Art Anderson

Exactly the reason, Rob. Art

Uh, Harry, it might surprise you to know that at least into the early 1990's, the official name of the Indy 500 was "The International 500 Mile Sweepstakes", as it had been since that first race in 1911. It might also surprise you to learn that in the first decade of the 500 (taking out 1917 and 1918, when the race was called off due to World War I) , 5 of the 8 race winners were American citizens (although Ralph DePalma was an Italian Immigrant, naturalized citizen), and three were foreign drivers (Jules Goux (France, 1913), Rene' Thomas (France, 1914) and Dario Resta (Italian, 1916). Of the first 8 winning cars, the 1911 winner was the Marmon Wasp (imported from Indianapols!), 1912 National (also Imported from Indianapolis), 1913 Peugeot (France), 1914 DeLage (France), 1915 Mercedes (Germany), 1916 DeLage (France), 1919 Premier (built in Indianapolis as a direct copy of the 1916 DeLage), 1920 Monroe, built by Frontenac, a company started by Swiss immigrant Louis Chevrolet, and the 1921 Frontenac (also designed and built by Louis Chevrolet). The 1920's saw numerous entries from Europe as well, DeLage made several appearances, as did at least one Bugatti, even an Alfa Romeo or two--but due to the decline of oval tracks in Europe (there were of course, Montlhery in France, Brooklands in the UK, Avus in Germany, Monza in Itaiy for example); and as a result, very few European entries were capable of the sustained high speeds of the likes of Millers and Duesenbergs (Oh, did I mention that Fred Duesenberg was an immigrant from Germany--his younger brother and partner, August, was born in Iowa?). One notable British driver drove at Indianapolis in a highly modified Model T Ford hopped up with a Frontenac 16-valve DOHC head (the racing cylinder head included in the AMT 1927 Model T Touring Car kit, BTW)--one Alfred Moss, whose son Sterling gained worldwide fame in Formula 1 in the late 50's/early 60's. Of course, the stock block formula introduced at Indianapolis for 1930 very much precluded any foreign entries, until 1935 when the 4.5 liter engine formula began. By 1937, Alfa Romeo was back, and in 1938 came Maserati--in 1939 and 1940, the 400 was won by a Maserati 8CTF driven by racing legend Wilbur Shaw, who also lead much of the 1941 race before his right rear wire wheel collapsed in the 4th turn. Beginning in 1946, there were several foreign cars entered, notably a 1939 Mercedes-Benz W163 GP car by Don Lee Enterprises out of Los Angeles. Prewar World Grand Prix Champion Rudolph Carachiola practiced at Indianapolis in 1946, having been recruited by one Anton "Tony" Hulman Jr., then the owner of the Speedway. Hulman also worked at recruiting foreign entries through the 1950's, along with drivers such as Alberto Ascari and Guiseppi Farina, and Juan Manuel Fangio from Argentina. Hulman, through USAC also promoted the idea of the "Race Of Two Worlds" on the high banked oval at Monza in 1957-58 hoping to interest GP teams in coming to Indianapolis. Additionally, from 1937 to the late 1950's, Indianapolis also was able to award World Driver's Championship points. The "rear engine revolution" was started by non other than British constructor John Cooper, who built up a special version of his 1960-61 Cooper Climax F1 car, which was driven by Australia's Jack Brabham (how many are aware that Jack Brabham also cut his racing teeth driving Kurtis Midgets in a Midget racing series in Australia and New Zealand?). So, it should come as no surprise that come 1965, a foreign driver running a foreign car (albeit with Dearborn Ford V8 power) won at Indianapolis--by then, Europe and the UK had recovered from 2 devastating World Wars in 31 years time, so a return from across the Atlantic was only a matter of time. And that sort of started with Team Lotus in 1963, gathered serious momentum by 1966, when Lotus was joined by Lola Cars (Team Mecom), with a couple of BRP's and the MG Liquid Suspension Specials in 1964-65. As for Indy no longer being the "All American Race", well that was very much ended when the 24 team owners who formed CART (and pretty much, throughout its history, CART was limited to just 24 teams, each team owner being a member of the CART Board of Directors--although for Indianapolis, several CART teams brought multiple entries. But more importantly, CART owners, once the American "racing legends", notably "Lone Star JR" Johnny Rutherford, Gordon Johncock and several others passed their prime, CART teams tended to totally overlook American drivers, opting instead for drivers coming out of South America, Italy, the UK, France, Canada, The Netherlands, Australia, even Norway. By 1990, it was pretty hard to find a "good old American name" on the CART driver's list. So, Indianapolis has never been, by purpose, simply an All American Race, no sir. It's almost always had an international flavor, as long as wars and depressions never got in the way. Art

