Ace-Garageguy

I agree in principle. I went to work with the shop where I am now specifically to build period and "traditional" cars. BUT, what I'm building for them at the moment is a '47 Caddy convertible with a Camaro front frame clip, an LS engine and 4L80 gearbox, a bunch of onboard electronics including EFI, a mostly late-model Caddy interior, and a Ford 9" in the rear. NOT the way I'd build it if I were paying the bills to have it done...but that's the point. If you want to stay in business, you have to give people what they want...to a certain extent. And this particular car has been hacked and bodged so badly by everyone who's ever touched it, a straight restoration would cost twice as much as a resto-mod job. We DO try to influence the way our cars get built and the style of the mods, as everything that comes out of the shop is a reflection of just what we do. We don't really want to be doing resto-mods, and we're trying to steer the Caddy build in a direction that respects the elegance of the original car and stays far away from the billet-bling thing.

The big P-38 tank that is indeed the most common tank used is about 36" in diameter at its widest point, and about 13 feet long. In 1/25 scale, that's about 1.44 inches wide at the fattest point, and about 6.5 inches long. You'd need a 1/25 scale P-38 tank. Nobody makes a 1/25 or 1/24 scale P-38, so use the dimensions above or the resin source southpier provided. Here's one Bernard Kron built on this very forum. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/?showtopic=62305

Just now got my paperwork caught up from before Thanksgiving. Better late, etc.

Just an FYI...the longer ANY epoxy product takes to cure, the stronger the bond will be. Regular JB is stronger than 5-minute stuff. 30-minute hobby-shop RC epoxy is stronger than the 15 minute stuff. And the stuff I use (made for real aircraft) takes 24 hours to cure at room temperature, plus another 16 hours at elevated temps. Stronger than anything a modeler or layman is likely to EVER encounter. But that's why they glue airplanes together with it.

Both excellent points. Look thru old Hot Rod and Car Craft mags to see 'em. And I'd forgotten...we have a client with a '32 3-window all-steel car built in SoCal in the early '60s with torsion-bar Jag XK-E FRONT suspension. And it's got semi-elliptic springs and a Dana out back! If something could possibly be in a junkyard, chances are somebody used it on a rod at one time or another.

The more I think about it, the more enthusiastic I'm getting about this upcoming new release. I just happened to remember how very very good the parts were in the Rat Roaster too (even though the car itself isn't exactly to my particular taste, and it could have used an I-beam axle, what was there was excellent kitbashing fodder). And Revell has given us cool stuff like the louvered rear deck in the '32 5-window, which actually FITS a '32 roadster just as it should in 1:1 (if you open the deck on the roadster). With that fairly recent level of hot-rod-parts quality as a marker, we should have every reason to believe that this '29 kit is going to knock it out of the park, as far as how good and correct the parts look. I want one. I want one. I want one.

Bernard, your Sprite sounds like a car built in the true early spirit of hot-rodding. Intelligent swaps and upgrades, but keeping the overall flavor of the vehicle intact. Very cool little car, I'm sure.

Not to get into a pointless argument, but when I was a kid, we had a '51 Studebaker, a '55 Olds convertible and later a '63 (which I still have). They were all real cars, with independent front suspension, power brakes, heat that would keep you warm in a blizzard, and power seats and radios in the two Oldsmobiles. Every summer we made the trek from wherever we lived at the time (the mid west, southern and east coast US) to well up the Canadian east coast. Not one single breakdown, tow...nothin'. Early in my parents' marriage (and early in my life) my father had a '48 Ford he drove all over the country in his job as a roving construction engineer. He always got to the job sites, and he always got home. Now granted, a lot of "restored" cars are unreliable trailer queens you couldn't drive across town. But so are a lot of fairly recent used-cars that have been "repaired" and "maintained" by chimps. Old vehicles prepared correctly by competent mechanics to function as-new (and possibly a few rational upgrades like a Pertronix ignition system...that eliminates the need for periodic point adjustment...hidden in the OEM distributor) are entirely use-able as transportation. Read Longbox 55's post directly above this one. Man knows what he's talking about.

