Ace-Garageguy

Judging from the instructions for that kit, raising it should be easy. At the rear, shim the springs, parts 31. You'll probably have to fiddle the shocks, parts 38, to accommodate this. The easiest way is to cut the skinny end off, lengthen to fit the mounting holes (with a small styrene shim the same thickness as the spring shims), cement back together. At the front, the object, if you want to raise the model, is to lower the stub-axles on the spindles, parts 24, relative to the rest of the car. Sometimes, if spindles of this type aren't symmetrical, you can simply swap them side-to-side. Other times, it's necessary to cut the stub-axles from the spindles and move them relative to the vehicle (with the vehicle being right-side-up, naturally). To get the strongest result, drill the spindles to receive short lengths of styrene rod the same diameter as the original stub-axles, glue in place with liquid cement, and allow to dry thoroughly. MEASURING before and during the procedure is critical to get good results, and to get all 4 wheels on the ground.

The issue I addressed initially, as requested, is the fact that there is no mounting flange on the bottom of the crankcase. What is represented is mechanical gibberish. The mounting flange, which SHOULD be represented as part of the crankcase, is instead represented as being part of the base. There is no actual provision for mounting the crankcase. Something made as represented would be impossible to assemble, particularly if the "base" is supposed to be a fuel tank, as there's no access to the bolts from the underside (assuming, of course, that there's supposed to be some imaginary elaboration we can't see that actually holds the crankcase to the base, or 'tank"). The bolts, as represented by the model as-is, appear to hold nothing down. They just go in holes. Regarding the primary issue, a gasket or damper is totally irrelevant. A separation between the mounting flange and the base needs to be created, and the separation between the crankcase and the flange needs to be filled. After that correction, the bolts would appear to actually hold the crankcase to the base. EDIT: OR, one could simply create a mounting flange for the crankcase that matches the outline and bolt-layout of the rectangular mounting ring cast into the base, bond it to the crankcase, create a fillet at the join, then install the hold-down bolts so as to appear to be actually holding something down. Put a gasket, or dampers, between the newly created crankcase flange and the mounting pad on the base if desired.

There still seems to be some confusion. Maybe I can clear it up. 1) The Ford and Lincoln Y-blocks were generally similar designs, but two entirely different engines in specific design detail, that being the reason the "Lincoln" or "truck" ram's horn manifolds don't bolt to the Ford heads. 2) Some Lincoln Y-blocks, or minor variations, were indeed used in trucks...complete with the ram's horn headers. 3) To illustrate this, again, let me direct you to this website: http://www.ford-y-block.com/lincoln.htm Scroll halfway down the page. The two smaller photos show the "Lincoln" 279-317 dressed as truck engines with ram's horn exhaust manifolds. 4) The "truck" ram's horn headers were not installed in passenger cars that were powered by the 279-317, even though they'll bolt to the heads, because the independent front suspension in the passenger cars does not provide enough room for a downpipe. Scroll halfway up this page to my post showing a '54 Lincoln engine bay. You'll see the clearance issue. 5) A Lincoln 279-317 CAN be equipped with ram's horn manifolds if it's installed in a vehicle...like a traditional hot-rod or a truck...that has a beam front axle located in such a position as to allow physical space for said manifolds and downpipes, as long as no other parts or accessories physically interfere. 6) There ARE indeed FORD factory cast iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to the FORD Y-block 292-312 series of engines. Again, they were used primarily when the engines were installed in trucks, and they're a popular choice for traditional rod builders who want something different. SEE: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/traditional-y-block-s.68476/ 7) There are also aftermarket cast iron ram's horn manifolds for the FORD Y-blocks. Summing up, there are two distinct series of Ford-produced Y-block V8 engines, and there are two distinct designs of "ram's horn" cast iron exhaust manifolds that will fit them. EDIT: I do NOT know all the possible permutations of Ford vs Lincoln Y-blocks...but I DO know that there ARE factory cast-iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to at least some of the "Lincoln" Y-block engines, and there are other factory (and aftermarket) cast iron ram's horn exhaust manifolds that will bolt to the Ford Y-block engines...and the bolt patterns and angles are indeed different. NOTE: I'm currently double checking for factual accuracy, but at 09:38 EST, Jan. 23, 2022, I believe the above information to be correct.

Nice. Thanks.

See my post above. The reference site shows the ram's horn manifolds, but specifically states: "Lincoln Y-Block outfitted for HD truck use". As I noted, every photo on the web of the reference-site noted 317 in the '52-'54 Lincoln shows NON-ram's horn manifolds. I've also done extensive research on the later larger displacement Lincoln engines, for a historic Mercury race-car build, the '57 Mermaid, and a period hot-rod, and know for a fact those engines, in Lincolns and the MkII Continental, had NON-ram's horn manifolds as well. (NOTE: During the course of that research, I became involved in an old discussion concerning the supposed but incorrect "Lincoln" engine in the AMT chopped-T coupe double kit, as well...but those threads at Scale Auto went away with everything else.)

A CD I bought from England, reference blueprints, data, and photos of the Supermarine S6b, arrived broken in half. Well packed in a stiffened envelope with internal backers, clearly marked "do not bend", no external damage to the envelope, very obviously just some mean-spirited jackass in the delivery chain bent it until it snapped.

