Ace-Garageguy

Great looking model. I love old stock-cars when they were still pretty much "stock".

Love the engine bay shot...looks exactly like a real one I have in the big-car shop at the moment. Removing the engine entirely is probably the best way to insure an E-type doesn't leak something on the floor while sitting.

Looks fast, too.

Very nice, lotsa good hack-n-whack going on here. Love it.

I always have to take my hat off to somebody who strips a perfectly fine looking model to make it better. Re-paint is looking great.

Wow. Very ambitious, and what you have looks great. As said above, your grille choice works very well. Nice to see somebody doing one of these as a radical custom too.

Absolutely. I have a soft spot for "development cars".

Looking good so far. The Victoria really is a very attractive body style, and the nice thing about the old AMT kit is that it has a separate rear suspension and exhaust (unlike the roadster) and makes for a nicer model. The wooden floor as depicted in this kit is entirely wrong for a '32 Ford (it's actually all stamped steel...not your fault, or course), but the way you've treated it looks great.

Nice work. I was a little skeptical about sectioning the already-somewhat-sectioned AMT body shell, but the proportions you've come up with after the chop look like you hit the sweet-spot with this one. Looking forward to seeing her come together. That weathered leather interior treatment is pretty slick too.

If you're really interested, as well as in learning how things were actually done back in the wayback (as opposed to relying on endless pontifications from a whole lot of people who weren't there), I'd respectfully suggest looking for old issues of Hot-Rod, Rod & Custom, etc. Though the prices of this stuff has been steadily increasing for a few years, it's still possible to find tons of period-correct reference material for reasonable money...and you'll know it's right, because it actually came from the period, and not filtered through some "expert's" view.

Yup. Agreed 100%. I can certainly risk a few bucks to vote-with-my-wallet, and show that I value what's here. I'll subscribe (though I've been buying single issues regurarly for years). I've got some really interesting content I've been saving for magazine articles, too (already discussed some of it with the lately departed Harry). Guess ya'll have to buy the mag to get the goods.

I think Sheib's boys were the ones who pioneered the painted-with-a-dirty-pinecone look. I've seen cars come out of there with the trash that blew out of the vent grilles at the base of the windshield firmly stuck in the paint on the hood. Nize. They also had a thing about running the DA over window glass and chrome. Gotta love the consistent quality approach to everything.

"Tipo" is Italian for "type", so either "type 33" or "tipo 33" (if you're Italian or insufferably pedantic...or pretentious ) would be correct. Honest.

Probably the best idea yet...if you could add a flag under the avatar that said something like "supporting member" for people who coughed up.

The real problem with charging for access to information on the internet is that most people don't know the difference between GOOD information and gibberish, and would prefer to take the latter for free rather than actually PAY for the former. The depth of technical info available here is vastly superior to what's on most of the "plenty of other sites" that people are referring to, but a lot of folks just don't seem to get it. There are some real-car sites that are full of good info (and gibberish too) that have a voluntary dollar-amount contribution that gets the "member" some sort of recognition alongside his avatar, and the feeling of pride associated with actively supporting the thing, and being recognized for doing so, appeals to a lot of people...and a lot just want it all for nothing, as usual. When I personally go looking for informative posts on these sites, I'm much more inclined to believe info posted by guys who make the effort to pay-to-play, rather than the legions of freebie-seekers who've usually never done whatever they're expounding about as self-styled "experts", because they once overheard a conversation about the topic at a car show.

Again this AM, trying to post a response in a build thread, got the dreaded 404 message shown below, multiple times. I edited the response and tried to paste it back in, same result. Edited it more, and it finally posted, but the site then almost immediately knocked me off, and I couldn't log in again for over an hour. This odd behavior has happened before. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I'M NOT BASHING THE SITE. I'M TRYING TO POST FACTUAL INFO ABOUT PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT MAY GIVE THE ADMINISTRATORS SOME INSIGHT. 404 Error SORRY. WE CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THE PAGE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

Snagged a complete unmolested MPC Mako Shark (for a very good price) with a built-up "Street Shark" in the box as well. I've been wanting to do some of GM's more notable show cars at one point, and this one goes in the pile for that project.

