Ace-Garageguy

What about ignorance bashing? I love this country and have the scars to prove it. If I want to criticize some of it's current shortcomings, I believe I still have that right.

Yeah, well, that's pretty symptomatic of Americans' general ignorance of the rest of the world, and the we're-the-center-of-the-known-universe mentality. Of the many people I know, almost without exception the ones who have ever traveled outside the US much (and who can speak at least one other language...rare in the US but common in just about every other reasonably well-developed and educated country) know enough to at least try to pronounce foreign words as the other-language-speakers do, without having to dumb everything down to "Americanize" it. But I guess in your view, that makes anyone who bothers to learn another language and pronounce the words right a "pretentious douchnozzle" too. Of course, most Americans are far from proficient speakers of their OWN language, so I suppose it's understandable that getting words form OTHER languages right is just way too much to ask. And by the way...to a large number of "American" speakers, it's a Poesh.

Oh baby...I like this a lot. I'm one of the pedantic mean old SOBs who think if something's gonna be tagged as a "gasser" (not gasser-style or gasser-esque or gasser-like or gasser-inspired), it damm well ought to be a historically-accurate class-legal scale model of a gasser...at least as far as the major identifiers of stance, crank-centerline height and 10% allowable engine setback go. I have nothing against anyone who wants to build the other "gasser-influenced" stuff (though I think the way-nose-high look is idiotic) but please don't call them "gassers". Rant over. Love your model, the extra effort you put in to make it right, and especially those firewall-clearing custom headers and cleanly-fabricated front suspension.

Looking good, James. Glad to see the update.

It's quite similar to the right way to say "Paasche" , the airbrush company. It's posh-uh...not pash-ay as most modelers I've heard say it.

Well, it's not a model, but it IS a kit...

Incredible piece of work. Man. Damm.

This is a GREAT idea. I truly wish I had thought of it, and that's about the highest praise I can offer. What you have so far, the hard tonneau, helmet fairing, Halibrands...perfect. I WILL be watching this unfold.

Definitely positively from one of the first-gen releases of the Revell Olds-powered SWC Willys. Note also the big ol' Hydro-stick trans (A B&M racing automatic based on the early GM Hydramatic). If you're concerned with accuracy, this engine / trans combo should really also be supported in the center (under the bellbousing ears) as it is in the SWC Willys.

Correct, all the above.

I guess I just happened to hit it during the 5-minute-window-out-of-the-year that P-bucket was operating correctly.

Boy oh boy...that retro "classic" rubber nose sure took a decently-styled little car and made it look like a pig wearing lipstick.

There are a lot of photos on the web these days of Latham installations on various engines. Just do a Google image-search for "Latham supercharger" and you'll get a bunch of ideas. There are setups on old Hemi engines, flathead Fords, Chevy smallblocks, etc. One thing to remember though...if you use the Latham on something like a Ford with the distributor drive in front, you'll need an angle-drive setup for the distributor to get it out of the way of the Latham. AMT thoughtfully included one in the old '25 T double kit.

I wonder what the problem is. Just now, I opened P-bucket, started a new album and uploaded this photo. About 2 minutes total. Hmmmm. Just to make sure, I went back and uploaded three more.

Hmmmm. I've built multiples of that kit and haven't had any problems. Perhaps you might look at a real '32 Ford. The front of the body doesn't go way down as you have it here. It's relatively parallel with the running board as you have it in the "after" shot. This is the perfect reminder why understanding how the things are supposed to go together and test fitting prior to paint are quite important.

And there's a whole lotta people who just don't see anything wrong with any of them (not including me, by the way), including apparently the folks who made them.

Sorry. Nope. Correct, and the one in the Eldo is pretty nice.

Yup, great project. That's something I could really enjoy owning in 1:1.

All correct. The Latham Axial Flow blower was a relatively expensive piece when it was new, due in large part to the complexity of manufacturing the impeller. They were built from the mid 1950s through the mid 1960s. Also, because of their design, they didn't produce much boost at low RPM (which is a strong point of the positive-displacement Roots-type blower). And as Nick already mentioned, they're extremely rare today. Only a few hundred were ever made (though there were other sizes for several applications, even very small ones for motorcycle engines). The carbs represented are Rochester side-drafts, similar to what would have been fitted to a new early Corvette inline 6-cylinder engine. The engine in the AMT double-T kit, as Toner states, is roughly a Lincoln, sorta, but it is a mashup of various FoMoCo-looking bits. The valve covers you have represent factory cast-aluminum units for a 368 Y-block Lincoln engine as fitted to the '56-'57 Continental Mk II. but unfortunately the rest of the engine (which you don't have anyway...except for the intake manifold and heads, which are wrong for a 368) is kinda an FE-MEL mix, not particularly accurate for anything (but an OK MEL...Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln...engine). The blower itself can be fitted to just about any engine, so long as you align the drive pulleys right. Those cool valve covers will, in reality, only bolt to a Lincoln Y-block...and there's not a decent one of those to be had in scale without some serious bashing and fabbing.

Good looking model ! Makes me wonder why I'm going to so much grief to do one out of horrible old AMT junk.

Yup...me too. Even though the crank centerline appears to be higher than the 24" gasser-class-legal max way back when, the car looks so freakin' good I really don't care.

Very nice. All of it. VERY nice.

Somewhat annoying I agree, but in most cases, a necessary result of the cost-control aspect of the tooling design process. In order to be able to get parts out of a mold or die, for a two-section die or mold, the parting line of the matched tool faces HAS to be at the widest part of the shape to be molded. This usually results in a parting line on ends of bumpers that are designed to be made in two-section dies or molds with no expensive sliding sections.

I have some old Palmer kits you'd just love...

Only thing that REALLY bothers me is scaling and proportion issues. If the scaling is done right (you know, measure accurately and divide by 25...or whatever the scale happens to be) and the model actually LOOKS like the car it's supposed to be, I can deal with just about anything else. Proportion issues themselves arise from incorrect scaling and measuring of angles between adjacent features. These are the things design professionals are paid to get right. If I have to correct the basic major work that well-paid "professionals" didn't bother to get right, I'm less than content. I don't think there's ANY excuse for scaling errors. For instance, I currently have several 348 / 409 Chevy engines on the bench from different kits. No two of them measure out the same. How can this be? Externally, they are all identical in reality. Any two competent adults with tape measures should be able to measure the basic dimensions of two identical engines on opposite sides of the planet and get the same numbers, and when they divide by 25, they should again get the same numbers. But somehow, this seems to be beyond the capabilities of some kit-design personnel.