Aaronw

Not a table saw, more like a mini radial arm saw but possibly a useful alternative. At $149 it is more affordable than the higher quality mini-table saws, and is likely much better quality than the cheap mini-table saws. Dremel saw station

Very light sanding inside the collet slots may help too by removing any tiny burrs left over from the manufacturing process. Those burrs can prevent the collet from fully closing or closing equally when holding the smallest drill bits.

This bill is a good thing, but the article grossly overstates the difficulty of owning a "classic" car in California. The current laws only require that the factory smog equipment works. Where the real issue lays is in modifying cars, so this will help there. A '55 Chevy is essentially smog exempt, so not difficult to modify but trying to add power to a 1985 Camaro can be more challenging since it still has to pass smog. The idea that it is difficult to keep your pristine factory stock 1986 Buick Regal on the road is pretty silly. I say this as the owner of a 1985 Volvo 240. I have had zero issues keeping that car legal. Now if I wanted to stuff an LT1 under the hood, there are some hoops to go through but it can be done. This bill should help in the second case.

I passed over one of the more glaring errors in the kit. The air intakes behind the door are just flat. I'm sure this was to make the molding process easier, but this is a fairly visible detail. The easiest fix is just adding a little bit of styrene strip to build it up. Opening up the intakes and building out the detail would certainly look even better, but a lot more effort.

Something about babies and bathwater. Most wikis have an editing process where other contributors can correct errors. It isn't hard. Not sure the process at Scalemates as model kit history is not something I can claim expertise in I simply use it as a resource. I have contributed to other wikis that are more in my areas of knowledge, mainly firefighting, and fire apparatus. Errors occur even in the best run organizations. The whole point of wikis is collecting information that no commercial entity will bother with. They rely on people being willing to take the time to share their knowledge. Sometimes the information people pass on is incorrect. I wouldn't understand that. I've only been wrong once, but it turns out I was wrong about being wrong so... 🤪 If people hoard all of their knowledge then it dies with them. Wikis are a good way to help ensure knowledge remains available.

The SD engine continued to be offered through 1981, so as a late 70s truck, removing the cog and lightning bolt on the front of the truck, would actually make the kit pretty accurate as a C-900 since the seats are no longer an issue with that engine (as of at least 1977).

Another option, that may not be wrong for the truck in the photo, would be using the 385 engine out of the Revell F250/350. In 1979 Ford replaced the FT engines with the 385, the 370 as standard and the 429 was optional in the C800. As a heavier truck this engine may be more correct for a larger truck. The truck in the photo does not have the "hood ornament" between the headlights. Unless it was removed for painting the business name across the front that would make it a 1976-83 truck. This would also address the seat issue as Ford starts to show the individual seats as standard in the diesels and an option in the others by the 1977 brochure I have.

On the seats issue. I got my CDL in a 1970 Ford C8000 fire engine, that had bench seats. Bench seats are not listed as an option for diesels in either the 1966 or 1973 brochure I have.

I think probably? I'm not that big on engines, but pretty sure the FE (FT for trucks) all used the same block from 330 to 391. I know the 1960 Ford Starliner is supposed to have a good FE engine you can use.

