Ace-Garageguy

Hmmmmmmmm......

Using Duplicolor and other rattlecan primers intended for real cars on styrene models is becoming more and more problematic (though you should be OK on ABS, as it's much more resistant to "hot" primers and paints). I've been painting for well over 50 years, and developed my skill to where I could shoot a slick, wet coat of primer that would flow out smooth with no orange peel, cover well enough, but not obliterate any details. Recently, many automotive primer formulations have apparently changed, and many kit plastics are nowhere near as solvent resistant as before. The net result is that, if I shoot wet and slick (as worked fine for 30 years), the cheap new plastics craze instantly, leaving a model that's useless for anything other than a rusty rat. Attempting to shoot multiple "dry" or "mist" coats, as often recommended, makes a pebbly or badly orange-peeled surface needing much careful, fine sanding to look decent. I'm still working on solutions, and haven't found one that works 100% of the time yet. Here's a thread that examines these problems in some depth.

It still works when you have 2 good, honest guys.

That's pretty funny...and not surprising given its looks. Seems to have come from the collective pens of a no-talent committee like the one responsible for the Nissan Puke. I don't quite understand why, though it's entirely possible to design beautiful vehicles, there seem to be so very few. These little VW vans, for instance, are sleek, trim, well-proportioned, and all their parts look like they were designed to go together.. The Fiat equivalent Promaster City / Doblo pictured above looks like they took random lines and planes and merged them in the computer, with no cohesive vision whatsoever.

Great pair of cars, Tom. " 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".

I like both the '59 and the '60. The canted-quad headlights on the '59 are part of its unique appeal, but when Starbird elected to change them to horizontal, the large empty area that resulted just above them never looked right to me. Too flat-faced, reminds me of a whale somehow. The photoshopped rework done by Mr. Brame, above, raises the horizontally-paired lights just enough to get rid of the slightly awkward look of Starbird's version (which I've always liked immensely anyway) but is still instantly recognizable as a '59. I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll build it with the original canted quads, or do something more like Mr. Brame's work.

The photo you show above, the Ram 2500 Promaster, is actually based on the Fiat Ducato. The Fiat Doblo-based Promaster is smaller, and looks like this...

Yup. Same guy. Welcome.

There are often times when I CAN'T wear gloves, working on some particularly delicate 1:1 machinery, where a very fine sense of touch is required. In those cases, I've come to rely on this stuff. Works a treat, and makes everything wash off with water (Lava soap helps, or some kind of scrubbing hand-cleaner). It PREVENTS dirt and grime from getting under your nails or getting embedded in your skin. Non-greasy after you work it in. BUT...you DON'T want to touch a model prior to painting with this stuff on your hands.

B&W photos above are Crucifer, built by Joe Cruces. Color shot below is Crucifer II. https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/joe-cruces-post-what-you-know.101979/

Fiat made a lot of vans over the years. We just didn't get many over here. What you've got there is a Fiat 238 (built from '67 through '83) with an optional raised-roof. A direct competitor to the VW Bugbus (in the European market) , the Fiat 238 came in lotsa body styles. There was also a pop-top camper. The chassis was derived from the Autobianchi (a Fiat subsidiary) Primula. It's engine and gearbox sit sideways, ahead of the front axle...like the majority of FWD cars today. Because that puts it under the seat in the 238, your feet and backside are always toasty warm.

Most excellent. Don't know how I missed it. Definitely my kind of build. Looks like it's s'posed to.

Actually, that's pretty much what I do. Excellent reminder.

Another example of Ebay and PayPal working correctly... First time in over 2000 transactions that the USPS actually LOST a purchase; it simply stopped progressing through the tracking system on August 12. It just ceased to exist, far as anyone can tell. The tracking number STILL shows it as of the Aug. 12 update...no movement. Filed a 'didn't receive item' action, as per the usual Ebay procedure, and though the seller initially refused to refund, citing the old "I mailed it and it's not my fault", Ebay / PayPal took MY side, citing the fact that USPS priority comes with automatic $100 insurance, and that the sender needed to file a PO claim on HIS end...and I got MY money back from PayPal, taken from the sender's account. Also, the current significant-other female ordered something from China through Ebay, and when it arrived, it was an entirely different design and color from the one shown in the auction photos. Again, foot-dragging on the part of the seller. Opened another action, sent photos, etc, got a refund from PayPal. As Nacho Z says above "my advice to you is that if the transaction looks like it's going off the rails, do not let the seller string you along. Give them a fair chance but if they keep giving you excuses as to why you have not received the goods, begin the PayPal process".

Looks good, definite improvement. Surprising that AMT, who usually got most of the lines and proportions pretty close to spot-on on many of the old promo-era models would have missed the mark on the angle and positioning of the pillars and window frames. Vary nice piece of re-work, sir...but don't forget that the side-window frames went all the way around the glass in the doors, including the tops, and open with the doors. I can't see the tops of the frames in the 'after' photos (though they're clearly visible in the real-car shots), but maybe that's just the angle we're looking at.

