Ace-Garageguy

Here's a couple that look pretty good, and should help you to see some of the potential pitfalls with this one. I love the car, but this kit seems to me (I have 2) to be more a great basis for a custom than a replica-stocker. Still, I believe some time and TLC can produce an outstanding stock model from it.

Well sir, I know of a couple of street-driven hot-rod B-16 powered Hondas around here that would most likely eat your Mustang's lunch. But there have been twinks-without-a-clue in every generation, mine included. A LOT of them.

Thing is though, young people get interested in things outside what their horizon-limited peers know by involved adults who maybe try to understand a little of what younger people ARE interested in (you have to admit that the POTENTIAL of today's technology is mind-boggling if you really THINK about it), and take the time, make the effort to show them a world many don't even know EVER existed. No, not every kid is going to give a rat's rear, but there are SOME to whom model-building just might open an otherwise unimaginable future.

Mine too. I was into exotics and imports when vintage muscle cars were "modern". Still am. It doesn't have to be either-or.

Exactly. But unlike some of you, I believe we have an obligation to the future, and igniting the spark of interest in MAKING THINGS in just one young person might be the act that resonates down through the long-term survival of the human species, rather than letting its fire dim and die.

And what exactly IS their world? From what I see in my daily experience: Constant communication about mostly nothing of any importance whatsoever, a society that's pretty much free of actual IDEAS, almost unbelievable widespread ignorance of science, math and history, and a mindless reliance on completely unnecessary "technology".

The way things are going, there'll be a time in the not too distant future when the average human in a "developed" country lacks the physical skills to do much beyond operating a smart phone, a zipper, and a roll of toilet paper. If that's the kind of future-world we want, fine. If not, teaching kids to build ANYTHING just might be a good idea.

A gloss could obliterate the correct-looking texture you'll often see on real race-car parts (as opposed to cosmetic, just-for-looks carbon, which is glossy). The technique above replicates the texture nicely. It's just that the satins I've looked at are too tightly woven to allow paint to penetrate and give this effect. Sorry If my question wasn't clear enough.

I've tried to access it a couple of different ways, and sometimes get a "threat" message from my AV. Possibly the site has been destructively hacked, as has occurred here in the past. Apparently it was down back in April of 2008 for a while too.

I don't have much use for car-model instructions...other than for identifying some odd blob-shaped part that has no real 1:1 analog...but I tend to save 'em anyway, if for nothing more than to look at to determine exactly what parts came in what kits. I routinely rob kits for parts for other builds, and sometimes I need to find a source for something, if I didn't make notes in the build-box. For subjects I'm unfamiliar with, the instructions can be very useful, like as in necessary. These I'll save until I finish the build, and since I never finish anything, they'll still be here after I'm dead. Once I'm pushing up daisies, probably some delusional ebayer who snags my stuff at the inevitable estate sale will try to sell them all off for $9.99 each.

You can still get this page, but many of the internal links appear to be dead at this time, though there is still some availability of building tips, etc. http://www.randyayersmodeling.com/

I built aircraft first, because that was my father's interest. Static and flying. Then rockets, ships, boats, submarines, tanks and artillery, kites, dinosaurs, visible man/woman...I was just interested in THINGS. I liked cars from a very early age, but didn't start building car models 'til I was maybe 11 or so (the horrible work I did on my unlucky brush-painted first-gen Revell wagon doesn't count). Then I got interested in electronics, HO trains and cars simultaneously, then back to car models exclusively. Real life distracted me for about 40 years (though I built scale-models of designs for full-scale vehicles and objects). Now once again, I'm a modeler. Past-it grumpy old man. Cars mostly, occasionally historic aircraft or HO RR stuff (and still into electronics).

If you actually interact with them, it should be pretty obvious whether you're talking to a trained professional, or a loose-cannon wannabee. And it's probably unlikely a nut-case fake police vehicle will have late-model strobes, etc, This area has had a couple of fakes over the past 40 or so years with flashing blue lights behind the grille, but the real-looking stuff's a little harder to acquire these days.

