't want to go thru that same scenario again. Again, Lincoln could take a clue from this, since Lincoln has had it's share of successes and failures. including more than a few mundane products, w/ some of them being simply really ugly. Lincoln has a proud heritage that they could draw from - their classic products from the late '20s /early '30s, mid-late '30s Zephyrs, the '41 Continental, their road racing success in the mid-50s Pan America Road Races, the stunning '56 Lincoln, and the Mark ll of the same year, the almost perfectly proportioned '61 sedan & convertible, and even the conservative, but attractive '99 LS. (which shares many of it's pieces w/ the Jag S-type). Jag's S-type was a successful, retro-effort based on their lovely Mk ll; but as a side note, Jag's smaller X-type sedan, based on Ford's Contour, was a sales disaster - it was not a good product, as it was heavy, too small inside, under-powered, and had more than it's share of issues. A classic example of what happens when a pseudo-luxury product is based on a low-end, and not a particularly good product. But, as a contrast consider how successful was Cadillac's CTS launch, even though it was in many ways a re-do of their rather awful Catera sedan - which was a re-badged Opel Omega that had not been effectively adapted to US specs, as it was overweight, under-powered, and suffered from many reliability & quality issues. Cadillac did a much better job with the CTS (also based on the Omega/Catera platform, but w/ much attention to fixing what was wrong w/ the Catera), and it has sold very well. It's important to note that Cadillac didn't abandon it's older and more conservative customer base ten yrs ago, as they also sold a ton of DeVilles w/ bench seats along side the much more avant-garde CTS. Cadillac has successfully adapted many of the styling clues & overall image of the CTS to all of it's products, thus changing it's image completely. And, they're good products, too. But, if Lincoln continues to simply rebadge Ford's mainstream products, and expect to sell them in a much pricier segment, they're doomed. It didn't work when Ford introduced the Edsel, and it's amazing that Mercury hung on as long as it did. Edsel was a failure due to radical styling excesses (sorry to offend any Edsel fans) and having been launched in an over-crowded market segment and in a recession year, while Mercury, during some years, offered little to distance it from comparable Ford products except some questionable at the time styling differences. There have been a few exceptions to that - namely in the '49 - early '60s when Fords and Mercurys appeared quite unique from each other, and briefly w/ the '67-'70 Cougars, esp the XR-7 option. But, consider how similar were the Mercury & Lincolns from '49-'55? Lincoln changed all that in '56, and continued to do so into the mid '60s, until Lincoln once again too closely resembled re-badged Mercury and/or Ford products. Ford Motor Co now has all the right ingredients to design a new Lincoln worthy of mention - it has great engines & drivetrains, including AWD systems, and a ever-improving quality & reliability reputation. It is also well-funded, and didn't rely on the auto-bailout of the Obama administration (and all that that implies). . .But, equally important are Ford's diverse overseas resources - engineering, design, & manufacturing. Ford is a world-wide brand, and perhaps a Lincoln brand created in the same vein as European performance/luxury brands, could be done - but, maybe they've missed the chance to do that now. . .I wish they would, however.

Incredible model of one of the most beautiful race cars ever! Your photography is terrific, too!

This is going to be fun to follow along with - keep us updated!

Very nicely done. Your additional work really livens up the chassis, and sets a new standard for this kit, or, for that matter, any other VW chassis-based kit!

You're absolutely correct, and I had meant to write that "I'm unaware of any Ardun heads for the V8-60 done in 1/25 scale." It was late, I was tired, and that's all the excuses I can offer up this morning. lol Another source for Ardun heads for the larger V8-85 series of flathead Fords was offered some time ago by Mark Gustafson as part of his 'Putty Throwe'r line of parts. It was cast in white metal alloy and was well done, although not quite as crisply detailed as Rep & Min of MD's Ardun pieces. re: the Brisio buit AMBR winning track T - it represents a return (hopefully) to honoring tasteful/not over-the-top show winning hot rods. It's drop dead perfect, and is in so many ways, similar in concept to the Niekamp '29 A that won the very first AMBR event years ago. It's perhaps the finest car that Brizio has ever built, in my opinion. . .

Rep & Min of MD also offers stock appearing nail head rocker covers (P-106) - also incl. are 2 rectangular breathers. According to Norm, these parts were rebopped from Revell's Tony Nancy 22Jr dragster kit. Also - to clarify - AMT's '65 Riviera's engine does not share any parts w/ their much newer-tooled and far better detailed '66 Riviera's engine.