Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Force

  1. I think it looks nice even tho' it's not an exact replica due to the hood length.

    Yes the Revell AG kit has the 74 inch long hood but the AMT kit wich has the shorter 63 inch hood wouldn't have been right either as it has the older pre 1972 cab with wrong door handles and larger ventilation windows, the bumper and battery box would also be wrong.
    The Revell snap W900 Aerodyne has the 1972 forward cab, shorter 63 inch hood, right bumper and battery boxes but wrong sleeper wich is also molded with the cab.
    So the thing you could have done was to use the shorter hood from either the AMT or Revell Snap kit or cut down the Revell AG hood to the right length, the difference is 11 inches at the centerline of the hood so you have to remove 11 scale inches, and move the cab slightly forward on the chassis to meet up with the hood...pretty much the same thing you have to do to do the Movin' On truck.

  2. I'm also qurious why anyone hasn't done a correct dash for the K100 Aerodyne kits, the K100 Aerodyne cab itself came 1976 with the Bicentennial Edition and AMT kit of the K100 Aerodyne have been on the market since the late 70's and the Revell Germany K100 Aerodyne kit since the early 80's and neither kit has a correct dash, I mean, it has been over 40 years and still nothing.
    With today's technology it wouldn't be that hard to 3D print a master an cast them up in resin or something...if I could operate a CAD program myself it would for sure have been done allready together with some other parts I would like to have done.

  3. Yes it has it's drawbacks but they are at least not spread all over the countryside high up like the wind turbines are, you see these ugly wind mills everywhere and from a long distance...not a view I like to see.
    Hydro electric plants are fine, at least the ones allready built, but I don't want them to destroy any more rapids and rivers to build more of them.
    I don't agree with the hydrogen being a widespread hazard because it isn't if you use it right, and there are lots of vehicles using it allready.
    We have some hydrogen fuel cell vehicles here used by the state operated road maintenence company and they make their own hydrogen on site in a container size plant and their vehicles run every day the whole day and only needs to fill up every 450-500 km's wich takes only a few minutes and they are ready to run again.
    One thing with hydrogen people haven't thought about is that a hydrogen plant can convert salt sea water to fresh drinking water, you make hydrogen with salt sea water, combine the hydrogen with the oxygen from the air in a fuel cell and you get fresh water as a biproduct from the process as the exhaust is water vapor and you just have to condence it.

  4. The wind and solar power pants are so inefficiant and unreliable to be economiclally defensibile, has short lifespan (about 20-25 years before the wind turbines have to be replaced with all new ones) and will never make up for the CO2 emmissions from the building of them and the infrastructure for them under their lifetime...and they "pollute" the environment because they are ugly and bad for the insect and bird life.
    To replace nuclear power plants with wind turbines you need hundreds of them just to replace one reactor, and most nuclear power plants have several reactors.

  5. Yes you are right, we have to make changes to what we drive, but the infrastructure for charging battery powered electric cars are more extensive, expensive and takes a lot more time than for most other alternatives.
    More power plants has to be built as the need for more electricity increaces, upgrades most of the power grids and build new ones are needed as there aren't enough capacity today, building charge stations everywhere to be able to charge the cars, and things like that.
    And where does the electricity you charge your car with come from, if it's coal, oil or any other fossil burning power plants where are the environmental gains then.
    Why wount internal combustion engine road going vehicles be manufactured if they can be running on fossil free bio fuel with very little or no CO2 emmissions, that type of fuels are available today and can be used but these cars are taxed to death like everything else except battery powered electric cars, so there are a lot of obstacles put up by politicians you have to overcome to be able to make progress.

  6. Everyone thinks of the Hindenburg catastrophy when you talk about Hydrogen and yes it is very flammable and tends to explode...but that goes for gasoline too when the gasoline vapor is mixed in perfect proportion with Oxygen so gasoline is not so safe as many thinks, it's easier to handle but it's not safe by any means.
    So I think Hydrogen is the future volatile or not, it's the most common element in the universe but here on Earth it's tied up in our water, and even Jules Verne said "water will be the coal of the future" back in 1874 and I believe the man was right, and if you give it time there must be safe ways developed to handle and store the gas even for the common man and research is done as we speak as there are more of us who have the same thoughts.
    I see the Hydrogen as a "battery in gas form" and it can be produced in advance when the electricity is cheap and with environmently safe energy like hydro electric, wind or solar power if you want to, the water itself we have unlimited source of and you can use fresh or salt water to produce the gas, and it will return back to water when it's used, a renewable source of energy that can be used over and over and we will not ever run out of it as long as we have water on our planet.
    It's more convenient to renew as it will be like fueling up your car today so after a few minutes of filling up you can continue to drive as far as you did before, that will not happen with any charge battery car ever regardless of wich type of batteries you use because it takes time to charge them.
    As for the battery powered electric cars we see today, the car manufacturers makes what's in demand and right now as most politicians focus almost exclusively on electric cars on batteries that's what they produce because they are in the business of selling cars, if the customers ask for something else they will develop and produce that as they will continue to stay in business.
    Yes we see many Teslas and other charge battery electric cars now but I think the limitations and inconveniences of the system with batteries you have to charge and all that comes with that will be replaced with something else more convenient and easier to use very soon, because the cost of building up all the infrastructure needed if everyone changes over the battery powered electric cars will be huge and it will for sure take time, a lot of time.