Harry, meaning no disrespect here, but Indianapolis is Indianapolis, and the Indianapolis 500 is what it is, incidently the longest-running closed course racing event on the planet. FWIW, the winner at Indianapolis sees his name becoming a household word--more so than the vast majority of sports heroes. For those who think racing at Indy is merely going around in circles--not many other race cars,drivers, or indeed the track itself require 800 turns at speeds in excess of 200mph--that's something that requires more precision than just about anything in any sport, rivaling the finest gymnasts, acrobats, even ballet dancers. One twitch of a wrist, one split second glitch of the brain, and that concrete wall (even with the SAFER barrier) becomes a formidable obstacle--just ask Marco Andretti. I respect all forms of motorsport, but of all, Indy is my favorite by far. Unless one has been to at least one 500 mile race, it's hard for me to see how any honest criticism of that race can be made. Art

Richard, IMO, it is the fallen soldier/sailor/airman/marine who is the one who's given us all of these things more than anything! To paraphrase that analogy regarding breakfast, the veteran (not to denigrate any veteran, PLEASE) was involved, but the fallen were committed. RIP all those who gave their lives unselfishly to make this country the strongest, the bastion of freedom, the citadel of human and civil rights! Surely The Almighty is with you now and forever more! Art

It's Phoenix Model Development, yes. As for the currency conversion, you should be able to find many of those online. I've seen Charlie's fire apparatus on which he's used Phoenix piano hinges, in 1/25 scale, they sure look fantastic (and they work just like the real thing as well. Art

This is an old issue, frankly! To understand it, Ford (or any other company in the US) is under the requirement (supported by US Supreme Court decisions BTW) to either "protect it, or lose it" with regard to any and all intellectual property--which includes even model kits and toy cars. if they do not go against the makers and sellers of unlicensed toys of model kits or toy cars, they stand to lose the right to protect any of their designs from unauthorized reproductions--period! And for them, that includes repair and replacement parts of all kinds. You may not like it, but that is a fact of life in business in the US--and come to think of it, I would not like it if some chinese (or other third-world country operator!) were able to rip off the designs etc. of products made in this country by American workers--would you? Incidently, this is a problem faced by manufacturers all over the developed world, not just we Americans in the US. So, bluntly put: Deal with it. End of statement. Art

Fred, What you say was certainly true with JoHan kits of the era 1959-at least 1962 (or for that matter, nearly every promotional model-based current year Cadillac 3in1 and snap kits they produced) could be off-scale or out-of-proportion. That was due to the real automaker--mostly General Motors--demanding that all their promotional model cars fit in the same size box. While a promotional model of an Oldsmobile (JoHan made most of the Oldsmobile promo's ever done back then, with the exception of the '65 Delta 88), and certainly any AMT or MPC Chevrolet, Pontiac, or Buick full-sized car subject would fit those boxes, Cadillac promotionals would not. While GM full-sized cars were all exactly the same overall width (certainly true 195-60) a Cadillac was considerably longer than say, a Chevy Impala. So, JoHan took care of that problem for 1959 &1960 by shortening the front clip, and the trunk, but made the "greenhouse" exactly the right length. Of course, it pays to slap some calipers on a model car body, compare those numbers with stateded overall length and wheelbase. Chances are, if the model is the correct scale overall length, and correct wheelbase in scale, most if not all body details will be correct. Art

