Ace-Garageguy

I can certainly understand that...and two of the best full-scale builders I know in town here are also modelers. I well remember your presence there, and farther back, the efforts Hot Rod made towards introducing rodders to the idea that building in scale was a fun and affordable alternative to building large. Back when most of what was available to car modelers in kit form were the early Revell 1/32 scale offerings, there were numerous articles in HR pushing the idea that scale models could be employed for developing styling treatments for full-scale building as well. The idea is still relevant, and one I rely on often.

That's interesting. On the flip side, I've encountered a lot of real-car builders who look down their noses at model-builders, and tend to disregard the fact that some of us are highly skilled and technically knowledgeable in both fields, and that there's a lot of very useful overlap between the two interests.

The M/SP class was eventually merged with the "altered" designation, as M/SP cars had looser rules and permitted more mods than the "gassers". M/SP engine setback could be 25% of wheelbase, for example, while the "gas" classes only allowed 10% So where veteran cars actually ended up depended largely on the particular car, as there were a lot of M/SPs that weren't as heavily modified as the rules allowed. Here's a thoroughly researched build of an M/SP car...

Google? Facebook?

The simple solution that has always worked for me is to contact eBay after their "estimated delivery date" has passed. There's a resolution procedure that only requires a few mouse clicks and writing a coherent sentence or 3. That said, eBay's functionality continues to deteriorate. Their apparent reliance on out-of-work 4th-rate emoji designers to do their IT "upgrades" is having an obviously negative effect on most interactions now.

If by "body lift" you mean were the bodies raised relative to the frames (as on some "lifted" trucks, and of questionable functional value even there), the answer is unequivocally NO. The "gasser" frames were raised relative to the ground by suspension mods.

Yup. Having been in the real-car resto and hot-rod biz for decades, I have to deal with unacceptable results on a continuing basis. A shop that was my go-to for years can no longer deliver the goods. Another shop that opened fairly recently (becoming increasingly difficult with all the knee-jerk...but largely meaningless... "environmental" regs in many places) did a few knockout pieces for us, but now everything comes back horrible...if they don't lose it. To finish up the high-end '66 Chevelle I've been building since 2016, I'm working side-by-side with yet another shop. I do the metalwork (which insures there are NO WAVES, and it fits properly), they put a heavy layer of copper on it, send it back to me, I block the copper, send it back to them for more copper, and repeat as necessary. When the copper is perfect, it goes to nickel, then chrome. It's a royal PITA, as there was a time when there were literally hundreds of competent plating shops. No more.

Just keep in mind that "chroming" plastic model parts is an entirely different process from chroming metal real-car parts. Entirely.

Yup. The technology is out there, with prices for the equipment ranging from $2,500 to over $80,000. Step right up, kids. https://www.marcacoating.com/pvd-coating-equipment/vacuum-metallization-equipment FOR MORE INFO GOOGLE "VACUUM METALIZING"

Good. The "really nose high look" is generally favored by folks who know nothing about vehicle dynamics or drag racing history, and believe the endlessly rebleated wrong information on the interdwerbs. One of the winningest, most consistent, and most famous gassers of all time was the original Stone-Woods-Cook '41 Willys, and all its later incarnations. If you want to build a model of a period gasser that's set up right, this is the stance you want at rest:

Which is why some people believe the most idiotic stuff...mindless rebleating. Contrary to what some folks apparently believe, saying something 100 times doesn't make it true.

Mr. Snake pretty much nails it. "Much of the impression of the high front end is false. It was common back in the day to run magazine pics of these cars leaving the starting line, where/when the front end would be rising on acceleration making it look like the front end was higher than the car actually sat at rest. Also, it was common back then to photograph the cars in "features" from low angles from the front quarter, which also accentuated and exaggerated the high nose. Not that there weren't nose-high cars in those days. There were. I'm just saying that the effect has been a bit WAY exaggerated over the years. The NHRA rulebooks of the day specified that the cars should sit level, or with a slight "rake" (front end lower than back), and said that the lower line of the body could pass no higher than the axles' centerlines (or lower than the lower edge of the wheels). I concede that not all cars ran by NHRA rules, and even some that did didn't follow this rule, which doesn't seem to have been strictly enforced except maybe at NHRA national events, or if records were involved. You'll also notice that as cars started running much above 140 mph, the front ends started dropping for aerodynamic reasons at the top end. You saw this happen with the funny cars, and then with the gassers, the Pro Stocks, the MPs and Super Stocks, and on down into the Stock classes as the cars went faster and faster and aerodynamic drag became more important." TWO ADDITIONAL NOTES: 1) Because of the tendency of idiots to try to stretch the rules to improve weight transfer at launch, the NHRA imposed a new rule that specified the engine crankshaft centerline could be no more than 24" from the pavement with the vehicle at rest. Check the rules for the specific reference, and when it came in. 2) When the trap speeds got up around 140, as Snake mentions, noses began to drop. But "drag" wasn't the main factor. Lift on the front end could be so severe that the vehicles became dangerously unstable. Anyone who's ever driven fast will be familiar with the phenomenon on even relatively low and slippery cars. At 140, a DeTomaso Pantera is one jell of a handful, dancing all over the road.