  7. 8 hours ago, PowerPlant said:

    Or you could just buy an internal combustion hypercar for much less money 😉 I understand your point, and this company could have well made fantastic internal combustion cars, but they opted for electricity because, whether we like it or not, that is the future... and it is happening fast. Within 10 years no more petrol cars will be made or sold, and in 20 years we will only be able to register and drive them as heritage. I guess engine sounds can always be recorded and generated through the sound system as in the electric Mercedes AMG GT 😝

    Wishful thinking by the environment fanatics, internal combustion engines will not die any time soon and will most likely be around for many years yet and there are alternatives to Gasoline/Petrol and Diesel wich are more environmentally friendly, the thing is that mostly all politicians seems to focus on electric vehicles right now as if that would be the final solution to the problem.
    But no, there are too much limitations and inconveniences with electric vehicles running on batteries only for them to be a good replacement for the vehicles we use today and the list is long, and I only see them as a transition to something much better and more convenient alternatives.
    I don't think the car buyers are willing to sacrifice the time it takes to recharge their vehicles when they are on a longer trip, it takes about an hour to charge the battery pack to full capacity with a quick charge station and what would you do in that time waiting for it to charge...and that is if a charge station is available and not used by other vehicles so you might have to wait another hour or two before it's your turn to charge your car...I mean, you can't eat or drink coffee every time.
    We will use a lot more electricity than we do now so we need more powerplants to be built and the power grids are not dimentioned for the increased load and demand and have to be upgraded and new ones built, lots and lots of charge stations needs to be built both at our homes, at work and everywhere around all the roads we use, and that takes time and costs money the consumer for sure have to pay for...who else, and what do you think will happen with the electricity price.
    And most important, we must replace all cars, busses, trucks, locomotives, ships, aeroplanes yes everything we use today that runs on gasoline, diesel and oil and replacements has to be developed before this utopia will happen, this to a huge cost and it will not do happen any time soon as I see it.
    So there are better more suitable and convenient alternatives like hybrids, bio diesel, bio gas, hydrogen with fuel cells (you can even run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and the exhaust is only water vapor), and other fossil free fuel sources that are easier to renew than to have to charge battery packs all the time.
    Another thing with battery powered electric vehicles mostly everyone forgets is that the materials needed to make the batteries for these vehicles are limited sources and will end sooner or later, they don't know what to do with the batteries and how to take care of them when they are used and so on...so there are lots of problems still to solve before anything like this will happen, and that takes a lot more time and costs a lot more money than the politicians and environment fanatics think.
    Finally, where do the environment fanatics think the oil will go if we with don't buy it, the oil producers will for sure not stop pumping and selling oil, so it will end up going to China, India and under developed countries where they don't have pollution controls or very limited ones, and we will not get any environmental gaines at all if we in the industrial countries stop using oil, so it's better we burn it in our good emmission controlled cars wich are quite effective than to give it to them.

    For the record, electric cars are fast and powerful and runs very well so it's not that, but a supercar without an internal combustion engine is no supercar in my mind even how fast and quick it is, you need the sound and smell too otherwise something is missing, and there's no substitute for it.
    I like motorsports and racing and have tried to watch races with electric cars...but no, it's like watching a slot car race and something important is missing so it's not for me.

  8. 20 hours ago, Codi said:

    Hi everyone......a bit of an update.  I took a detour on the build and bought 2 (an AMT & an MPC) Mustang 2 model kits as a possible replacement for the Maverick body.  That followed a ton more digging and research on what chassis I wanted to do.  Don Hardy is the one I want to get closest to.  Anyways, the Mustang kits came with warped bodies that I thought I could remedy.  Researched our forum and followed the advice of others that had success. For me, not so much.  So I'm sticking with the Maverick but the specific year I'm looking at is 1974.  More on why later.