James, yes I am sure. There are three angles from vertical that are a part of any automoitive steerable front end: Camber, Caster and Rake. Now, rake can be seen on the front fork of any bicycle, motor scooter or motorcycle--just look at how the front fork angles forward from the pivot point to the front axle. That has the effect of making the bike or scooter steer predictably. Caster is just as the name implies--it's the ever so slight "spacing" of the centerline (think spindle here on an automobile front suspension, be it independent or a beam or solid front axle) slightly to the rear of the center line of the front kingpins or side-to-side pivot point of the front uprights--caster aids in making the steerable front wheels "self centering". Caster is exactly what the front wheels of a grocery shopping cart have, but much more pronounced!. Camber is almost always used as "positive camber", that is, with the front wheels pointed straight ahead (any automotive front end will have the wheels slightly "toe'd in", or seemingly steered slightly toward each other), the tops of the wheels will be farther apart than the "bottoms" of the wheels--this also makes steering easier, and helps minimize tire wear. You can easily see positive camber in almost any 2wd car or truck, particularly any Model T through 1948 Ford passenger car or pickup--very prominent on Model A's and even the '32 Ford--the front end, when steered straight ahead will have the tires appearing almost "bowlegged". This is even more pronounced on any Classic Era Bugatti. But even a car with independent front suspension will show it as well. Take your own personal car, crank the steering wheel hard over either to the right or to the left, all the way to the limit. Now look at the two wheels: The wheel on the "inside" of this turning car will show as leaning over, well out of vertical--the opposite wheel will seem standing straight up and down.--that's camber--and it may well vary from car to car. Only a few model car kits ever got this at all right--the best examples I can think of are the Revell '29 Model A Ford Pickup, and their '31 Model A Ford 2dr Sedan/Woodie Station Wagon--Revell's designers actually managed to get both camber and rake tooled into the front axle and radius rod assemblies; and assembled carefully, you can see it clearly when you pose the front wheels cranked all the way to one side or the other, to the limit. Monogram's '27 Bugatti Type 35B and the Italeri Bugatti Type 41 Royale also show the severe positive camber that is so characteristic of those old, solid-front-axle Bugs. Not likely that it shows in the Lindberg Bugatti Royale, or any of the Heller Bugatti kits though. Hope this helps! Art

I'm gonna call Charles Rowley in MA tomorrow afternoon, he has a line on some fantastic miniature piano hinges made in the UK, that will fill the bill for you perfectly! Art

Actually, Satco's Firestone "Wide Whites" were done off a 7:00-15 Firestone tire, that was mounted and inflated. Those old bias ply tires tended to have tread width that was almost exactly same as the rim width, so in this case, a 7" tread width translates out to ..280" (which incidently is also the exact tread width of the tires in the Mobius Hudson kits. 7:00-15 was a very common tire size by the early 1950's, and carried on all the way to the advent of radial tires in the early 70's here in the US. This is a very correct tire size for mid-upper priced cars of the 1950's, and low-priced station wagons through that era as well, and even the earliest of muscle cars. Part of the misconception may well be the Revell, AMT and Monogram street tires in those respective company's kits that were almost always a bit too narrow for scale accuracy? Art

This thing is freakin' huge! 1/72 scale kit of a US Navy attack submarine out of the late 1960's. Almost 44" long, this one is slated to become an RC model--even if the RC unit and the apparatus to make it dive and surface will cost me at least $700! Art

American Satco (Roger Sills, who had been an AMT Ertl exec) imported numerous sets of neoprene rubber tires for models from Japan. Now most probably do not know that in Shizoka City, Japan, there are numerous mom & pop shops who make stuff like rubber tires for model car and truck kits for all the major manufacturers there. That is what Roger imported.. Roger paid for the tooling of the Firestone wide white tire himself, and those got produced, as most of us know (I still have probably 30 sets of them--leftover stock from AAM (included them in several AAM resin kits). Unfortunately, Roger was involved in other stuff, including his being an officer in US Army Reserve--last saw him at the Racing Champions/AMT Ertl outlet store in Dyersville back in the summer of 2004). Art

For starters, there were two entire sets of tooling for the '67-'72 Chevy trucks, AMT and MPC each producing these kits in competition with each other. The '67 and '68 versions are very nearly identical between both companies, but for '69, they diverge quite a bit (AMT used a simplified grille & front bumper assembly, MPC stayed with their established pattern. For 1971-72, AMT Corporation produced the GMC version of this pickup truck alongside their Chevy pickup kits, the GMC coming first as a Fleetside, the stepside coming a bit later in the 1972 year. The tooling for the GMC cab is different from that for the Chevy, in that the side "slide cores" in the tooling have engraving for GMC scripts and side trim. In addition, I believe the hoods are different, as is, of course, the chrome parts tree due to the different grilles and wheel covers. For 1969, GM Truck & Coach slightly facelifted these two series of trucks, with subtle changes in the front clip, notably the size of the opening for the grille, and a revised hood stamping. So, if one wants to do a 67 or 68 Chevy, one needs to have the cab from those two years, along with the hood, grille and interior (the latter for a correct factory stock replica). Art

Two completely different pickup trucks, from the wheels up. Chassis are completely different, suspension is different, and of course, the sheet metal. Oh, the engine and tranny were carried over, though. Art

One of the guys in Lafayette Miniature Car Club bought that pickup at the HMCA show in Indy a couple of weeks ago--NICE piece (but we've all come to expect nothing but NICE from Modelhaus over the past nearly 30 years!) Art

Yeah, I know! It's one of "those".

