Longbox55

Stock cast iron manifolds would be a nice touch, as that's what they were delivered with. I beleive the chambered exhaust was standard on the ZL-1 and possibly the Z/28, and it was optional on others.

I don't think you can make a good '32 Chevy out of a '32 Ford

It is true, feul mileage will be reduced. It is also true that it can be corrosive to certain aluminum alloys. On the OEM level, as well as aftermarket parts made to run on it, there is a coating on any surfaces that may come into contact with it. Most of the horror stories out there about ethanol "ruining" feul systems from corrosion come from vehicles that sit, mainly collector vehicles and in some cases, lawn and powersports equipment. In some of those cases, it's marginal parts (rotted hoses, cheap Chinese import parts) that are effected, and ethanol is falsely blamed.

Nevermind that Nascar is using it now, and IRL has been using it for sevaral years. Properly tuned, big power can be made using ethanol.

I know this one! It's from the Revell Big Red Chevy California Pickup. It's more or less the same kit as the Billy Carter Redneck Power Truck, only molded in red instead of white. It also share almost all of its parts with the other Revell Chevrolet trucks fro that era, inclusing the Ice Patrol, Midnite Cowboy/Sneeky Pete, and the Hot Rod Custom Chevy Truck. Not the greatest kit, but it did have some neat parts in it.

Larrys car was the one I saw running in the rain. I didn't post the vid due to somewhat course language in it.

E-85 is available at many gas stations across the nation. Most manufacturers make flex feul vehicles that can run on it or regular gasoline, plus there's even a few that are built to run exlusively on E-85.

Now, this car might be able to claim a "worlds fastest "street" car" in the 1/4 mile, even though I have found at least 2 other cars as fast or faster with one showing proof of being street driven (in the RAIN no less). However, here is the REAL worlds fastest street legal car. [media=]

I looked at a different variant of that kit when doing the research. The '91 kit, which is a GTP model, does have the DOHC 3.4.

According to the GM Heritage Site, the 3.1 was the only V6 avaialbe in '92, with the 5.0 and 5.7 V8s as the only options. The 3.1 and the 3.8 are built on different engine blocks. The 3.1, which is a derivative of the earlier 2.8, is a 60 degree V block. The 3.8, which has its roots in the 1962 198 ci V6 from the Buick Special, which in turn has it's roots in the 1961 215 ci all aluminum V8 that was used in the Buick Special, as well as the Olds F85. This engine is a 90 degree block. There is a noticable width difference between these engines, with the 60 degree engine being roughly 4" narrower.

I've seen the base F body cars with the 3.4, though the 3.8 is far more common. In addition to the 2 kits Jeff mentions, the Monogram Fiero also has a 2.8 liter V6, but it is 1/24 scale as well as being the fwd configuation block, You could rework any of these to the rwd configuration, the main differences were the motor mount and oil filter locations on the block, and the intake ws also specific between the fwd and rwd variants. Not sure what to suggest for a correct bellhousing (manual) or automatic trans, as the 2.8/3.1/3.4 used a unique bellhousing pattern not shared with other GM engines. Also, the Revell Grand Prix has the dual overhead cam version of this engine, not used in any rwd application.

I've bought stuff from him in the past. The quality was pretty good on the peices i bought.

I find it amusing that there's all the whining about this release, especially all the "it doesn't match the picture" part and supposed "4x4 stance" it has (sits awfull low for a 4x4). Comparing it to the concept drawing, sure it doesn't match. But try this, look up the concept drawings for any vehicles, custom, hot rod, production, Hot Wheels, whatever. Then compare them to the final product. I'll guarantee you that they will not match 100%. Stance will be wrong, wheels won't match, etc. Concept drawing like that are almost always exagerations of what the final product will be. Foose, while a great artist and designer, is no exeption to this. Comparing this kit to the 1 picture shown of the actual car, other than the engine being wrong, it looks pretty close. Stance is similar, wheels look right. Granted, I'm sure there's plenty of subtle things that they did that are not in the kit.

Only 209?? I know of street legal cars (and at least 1 truck) that are faster, some of them are even production cars. Granted, those are not 1/4 mile speeds.

Shop forman/head mechanic at a local tire/brake/alignment shop. ASE certified Master Mechanic since '97, been at the same shop since '92.

That's ok, the real car doesn't look like the drawing either!

In the case of the Nova, the ENTIRE KIT was different!

I beleive that it should be considered a model, just a different medium.

I'll remember that next time I do one in red, as I do have a can of yellow primer in my paint stash.

White primer will make red "pop" much better than ruddy brown.

There was a variant of the 39/40 Sedan kit that had a different fender unit. It was part of the Diamond in the Rough set, which also included the AMT '53 F100 and the AMT Service Trailer. The 3 fenders on it were made to dented and had rusted out wheel openings. I beleive the remaining running board was bent as well. The other fender and running board were separate, and essentially in "new" condition.

Neat. Hopefully it won't rain. This reminds me of a car i saw a couple of weeks ago at the last big local car show. Not so much because of the car itself, but..... the cargo that it had with it. Yes, that is a REAL human skeleton in the casket.

I'll say one thing about this thread, it's kept me amused for the last 2 days! :lol: (no offence to those who really tried to give helpfull answers)

Most rwd vehicles with a dual master cylinder run a front/rear split, usually with the rear port feeding the front brakes and the front port feeding the rear (there are exeptions to this). The idea is that if you lose the brakes on one end, the other end will still be able to function, though at a much lower capacity. Even with the dual circuit system, if you lose a line/wheel cylinder, you will still lose the pedal feel and braking will generally not occur until the pedal is almost to the floor. While a dual MC will give some increase in safety, it will not make the brakes work any better than the oem single circuit MC. Power assist and FF edge code brake linings will go much further to improving brake performance if you don't swap to disk brakes at least on the front. Semi-off topic, there is another version of the dual circuit MC used mainly in FWD cars, the diaganol split system. On this style system, the brakes ar split with the LF and RR wheel on one circuit, and the RF and LR on the other. The idea there is that if you lose one line, you will still have braking on at least one front and one rear wheel for better control. Other that a specific bleeding procedure and a different method of fluid control, it acts the same as the F/R split system. On your hood idea, you may want to take a look at the mid-'80s Buick LeSabre/Park Avenue for the hinge mechanism. They have a forward tilting hood similar to what you're after. You might be able to adapt the hinge mechanism or at least use it as a pattern to amke one for your car. I have a freing that had a '51 Chevy truck with the hood setup like that, worked very well.