Again it's yes and no. The purpose of a QC on lakes and racing cars was to be able to rapidly change final-drive ratios without a lot of mechanical grief, like having to precisely set up differential ring-and-pinion lash on a dusty dry lake, or a muddy-pit circle track. The "change gears" have straight shafts they slide on to in matched pairs. You drive your car to the lakes (or trailer it to the roundy-round track, for which the QC rear ends were really developed). You remove a few easily accessed nuts, slip the rear cover off, slip out one gearset and slip in another one, replace the cover and you're done. Street gears on old hot rods would be short, for acceleration. Lakes work requires long gears for top-end speed. With only a 3-speed gearbox behind the engine, you can't have both. Put a 5-speed box behind the engine and you can have tall rear-end gears in your QC for top end speed, and short ratios in the 5-speed on 1-2-3 for blazing acceleration, 1:1 on 4th and an OD fifth for long-legged highway running. So yes, part of the need for the QC is eliminated with a properly geared 5-speed trans. But you're still stuck with the gear ratios in the trans. A QC makes the car just that much more "tunable" (granted, most owners won't ever take the "change-gear" cover off of the diff and swap gearsets, but it just makes you feel good knowing you could if you wanted to). EDIT: We're also now looking at costs for high-end 9" Ford rear ends being pretty much in the same ballpark as quick-change units. Yes, if you have a torquey engine and/or dump your clutch a lot, you'll shred the QC.

Yes, and I used the quote from Mr. Sexton to illustrate that it's apparently HIS perception that most modelers WANT accurate kits. Whether accuracy always makes it all the way into the box every time is another thing entirely. If you recall, recently there have been a lot of apologists for error-laden kits here, saying that MOST modelers don't care particularly about accuracy (and calling those of us who care "rivet counters"). The words actually coming out of Ed Sexton's mouth say "most modelers DO care about accuracy". Again quoting Mr. Sexton: "Most modelers, that's what they want".

Very interesting beastie. Paint looks great. I'm wondering what she might look like with some really aggressive slice-n-dice...

"They know when they open a Revell box, they're going to get an accurate, authentic reproduction of the real thing. Most modelers, that's what they want" So spake Ed Sexton. Should put an end to the often-voiced opinion that most modelers don't know or care what's accurate.

Well, yes and no. People tend to forget that cars that are old-timey now were once brandy-damm-new, and they got driven on long trips all the time. A correctly restored old vehicle is actually quite reliable and comfortable.

Fine looking work, as always. Have you tried MarHyde or Duplicolor interior spray dyes for vinyl for your tires? It works very well on soft plastics, sinks in and leaves no surface grain whatsoever, and adheres almost unbelievably well if you pre-wash the surface with 70% iso (assuming the color you need is available).

When I was a wee lad, I kinda took it for granted that kits would come with swappable engines as well as the stock bits. AMT's original '32 Ford roadster B-model had the stock 4-banger as well as a big ol' Hemi. The AMT '29 Ford spinoff from the Ala Kart double kit had a complete extra airbagged chassis and a Dodge Red Ram Hemi too. AMT's T bucket and tall (or chopped) closed cars had entire optional later-model engines and complete zeed frames and running gear as well. Guess I got spoiled, and want a lot of optional stuff in one box...which is why I'm really looking forward to the New Revell '29 Ford. You're probably right about the zero possibility of ever seeing tubular independent coilover front suspension and a Jag-derived rear-end under something like Revell's '50 Olds...in the box, anyway.

To me it really depends on the particular car, but I think there are some that demand period parts...or they just miss the mark entirely. We had a Falcon Futura convertible in the shop a while back, and I was lovin' it until I popped the hood and saw a crate 5.0 electronic fuel-injection motor...plus a less-than-expertly installed square-tube front subframe with Mustang II front suspension. Yuck. A 289 hi-po would have been so much cooler to me...and it's basically the same engine anyway. And you CAN make the old Falcon front suspension handle perfectly well (maybe not road-race worthy, but just fine for sunny-day-cruising to car shows), so why hack all the originality out when it's unnecessary? On the other hand, I quite like full-on pro-touring cars that have all state-of-the-art guts and underpinnings, but look like beautifully restored period pieces...again, depending on the car and the builder's taste. Then there are the cars that REALLY need to keep the old (or old-style) stuff. The built Merc flathead is part of what makes this car very special. And this one wouldn't get a second look from me if it had another 9" or a Dana...but even with coilovers, that quick-change belongs there.

