Ace-Garageguy

Mmmmm...tasty !

Super clean, as is all your work.

Very authentic. Love the whole thing.

Yes sir. Very clean work and enough custom touches to make it stand out.

All of it's looking great, and the engine really pops with the non-aviation ignition wiring. Great choice on the monster carbs too. I kinda lean towards the gray-primered scoop, just for its brutal simplicity, but whatever you pick will do the job just fine.

Scarily, I've seen a lot of that come in to shops where I've worked...even recently. Defies logic, but...I dunno.

Glad you found it helpful, but thank southpier (Joe Smythe) for putting up the video link. I've come back to it several times, and found it to be just what I needed.

Check out this thread. Watch the video in post #3. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=101006&hl=scribe#entry1405848 The guy who does the vid states that correcting things like this is relatively east by filling the bad line with superglue (CAA). He also gives many great tips on getting it right. And as Glenn said, filling a deepened area with bondo and reworking the line works well if you're careful...and use a guide, as in the video.

One of my favorite kits. Gorgeous paint, sir.

Ahh, but think how 'interesting' it might be to not ever be 100% certain the cute little bugger will take you to the right address. Kinda like how 'interesting' it was driving old British cars, not ever knowing if you'd actually get ANYWHERE. Every trip an adventure!!

It doesn't really matter WHAT conventional V8 engine you're building...they will ALL have about the same head offset, including old flatheads...which is why I wasn't all that careful about the pix of bare blocks. They're just to illustrate the point. Here is a blueprint of the SBC basic engine, clearly showing the 4.4" bore spacing, and the offset between cylinder banks, as discussed, to accommodate connecting rod fitment on shared rod-journals of the crankshaft.

Ummm...wrong. The BORE varies by the numbers you quote, but the BORE SPACING is the same as smallblocks at 4.4". BORE is not the same as BORE SPACING. Crankshafts interchange between many members of the LS family, and this simply WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if the bore spacing was different between engines. Quoting from Motor Magazine http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=1681 "The Gen III engine (LS1/LS6) started with a clean sheet of paper in terms of design. Aside from cylinder bore spacing, rod journal diameter and lifter diameter, Gen III/IV engines have nothing in common with previous Chevy small-blocks." And a further FYI...there is an aftermarket smallblock-Chevy-like block casting that accomodates LS heads. I've posted an article about it here much earlier. This is possible because both the LS and the smallblock have identical 4.4" bore-spacing, but the aftermarket block provides different head bolt locations to fit the LS heads.

Excellent.

ALL Chevy smallblocks, no matter WHAT bore, have exactly the same bore-spacing. Bore-spacing is the distance between BORE CENTERS, and it's 4.4". Big blocks and W-blocks have bore-center-spacing of 4.84". That's all.

There's a 400 smallblock. I said "smallblocks", and I'm fully aware the 396 is a big-block, but thanks for the clarification for everyone who didn't already know that. The 348 (also being a number less than 400) is a W-block. We have 'em all now?

Just FYI...ALL smallblock Chebby engines from 265 through 400 have the same bore-spacing (same as LS engines too), so ALL smallblock Chebby engines will have the same amount of offset between cylinder banks, and so, heads as well. Most kit engines take this into account, and represent it reasonably correctly.

You caught me out on that one. I didn't look carefully at the rear arms, missed the Panhard link entirely, and just assumed they were hairpins. Lotsa cars in the wayback ran split-wishbones, sometimes replaced with hairpins...even on coil springs. I shoulda looked closer...

Nothing at all to feel dumb about, sir. Unless you'd spent a fair bit of time with engines taken apart, there'd be no way to expect to know some of this stuff. Really.

Correct. One side of a vee- or otherwise-opposed engine with any number of cylinders will ALWAYS be offset or staggered somewhat to allow for connection of connecting rods to the crankshaft. This is a flat-4 opposed engine, but you should get the idea... And a V8, with shared rod-journals...

Easy way out. Call me biased and silly. Ignore the actual facts entirely. Sorry dude, I go by real knowledge and experience in BOTH fields. Aerodynamics is aerodynamics, and thermal management is thermal management...whether in aviation or surface vehicles. Differing operating regimes, same basic theories apply in all cases.

Yes sir, 100% in agreement there.

Opinions are fine, but just no substitute for knowledge. If you want to dispute the empirical results derived from extensive real-world wind-tunnel and flight testing, well...isn't that special.

Exactly...even though at speed a significant airflow for cooling is achieved simply due to that speed, it won't overcome poor opening and duct design.

Oh really? No. The airflow at the openings to the cooling elements on most aircraft is particularly dirty, turbulent and not anywhere near laminar...especially behind the prop. The WINGS of the P-51 were among the first laminar flow designs to make it to combat aircraft, but the rest of the ship just isn't laminar. And aircraft are required to be able to maintain non-destructive engine temps while taxiing slowly, sometimes in lines, waiting for takeoff clearance...sometimes rather long lines in old combat situations. The P-51 designers did such a fine job of managing airflow through the cooling system that it was almost zero-loss in drag, due to the acceleration of the airstream after the radiator from the added heat energy of the engine coolant...a feat that was absolutely astounding for the time, well before the massive computing power it would take to approach similar results today with CFD (computational fluid dynamics). In maximizing the performance of sport and racing planes (with which I have some little experience) one of the big first-steps is looking to minimize drag and turbulence due to the engine cooling requirements. Silly open-catfish-mouth grilles just are NOT required for surface-vehicle cooling...if the designers and engineers are competent.

All 100% correct. Another little problem with loading pix directly from your computer or other device is that, far as I can tell, visitors to the forum can't see them unless they're logged in. I'll bypass posts that have invisible photos if I'm in a hurry and just want to see who's been doing what, quickly. I've missed some nice work for weeks that way, but it's too much hassle on MY end to log in every time I visit the site.