Testors doesn't buy the highest quality rattle cans and nozzles, frankly. Chances are the nozzle on your can has a defect--as others have suggested, try another nozzle from another can, see if that solves the problem. Art

Nope, I pulled a Paasche diaphragm compressor (similar to the old Binks, and my current Badger 180-1) out of inventory in my hobby shop--but it failed pretty quickly. During my time in resin-casting, I had a Craftsman 3hp compressor in the shop--to pressurize the tanks for casting--just ran a line off of that. But when I went to apartment living, that noisy thing had to stay behind, so the Badger 180-1. I did, however, go through a 7 year layoff from painting anything, as after I moved back here to Lafayette when Playing Mantis got sold off to RC2, I just didn't have room for a spray booth. That got corrected a year and a half ago, so now, I can paint again! Does that all make sense? Art

Didn't Dodge still refer to the wide beds as Sweptsides? Art

And, fewer assembly plants as well. What is the real contrast is how much hand-work was necessary for mass-producing cars in 1936. Also noticed that the frames for those Chevy's were being assembled with rivets, not welded as became the case in the post-war years of the late 40's (electric arc welding was in use, but two issues remained: Relatively few trained welders, and a mistrust of the then-seemingly-exotic technology of welding steel. Also, the sheer number of die strikes to stamp out those huge roof panels (1936 was the year that Fisher Body Division of GM introduced the first one-[piece sheet steel "turret roofs" in the industry. Prior to that, all mass-production automobiles (and most custom coach-built luxury cars) had their roofs (and bodies as well) assembled from several sections, with wooden top bows and fabric top material filling in the center section (by contrast, the Cord 810 sedan, introduced in 1936, used no less then 13 individual stampings which were welded, then leaded over, to make their roofs). Neat film though, for sure! Art

Mike, I would have no idea beyond perhaps running them at too high a speed--causing them to overheat perhaps (?). My personal "go-to" carbide cutter is a 1/8" diameter cylindrical cutter, such as the Dremel part having a rounded nose on it. Those can be worked just like a side mill in your Dremel. I'd use a variable speed Dremel, and simply experiment with speeds, dialing it up a bit faster until you find that optimal rpm that let's the cutter do its thing. The same size Dremel HSS (High Speed Steel) cutter works quite well also, but those do dull over time. Art

Tamiya Clear Yellow works like a charm to make gold-toned chrome. Imply brush or airbrush over clean, shiny chrome parts. Art

Tor, SMP did produce kits of the 1911 Chevrolet Prototype--they were available through Chevrolet dealers in 1961, right along with the promo! I've seen more than a few over the years at shows like the Toledo Collector's Toy Fair--of course at prices far higher than I was willing to pay at the time. As for aluminum tooling--that works for relatively short runs of plastic kits, but wear is a factor of course. The SMP promo and kit were produced to an order from Chevrolet Division of GM, promoting the 50th Anniversary of Chevrolet, and were exclusive to Chevrolet, never marketed across the hobby industry. Not every Chevy dealer apparently participated, Horner Motor Company here in Lafayette did not, for example. The tooling was destroyed at the end of the production run, apparently due to the arrangements between SMP and Chevrolet, although the tire molds lasted for years afterward--saw the tire in AMT's tire chart that they maintained through the 70's, for example. As for the 1911 Chevrolet prototype, it was a 6-cylinder car, and exhibited a lot of expensive parts (that Vee-shaped honeycomb radiator, for example, was the most expensive type of radiator of the day). It evolved into the Classic Six production Chevrolet with a pricetag of $2,500, in a day when a new Model T Ford sold for about $600. The marketplace was already full of cars selling in the same price class of the Chevy 6, and the car was a commercial failure--even today, seldom ever seen at AACA meets, even in museums. The most commonly seen brass-era Chevrolets are the Royal Mail Roadster, and the Baby Grand touring car, 1913-1916, which were followed by the il-starred Chevrolet V8 of 1917-18. Other than the early Classic Six, and that V8 powered car, Chevrolet concentrated on 4-cylinder cars until their introduction of the first 6-cylinder "Stovebolt" for 1929, at which Chevy became exclusively 6-cylinder cars until the 1955 model year. As a correction, the late Mike Watgen passed away on May 1, 1994 (not 1993) while loading his car with resin kits for sale at the Hoosier Model Car Association Swap meet that Sunday. Mike was one of the real "gentlemen" of the hobby, and the then fledgling model car aftermarket. Art

