Ace-Garageguy

I think you might be right. If you put your finger over the lower edge of the car to hide the wheel cutouts, the rest of the upper proportions look a lot like stock Mustang. As far as the Algon injection goes, it works just like Hilborn, but looks a little different. If you don't want to scratch-build an accurate Algon manifold etc., Speed City makes this resin Hilborn unit for the old Mopar Hemi that should be a good place to start, and has about the right port-spacing for a Ford FE. The tricky bit for an FE-specific manifold is that the upper (inner) valve-cover-gasket rails are part of the manifold (not part of the heads as on most other engines), so there's a fair bit of modding to do to get the exact right look. Combine a kit FE-manifold with the resin one above, and you ought to be able to get something reasonable.

This one? Obviously the old Monogram '37 Ford kit (though it's labeled 1/24, nobody would really notice) and a scratch-built body from the cowl back. The woody body is very simple and all straight panels, so building it should be pretty easy really. I'm also pretty sure Aoshima has wheels very close to those as well. I honestly think scratching the rear of the body would be significantly easier than cut-and-paste on an existing woody section, and would give you a cleaner end product.

Thanks Cato. Overall the workmanship on the model as-previously-built wasn't too terribly bad, but the heavily-glued cam covers really dampened my enthusiasm for restoring her. Now that the engine is essentially workable, she's getting at least a few minutes out of every bench session. What strikes ms as most odd is that the covers are designed to be removable to show off the cam-lobe and drive gear detail (the real engine has knurled knobs that fairly duplicate the kit-parts appearance, by the way), the builder DID do the step of installing the metal bushings in the covers for the hold-down fasteners, but then decided to simply glue them on...defeating the whole purpose. Though the damaged parts are available separately occasionally, I really wanted to save what was there...but in the process of getting them off, I did bugger several of the cam lobes. Adding some .010" styrene stock to the damaged flanges and then "machining" the areas flat again will fix it, and gaskets made from card-stock should look about right. Whether I opt to make new cam lobes is still a question.

Another cool blast-from-the-past period-correct and historically fascinating racer from BK, and already off to a great start.

Thanks Bob. I think I'm going to taper the pillar more towards the top to give it a lighter look, but still maintain enough rigidity for a decent weather seal on the side windows if it were a real car (which it probably will be). I'm also toying with the idea of molding it in to give a "cabriolet" effect. It's something I've never seen done on a '32 before, and I'm trying to break out of the box of cookie-cutter cars while still staying visually traditional. The doors will be extended to the rear to ease entry and exit, and roughing out a possible design for a Carson-style top is where I am right now.

I think you'll probably find that most metallic and metalflake "flakes" are either light-metal (NON-FERROUS) or these days, synthetic materials like solvent-resistant polyesters. The sparkly additives are down in the few-thousandths-of-an-inch (or smaller for micas and pearls), so something pretty damm "fine" is going to be necessary to remove them. Obviously, a normal paint filter you get at the body-shop-supply outlet won't do it, as they're designed to PASS flakes the size of what are in Testors "One-Coat" products...which look just fine on real cars. If I were going to experiment, I'd start with something like a paper coffee filter. They come in different materials (none of which I've tried to filter paint with) and obviously allow some color to pass while removing particles. I'd also think about trying finely woven polyester or nylon fabrics. I've had great success filtering many forms of solvent-carried materials (like polyester and epoxy resins) by using pantyhose. There are also woven stainless-steel screen products that go very fine for industrial filtering applications of solvent-carried products. One problem you MAY encounter is that because metallic paints get a lot of their color from the color of the flakes themselves, even if you do succeed in removing them, you may very well find that all you end up with is a tinted clear that won't cover very well. Another option: competent automotive paint outlets ought to be able to custom-match a particular color you want, but mix it with the smallest available flake size. There are also some model-car-specific paint manufacturers that can do the same thing in smaller quantities.

All exceptionally clean. Impressive for sure. (I can't even finish one)

Thank you ! I used one of these for a mobile shop many years ago when I had a fleet-maintenance company. Only single rear wheels, as it had been a Krispy Kreme Doughnut truck in its first life, but it was tons of fun to drive. Sometimes I'd take it out on a quiet Sunday morning and just cruise around with both the sliding cab doors open...just for grins.

Though I'm still waiting to make the jump to 3D printing at home, I can definitely see a need for this "cutter" technology for the way I build. I do a lot of scratch stuff in sheet styrene, and the most time consuming part is, to me, getting both sides of a single part symmetrical, and getting two of anything to match exactly. Intelligent design and layout using a machine-cutter to at least score the parts looks to me like it would solve the problem nicely. This (link below) is one of the most inspiring threads I've seen, combining a cutter, lower-resolution 3D printing, and vacuum forming to blow open the possibilities for building radical designs from scratch. The work shown here, combining all of that, is a quantum leap beyond anything I've seen to date in a single build in smaller scales.