Steve Moal's shop consistently turns out some of the best of the best metalwork around. True artistry.

After considering all the additional information you've provided us, I'm sure that will be the case. I guess I'm just being greedy. After seeing how good the details look on Revell's recent offerings, and having a lot of their old vintage stuff that I think STILL rates as excellent in quality and scale fidelity, I just badly want a new-tool quick-change or 2 (and if we're lucky even more traditional hot-rod bits) that are up to the standards Revell has set with their best work in recent years. I rarely get excited about much any more, but I AM happily anticipating this new kit and getting several somethings built from it.

This is one of the best peeling-down-to-primer-and-rusting-too jobs I've seen. Looks very real. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=98701

Oh yes, definitely. Lots of Zephyr going on there, kinda.

Nope. The Anglia and Thames panel came with injected first-generation Oldsmobile OHV V8 engines (303-324-371-394). But based on the valve covers and the derivation of the Anglia kit engine from the Revell Stone Woods Cook Willys blown Olds engine, it's probably supposed to represent a 394. All the engines in the first gen Oldsmobile OHV series are visually very similar, and can pass for each other with small detail changes. The Revell first generation Olds OHV engine makes another appearance in the Ed Roth "Beatnik Bandit" kit, but with a 4-71 blower topped with carbs rather than the 6-71 blown and injected version in the Willys. As far as I'm aware, the old Revell Oldsmobile engine was never available in a parts pack version. The Olds 303 in the recent Revell '50 Olds club coupe is an entirely retooled version, and shares nothing with the earlier kit engines (though they're all quite accurately scaled and parts like manifolds and headers will interchange with a little fine fitting).

That really is the key to building this kit. Take your time. Use the fixtures that come in the kit to build the exhausts. Don't get in a hurry, and test-fit carefully as you go. These WILL build into gorgeous models.

You're absolutely right in what you said in post 111...the louvered deck from the 5-window won't fit a 3-window. But it does fit the roadster. I should have been more careful to clarify that. And thanks for your continuing interest in my mashed-up mess.

There's also the very real possibility it was a long-term strategic marketing decision to not include the QC and buggy spring rear end bits in the first offering. Get the sales this one generates, and when it starts to slow down a bit, hopefully after thoroughly replenishing the tooling $$ coffers, introduce a more-old-goody-containing follow-on. I'll buy multiples of this one anyway...assuming the first one I open looks right to my jaundiced old hypercritical eyes. While I agree with Bernard that, in principle, a quick-change rear IS jewelry if the car isn't actually raced, from my own perspective inside the 1:1 hot rod industry, the QC rear end is hardly a rare piece...even on mid-$ cars that ARE intended to be street driven. We recently finished a period-perfect but relatively inexpensive A-V8 (flathead) full-fender car...authentic down to the kinda not-great black enamel paint job...and it got a Halibrand rear end under it. The man who commissioned it died shortly before completion, sadly, but his wife, past 70, routinely drives the thing (!!). The only real concession to modernity was a 5-speed OD gearbox for highway cruising and a split master cylinder for safety. We've got another traditional car just about to go to paint...again, NOT a hyper-expensive build. A mildly-chopped fenderless '32 sedan 2-dr, it runs a Chevy smallblock equipped with 3 Strombergs and rams-horn exhaust manifolds. Again built to be driven, it has a 5-speed OD manual trans, but peeking out from under the rear of the car is another Halibrand. The car simply wouldn't look right without it. The most period-correct car we're currently doing (and the most expensive, by far) IS all pre-'49 genuine "unobtanium". The car will use a Columbia 2-speed rear...but that's already available in one of Revell's '40 Fords.

I think my favorite is the last of the single-headlight cars like this '57 series 62 droptop.