Interesting perspectives on modelers. I personally began building aircraft models 'caus my father did. I was horribly disappointed when my little-kid eye-hand coordination and impatience didn't allow me to produce good-looking results, and I've bought some of the kits I bodged as a kid to see if I can do any better now. There is a certain nostalgic twinge associated with seeing some of the old packaging, box art, and opening these old aircraft kits...just as there is with old car kits. Most of my childhood peers who built airplane models ended up filling them with firecrackers and playing 'army' with them anyway. Somehow, I doubt they grew up to be "rivet counting" military modelers. I went on to build car models, using the "all-the-parts-and-decals" approach, and eventually, as a young adult, to building nicely detailed and reasonably accurate (and heavily customized) cars with a lot of creative license. Then I quit when I got to the point in life where I could hack up real ones. I suppose I now prefer accuracy in car models because I'm very familiar with many 1:1 cars, many engines, all the engineering and mechanical elements, build real ones (where exceptional results matter) and seem to be blessed (or cursed) with an eye that catches dimensional problems instantly. I'm sure if I were a hard-core military modeler, I'd be an even more obnoxiously vocal critic of the available offerings. Funny thing is, I was never particularly adamant about prototypical-accuracy in railroad models when I built them. The atmosphere of the railroad environment is what interested me, not the spot-on replication of equipment. I feel much the same way about aircraft models. So long as the first impression of the shape, lines and proportions of a model is good to my eye, I can overlook minute discrepancies in say, specific equipment or modifications a certain series of fighter had while operating in a particular theater. Come to think of it though, the "first impression" of the shapes, lines and proportions of car models is my primary requirement. Of course, the easiest way for a manufacturer to capture that first-impression is through scale-fidelity. Measure it right, scale it right, it will look right.

Looks better than OK, Ken. It even has the correct surface texture you'll see on some real (as opposed to high-gloss cosmetic) carbon-fiber parts. I went and looked at satins at the fabric store after seeing this, and the ones I saw all seemed to have too tight a weave to work for this. Any particular recommendations?

LOTS of proportion and line differences between those two ^^. Definitely both of them got some things right, and some not so good. Revell looks significantly better overall to me.

One would postulate it's simply whether the particular department casts a particular vehicle in a "deterrent" role (marked, obviously) or "enforcement" role (unmarked, to catch the bad guys being naughty when they think nobody's looking).

Hows 'bout a custom speedster cut down from a Tudor?

Looks like a nice clean build. Love the airplane-style stand too. Your color looks better on this than what it's "supposed" to be...so much so that I may have to build one of my own and copy your color.

Yup. Still gettin' built, too.

In the B&W model / 1:1 comparo shots above, I see a problem with the height of the door top, base of the windshield pillar. Just a tick high, but looks correctable. Also, the character line at the top of the door that sweeps up into the sail panel is too shallow a curve. The 1:1 curve has 3 defined segments...straight lines with curves between...where the model has the line as almost a continuous sweep, again a little too high. This puts just a little too much material above the door-handle recess as well. Correcting these issues, I believe, would alleviate the side-window error noted in the test-shot thread. Both the wheel-well lips appear a bit heavy handed, and a tick too tall. As previously noted above, the lower body rolls under significantly more on the 1:1, and the lower body line is much sharper. I also believe the dimension from this line to the lower edge of the body is somewhat taller on the model. I honestly think these difficulties could be dealt with relatively easily...depending primarily on how thick the body plastic is. Some careful sculpting may very well be able to hit the initial-impression sweet-spot that's currently missing. All in all, it looks pretty good to me, and 90% of buyers probably won't ever notice the proportion and line flaws. Still, it would have been nice to hit it a mite closer.

Extra-special-just-for-you-Yankee-boy Chinese tie-rod-ends I put in a friend's car back in February are already slap worn out. No, I didn't expect them to go well over 100,000 miles like the originals did, but I DID expect them to last longer than 5,000 miles. It's really pathetic businesses in this country are all too damm good to actually make anything here anymore, and only want to make their clean-hands money doing nothing but marking up cheap, sub-par offshore junk. Irked? A definite understatement.

And as far as the DEF issue goes, some of GM's early turbocharged cars were equipped with a water-injection system, needed to protect against destructive detonation while under boost. Many of the engines in these vehicles were destroyed by people simply not bothering to read the manual or ever fill the water tank. Unless the DEF system has a fluid-level monitor that disables the engine when the tank is empty, it's a useless, pointless system anyway (unless the vehicles employing it are all maintained correctly...yeah, right).

Kinda makes a man pine for the old days. Simple, rugged, efficient cars, and clever advertising with no need to lie about anything.

One of the best I've ever seen. Thanks.