Ace-Garageguy

Thanks for putting up the photos of the Lake Mead shoreline. That part of the world has always been one of my favorite places, and I was fascinated by Hoover Dam as a kid, read everything I could find on it. When I finally saw it, as an adult, it still blew me away. All that water in the middle of a barren desert has an otherworldly kind of beauty, and the dam itself is really something. It has its own very stark and functional beauty in its form, but there are striking decorative elements as well. Simply a great feat of engineering, especially impressive when you consider the time period it was built. I've been saddened for years that the lake levels are so low, and that overuse of the planet's water resources are having such a visible effect on some areas.

If you're still seeing scratches after polishing, it's because either you left deeper scratches in the paint that you didn't get out during your progressively finer and finer sanding, or you haven't polished enough. Many modelers tend to not put enough effort into the sanding phases. Each successive sanding step is intended to remove, entirely, the deeper sanding scratches left by the previous grit. Just lightly rubbing it around on the car isn't getting the job done. Polishing, unlike what a lot of folks seem to believe, isn't just "wipe it on and rub a little bit", either. Polishing is an ABRASIVE process, and its purpose is to abrasively remove the last of the 12,000 grit scratches and restore the surface to its original gloss. Do it all right, you won't see any scratches in the surface. We do exactly the same steps on the big cars, but only sand to 3000 grit or so, usually. Polishing the final 3000-grit scratches out is done with a machine, but the same advice applies. A cloudy, dull surface or visible scratches simply mean the job isn't done yet. Polishing is what brings the gloss back, not wax.

Just beautiful.

Great to see this going together with up-close shots. There's a lot to like about this kit. Obviously, the Buick finned drums and what appear to be Ford brake backing plates look very good. The dropped front axle is also a much needed, long overdue piece. It's made so that a correct-looking conversion to working steering won't be too hard. I already need at least one of these kits just as an under-car exhaust system donor. The nicely detailed and separate floor will certainly help in building a right-looking channeled car, and the front shock / headlight mounts, and the center crossmember / trans support look good. Thanks for taking the time and effort to show how this kit builds up.

One of the many things about this kit that DO appear to be very well done is the separate and fully detailed floor. This will be terrific for anyone who wants to do a realistically channeled '28-'29 Ford that looks as good from the bottom as it does from the top. The rear tires that appear in this kit are perfect for some vintage and period rod applications too. I've been looking for something like these for years.

As Miles said, it would surely add a lot of thickness to a part and obscure details, however...one thing I had thought about using it for (but haven't tried) is on some ribbed radiator hoses I had that were too small diameter for the scale I was working in. The ribbing on the hoses was too sharp, too. It occurred to me that dipping in that material might solve both problems.

Here's one way, on my 1/12 240Z convertible. There are some other ways to do it, depending on how wide you want to go, and several guys on here have shown their methods. Hopefully they'll chime in.

You could, of course, always do your own research and cite reputable primary sources to disprove anything I say. But that would take some applied intelligence and effort. Maybe a little knowledge too, to know where to look for the correct information and how to tell it from internet dweebs rattling on about things they don't know... Much easier to just take the odd pot-shot, eh? Nice of you to tell the newbie over on the "modeling questions" page to soak his parts in acetone, by the way. That's the way to spread knowledge and goodwill throughout the hobby, for sure.

Hey JB, if you buy your car parts at HomeDepot, Autozone and Walmart, no wonder you have fitment issues. Believe whatever you want. You obviously know everything I say is BS, you're an engineer, draftsman and Buick expert too, so rock on, brother. Ignorance must truly be bliss. So many seem to strive for it.

Looks like a beautiful kit, and very clean work you're doing.

Not a clue. Well, maybe one clue.

Oooooo...clever.

It depends on what you're building. As of 2009 (I haven't been involved in competition lately): SCCA required minimum mild-steel tubing diameter of 1.5" for cars up to 2500 pounds, and 1.5"-1.75" tubing (heavier wall) for cars over 2500 pounds. NHRA required 1.625" mild-steel minimum diameter. Use Art's close equivalent of 1mm = 1" in 1/25 scale. So...in 1/25, a 1.5" roll-cage tube would be about 1.5mm. In 1/24, just a little bigger. Etc., etc.,etc. Basically, if you have 1.75mm rod, it ought to look right in either scale. Sanctioning bodies allow larger diameter tubing.

Sorry to throw a factual wrench in the works, but in reality, the port spacing of ALL the Buick nailheads is the same. The earlier engines had round ports, while the later ones had square ports. The 364/401/425 all had square ports, and port spacing is identical. I can easily prove this by referring you all to multiple sites selling header flanges for nailheads. Same part number for 364 engine ('57-'61), 401 engine ('59-'66) and 425 engine ('62-'66). http://www.hellsgatehotrods.com/flanges/exhaust-header-flanges/buick-nailhead-364-425-exhaust-flange/ http://www.ebay.com/itm/Buick-Nailhead-364-401-425-Exhaust-Lake-Header-kit-lakster-u-weld-hot-rat-rod-/281449723758 http://nailheadbuick.com/exhaust

Why don't you enlighten us as to the procedure you use the get it to work. Many of us just get a screwing thing...no picture.

