Ace-Garageguy

Insulation stripped off of 12 or 10 gage black wire might be a good approximation. Radio Shack often has various diameters of black heat-shrink tubing (at least they did when they still catered to clients who built and repaired electronics....now they seem to be more of a toy and phone store). A real electronics shop could set you up. I don't have any to look at and measure right now, but I've used smaller-diameter plastic flex-straws to simulate ribbed hose on some larger scale models. Painted black of course.

It really depends on what the model's designers had in mind, but it should be safe to call it either a 331, a 365, or a 390 as they all look alike basically. It would depend on the exact period you want your model to reflect. I wonder why Revell didn't use the old parts-pack tooling, if it is indeed supposed to be one of these engines, because the parts-pack is excellent, and the pix of the Merc version I've seen don't look all that sharp to me.

Also by all means take a look at Custom Mike's '50 Chevy truck bed over in the "straight six community build" thread. It's VERY nice. This link is to the end, but he goes through the process in earlier posts. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59517&st=100

Yup, my bad in calling it an 'A'. I specifically used the 'T' to avoid having to do even more mods necessary to use the excellent 'A' spring from the old Revell 1/25 '31 Woody kit (in order to get the rear end width I was after with the juice-brake backing plates). Good sharp eye, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will change the incorrect post so anyone reading it will get the right info. Using the 'A' spring would have allowed putting the crossmember in a little higher between the rails, which I would have prefered, and the spring is a little stiffer, being (I THINK) 1/4 inch wider in 1:1, but there were other interference problems shaping up. I think the 'T' spring will give me just a hair more room to route the muffled part of the exhaust system. I'll also finish up more correct-looking rear-axle spring hangers than the stuck-in tubes, but I'll leave them a little wrong for strength's sake.

Looking great so far. Nice job shooting the gold base.

I'd really like to sign up for this, as I already have a '53 Stude (inspired by the Cagle-Sanchez car), a flathead-powered streamliner, a late pre-war 4-banger '29 Ford lakes car, a circa-1955 '36 Ford lakes car with a blown Y-block, and a Pikes Peak modified, Pontiac powered, similar to the Unser Pikes Peak Special, all in progress. But I think I may just have to watch from afar, because if I make one more committment my head will explode.

Wow.....I should know that, but I don't have a clue....... Subaru Justy, huh? Who woulda thunk it........ PS. Do they REALLY have cookies on the Dark Side? That would help to explain a lot.........

This should be in the "Q and A" section. This particular part of the forum is for people who know how to do something magic to explain it to others. Anway, to help with your problem, what type of vehicle are you making 'derby' cars from? straight-axle '30s -'40s stuff or more modern, independent front suspension?

Ah, that explains it. I've seen a couple of his '34 shells listed and wondered.......

I'll probably stay with some version of the Viper engine, as I've already modified a lot to make room for it. With the 300 grille and what I'm planning to do with it, it's beginning to seem to want to stay Mopar, too, and it's going to need huge power.

It's a Chrysler 300 grille shell from the old AMT parts pack. I'm not certain of the year, but with the rounded upper corners and arched top-bar, I'd guess '62.

Man, that's a great looking old Merc. About as slick and clean as it gets. Makes me want to try one of those kits. Fine job.

Great looking Eldo. I didn't even realize it had been kitted. That body style was one of GM's best designs, IMHO.

Best looking Manx build I've seen so far, and I hope it brings in a ton of cash for the cause.

I end up trying to fix the problems, or changes I want to make, as they come up. I've set builds aside literally for years because something didn't work as I'd planned, or because something I was trying to accomplish was beyond my skill level at the time. 3 of the more ambitious builds I've got going at tme moment were set-asides, but now, after forcing myself to not give-up-and-move-on, all 3 of them are nearing completion, and I think I'll be pleased with the results. A lot of it has to do with what you want from the hobby. If it's purely for relaxation or passing time pleasantly, then the answer is pretty simple. If you're more of a perfectionist, as you say, only pushing your limits (which sometimes includes doing everything over) will build the skills where you hit the desired results the FIRST time. I'm currently doing major reworks of two projects that were pretty close to paint because I saw things I could have done better, or things I wanted to change the look of. If I had just gone ahead and finished the builds without making the changes, I never would have liked the finished products and really would have considered the time spent as wasted. But that's just me.

