Ace-Garageguy

The dropped I-beam front axle and split wishbones in the '29 kit are perfectly acceptable for a period build, as are the '40 Ford hydraulic-brake backing plates, and I believe the finned Buick brake drums would be '58 and later. As Casey suggests, a good source for a rear crossmember, buggy spring and a banjo rear end with wishbones is one of many versions of Revell's previous Model A. You might also get some ideas from this thread of mine... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/66934-new-revell-29-old-amt-29-mashup-nov28-buggy-spring-mods/?page=1

The fact that Rob is in the computer industry did remind me of something that's not particularly relevant but interesting nonetheless. To have a computer with only a small fraction of the power of my already obsolete desktop in the mid 1970s would have cost millions of dollars. Today's "mobile device" costing $400 or so in today's money would have been science fiction material, and unavailable for any price. Point being...the disposable technology we take for granted now is really incredibly cheap compared to anything else.

"Man oh man" ??? Really ?? Are you intentionally mocking the seriousness of this, the single most important issue confronting mankind...er, humankind...er, peoplekind ??

There are several Testors "lacquers", and they handle differently. The Testors "Model Master Custom Lacquer System" (which includes most of the "factory" colors) are DESIGNED to be clearcoated. That's why they call it a "system"...it's a basecoat-clearcoat system like used on real cars today. Testors makes other lacquer products, like their "One Coat" line (they're really NOT one-coat), that can be clearcoated or not. SOME of them will polish up nicely, while some will get blotchy when you wetsand and polish...which is common with metallic and pearl paints that are NOT clearcoated before polishing. They all can look really good with careful application...and it helps to read the directions, and experiment to see what works well for you. This is 5 coats of Testors "One Coat" metallic paint, followed by 3 coats of one of their high-gloss clears.

Two of my old, long-gone favorites here were Lum's "world famous steamed in beer" hot dogs, and Ollie's Trolley...with the "don't need nuthin'" best burger in town, and wonderfully seasoned fries. Ain't progress grand?

I was making about $250 a week in the mid 1970s. To have the same buying power now, I'd have to be pulling down about $2500 per week. That's how much costs have gone up. My pay hasn't kept pace...not by a LONG shot. We're all being screwed, whether we want to believe it or not.

Part of the point of my post above is that the term (as applied to a car built from junk) could have been coined by anyone at any time during the period junkyards and dogs coexisted on the planet. It had to start somewhere, from one guys mouth, and most likely took a little while to become common usage in the sport. The exact origin of the terms "hot-rod" and even "Jeep" are disputed, so in modeling's alternative "what-if" universe, I think naming a pre-war racer built from cast-off parts "Junkyard Dog" would most definitely be entirely appropriate. Anyone who wants to argue the etymology of "junkyard dog" doesn't really have enough to do.

While it IS a Nissan inline 6 of about the right size, the angle between the valves and hence the placement of the cam covers is very different from the photo in the opening post. This is the engine you want, and it has widely spaced cam covers, looking for all the world as though it has hemispherical combustion chambers like the Jag inlines. Nissan 2000 the above kit represents... Old Jag six... So, use the engine and carbs shown in the kit you posted above, and modify a Jag head to get the right looking cam cover spacing.

What truly amazes me is that in this insanely PC and hyper-litigious world we now inhabit, the lawyers for the Stone-Woods-Cook source of the play on words this kit makes aren't shutting it down and demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Gender "neutral" language. Geeze Louise. Pleeeeez. http://www.salon.com/2015/12/05/lets_call_everyone_they_gender_neutral_language_should_be_the_norm_not_the_exception/

Well, they had junkyards well before WW II (before they were renamed the PC "Automotive Component and Material Recycling and Disposal Centers" we have today. They had dogs too. They had dogs guarding junkyards as well, so I'm sure the term dates from the very first day someone tied an old hound to the bumper of a derelict model T...or A, or Benz Patent Motorwagen while hammering and screwing and welding together parts that were never intended to be on the same vehicle. "Hey Hank...ya gots any scraps for my ol' junkyard dog today?" Max Balchowsky's very successful "Old Yeller" race cars were built from junk and named after the movie dog, so that's kinda close... Here's the story of "Old Yeller 2"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ourvuotFuY&feature=share

I rather doubt you'll find a Nissan R380 (GR8) engine in kit form. The general appearance and spacing of the cam boxes makes me think you could modify a Jag 4.2 from one of the E-type kits to get you in the ballpark, but the Nissan engine is only about a 2-liter, and is considerably smaller physically than the E-type unit. The GR8 engine uses a race-only twincam head on a modified G7 (SOHC) bottom end. The G7 engine (from which the GR8 is derived) is visually similar to the Nissan L24 (Datsun 240Z), so that also might be a starting point for the block, etc.(Revell does a Z-car), using a modified Jag head and Webers, perhaps from the Revell BRE 240Z. You'll have to scratchbuild that interesting water manifold that's on top of the head. A mid-to-late '60s Nissan inline six production engine (again I really doubt you'll find one in any kit) would possibly provide the correct bottom end...but not the right head. The Prince / Nissan R380 was very heavily influenced by the Porsche 904 (except for the engine, obviously), which you probably already know. http://videolike.org/view/yt=aqm|FCBy5E_

Most excellent. Ed Roth would love it.