I really don't get it. The engine looks OFF immediately to anyone who's familiar with the nailhead Buick. So mentioning it and posting the EASY-TO-GET CORRECT measurements it SHOULD have been in the first place, and that Revell somehow managed to get right 50 years ago but somehow couldn't manage to this time, gets mostly snide comments about "killing the hobby" and other equally relevant remarks about "anal retentiveness", stamping on the kit, etc. The odd exhaust port-spacing on Revell's Hemi in the '32 Ford isn't any worse, it's just as immediately obvious, and some of you give it failing marks. I just don't get it. I think it's time for me to quit trying to figure out why accuracy matters so little to so many. In my world, anything worth doing at all is worth doing right. It's getting to be a lonely place, more all the time. And that's OK by me.

Skip, my current engine started life as a 1600 dual-port VW. I's got a welded-counterweighted stock-stroke (69mm) crank and 90.5mm jugs, for 1776cc displacement. Balanced. Medium lift and duration Engle cam, straight-cut steel cam gears (makes a great whine), swivel-foot valve adjusters, chrome-moly pushrods, slightly larger intake valves, 3-angle valve job and lightly ported and port-matched heads and manifolds, dual 40mm downdraft Dellorto carbs, 4-into-one exhaust. Vintage Bosch 019 distributor, Bosch "blue" coil. Big oil pump, deep sump with a windage tray, remote thermostatically-controlled oil cooler. Aluminum fan housing, "power-pulley", and a 100-amp alternator to drive the old Marchal and Cibie lights. Probably makes an honest 120HP and revs happily to 7 grand. Quick enough in a 1400 pound car, and a LOT cheaper than that much power from real Porsche parts.

That does work most of the time, and it's the easiest method. A problem that arises sometimes is if you need to edit your photo, as in change it to another one if you've mistakenly put up the wrong one, or posted one out of sequence. Occasionally, for whatever reason, this site now won't delete the original photo address (from Pbucket), and when you copy the new photo in the first one's place, hit "submit reply", you just get the original photo again...even if the new code string was showing correctly in the text box before hitting "submit". I've only had this happen twice so far...on this thread, actually.

Skip, I know nothing about iPads. Zero. Zilch. Zip. And yes, it's a Beck. Engine is still out. Had new valve guides put in my beautiful ported heads, and the "machine-shop" hammered them in cold. Split all the guide bosses. Now I have to buy and port new heads. Normally I'd do my own guides, but my mill won't fit in the shop here, is out back, still on the double-axle trailer, wrapped in shrink plastic.

I agree 100%. It looks like a kit every hot-rod builder will need multiples of. In spite of my criticisms, I'll be buying several. It's great to see Revell get something like this to market, and I certainly appreciate it. Just a little more careful next time, OK?

I think it was the outlandish and wildly exaggerated 100MPG claims that turned the tide of acceptance against the Fish carb. Other variable-venturi and variable-choke carbs have been known to work very well. Though I have no experience with a Fish whatsoever, I've read British tuning wizard David Vizard's work with it. He rated it highly in certain applications. Good enough for me.

Well see, here we have a perfect example of how insufficient data can lead to all sorts of misinterpretations. I carelessly omitted the #-symbol before the 20028, and you assumed I meant the year 20028. Project #20028 probably doesn't have a chance in hell of coming up before I'm dead though.

Thing is JB, I actually know what I'm talking about. Kinda rare these days, so I guess it's hard to accept. Disagree and doubt all you want. It's no skin off my peccadillo. And the distance between-port centers is what determines the distance between the header pipes. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Frankly, I'm tired of people constantly justifying mis-measurements of around 2 scale inches. Not "fractions of a millimeter" as you say, but more like 2mm. If you can't see a 2mm mistake, you ought to love that chop-topped Mustang kit everyone criticizes so much. Or, as Rob said..."whatever".

Ummm...we just proved that having the engine in front of ME wasn't necessary to get accurate measurements of the port spacing, and then scale them to 1/25. It's just as easy to break out the ol' tape measure and use it to arrive at critical dimensions DURING the design process, and to e-mail them to China. No shipping of the whole car is required. But Revell COULD have sent one of THEIR OWN old parts-pack engines and said...here you go. Make it like this. It's accurate. Maybe $10 postage, max..

Bingo !!! It's an issue because the engine is an integral part of the look of this car, and that it shows at first glance. The whole REASON of using a nailhead in the thing is because it's an instantly recognizable icon in the traditional hot-rod end of the car hobby. Easy to get right. Should have been right. Isn't.