Too cool. Something to do with all those drop-tanks that are too small for lakesters.

Holy cow. What's the story on the Lola Mk6 GT on the left? Was that actually kitted? EDIT: Found one !

Jus' 'bout everything I got is mockups. Maybeez I'll post a few of the best ones...

Thing is, it would be so easy to modify some Chebby manifolds, as opposed to finding, measuring, drafting in CAD, converting to printable files, and then printing and shipping...why bother? Sometimes old-school simplicity just makes a lot more sense than newfangled complication.

That site shows the 279/317 with ram's horn manifolds, but also states those displacements were for truck use...with the exception being the 317 in the '52-'54 Lincoln. Photos of '52-'54 Lincoln engines invariably show the common up-and-over manifolds, with a crossover in front:

Got these a while back...a Spacemonkey two-pack of American-made blow-molded styrene (!) 1/24 scale WWII German V2 rockets. Excellent quality for what they are. Kit includes Cartograf decals for four variants, including a captured unit displayed at White Sands, and one representing the Operation Sandy version, the first ballistic missile launch from a ship at sea, the USS Midway, in October September (oops) of 1947. http://thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Space_Weapons_02_V2_Midway.html Big models, standing almost 2 feet tall; shown below with a 1/25 model for reference.

Steven Sloman, author of The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone (and who manages to apparently obliviously contradict his own research when speaking about his own beliefs...fascinating ) "One danger is that if I think I understand because the people around me think they understand, and the people around me all think they understand because the people around them all think they understand, then it turns out we can all have this strong sense of understanding even though no one really has any idea what they're talking about... But some people do try to rise above the crowd: to verify claims independently, to give fair hearing to others' claims, and to follow the data where it actually leads. In fact, many people are trained to do that: scientists, judges, forensic investigators, physicians, etc. That doesn't mean they always do (and they don't always), just that they're supposed to try. I like to live in communities that put a premium on getting things right even when...this means living with constant tension, but it's worth it."

Well, no. If you look at the built-up engine model, you'll see rocker arms. That identifies it positively as an overhead-valve (OHV) engine, definitely not an L-head.

Not me...yet. But I believe Replicas and Miniatures has the requisite '52 Lincoln taillights and Buick side spears.

Always good to see period race cars, especially the amateur back-yard variety so prevalent in the good ol' days. Looks great so far.

Yeah, I've had to pass on quite a number of those that were missing small parts like bodies... Another annoying one is "NO RETURNS!!! STUDY THE PHOTOS BECAUSE WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET!!!"...and the photos are of the sprues in the box, with no way in jell to see what's there. Between the weasels and the idiots, life gets more interesting daily.

Pretty impressive for battery power, but I'm more interested in the range...which determines any vehicle's overall practicality. And, um...the Rolls Royce IC-powered Supermarine S6b flew 407 MPH way back in 1931, so these guys have a little catching up to do.

Looks good. I've never seen two 166s that were exactly the same anyway, so without careful measurement of the particular car represented, which few modelers are going to have access to, it's pretty much a moot point. If the first impression looks close, that's about all you can reasonably expect.

Great looking trucklet, and inspiring...as I've always wanted a nice one of these too.

And...I won't pay the premium for "new" books anymore. I used to have a thing for clean, pristine printed material when I could find it, but it's a total waste of money now, considering the USPO appears tp be absolutely and totally incapable of delivering a book or magazine without tearing it or crushing a corner or three when they toss it around like a frisbee. Just found a $40 book on the porch with, yet again, two crushed corners. This makes every reference book I've bought in the last three months fubarred in one way or another in shipping...six in all. No point going in to complain either, as the tools that work there look at me like I'm speaking Swahili and can't even comprehend what the damage is, or why anyone would care. Maybe it's a good thing. Think of all the money I'll save if I buy previously-trashed-by-chimps books instead of new.

This one??

A couple more small engines with hold-down tabs cast integral with the crankcase: EDIT: And another one with a hold-down ring cast as part of the crankcase:

Here's a similar ring cast in unit with a crankcase in a way that makes practical sense.

I believe that what you have here is an example of what happens when the tooling designer doesn't understand the function or real-world construction of the parts he's modeling. A more correct and likely representation could be either 1) molding the "ring" to the engine crankcase casting proper (split at the crankcase seam, of course), and scribing a deep line between the "ring" and the base to represent the joint, or 2) adding short "cast on" tabs to the crankcase above the bolt locations, allowing the crankcase to be "bolted" to the base, where the ring, represented as cast into the base in that case, would only perform a positive locating function. EDIT: To save yourself some work, you could, of course, go with the idea that there's some unnecessarily elaborate attachment method we're not seeing UNDER the base that relies partially on the visible hold-down bolts, but in reality that would be a stupid design, and awkward to assemble. EDIT 2: Here's a one-lunger clearly showing hold-down tabs cast in unit with the crankcase. EDIT 3: Here's one with hold-down tabs cast in unit with a base that's bolted to the crankcase from the underside, with the crankcase-to-base bolts not visible from the top...which they wouldn't be unless there were visible cast-on tabs on the crankcase and matching holes on the base.