The "milky" appearance is caused by humidity, which causes the surface of lacquer to solidify before the liquid underneath has a chance to evaporate. It's called "blushing". To avoid blushing with true lacquers, pay attention to the weather: If it's high humidity outside, and you are outdoors, blushing will happen to some degree. However, it's a known fact in say, the furniture industry (which uses a lot of acrylic lacquer, particularly in restoration and refinishing) that spraying lacquer indoors during a heavy thunderstorm actually does not result in blushing--a heavy rainstorm outside is actually sweeping the humidity out of surrounding but sheltered air (learned this from my brother and his son, both of whom are museum accredited antique furniture restorers and professional cabinet makers--they use clear acrylic lacquers almost exclusively) "Blush" can be eliminated by simply polishing out the lacquer, or of course, applying clear lacquer over it after the extra humid conditions have gone away. Of course, painting indoors in winter in most of the country, certainly in warm weather with air conditioning, will eliminate almost all of the problem.. Of course, in the real world, painters spraying lacquers use retarders to slow the drying time of lacquer in humid conditions, but that's not really an option for us plastic model builders--retarding the drying time of lacquer on plastic just gives more time for the solvents to penetrate the plastic surface, and that causes crazing. But, we can, as modelers, reduce, in fact, virtually eliminate crazing and even blushing, by using an airbrush. OK, so now I've used the often-dreaded "A" word here. But, an airbrush can be used to lay on lacquers in almost micro-thin coats, which dry quickly on their own, minimizing (even eliminating) both crazing and blushing. For more than 40 years, I used acrylic lacquers almost exclusively, save for the existence of AMT lacquers in the years 1962-their demise about 1973, and the advent of Tamiya lacquers in the early 2000's, followed by Testors Modelmaster lacquers a few years after. I can say, that with the exception of a couple of Gunze kits, and a few original AMT 1958-1959 3in1 kits, I've never experienced any crazing and almost NEVER any blushing using automotive acrylic lacquers, even using model airplane dope on a few Indy car models I built. I still have a pretty good stash of leftover nitrocellulose lacquers from the late 1940's/early 1950's that I cabbaged from an old body shop that closed in 1973 and have used those on model cars more than once (acrylic lacquer was first developed by DuPont for General Motors and introduced on GM cars in 1958--their "Magic Mirror" finishes that were highly advertised that year. My trick? Not rocket science at all, frankly! I use the appropriate primer, almost always red oxide, as that is the color of primer for which almost all finish colors were developed to cover well into the 1970's, but very well thinned, and airbrushed on lightly. I can see, on most modern-made model car kits, a very light "frosting" of the plastic surface, which is actually a slight crazing of the surface, but by being patient, and spraying on more primer (I tend to do my painting each coat in one sitting, but making pass after pass with the airbrush until I get the desired result) until there is some material buildup, the crazing goes away. I tend to see that as having "shock-proofed" the plastic surface, which in my observing the many projects I have painted over time, has been proven out (often when polishing out the primer, I have "burned through" the primer in spots, exposing bare plastic, and when either applying more primer, or going directly to color coats, no crazing happened in those spots of bare plastic. OK, so that's un-scientific, but I've won a few awards over time doing paintwork thusly. Another advantage of using an airbrush is, as I mention above, the ability to get micro-thin coats of paint, which won't bury the surface details of the model (chrome trim, scripts , that sort of thing). Rattle cans, by comparison, squirt, even glop paint on so thickly that those details are softened, even lost, so some thought here makes sense. Why destroy expensive surface details if you don't have to? But this makes for some work prior to color coats: Why lay on a lot of color over rough, grainy primer? That just does not make sense to me! If you think about it, on real, 1:1 cars, painters don't do that! Nope, they will wet sand the primer to smooth, THEN do the color coats. I do this, by using Micromesh polishing cloths (actually cloth backed sanding cloths, with abrasives, for those not familiar with them). These were developed for the aircraft industry, and the US military (USAF and US Navy) in order to polish aircraft canopies for clarity and nearly perfect vision for the pilot looking through them--very important for a combat pilot in a dogfight with an enemy!. So, my thing is to polish out the primer when I use it (I never use primer if I'm gonna paint with say, Tamiya or Modelmaster lacquers, UNLESS I've done some serious bodywork, and then only spot-priming where I've done any filling with putty!), as micro-thin coats of lacquer will reveal any imperfections in the surface. It's not necessary to make the primer a mirror shine, "satin" finish works just fine. But, that's far better than just shooting paint over the ordinarily grainy (think rough here!) surface of raw primers. Yeah, so you say why spend the $$ on an airbrush and compressor? Well, for starters, this can be very much a "one time" purchase. A good quality hobby compressor should last for several decades (my first compressor, a Binks Diaphragm unit, lasted me from late December 1962 until it finally broke its connecting rod in 1987 after making a lot of clanking noise for about 5 years--my replacement, a Badger 180-1 is now 10 years old, shows no sign of failing anytime soon. Couple that with a Paasche H-series airbrush that is now more than 20yrs old, the cost of both isn't really that great. And, in the bargain, an airbrush used for painting model cars is very much like having a miniature spray gun, which will give nearly scale finishes (not to mention the virtually unlimited color choices!). In the end, it's the use of proper equipment, and an understanding of how to best use lacquers that does result in nice paint jobs, not so much the choice of paints themselves. Art