    Wheels, I have a beautiful set of aluminum Fentons that are drilled etc. and ready to go.........except I've become enamored with the Motorwheel "Fly" wheels. The wheel was discontinued in 74' when they got out of the business.  The real fronts were magnesium but the rear Fly's were aluminum only.  They did make the well known Spyder wheel and it was available in mag.  I researched some pics and websites and drew them up so I could machine them.  I'll do an entire set of 4 but I'm sharing the fronts which are done (except for the bearing caps, lug nuts & air valves)  The rears I hope to complete in the next several days.  To my eye they are just that little bit more contemporary for the car as I originally envisioned it.  I'll post pics when all 4 are done soon and do a mock-up with the body for reference.  The pics you see today have the Fenton rear mags in them but the Fly is on the front.    Cheers, Tim

    DSC 0179

    DSC 0185

    DSC 0197

    DSC 0199

    Looking good.

    Motorwheel also had a wheel called "Flea" so they had Spyder, Fly and Flea.

  9. 6 hours ago, Muncie said:

    I don't think anybody has mentioned this - the early 221 and 260 engine had a five bolt bellhousing, later engines had six.  Probably not a big deal in our world where that area is hardly visible but it can be a big deal in full size when trying to bolt the bellhousing to the block..  Early blocks are difficult to find.

    The early 289's also had the five bolt pattern and they changed for the 1965 model year to the six bolt.
    I used to own a 1964 Fairlane with a 289 and C4 and it was a five bolt block.
    The early 221, 260 and 289 blocks are not that sught after as there are not much to choose from when it comes to transmissions for them, so most upgrade to a later engine with six bolt pattern if you don't restore to factory original.

  10. On 5/31/2021 at 3:15 PM, Jim B said:

    It's this another case of Revell putting a 379 on the box, but a 359 in the box?

    A classic case of taking a shortcut.
    It's not a bad kit, it has lots of parts and the wrecker parts are very nice, but you can't do a correct replica of the Stepp's Can-Do wrecker with what's in the box.

  11. The same Cummins 475 engine is in all of the Revell Germany Peterbilt 353/359, Kenworth K100 and T600 kits, and the very wrong Marmon kit.
    The original Stepp's Can-Do wrecker the kit is based on is a short hood 379 119 bbc and had a Cat 3406 enigne and the model is a 359 127 bbc with the Cummins 475, but the rest is correct for the first version of the Can-Do as the truck has been re-done since the model kit was made.
    Some say the original Can-Do truck is a 378 and not a 379, but according to the Peterbilt guru Tim Ahlborn's site the 378-119 has a one piece fiberglass hood and the 379-119 has an aluminum hood riveted together and you can see a parting line with rivets near the top of the hood on the 379 wich the 378 don't have, this aluminum hood is on the real Can-Do as you can clearly see the the parting line and rivets on some of the pictures of it.

  12. Most Chevy small block generation 1 engines all are based on the same design and looks basically the same externally, you can't tell them apart just by looking at them...especially in model form.
    If you use a 283, 327 or 350 doesn't matter if you have the correct attributes like air cleaner, valve covers and other stuff so you can call it whatever you like.
    Of course there are differences but most of them are internal and not visible from the outside and the most noticable are the cartrige oil filter and front engine mounts used on early small blocks vs the spin on filter and side engine mounts on the later ones, the valve cover bolts also has different spacing on early and late small blocks.

  13. On 5/23/2021 at 10:31 PM, jas1957 said:

    The 221,260,289,302 & 351 W were all externally the same basic engine.  Different bores & stroke to give the different displacement. 

    The 221-302 are but not the 351W, it's closely related and the 351W has the same 4.00 inch bore as the 289 and 302, but the 351W has longer stroke at 3.50 inches and the deck hight is 1.30 inches taller for that to work, so the 351W is both taller and wider than the others, there are also other differences but that's the most noticable externally.

  14. This is not just a problem for the AMT kit, I don't like the later Revell metal wheel attachment pins either, the front suspensions on these later kits are designed very simplified and bulky (like 3 parts total) just for this pin system to work because if it was like before the metal pins it wouldn't be enough material and it would break when you try to push the pins in.
    I like the snap on system they used before this metal pin system better where the front suspensions was nicer crispier castings with more parts (5-8 parts ) and looked more true to the real cars, and as I don't like my models to roll because they are static models and not toys I usually file up the hole in the wheel back so the wheel fit snuggly without any pressure and glue them in place.

  • Create New...