Ace-Garageguy

I just hope the delay is because the powers that be realized that the better the major proportions and "look" of this kit are, the longer legs it's going to have, and the more repeat and multiple sales it will generate...for a long long time. If it LOOKS like a correct '28-'29 Ford, I really will buy multiples. I mean MANY....and I'll probably buy another one every time I pirate parts from one on the shelf too. But if it's instantly visually "off", well, you can keep it. I'll just keep on using the old (and VERY good) AMT bodies and donor bits from other kits. I've already got plenty of beautifully-done '60s Revell nailhead Buicks, finned brakes from the Revell Challenger, and juice-brake backing plates from the old Revell parts-packs...and many MANY '32 and A-bone frames from both Revell and AMT vintage issues. So...I REALLY hope there's a good reason to buy this newest kit from Revell...I hope it looks RIGHT.

'34 Ford pickup, Ferrari-512 BB powered...

First time I saw the movie, even though I knew the story and the eventual outcome, I got so caught up in the whole idea of the underdog battling the unfair-playing big guys, I found myself irrationally rooting for Bridges / Tucker, hoping somehow he'd win...even though, as I said, I already knew the ending. Pretty bizarre effect it had on me. You really have to wonder about the SOBs who killed it too. I mean, the "big 3" had such a lock on the US car industry, it's doubtful Tucker would ever have made a significant dent in their sales if they'd just left him alone to live his dream instead of crushing it. The guys responsible for shooting him down musta all been little nasty kids who got off pulling wings off of butterflies. Greedy corporate unethical a-holes. Can't even let a little guy do something that's no threat whatsoever.

Too easy. Kid I went to high school with had one.

I have to wonder if Moebius hadn't already made a success of the Hudson offerings, and if this thread was about a Hudson kit rather than a Tucker kit, how many insider expert naysayers would be preaching to us all that it would be a non-seller impossible-to-make-the-numbers failure. Just a thought. I mean, all the insider industry experts knew airplanes could never be a commercial success...much less even fly. Ummm...'til somebody made it happen.

X2 again.

X2

Geez...I'd love to have that in full-scale.

One of the best known, and my favorite, is Harry Bradley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bentley_Bradley

Interesting, but not great from a camber-pattern standpoint. Kinda a high-tech development on the sliding-pillar design found in mid-'30s Lancias, Morgans, etc. You'll see as the car leans in a turn, the outer tire can not remain perpendicular to the pavement, which is normally a crucial part of suspension design goals. Still, it's an interesting look for a model, possibly. https://youtu.be/0w7_N9Aenn8

Fine looking piece. The removable Carson-style top flows well with the A-bone's lines.

Unfortunately, neither the front axle nor the wheels / tires are correct for a stock '32. '32 is an 18" rim. '33-34 is 17", with noticeably shorter spokes. There's also a similar '35 16-incher that's a bolt-on too. Again, how accurate are you shooting for?

I've had my local auto paint store eyeball-match some Pantone samples on occasion, and they were never able to hit it dead-on with the mixing bases they had. Just never as bright and clean. The one guy who does the matching is a real wizard, and has hit some pearls and oddball iridescent colors spot on.

Inkjet ink is usually water-soluble, so it takes a clear top-coat of something to allow the decals to be used in the traditional water-slide way. The laser printer ink is impervious to water, so the end result can be slightly thinner to follow curves better. Inkjet ink also tends to fade more in UV light over time. At least, that's my current understanding.

Finally got a laser printer (a freebie, by the way) primarily to start experimenting with making decals. Lots of stuff I haven't been able to find for the obscure old oddball stuff that I sometimes get involved in.

Me too. Beautiful slippery shape. I'd chop it, slam it, and put a couple of multifuel mini-turbines in it, as powered the hybrid Jag C-X75 prototype.

Looks good, and is a 21-stud unit (though I believe a '40 should be a 24-stud engine) but the center water-outlets on the heads are wrong for a '32 and the water pumps are also not right. Probably a good place to start, though. The heads could be modified easily enough, and the water pumps fall into the category of "how accurate do you really want to be?"

Unfortunately, those engines represent the later 24-head-stud flathead engines, and the OP is looking for the earlier 21-stud engine to do a stock '32. The '32 thru '36 engines had the water pumps up high on the heads too, unlike the later engines that had them lower on the front corners of the block. I should know where to locate a good stock '32 kit engine, but I don't. I'd try Replicas and Miniatures. If he's got a 21-stud engine, it's sure to be perfectly beautiful. Far as suspension parts go, to get good stock stuff I'd first check, again, with R&M. One source for close to correct '32 axles are the many derivatives of this vintage Revell '31 model A kit. There is a non-dropped front axle with steerable spindles that looks very good, with mechanical brakes. The rear axle center section and axle bells are also very good, and really indistinguishable in 1/25 scale from the slightly beefier '32 parts. One problem I've encountered trying mix-and-match to get a good representation of a particular flathead is the less-than-correct scaling of many of the offerings. I don't know why it's so hard to measure accurately, but heads being too long or too short, and blocks with details placed wrong can play merry hell when trying to cobble bits into a correct engine. I'll dig through my stash and see if I can come up with recommendations for stuff that will work for you, if no body beats me to it. First one I'll look at is the AMT / Lindberg '34 Ford pickup as mentioned by pharoah, and see if it is reasonably accurate.

At a minimum thickness of .002", I'm about 98% certain it's WAY too stiff for a BMF replacement. From what I've seen, BMF gives an excellent chrome effect, if properly done. The stainless foil MAY have a use as replacement chrome spears, etc., if a car has been shaved. Still be a bugger to stick it down cleanly though.

Kinda sounds like one of my exes.

Only from the uber-creative mind of Ira. Love it. How's about one of those arms to act as a "kick-stand" when you shut the gyros down? Sure gonna need something to keep from falling over.

The Chebby smallblock is still the most bang for the buck going in the 1:1 world, and will probably be for some time to come. Tired as I am of seeing them in everything, if I were going to build a V8 rod, I'd go little Chebby just to get something fast, on the road quickly. ...Well, I would have if I hadn't just happened to come upon a '49 Olds 303, complete with Hydramatic gearbox, for $250.

For some reason, the first thing I think of seeing the pic of the '55 Hornet Custom Hollywood is "blown Stude 289"...or maybe a DeSoto hemi with two 4-bbls, or better yet, three 2-bbls. By '57, the game was about over...

Sorry about your dog, Joe. Nice photo. Something very endearing about that face.

OK..."or it can be something that's been camping out on your shelf for 10 years, 95% complete."