Longbox55

The 3 point hitch was the Ferguson System. On the 9 and 2 N tractors, there was a badge under the Ford badge stating that it was equipped with the Ferguson System. The badge was chevron shaped. Not all N series tractors had the 3 pint hitch on them, though. Most of those were tractors used for non-agricultural use, mainly industrila and construction. One of the more well known was the BNO 20 and BNO 40 Aircraft Tug. Versons without the 3 point did not have the Ferguson badge. Also, 8N tractors did not have the badge. Up to late '47, Ferguson did own the rights and sales distribution for the factory implements, which was big part of the split and later, the lawsuit. Something that should be noted, the N seris Fords were not the first tractor to have what became the 3 point Ferguson System. David Brown was the first porduction tractor, plus Ferguson did make some conversions for the earlier Dagenham built Fordsons. Also, before the official split, Ferguson had actually started production of his own Ferguson tractors (the TE20) in England, essentialy in direct competition with Ford. It's common misconception that those tractors were built with Fords blessing, that is not the case. It was also another part that caused the split.

The 3 point hitch and the hydraulic system were the only parts that were designed by Ferguson. The rest was done in house by Ford. The tractor pictured is a Ferguson, most likely a TO20.

I've seen those. They'e made by several companies, I know Iwata and Paasche both have them. Another option would be an inline dessicant dryer, which can put on the hose inlet. They're similar to the canister style trap, but use a dessicant to remove the misture. Lowe's and Menards have them, they run about $10 for a pair of them.

Donn brings up another good point, a moisture trap. Regardless of what type of compressor you use, a moisture trap is a must when painting. I have 2 traps in my setup, an industrial trap that is directly off the compressor itself, then a second trap located at my painting area where I hookup to my airbrush. For the ultimate setup, a coelescing filter is best. They combine a moisture trap, filter, plus a dessicant dryer in one unit to remove any moisture, dirt, and oil from the airstream. Tractor Supply has a Campbell-Hausfeild unit that's not too bad on price, about $100.

I prefer a compresor with a tank. A tankless comprssor runs 100% duty cycle, which leads to high wear and short life. With a tank, the compresor only runs when the tank presure gets below a certain point, and shuts off at a preset max pressure. Thsi makes the compressor much more efficient in addition to lowered wear. I will also note that I prefer oiled type over oilless for similar reasons. right now, I'm using a 22 gallon 2 hp Sanborn that about 30 years old, and other than cleaning the filter, draining moisture from the tank, and changing the oil in the pump, it;s held up just fine. It is a bit noisy when it's running, but it only takes maybe 10-15 minute to pump up, and holds enough air to do 2 coats on a body before kicking back on. I have moved from the basement of the house to the garage, since I now build there, and I do use the compressore for automotive repairs in addition to hobby work. I do have it set up to run on 220 instead of 110.

I do the same.

Exellent description of alignment angles, Terry. I've been in the alignment and front end business myself for 20 years. I will agree with Art on the vehicles he listed as having noticable positive camber, and even add one to the list; the '88-'98 GM 4x4 full size trucks, especially if they're lifted any. The camber is very noticable, even though it's on .2-.5 degrees.

That's correct, no automatics with the Revell big blocks.

Here's the specs for the base model '50 3104 pickup; GVW is 4600 pounds. That's the Gross Vehicle Weight, the combination of the truck itself with a full load. The Empty Wieght of the 3104 is 3175 pounds. That includes a full feul tank and all fluids. That leaves you 1425 pounds of load capacity (including driver/passengers). Considering that the kit is tooled with RP 267 Auxilliary rear Springs (overloads), that bumps the GVW to about 5000 pounds, or 1825 pounds of load capacity.

The Texaco kit is a 3100 (3104 to be exact) which is a 116" wheelbase 1/2 ton. 3600 would be a 125.25" wheelbase 3/4 ton, 3800 is the 137" wheelbase 1 ton.

Thanks for the correction. I know it was one of the AMT kits tooled in the las 15 years or so. Could have sworn it wasd the Impala. I will admit, I do not have either kit in my stash.