Exactly. There are components in paint that are absorbed through your skin that CAN (not necessarily WILL) have long term adverse (bad) health effects. Cleaning hands with solvent products to get paint off is also not all that great an idea, and going around with paint on your hands makes you look like a 5-year-old. Any grocery or drug store will have latex or vinyl examination gloves for about $5 for 50, so that's 10 cents for each glove. Pretty cheap considering they save time you would have to spend cleaning up, and save you from being exposed to potentially harmful chemicals. If you're REALLY cost-conscious, they can usually be used several times, if you let them dry out between uses. If you're really OPPOSED to using gloves, you can attach the parts or bodies you're spraying to some sort of handle, easily made from paint sticks, wire hangers, etc., that can get the part to be painted far enough away from your hands so you don't spray them directly, anyway.

The first line is very interesting. "Cycloac" was a trade name for a particular formulation of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, the ABS that Art mentions above. In a way, you can think of it as 'super-styrene'. It has superior strength and other properties to "styrene", and is widely used as the material of choice for common objects all around us, like many interior parts of cars, computer, phone and power tool housings, frames and supports for the internal parts of copiers, etc. It's also used as the filament in one type of 3D printing, and Legos. It DOES dry out and become brittle (even crumbling) over time if it's exposed to moderate heat continuously (or prolonged thermal cycling), as anyone who's ever worked with electrical connectors under the hood of an older electronically fuel-injected car has certainly noticed. It also degrades in UV light, which is a constituent of of sunlight. As well as being tougher than "styrene", and vastly more dimensionally stable than acetate, ABS is also more solvent-resistant than "styrene". It takes a "hotter" solvent to glue it to itself than the typical model-quality styrene, though epoxy works well on it.

Something else to consider...on real-world surfaces, 4-link with coil springs doesn't really have much advantage over well set-up and tuned leaf springs with old-school traction bars and a Panhard bar (or better yet, a Watts link). Less-than-perfect multi-link rear suspension designs can induce odd and undesirable rear-steer characteristics. And though coil-overs are generally lighter than leaf springs, the additional unsprung weight of the leaves creates only a slight disadvantage in ride quality. Below is the general modern idea of traction bars for a leaf-sprung rear end (though there would be one on each side). The front pivot is ideally close to a line running through the centerline of the front spring eyes, to minimize binding. This type of bar removes the need for the springs to locate the axle fore-and aft, and eliminates the tendency of leaf springs to "wrap" or "wind up" under hard acceleration and braking. The adjustable upper link can be used to help fine-tune pinion angle for different ride-heights, and to preload the springs sometimes. Add a Panhard bar or Watts link to control side motion of the car relative to the axle, and you're there. NOTE: The shackle shown at the front of the lower link isn't necessarily wanted, as it tends to defeat the whole purpose of the bar assembly as far as preventing axle "wind-up" goes. Below is the real old-school version of traction bars (NOT "slapper bars", a completely different animal). The 4-bolt flange attaches to the U-bolts at the spring perch on the axle, and the bracket at the other end attaches the front of the bar close to the front spring eye centerline. These can also be made to handle surprisingly well, for cheap. Again, A Panhard bar or Watts link is mandatory to make it work best, but you get to keep the stock springs without a lot of fab work to mount coil-overs or multiple (and critical) brackets for links. Below, same basic idea. Not trying to talk you out of a 4-link, but you can make leaf springs handle razor-sharp for a lot less money on a real car, and a lot easier on a model. IMAGES TAKEN FROM OPEN INTERNET SOURCES UNDER "FAIR USE" DEFINITION IN COPYRIGHT LAW

I always had to smile whenever I saw one of these. That 'face' looks so friendly and willing. Sure would make a cool little shop truck today.

Always a real pleasure to stop in and have a look at this thread. Scratch-building doesn't get any better than this.

Really beautiful, inspiring work.

Very clean, very attractive model. Great paint choice too. Black is the perfect color to show off just what an outstanding design this is.

The stock V8 '53 Stude had a Dana 44 rear end, if I remember correctly, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it under a street-driven car that sees occasional drag-strip use. It's generally considered to be adequate for up to about 500HP in a fairly light car like the ol' Stude...so long as you don't make a habit of dumping the clutch with wide, sticky tires, at redline. Adding traction bars would avoid spring wind-up at launch (which can lead to component failure), and a long Panhard bar would thigten up cornering a little. Otherwise, it's just fine.

I like tho overall look and proportions a lot. Nice combination of patrs into an integrated looking whole.

Very nice. MUCH better proportions and lines than the bulbous, top-heavy baby-buggy roof as it comes in the kit.