My sincere best wishes for you going into the future. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to deal with what you have to, day in, day out. You should be an inspiration to all of us.

That's the problem with internet searches. If you don't know a pretty fair bit about what you're searching, and you're lazy, you're going to believe mostly wrong information. I've had more than my fill of instant "experts" who read a couple of articles on the web and all of a sudden know vastly more about everything automotive than I do after my 5+ decades of first-hand, hands-on experience. And that's just the way it is today. First-hand real-world-derived knowledge has very little value to a certain abysmally ignorant...and just plain stupid...segment of the population who believe the first gibberish Google vomits up. EDIT: Of course, the upside is that there's a wealth of correct information available on the web like never before in the history of Man. But you need to have some basic knowledge and possess good critical-thinking skills to benefit from it.

Cool stuff. Thanks for the post.

Yup, I'm sure they would.

One little unpleasant truth to remember whenever dealing with ANY service company...the workmanship and quality on any given day...or job...is only as good as the individual who does the work cares to make it. The two real-car shops I contract with here (a major metropolitan area in the Southeast) can NOT hire competent help, even though a high 5-figure income is possible. As a result, one shop has scaled back to only accepting enough work to keep the current crew busy (and they're far from wizards themselves), and the other shop is quitting the high-end hot-rod work when I leave. The point is...your plating guy may have a new-hire who doesn't care, or just doesn't understand the concept of acceptable vs. not. That's pretty standard these days in every service business, including banking. I would most definitely complain. You paid for a certain level of work you'd reasonably come to expect, as you'd received that level of work in the past. You have every RIGHT to complain, and to expect it to be done to your satisfaction.

Another tech point about building a Cannonball car...while I'm not a huge fan of the complication of running EFI, it CAN significantly improve drivability and fuel mileage if tuned correctly...and if side-of-the-road-repair spares are carried. The FAST system we're currently running on the Chevelle uses what's essentially an Edelbrock single-plane 4-bbl manifold, with the port runners drilled for the injectors. The central throttle body looks like a simplified carb, and houses the MAF, TP, and other sensors. Peak HP is about the same as with the Holley, but both power and torque curves are flatter, and fuel consumption is better. Photo below is the very similar Edelbrock system, but the FAST throttle body and rails are red.

If I remember correctly, the Webers in that kit are side-drafts mounted as downdrafts. About as technically accurate as mounting a Holley upside down. And here's a point in favor of running a single 4-barrel for a Cannonball car...the big-block in the '66 Chevelle (real car) I'm finishing up dynoed at 750HP+ with a single 4-barrel Holley.

Looks great above. Clean, clean bodywork and fitting. Very nice work.

With some fiddly fill and file work, the kit manifold could be converted to resemble the one-piece manifold I posted above as EDIT 2, and the Y-adapters could be removed from the carbs. It all comes down to whether you're happy with a good looking model that's not exactly representative of reality, or whether you obsess over technical accuracy (as I usually do...and which leads me into difficulties that significantly delay finishing anything). Either way, it's solely the builder's choice...and 95% of folks looking at a model aren't going to know the difference anyway.

Gladly. It's acceptable for a big-block Chevy, but not ideal. The spacing of the openings on the ports would imply it was intended for four 1-barrel carbs, and there is no indication of the manifold ports being split prior to going into the head ports. There would be little reason in reality to mount downdraft Webers on those "Y" manifold adaptors, other than to accommodate an unnecessarily restrictive main manifold. The location of the ports is generally OK though (barring the fact that individual runners are paired on the real engine), and the thermostat housing and distributor hole are kinda OK too. The manifold (below) shows the actual locations of the ports, coolant outlet, and distributor drive hole. You'll have to decide if you can live with the kit part. EDIT: This is a proper big-block Chevy Weber downdraft manifold. There are others, but this is the general layout. (below) EDIT 2: Here's a one-piece casting with shorter runners. (below)

Yes. Reported in Time, 2016: "The average attention span for the notoriously ill-focused goldfish is nine seconds, but according to a new study from Microsoft Corp., people now generally lose concentration after eight seconds, highlighting the affects of an increasingly digitalized lifestyle on the brain.

The Flintstone version isn't terrible shape and line-wise, but it's got several symmetry problems, and the real cars were pretty well built as far as symmetry goes...much better than say, Cobras. The Flintstone / UMI version also has a somewhat unusual bustle on the rear deck...not really "typical". And though the Fernando Pinto version I have is a slightly later car with the gills on the rear quarters, the lines and proportions are very close to correct. The Teapot Graphics version appears to be pretty good, but the length of the front hood opening and its relationship to the headlight buckets is entirely wrong on the CMC diecast.