You have to keep in mind, those trucks were built far heavier than todays trucks are. I would say that a 1/2 ton from the '50s is easily equivalent to a light duty 3/4 ton modern truck, maybe even a bit heavier duty. Those trucks were meant to be used as TRUCKS, not an overglorified passenger car with really big open trunk. I've loaded 1000 pounds in the back of my '55 3200, didn't even squat the springs.

Since the smallblock Chevy is pretty much the same on the outside regardless of displacement, any 1/25 scale smallblock will work. The 305 from the recently reissued MPC '80 Monte Carlo will fit the bill nicely, and has a decent TH350 trans. The AMT '72 Chevy truck also has a smallblock engine with an automatic, a TH400 if memory serves. Same goes for Passenger big block Chevies, externally, they're identical. I beleive the AMT '67 Impala did have a big block with TH400 trans.

4 or 5 sandbags wouldn't even come near to overloading one of those trucks, won't even squat the springs a noticable amount. You could asily get away with more if you wanted to. I hauled about 1000 pounds od scrap iron to the local recycler in the back of my '55 3200 (only slightly higher load capaicty than the '50), couldn't even tell it was in there. As far as how to load them, depends on what look you're after. Just thrown in would be fine, like perhaps the driver was in rush to get going and didn't worry about it. Or if you're looking for more af a "weight in the bed for winter traction" look, stack them neat across the floor either over the rear axle or near the tailgate. Near te talgate would work well for a "bringing home sand form the hardware store" look.

I don't beleive it does, or at least not in Testors. Clearcoating will be the best bet.

Model master Insignia Red is a flat finish paint. There should be an FS number on the jar, FS31136. The first 3 in the code signifies it as a flat finish. 1 would have been a gloss, 2 is semi-gloss.

It gets worse. They built 2 of them. There's the red one, plus they built a duplicate car in gold. Paint schemes are the same, other than the colors used. They did 2 of them for a plot point in the movie. After the car was "built" in the story line, it gets "stolen" (plot spoiler, the shop teacher sold it to make a quick buck). The guy that bought it "repainted" it gold.

I'm looking forward to this kit as well. Having followed the buildup of the Rat Roaster from start to finish, plus having some inside information about the build that wasn't aired (like how the exhaust is actually routed), I plan on getting one to build as the car actually is. I'm also planning to get at least 1 more to build with some of the suggestions i made on the Gearz site before the color and engine were officially announced (for those who saw the engine reveal episode, I was the nutcase that suggested a Pontiac! )

Yes, the parts are the same. I'll try to get some pix up, don't have one of the Blazer/Jimmy kits handy at this time.

Snap-On offered those a few years ago, I beleive they were made by Crown Premiums. My dealer had one on the truck, almost bought it myself.

True. But you'll never see one with the "standard" manual transmission, unless it's a special order. 99.999% of Buick buyers want automatics. Dealers won't stock manuals either, better margins if it's equipped with the pricier "opional" automatic.

I have the opposite problem, Testors works perfectly for me, unless I try to print black, but BMF paper won't work at all exept for the first 1 1/2" of the sheet that goes through the printer. Seems the printing will not stick to the sheet. I've never tried Micromark.

Manual transmission would alienate the target Buick buyer. Most Buick customers want automatics, and cushy seats, power everyting, etc. Even the few Cadillacs with a manual option tend to be seen more often in automatic form. since Chevrolet is the performance division, it makes the most sense to have the manual trans option in that brand. Even then, most of them will get built with automatics.

Well, maybe I exaggerated the length a bit. It is definetly not smaller than the Charger or Taurus, especially not in the rear door area, which is where the extra length is added.

Coils were used from '60-'72, rear only on the '60-'62, all 4 corners '63-'72 on Chevrolet, GMC had leaf springs on the rear. 4x4 models used leaf springs all around. While there are plenty of differences between the '63-'66 and the '67-'72 frames, the suspension systems on the 2wd are suprisingly similar. Most parts are a direct interchange, including the front suspension main crossmember. There are differences in how the steering box mounts (the '63-'66 mounts the box in "recess" in the frame), the center link is different, and the Panhard rod for the rear alxe mounts different. There are further changes when you get to the '71/'72, the steering knuckles, tie rods, and ball joints are different due to the disk brakes (they can be swapped into the earlier trucks as a cheap way to get disk brakes, though) The basic front suspension is the same all they way up to '87 ('91 on Suburban).