Finished several months back, and now for sale. Watch the video at the end. This was built by the shop where I currently work. I have no part of this build, but I think it's a smoking-hot little car. It's on a custom front-zeed rectangular steel-tube chassis that's the same wheelbase as a '32. Chevy 350 Mexican crate-motor with 3 Rochester 2bbls, S-10 5-speed, Ford 9" rear and repop '40 juice brakes all around. Also 16" repop Ford steelies, aluminum repop B-17 seats and a '32 grille shell. Very traditional car. And this is a hot-rod, not a rat rod. It will be gloss copper metallic, with a little chrome to dress it out. Josh Mills and his crew have done all of the work, and the welding is the nicest you can get, period. The quality of the top-chop is pretty much perfect.

This is what I'm starting with, a gluey AMT '32 5-window that I've already bugun to chop. Doesn't look too promising.........

So, here's the Model A rear crossmember cut out of the model A chassis, just like real.....The marks are where it will be trimmed to fit between the '32 rails. The reason the rear suspension complete with spring had to be built-up first is that it's ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to know that the axle centerline and the ride height are the same as on the mockup when you glue in the crossmember, if you want to maintain the exact stance. I do, as it's a large part of the character of the car. I've seen well-respected pros get this wrong on 1:1 cars, and it looks really stupid if you blow it. Because the Halibrand quick-change is a different shape than the '37 or '40 rear that came out, I had to make up new rear floors and a tunnel extension to clear everything. All that's left now of the original AMT frame is the rails. Here's the assembled unit happily installed in the car, with everything fitting right.

Yes, pretty much. As far as size of material goes, a typical Art Morrison chassis is made of 2X4 inch rectangular steel tubing. Divide by whatever scale you're working in (divide by 25 for 1/25 scale, etc.) to figure the correct size stock. ALSO, Marcus Jones shows some of his great frame scratch-building work on this thread. It's worth looking at and studying........... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58199&hl=%2Brevell+%2Bgearz+%2Bentry

And.....the Wagon Rod frame represents an Art Morrison unit fabricated from 2X4 rectangular steel tubing. That's a little small for a pickup, where the body and bed are separate and contribute little to torsional rigidity (in 1:1). A 2X6 or larger would be much better (and the frame COULD be beefed up by adding styrene strip to it to represent taller-section rails). Also, the Wagon Rod frame is about a 110.5 inch wheelbase, while the F1 is 114. You'd have to lengthen the frame the right amount, and it is still configured differently with more kickup over the rear axle, which would interfere with the bed. Are you trying to get independent front suspension under an F1?

That's a really good question, and as this thing evolves, I'm beginning to think seriously about saving the twin-blown Viper for something else and going to a little more conservative powerplant. This started out being a totally impractical showcar, but it seems to want to be something else, and it's already moving in a direction I haven't shown yet. The hood actually will go up enough in front to be able to slide it forward, so some arrangement like that COULD work, but it's kinda silly for a truck.

Anybody have any experience with or reviews of Ron Cash Resin products?

........."the Killer Years" ? What is this, sensational headlining like is so ridiculously prevalant everywhere today? " PEOPLE MAIMED, BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREET>>>PICTURES AT 11:00 !!!!!!!!!!!" Racing STILL is dangerous, and has always been dangerous. Probably why so few actually DO it, and so many TALK about it. You want to see cars that took REAL nads to drive? Look at the stuff from the 19teens, '20s, '30s and '40s. No rollbars, no collapsible steering columns, no seatbelts, no real helmets, no fire-suits. Drivers impaled on steering columns. Drivers thrown from cars and then crushed when the car fell on them. Drivers burned to death slowly when fuel tanks ruptured. Yeah, the '60s and '70s were more dangerous than now as far as safety equipment and engineering of the cars, but the '60s -'70s cars were HUGELY safer than what went before, just as today's cars are hugely safer than the '60s-'70s, but there's STILL NO WAY to GUARANTEE survival from a sudden impact at 200mph. And another thing to remember.....no one held a gun to the head of any driver and made him risk his life to live fully and intensely. Those who were killed in the sport died doing something they loved. I can't think of a better way to go. THE KILLER YEARS !!!!!!!! OMG !!!!! OMG !!!!!!

That bed is really really beautiful, Mike. Great build so far.

Check out the Detail Master PE rad core material in this Midget build over on the 'workbench' forum..... http://www.modelcars...showtopic=62492 It looks like the real thing, much more real and correct than any screen. Screen DOES look great to represent screen, like shaker screens in front of radiators on dirt-trackers, in grille openings, etc, but they're two distinct looks.