sjordan2

I gave up my 6-speed C4 Corvette about two years ago, and now I have an Infiniti, my first car in 35 years with an automatic transmission. But I can't break the habit of keeping my hand on the shift lever, and my left foot still gets itchy to do something And no, "Manual" mode doesn't do anything for me.

Very nice. Great color combo.

Hey Alastair! It's safe to come back now!

Well, I don't know if this is a convertible, but it certainly is an "open air" vehicle. Astonishing work.

I'm also looking forward to Doug's response. On the SS 100. Meanwhile, this is from an e-mail that Martin sent me about 4 years ago: "It occurred to me tonight that the SS100 suffers from much the same problem. They did have clearence between the top of the wheel and the wing (fender?) but not as much as the kit seems to have. If I remember rightly there was nothing too drastic about it - I think I just bent the springs gently till I got the stance I wanted. If you don't mind - a few tips on the SS100 (I hope I'm not trying to teach my Grandmother to suck eggs!!) Build the chassis inside the upturned body floorpan - I always do that because it means that when you have to fit it all out it will fit together and the chassis will be true. On that kit you will also find that the main body tub doesn't marry up too well around the rear wings (fenders again?). It will sit there nicely on dry fitting but that is dependent on doing the body from the plans. You won't want to have the firewall as a seperate piece (plans again!)- because you will find it better to blend it into the body and spray it that way - this means that it won't sit exactly where it is shown on the plans. You will find that by taking about 2mm off the two side supports on the chassis the firewall will the fit against those nicely and will pull the whole body back and it will fit at the rear. Eventually there is piping anyway all around so a little gap is not too worrying. The dashboard it wrong - but I'm sure you have seen that (I scratchbuilt another) The moulding of the scuttle is very inaccurate - when you have got rid of the mould lines etc and sanded it down you will find that the screen base will not fit! It is totally different. On my kit the 'hump' on the driver's side was totally different to the other side - you can't see this with the naked eye but it would look awful if the windscreen was fitted! That's why I scratchbuilt my screen (apart from the fact that I wanted it to fold) - I used multicore solder to get the base shape and built the screen up on that." PS: As you'll see from Martin's website, he made a number of modifications since he was building a replica of a client's 1:1 SS100; this included hand-laced wire wheels (tutorial at his site).

Martin Swire and I discussed the issue of the PII body riding too high on the chassis, and he said he had similar problems with the SS 100. Here's a thread from a few years ago about how he dealt with it, along with something of a build journal: http://cs.scaleautomag.com/scacs/forums/p/45399/501732.aspx#501732

One thing about this Phantom III kit is a unique modeling approach (as far as I can see) to door hinges; it's a combination of metal tabs and plastic parts, where the metal tabs fit into slots on the door posts. Might be instructive for creating hinges for other kits, but the assembly instructions are not easy to understand. One thing I haven't figured out is how to do proper-looking door hinges for my kit of your Jaguar SS 100. I'm surprised that the Jaguar kit and others like the 1/16 Entex/Minicraft Mercedes 540K have separate doors but no hinges – they're supposed to be glued in place. I am well aware of the many different tutorials on making hinges, but both of these kits need special approaches to look realistic, since the hinges are also external. The solution needs to include metal in key areas, since plastic hinges almost always break off.– and showing off your model to others means you're going to want to open things a few times, more than just letting it sit on the shelf.

These shots are of the only built version of this kit that I've ever seen, and not very well done. Looks like the builder was misled about the car color by trying to copy the picture on the box. The Revell box shows a build in black and yellow, which looks terrific.

Not real familiar with smaller scales or Packards, though Most Monogram classics and Hubley classic car metal kits are pretty nice. Here's the 1/16 Revell Phantom II with an excellent Buy It Now price of $25: http://cgi.ebay.com/Revell-1-16-1934-rolls-royce-phantom-2-model-vintage-/230503117760?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35ab0e73c0 1/24 Rolls Henley roadster for $36: http://cgi.ebay.com/1-24-MONOGRAM-1931-ROLLS-ROYCE-PHANTOM-II-CONV-NEW-/130408184093?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5ceef91d

There are several classic Rolls-Royce models in 1/24-1/25, such as the Henley roadster and Star of India, but in 1/16 you'll find two very good kits. The first is the 1934 Phantom II with Gurney-Nutting coachwork, the real car currently owned by Chuck Schwimmer's San Diego Collection (nice reference shots there). It's a Revell kit that is usually available on eBay and should never cost more than about $40-$50 (Beware of the "Museum" version, which has brass-plated parts instead of chrome). This build is by the late, great Martin Swire, with more pictures at http://www.freewebs.com/martsmodels/1934rollsroycepii.htm. His site also has many other 1/16 masterpieces. The other 1/16 is a 1937 Phantom III, originally issued by Gunze Sangyo and later by Revell and Anmark (there may be an Entex boxing as well). The actual car is on display at the Toyota Museum in Japan, and there is very little photo reference for it.