I was wondering when your Souza Bros. car would surface as a build thread. if you have a straight profile shot of the car, it's easy to scale off of it to get a close approximation of the wheelbase. There's no question that both the front and rear wheels have been moved forward. The rear wheel arch is just about centered under the quarter window (much farther forward) and the front fender appears to have been stretched ahead of the door as well (in addition to the wheel arch being moved forward in the fender). There's no difference, really, between Cobra FE engines and any others...besides the valve covers. A good 427 FE for cheap is available from Revell (on Ebay, under $5 if you shop around) as the old parts-pack kit, but I don't know where you'll find a C6 right off hand.

I'll be looking forward to seeing what's in the box. Right now I figure I'll pony up for at least three...one to chop radically and two for parts. Got to get 'em before these molds disappear too...

Looking good. I'm still a big fan of the old AMT '32 kits, even though they leave a lot to be desired when compared head-to-head with the Revell versions. You're showing what fine models these ancient kits can build up to with some thoughtful effort, scratch-building and creative mix-and-match parts sourced elsewhere. Nice work.

Lucky man. I was there in August, and as Nick says, it's always just as spectacular as the last time. i saw it once in this decade in the snow, and that was even more...more. Hope you have a great, safe trip.

I think if you read the heading descriptions, you'll find the "General" topic section is limited to real and model cars, but the "Off-Topic Lounge" (which is where you are right now) is for...wait for it...off-topic topics (anything except politics and religion).

Girl definitely had survival skills...

Ding ding ding ding...we have a winner, folks !! Google pix of the Paddy Wagon and sure enough, there are the "valve covers", right where Chris says. I KNEW I'd seen them on one of the old Monogram showcars. I'm now also about 99.875% sure Brian is correct on the rest of the engine being the chrome "Thunderbird" unit from the Lindberg '34 Ford truck (with the top-end assembled backwards). The odd tubular blob sticking up at the rear of the OP photo matches exactly something sticking up on the Lindberg, engine, though it's supposed to be in front. The manifold also appears to be identical, and the pulley matches what's visible on the OP photo. Mystery solved.

Beautiful work. You're a real artist. Besides your fine scratch-building skills, you have an excellent eye for modeling colors and textures. Impressive and inspiring.

You may be on to something here...though if it IS the Ford engine from the Lindberg '34 truck kit (which I just pulled down from the shelf for a look) the builder has put the cylinder-head / intake manifold blob on backwards, placing the distributor at the rear of the engine. The valve covers, however, don't match the ones I have just checked in several incarnations of the nailhead-equipped '40 Ford kits, which all have prominent oil breathers / filler caps in the center.

TOO COOL !!! Man, this is absolutely fantastic work, combining several technologies into making something entirely original. Kit? We don' need no stinkin' kit.

It would be straightforward eyeball-cut-fit in a 1:1 fabrication setting...and then measure all the angles and make copy-templates for duplicating as many more as necessary. I know some CAD programs will develop "fishmouth" cut-patterns for joining tubing at any angle, but I always make mine by eyeball-cut-fit.

Though the SS classes began in '57-'58, the cheater slicks were not allowed until 1960, with a minimum 1/16" "tread". Somebody else will have to chime in on the widths.

Cool. I've been kinda wanting one of these. Two questions: There appears to be a slight inward bow in the rear corner of the box side and along the rocker panel. Is this actually there, or is it camera-lens distortion? And, are the rear wheels / tires single or dual?

Scale 7 inch tread width, four per kit.

Actually, they cut equally well in both directions, neither direction being as aggressive as a regular razor saw. Examination of the teeth under magnification shows the rake to be symmetrical, which accounts for this. Because these things are only .007" thick and unsupported by anything but the handle at the end. cutting on the push stroke requires care and finesse to avoid bending the blade.

I'm, let's say, more than a little familiar with the V8 engines from Ford and GM (and a lot of the Mopars) of the late 1940s through the 1990s...both in real form and in model form. As stated above, first impression is of a Ford FE, but as also said, the valve covers are way too narrow, and the blobular thing at the rear I assume is supposed to be a distributor or mag is on the wrong end for an FE. The only old engines that come immediately to mind that have a row of bolts down the center of the rocker covers (if that's what those things in your picture actually are) are Studebaker and the last versions of the old Chebby smallblock, but that's not either of those. The fact that you say the rocker covers are gold plated makes me think that they, at least, are from one of the old Monogram show-car kits...whose engines were often not-too-well-done mashups of several things. It's definitely not an Olds from AMT or anybody else. I also agree with espo: " Maybe with a little more information such as the exhaust port configuration and the location of the oil filter or oil pan sump location and details about the water pump and fuel pump might make it easier to identify. "