True enough. However, for most scratchbuilding which is done by hand, .00063" is a micrometer measurement. Unless one is using a lathe or mill with the capability of one ten-thousandth of an inch accuracy (tolerance), it's rather a moot point--very few people have the capability of maintaining such a close tolerance with hand tools commonly used in model building. Even model aircraft engines use the lubricating oil to enable piston and cylinder to maintain the compression necessary for them to run and develop their full power. This fact alone makes it far more reasonable, IMO, to use the rounded off decimal .040" and imm interchangeably, certainly for most small detailing of 1/25 scale models, where any discrepancy between metric and English in all likelihood cannot be readily detected by human eyes. Even an article such as the chair in this discussion won't suffer dimensionally enough to be visible to most observers. Commonly available chairs, be they home furnishings or office/school/commercial furniture, come in a variety of seating heights and overall height, granted that seating heights fall within a rather narrow range for adult seating (unless the seat height is adjustable). Along the same lines, while machining tolerances in a car are quite standardized, some things, such as the outside diameter of tires, even the ride height of any vehicle truly is a bit approximate: The outside diameter of a tire is greatly affected by air pressure, and even the OEM tire may be of a slightly different overall diameter than replacement tires. Coil and leaf springs, even torsion bars, lose their ability to retain OEM ride height over time as well. Additionally, scale model tires don't have the ability to "squish" under the weight of a model car, so they can wind up looking over-inflated. With some cars out of the 50's (the era of highly sculptured styling began there), a number of trim items do not match the underlying sheet metal shapes onto which they are attached: For example, many '59 Chevy taillight bezels are as much as a quarter inch smaller around the outside than the corresponding sheet metal to which they are affixed, all around the bezel, but this is never reproduced in a model kit that I have ever seen. Chevrolet (and other GM marques as well) used poverty hubcaps that are fully 11.5 inches in diameter, in order to snap on over the stamped "nubs" in the wheel center discs, but model companies have tended to make these smaller in diameter, for easy parts fit, locating as they do in the center section over the lug nuts. Even bumpers often did not mount exactly to tolerance back then, so much depended on accurate forming of the brackets, even accurate attachment on the assembly line. Sheet metal stamping was actually rather inexact back then as well, in the days before CAD/CAM and robotic assembly of body shells. Ever looked at the joint between a front fender and the inner fender panels in the engine bay from those years of cars? Lots of shims were used when bolting on the outer sheet metal. Even body panels which were welded together were rather loose in tolerance as well, discrepancies of as much as a quarter inch were not at all uncommon. So, given the rather inaccurate assembly of real cars particularly in years gone by, and the wide variations in other common consumer items of years gone by (even today), perfect scale accuracy is almost impossible to achieve--but in the end, the model needs to "look right"--I call that giving the illusion of "real". Art