Truly remarkable improvement over the simplified kit you started with. You're really a wizard at making these things look real.

Nice job on the "used" look. That lighter spot on the sail panel is about where there really is a factory bondo-fill on the real cars. Very nice touch. I've seen this vintage of vehicle peeling exactly that way at that spot in reality.

Pretty sure the guy you're talking about is Bill Bourke. http://www.garageofawesome.com.au/index.php/goa-rants/general-awesome/65-freaks-ford-xw-falcon-gt-428-cobrajet-bill-bourke-special PS. Nice of you to remember Burke here, Mr. cutter.

No offense intended, but I think it might be less work to start with a pine cone. Of course, if you really enjoy a challenge, we'll all be pullin' for ya.

The name "HARNEY" appears as one of the license tag decals in the just-recently-released 1/25 scale Revell '29 Ford...this one:

O M G !!!!!!!! Do you REALIZE there's one of those swastithings and the words Hitler and Nazi in this thread? I'm just so pathetically offended that I'm going to puke, call my mommy and cry at her for an hour or two, and then write letters to all the TV and radio stations, plus my congresspersons and their dogs.

Apparently GM hired Chrysler's rejects to design their ignition switch parts. The PT Cruiser (and MANY more Chrysler Corporate products of the era) have this idiotic "ignition switch actuator pin" assembly that fails with no warning, is an overly complicated piece of stupidly-designed plastic crapp, could have been made of decent materials to last forever...cheaply...and the dealership wants to replace the ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN to fix a part I can buy aftermarket for about $30. My friend who just had to cover $1000 out-of-pocket on a warranty-replacement of an O'Reilly's water pump (lifetime warranty, lasted 10 months ...free replacement pump, but NOT the $900 to put it in, yet...) has been bent over by the dealer because of a no-start condition common to these old Mopars, but she pulled the car out before they stuck it in. I have the car here now, and should have it running again shortly, for less than $100. The world is run by thieves and idiots. PS. When I got the car here, I looked at the coolant level and what do you know...it's straight WATER...no antifreeze. GREAT frigging "mechanic" who did the water pump replacement (because I simply had no time) and couldn't be bothered to actually put anti-freeze back in the thing, who also replaced BOTH the inner and outer tie-rod ends when I told him SPECIFICALLY to replace the right-inner ONLY. I AM SICK OF MORONS, SLACKERS AND CROOKS EVERYWHERE.

And if "learning" methods like these are being instituted, it again really makes me wonder if the bus isn't already being driven by idiots. How are any of these decisions to teach by proven poor methods...or to just leave out entire segments of proven human knowledge...being made by reasoning, rational, intelligent adults? The global economic crash (and the seeming inability of the "smart guys" to actually fix it), the largely ineffective and many-years-late attempts to wean Westen civilization from wasteful and stupid energy policies, VW's 'just-lie-about-it' emission control debacle, GM's save-a-buck failure to correctly design and verify a simple ignition switch (despite having teams of engineers and the best resources imaginable to do the job RIGHT) that will ultimately cost them tens-of-millions...massive stupidity is everywhere. MANY of the people who are supposed to know what they're doing...don't.

Love your concept and Photoshop mockups. Dennis is right about this kit being challenging to get really low, however. One approach, made easier because the frame is already over-long and the grill shell is already too far forward on the kit as-is, is to go with a suicide front perch and pull the grille shell back to where it will clear everything, and improving the proportions in the process. Putting the spring behind the axle is another way to get some lowness, but either method requires more fabrication and a wheelbase adjustment to keep things balanced (and looking like your spot-on top P-shop mockup). I did a lot of cut-and-paste fitting on my similarly low '26 on the same rails you're using, and put it aside temporarily towards the end of the decision-making process (but after getting the stance nailed and measurements I could go back to to hit it dead-on again). http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/105644-26-ford-rod-based-on-new-revell-29-bits-sept-15-third-mockup/

Agreed. Looks SO good, I wish it had been my own idea.

I like it. A lot. Much nicer visually than the narrow-front-track, stupid looking prototypes built recently. It would be interesting to see the "rules" this proposal is intended to comply with. One practical observation...the clear part of the canopy appears to have some rather sharpish angles towards the sides. Unless there are some clear-plastic-forming magic techniques available (of which I'm not aware), visual distortion towards the sides of the driver's field of vision may be an issue here, as-designed.

Thanks for the heads-up on the Fluid Film product, Charlie. I've been looking for a locally-available replacement for the spraycan cosmoline-like stuff I can't get here anymore. I'll give it a shot.