Aaronw

I kind if thought it had to do with cooling. Cars today have a lot more power that cars or 10 or 20 years ago, that extra power creates heat. Due to aerodynamic improvements there is less air sneaking in outside of the grill opening. You are seeing the same thing on big trucks since 2007. EPA requirements on diesels are making them run hotter, with a resulting need for bigger radiators, which in turn require a bigger grill. Looks like a prototype for the next Batmobile.

Sorry I meant 4 and 6 cylinders have been offered every year, but not always both. Camaros have mostly been 6s, but they did have a 4 available in the 3rd gen cars. Mustang has a fairly extensive history of offering a 4 cyl as it was available for 20 years in the 2nd and 3rd gen cars including performance versions with 4 cyl turbo models. What some people seem to forget is the majority of these cars sold are base models, with less impressive engines not the high performance GT and SS models. A non V-8 Camaro or Mustang is nothing new.

It's not like 4 and 6 cylinder engines are a new thing in these cars, the base models have come with a 4 or 6 cylinder from the beginning. The 80s Mustangs with turbo 4s are not exactly wimpy, the SVO was the fastest Mustang available in the mid 80s.

Ok so fictional. Still kind of neat, I bet I could find something to do with it.

I've always assumed the black top warrior kits were in response to Mad Max and The Road Warrior and the slew of post apocalyptic movies that followed. http://www.madmaxmodels.com/blacktopwarriors.html I didn't realize they didn't issue those until 2001, 20 years is a bit of a lag time even for a model company.

What is the silver firefighting rig?

Is a full kit required to go from the LRE to a '93 or would a conversion (grill, hood etc) be enough to do the job? I know there were some changes to the body style over the years but thought they were all pretty minor.

I noticed those too, my wallet is not happy. Is that the 3rd generation Celica? If so I've never been a fan of that body style, but it looks good as a rally car.

Stealing the engine from a period Chevy should do it for anyone wanting to add full detail under the hood. Toyota based their first engine on the GM "Stovebolt" I-6. They continued to use this engine in various evolved forms until 1993 when the 3F was dropped from the Land Cruiser. The F engine in my '69 Land Cruiser is nearly identical to the engine in my '52 GMC, the major visible differences being more modern fuel, oil and air filters in the Toyota. That and the need for metric wrenches on the Toyota, SAE on the GMC. There are photos of the Type A engine used in this car, so shouldn't be too hard for someone to fabricate the proper aircleaner and such (well not too hard in comparison to adding all the under hood bits anyway, doing full detail will likely be a chore).

You are comparing a car 800lbs heavier, a bigger car will always feel safer. Anyway my point was this move to big, heavy, tiny windowed cars has little to do with Federal mandates and a lot to do with the styling choices American automakers have chosen to pursue. European and Japanese cars sold here have to meet the same standards, but do not suffer nearly as badly in the weight, space and vision issues.

I've seen a lot of people blame Federal safety standards for this, but that doesn't explain why it is a problem only afflicting American cars. Last year I rented a Buick Lacrosse, and I had many of the same complaints, hard to see out of it with the same high mounted slit type windows, hard to get in and out of and not really a lot of seating room for a relatively large 4 door sedan. I think this is all about US designers. My Dad just bought a 2014 Nissan Versa, obviously not a performance car but half the weight, and could fit inside the Camaro it still manages to seat 3 adults, a teenager and a baby seat comfortably. Even better you can actually see out of it.

First consideration is availability of subject matter. For automotive subjects there is no comparison between 1/24-1/25 and the other larger / smaller scales. I have some attraction to 1/32 finding it an appealing size, but the selection is quite small. Large scales are interesting for the detail opportunities but again, very limited selection. 1/72 has a major advantage in other genres since there is a good cross over of subjects aircraft, armor and boats / ships. It is also the dominate scale for aircraft, although 1/48 comes close for subject selection until you get into the larger aircraft. Luckily for me it is a great size to work in and display. For armor 1/35 is my preference, being a nice size to work in, yet not too difficult to display. I might have gone with 1/48, but that scale didn't take off until I was quite committed to 1/35. I do dabble with 1/72 armor but I find it less appealing to work in for the subject. Ships vary so much in size that they are one area I will easily diversify in scales. A 1/700 PT boat is pointless (about 1/8" long), a 1/72 battleship beyond my means (in excess of 10 feet long).