As far as kit parts, not really sure on the box truck. I think the box truck was first offered as a Louisville so the rear axle and springs are probably accurate for an 800? The brochure just gives weight ratings for rear springs, not any detail on the number or thickness of leaves in a pack. Info based on a 1973 brochure. Funny thing with the C-series the base C-600 had a GVW of 23,000lbs, but optional springs and axles could increase the GVW to 32,000lbs. More than a base C-800 (27,500lbs) and getting close to a base C-900 (36,000lbs). The cast spoke wheels were optional on the C600 and standard on the larger trucks. Disc wheels were standard on the C-600 and optional on the larger trucks. 9x20 tires were an option on the C600 and standard on the C-800 and C-900. 11x20 were optional on the C-800 and 12x20 was an option for the C-900. Tire sizes do vary some year to year, 11x20 was the largest tire size offered in 1966. Engines the 300 I-6 was only available in the C-600, along with the 330 and 361 V8. The 361 and 391 V8s were the engine choices for the C800, with the 401, 477 and 534 super duty being available in the C900. Individual black vinyl seats were standard in the diesel models, C6000, C7000 and C8000. The standard seat was a grey vinyl split bench seat, C900 added black trim which was optional on the others. The custom cab option included "breathable knitted vinyl" seats with grey vinyl bolsters and a fold down drivers arm rest. The C-900 offered a black vinyl bench seat as an option with the custom cab. The custom cab also included a variety of chrome accents including a "custom cab" badge. The engine from the Louisville would be the correct engine for a diesel C-series. People often call the engine a Cat 3208, but it is really the earlier Caterpillar 1100 series which Ford called the V150-V225. The differences are in displacement, externally the engines are essentially identical. The later Cat 3208 is just an evolution of the 1100 series engine. You have to be a pretty series engine nerd to spot the differences on a model truck (something to do with the fuel injection system. For some reason Ford didn't offer a C-9000 until the late 80s and it just used the 3208. On the 00 vs 000 diesel thing, I've noticed that at some point Ford stopped changing the badge on the trucks. I've seen lots of diesel powered trucks that show C-8000 in their documentation, but the truck is just badged as a regular C-800. I'm guessing early on when diesel was kind of the hot new thing, they went that extra mile to create a new badge. Once the new shiny wore off they saved a few pennies and slapped the same badge on all the trucks whether a gas or diesel. Going over this right now the engine is really the big sticking point. Ford allowed the buyer to option the heck out of the truck, so a lot of the errors can be explained away as options. The seats are only incorrect because of the included engine, and I'd hesitate to say you "couldn't" get these seats in a non diesel, just because they aren't listed. The auto makers used to be a lot more flexible in meeting customer wishes as long as they paid. Anyway swap the diesel engine from the Ford Louisville and I'd say it is a pretty decent representation of a 1971-74 C6000-8000.

I think hot mess is a bit harsh, the C-series was offered 30+ years, in a range of GVWs from 15,000 to 51,000lbs. The kit combines features liberally across the range, but it most accurately represents a 1971-75 C900. I have no idea where the C800 tag came from since as far as I am aware has only been offered as a C-900 tractor and a C-600 stake or box truck. I have a bunch of C-series brochures from throughout its production run. If you know what you are looking to build year, weight etc I can check against them to let you know what was offered.

Peter Cushing was also a wargamer

It is kind of confusing, but has to do with where the measurements are taken. A wheel for a 10-20 tube tire and a wheel for an 11-22.5 tubeless tire are considered to be the same size when people want to swap to a modern wheel. Tube tire rims are basically flat across the center, while tubeless have sort of a funky V shape. Where the tire actually meets the rim is larger on a tubeless, but the clearance in the wheel center and overall diameter of tire are close enough not to matter. I guess the measurement is at the point where the tire seats against the wheel, not the exposed rim. This issue comes up frequently on vintage truck sites when people are looking to replace the antiquated tube wheels with tubeless rims.

The way measurements are taken on a rim for tube tires is different than tubeless. 22.5" is a tubeless size, 20" is tube style but they are essentially the same size. The main difference will be rim style, tubeless use a single piece wheel, tube tires a multi-piece wheel. Tubeless tires / rims were available for semis by the 1950s, but tube tires remained popular well into the 70s. Anytime between the mid 1950s and the 1980s either would have been an option. Based on the real world growing up in the 70s and early 80s my parents would often stop at trucks stops when we went camping to buy a couple of used truck tubes to float around in lakes and rivers. Pretty much any truck stop had them available. By the time I graduated high school in the mid 80s, it was much harder to find them. On the tubeless side I have a 1958 Dodge W500 (2 ton truck) fire engine with original 22.5" tubeless wheels. Not sure what is in the kits, 20" would have probably been more common in the 60s and 70s, but either would be correct until the late 1980s when a 20" tube wheel would have been an unusual choice. They still make 20" tube tires / wheels for special applications.

Yes the original Unimat is what I was talking about. Most that people encounter are just a lathe or a lathe / mill / drill, but early on they offered parts to make it a little table saw, sander, jig saw. Those accessories are now very expensive when you can find them. The Unimat 1 is a completely different machine, much cheaper. Amazon and Ebay is full of Unimat 1 knock offs, 4 in 1 , 6 in 1 toyish machines, probably much closer to the Mattel than the old Unimat. I bought one of the knockoffs a couple years ago just out of curiosity when I found one for about $80. Not great, and pretty awful as a metal lathe, but as a little drill, sander or scroll saw it would probably make somebody happy. Of course a Dremel drill press will be a much better drill, a Harbor Frieght 1x30" / 5" combo sander a better sander, and a cheap 16" scroll saw will again be far more capable, but that is a lot more money and bench space.