Just awesome.

So, the box says this is a C-Cup. With everything you're adding, looks like it'll end up as a D-Cup.

Are you trying to challenge me and J Sauber for the most avatars in a short period of time?

Interesting question about accuracy; I looked at Google images over a few pages and couldn't find a single picture of a Duster with an open or removed rear quarter window. It's always closed.

There are other ways of trying to help without sounding critical (although it's hard to hide implied criticism). On another forum, there is a thread on a finished build that was receiving lots of kudos from the members; as far as I could see, very little work was put into the build and I'm not even sure it was painted. There was a humongous seam that ran across the top of the front fender and into the middle of the headlight surrounds, and the whole thing was less than impressive. I simply asked a question without posing a criticism: "Was the kit molded that way with the seam, or is it two body parts put together?" – not an idle question, since I've been interested in building this kit. The builder replied that it was a one-piece body and he had forgotten to address that in his prep work. Maybe he'll think about things like that on his next build and be prouder of his work. (I think this is the Socratic method, where people learn by answering questions for themselves.) Further, when I see metallic paint with godawful metallic flake, I sometimes ask what the paint is so I don't wast my money on it. Anyway, on the subject at hand, I think anyone who posts a build on this forum implicitly is saying, "What do you think?" and not "See what I did, Mommy?" But, like Bob, when I see things I don't like I generally move on without comment.

Beautiful work. To me, your headlights seem more realistic than most I see. Do you do anything special with them, or are they that good in the kits?

Looks like you need to make your advisory about not giving away the answer a permanent part of this set-up.

I hate to display my ignorance about not knowing the meaning of ifs and irs, but you may be thinking about TDR Innovations: http://www.tdrcatalog.com

Here is a very sleek, updated '57 T-Bird, with a very well-written description about the approach... http://customrodder.automotive.com/12703/0603cr-1957-ford-t-bird/index.html

Whale392 has some excellent suggestions, some of which seem to echo what's going on with the Ferrari Boano. But I think the question is, what particular look are you going for? The way it could have been done in 1957, or a modern custom?

A couple of shots of interest.. 1. A 1954 T-Bird concept by John Samsen 2. A 1956 Ferrari 250 GT by Boano, mostly notable for the weird tailfins. I think yours is going to look better, but there are some interesting details here.

Having driven quite a few Corvettes over the years, I can tell you that any Corvette made before 1992 had horrible road manners, with ridiculous body roll, loosey-goosey steering compared to European cars, bad brakes and the only saving grace being brute power. My 1993 C4 was a different animal and quite a revelation, and made me feel very smug knowing that I had a killer performance sports car for a fraction of the price of a Porsche or Ferrari, if not the finish and finesse. I felt guilty getting it at first, and knew I'd be drummed out of the cool corps of European sports car owners after my Porsche and Alfas, but I loved it. And this was the kind of car where owners would wave at each other when passing, like the old days of British sports cars. We were a fraternity and knew something others didn't. On the other hand, back in the 70s I had frequent occasion to drive a pair of Ferrari 330 GT 2+2 V-12s, which were incredibly precise and were nicely made, but these were big, heavy cars and I could, no kidding, watch the gas gauge go down when I punched it on the Ventura Freeway. I used to spend my weekends then helping my godfather, the owner, retune the Webers and make other adjustments, as was necessary on a regular basis. For details on the Ferrari ownership experience, I recommend Michael Sheehan's website, http://ferraris-online.com/ My point is that my 4-cylinder Alfa Veloces handled much better and were more fun to drive than the Ferraris, the Porsche was even better and the C4 blew them all away.

I don't have to be the one to tell you, but just take a look at the normal costs of Ferrari ownership and maintenance...

Having owned a C4 for 11 years until 2008, I found that there are certain areas where the Corvette increasingly shares similarities with the Euro superstars: scarcity and cost of parts. 6 weeks of having to scour the country for the mounting hardware to replace the front clip (no longer available from GM and which I found myself, no thanks to the dealer); the car is illegal to drive here without the front clip. And 8 weeks to replace the rear hatchback glass (the only available replacements were for earlier models with the top-mounted brake light which had been discontinued for my car – and my car could not be wired to make the brake light operable (finally dug one up at a salvage place in Phoenix). These were insurance jobs, and my insurance company prefers going through an authorized dealer. The dealer is required to use new, "Genuine GM Parts," which are either nonexistent or very hard to find. All very odd for a car that had the same basic body style, etc., for 12 years.

You can say that again.