Older Dodge trucks seem to be much less common than Ford and Chevy / GMC, even when looking at newer trucks from the 70s and 80s. Curiously I just saw a green 1964 Dodge truck last week. I'm in a good climate for old cars but I still take notice when I see a pre-72 Dodge truck, they just are not that common. Not terribly expensive though, I've seen a few decent ones for $2500-3000. A Ford or Chevy of similar vintage and condition are usually asking quite a bit more. These old Dodges just don't seem to have caught on with collectors which may be in your favor.

The Big 3 are still out to keep Tucker down, so there will be no kits.

Whoops, didn't catch the letter. Nevermind....

Tower has it for $65 http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXACNP&P=W They are currently offering an $8 off coupon for a $55 purchase which practically makes shipping free. http://www.towerhobbies.com/coupon_codes.html Megahobby has it at almost the same price http://www.megahobby.com/freightlinerflctractorcab1/24italeri.aspx If you go over $100 they will take $10 off the purchase which again is basically free shipping. I've used both of these shops extensively for years without any issues.

If you need ideas for the Superliner...

Really a lot depends on the boxes, not all model boxes are made equal. I've got some semi-truck kits in the closet stacked 15 high and not showing a sign of strain. I've got other kits I wouldn't trust the boxes to go over 3 high.

Started to head a bit off track in the AMT 1936 Ford thread, so starting this one on the Monogram kit. If anyone wants to add in information on other issues of the Monogram 1936 Ford, please feel free to do so. Going by the instruction sheet this issue of the kit was offered in 1974, a convertible only version of an older 6 in 1 kit that builds a custom 1936 Ford. It does not come with stock wheels or engine. Replacing those items would appear to allow a factory stock car to be built from the kit. The instructions say the kit engine is a 1948 Mercury with a 3 carburetor set up. It can be built top up, or top down. The rumble seat appears to be designed to be movable allowing it to open and close. The Monogram and AMT kits build different convertible top vehicles. The Monogram kit builds a convertible or cabriolet, the AMT kit can be built as a roadster. The convertible was a higher end vehicle with roll up side windows for better protection from the elements. The Roadster has no side windows and uses a different windshield which includes wind deflectors on either side. The kit

Thanks, I thought it was a cabriolet but was having a hard time deciding. Off to get the Monogram kit. Not sure on the full definition of roadster vs. cabriolet, but at least on the '36 Ford the windscreen seems to be the giveaway feature. The roadster has a very narrow frame and wind wings, the Cabriolet has a little more substantial frame around the windshield. Since it has roll up windows I guess it doesn't need the wind wings. Roadster http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/photogallery/1936-ford-roadster-ps.cfm Cabriolet http://www.ebay.com/itm/371311376619?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT If I had an extra $67,000 laying around I wouldn't be just be looking for the Monogram kit.

A little late getting back to this. I'm having a hard time deciding whether I'm dealing with a roadster or a cabriolet. This is the car I'm looking at doing, it says roadster but I think it is really a cabriolet. The photos are not that great and I'm not that knowledgeable to begin with, but it looks like it has a fixed windshield which I understand it the major difference between the two. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_510370-Ford-V8-De-Luxe-68-1936.html Thanks

I bought a slightly used 1989 Toyota Tercel in 1990. I owned it for 8 years and put more than 200,000 miles on it before deciding it was time for something else.

Does anyone know of a RHD conversion for this kit? I had the idea of building an Australian bush truck, but the steering wheel is on the wrong side for that.

I would think so, the dump was last out around 2000 and we got the Stevens re-issue of the tractor in 2008 or 2009?

We had a 1972 "regular size" VW bus when I started driving. I used to literally have nightmares of it tipping over ridiculously easy, dreams of it tipping over from a light breeze while stopped at a light. Driving that thing would scare the heck out of me as an experienced driver.