By all means, use a mask whenever you dry-sand anything. And use a decent one, preferably a respirator. Most of the paper things sold as "non-toxic-particle-masks" are worthless, even the ones that have things to mold to the bridge of your nose. They're better than nothing, but they don't come close to stopping ALL of the dust. If you don't believe me, next time you do a dusty project, wear one of those paper disposable things. At the end of an hour or so, look next to your nostrils. You'll see dust the color of whatever you were working with that easily got past the edges of the mask, but didn't quite make it past the turbulence in airflow created by the edge of your nose. A lot of it DID go into your lungs. Also, if you have a beard, even a good respirator is pretty much worthless. In that case, you need a full-face mask that will seal to your neck, or even an air-supplied hood. Sanding outside with a fan blowing the carp away from you is a very viable alternative, and usually a lot more pleasant if you can arrange it.

Thing is, I'd gladly pay a minimum of $10 a year just to have full access to this forum. It's like an anytime-model-car-club, open 24-7, where there's almost always something worthwhile to look at, learn from, or be inspired by. Too bad everyone doesn't feel the same way. Most free information is worth exactly what it costs, and the idiocy I hear being spouted daily that somebody got off of the internet is proof positive. This site, on the other hand, has rather a lot of factual and valuable knowledge presented by people who have been-there-done-it, rather than the endlessly repeated (usually unfounded) opinions and "my-wife's-dog's-trainer's-hairdresser's-ex-husband's-boyfriend's-lawyer said..." that you get most everywhere else.

Though it's a good story, I believe it's simply more apocryphal misinformation in support of the widely-repeated belief (a belief I personally find to be absolutely without foundation, and I'm one critical SOB when it comes to getting things looking right...which I'm still being paid to do professionally) that correct scale models don't look right. I have been doing this kind of work, off and on, for over 40 years; all I can tell you is that I have personally designed cars in scales from 1/25 up to 1/10 and 1/8, and when the dimensions were blown up to full scale, the real product looked exactly like the little one in every curve and nuance. It works both ways. Consider this little logic problem that would seem to refute the "scaling down requires 'artistic' interpretation to look right" and explain it to me in terms that anyone can understand. You photograph a real car with a non-distorting lens. You make a print of that photograph that's roughly 1/25 the size of the real car. The photographic print, in 1/25 scale, looks exactly like the real car. Curves and angles and perspective don't somehow magically change just because they're smaller. I will go so far as to say this...when there are no good dimensions available, and scaling becomes a subjective rather than an objective exercise, a lot of "interpretation" can creep in and ruin the appearance of a model, or even of a full-scale "tribute" build. It happens frequently in the real world, but most people don't notice it, because they aren't cursed (or gifted, depending on your point of view) with hyper-critical SOB micrometer eyes that immediately register proportional mistakes and anomalies. But in my own professional experience, the numbers don't lie, and a correctly-scaled model done from good full-scale dimensions looks correct when viewed from the same angles as one would view the real object.

I believe I can tell you why more site viewers don't subscribe, and it's pretty simple. There's SO much information available here for free that there's no real need to subscribe...other than people making a gesture towards fair behavior...(I buy the mag on the newsstand just to help to support the site). The old saw about "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free" still holds true, all across human existence.

Just a reminder that you probably already know...all the "Windsor" family engines, 221-351, including the little 260, and the popular 289 and 302 / 5.0 (EXCEPT the Boss 302) all have the same distinctive shape on the lower edge of the valve covers where they bolt to the heads.

For what it's worth, the old MPC "Thunder Chopper" in 1/8 is also available again, for around $40 including shipping.

The Superformance replica is supposedly very accurate (their GT40 clone is the best one out there, if I recall correctly). I've dealt with their engineering department in years past, and they were very helpful back then. http://www.superformance.com/coupe.aspx

Compare these two models. If they're both supposed to be in the same scale, somebody sure as hell made an "error" (length) and if they're NOT supposed to be in the same scale, there's STILL a significant "error" somewhere (width wouldn't be the same in 1/25 and 1/24).