Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Ace-Garageguy

Members
  • Posts

    38,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ace-Garageguy

  1. In the Chevy family, the 348-409 engines are referred to as "W" blocks, and are a completely different design from the later big-blocks. In the later Chevy big-block series, everything from the 396 through the factory 454 and up to the 572 crate engines are all the same basic design, and can all pass for each other in 1/25 scale. Pontiac, on the other hand, used the same basic design from the little 287 introduced in 1955, all the way through the 455. The only immediately obvious difference is the odd reverse-flow cooling system Pontiac used through 1959 (the engines look the same, other than the coolant hoses that come out of the front of the cylinder heads on the early ones; the freeze-plugs on the ends of most Pontiac heads are vestigial evidence of the old cooling system design). The 455 is essentially a bored and stroked 421, and though the engines in the 421-428-455 series are "large journal" engines (the crankshaft main bearings are larger) all the Pontiac engines (not, of course, the post-'82 "corporate" Chevy smallblock and Olds engines) appear much the same externally, other than superficial things like specific induction and exhaust systems and accessories.
  2. I would respectfully suggest you might consider using a Pontiac engine rather than the resin big-block Chevy you mention above. There are MANY immediately visible differences between a Chevy and a Pontiac engine that anyone who's spent time under hoods will spot right off. The timing covers, water pumps, valve covers, intake manifolds, valley covers, oil pans and exhaust-port spacing are completely different on a big-block Chevy and a 455 Pontiac. The old Revell parts-pack Pontiac engine LOOKS like a Pontiac, because it's a well-scaled model of a Pontiac. You can't readily tell the displacement from looking at a 1/25 scale model, either. The old Revell Pontiac kits are plentiful and cheap. Since you're going to all the trouble to correct and modify much of the model, it only seems reasonable (to me) that you'd try to start with an accurate-appearing engine.
  3. The experimental AI that's inhabited my own computer since 2005 or 6 can already do that, and has been able to for years. The technology is great, wonderful, almost beyond belief for the good it can do...used intelligently. The problem is that it's becoming a lazy person's substitute for everything else, and the tech is, frankly, smarter than most of the people using it. Not to worry. Non-augmented humans should be pretty well obsolete by about 2025.
  4. Another one back from the dead. This one's been reawakened by a thread on a somewhat similar and also slumbering build. Now for the new, more in-depth material. The basis for the build has been primarily the Boyd Alumacoupe, for the front suspension and pickup-points, the body shell from the '32 'bomb, and another gluebomb chassis, this one from a Revell Sting Ray III. which donates the rear suspension, gearbox, and pickup-points. Gearbox, suspension and chassis being fitted to the body shell to determine axle centerline and ride height consistent with the mockup. The windshield, by the way, is Alumacoupe, but it's too narrow to work on anything but the mockup. Purple chassis in the center is the Stingray III unit, and the little chunk to the right is all that will be used on this build. It's all that's necessary to support the diff, springs and control arms for the rear suspension. The yellow slab is the floor-pan from the Alumacoupe, with everything unnecessary removed. Location of engine will be as shown, with just enough clearance to get at the valve covers. Engine will be an LS, not the earlier SBC in the pic. Alumacoupe floorpan will be cut on the dotted line, joined to the SRIII rear tub. Then a little sheet styrene to make up some torque boxes, etc.
  5. That fiberglass '49 Ford nose and tail kit for the '89 to '97 T-Bird has been around for years. Talk about design elements that just don't belong together...
  6. Here's a thought. They have 'em in 1/48, and if you look at the bottom of the page, it says they'll send you one free sample. http://www.propblur.com/
  7. I missed this one first time around. Great concept, looks like first-rate execution.
  8. Fine looking model, and certainly one to be proud of. It looks like somebody stole your driveshaft though, and the gearbox in the model represents a manual, while the "B&M Hydro Stick" that's advertised on the body of the car is actually an automatic, based on the old GM Hydramatic. The SWC gang used one to good advantage in the Willys cars, too. I hope you don't take this as criticism, because it's NOT. It's a great looking model, and I'd be very happy to have something on my own shelf that looks that good.
  9. I believe you'll find the difference between the Fairlane and the Comet chassis to be primarily in the width, though there are others. Many of the chassis stampings are only slightly modified, and the similarities are enough that the Fairlane could easily pass for the Comet in 1/25, with a few modifications (to anyone who's not intimately familiar with the structures of the actual cars, anyway). You'll see from these old crashbook drawings that the chassis of all these vehicles are based on the same unibody layout and general design, and share many similarities. That's what is meant by "platform sharing". Though I'll agree that the Fairlane didn't share as much structure with the Falcon as the Comet did, the structural family resemblance is strong, and all the cars are considered to be developments of the "Falcon platform". Tooling an entirely new platform for the slightly larger Fairlane / Meteor would have been cost-prohibitive, and entirely unnecessary. FAIRLANE: FALCON: MUSTANG:
  10. Thanks! Made my day. I lived through the end of the steam era, and the end of prop-driven airliners too. It was a magical time for a kid who was in love with machines.
  11. Agreed. I think the front could be improved by locating the bumper forward just a bit, and lightening the mass under it with a shallower grille, and raising the bottom of the pan just a tad. Pulling the lower corners of the lower grille inboard could help lighten the flat-faced look somewhat too. This car looks better when viewed from a standing-human perspective though. The low camera angles here don't sow it to best advantage.
  12. Open the "edit" function on the FIRST post in the thread. You can edit the title from there.
  13. This is the OP's most recent version, posted on the "Snafu" thread. Improvement. Cleaner side-glass treatment, roofline still works well. At this point, i'd suggest getting rid of the double-chin hanging under the bumper, ditching the guards in the grille, and dropping the entire nose maybe about an inch in the front. The character line on the front fenders appears to be climbing, and I believe it would look much better level.
  14. Simple pleasures for a simple mind: I've been using a cheap Bic disposable single-blade razor since August. I've never seen a blade hold its edge like this thing does. It's the Energizer Bunny of disposable razors. The angle the head is made at makes it almost impossible to nick yourself, too.
  15. X2. Definitely one to watch, beautiful work so far.
  16. I like this one much better than the original precisely because it moves the start of the curve of the fastback roofline forward relative to the rest of the car, and ends up looking lighter and more agile as a result. I realize the wheelbase and length of the car are both shortened, and the car loses some of its utility as a result, but I think the looks are improved dramatically.
  17. X2, and many happy returns!
  18. Much nicer. The greenhouse is a lot lighter visually now, and less in competition with other elements of the design. (I like the roofline...it was the side window treatment that I thought looked like '90s Caprice. The 2017 Ford musta borrowed from the old Caprice then...) Building a real car with no side-window frames (a "hardtop" as you have it now) takes a little more sophisticated engineering to get the door glass to make an effective wind and weather seal, as the top of the window isn't supported by a track, obviously. But it's a much cleaner and lighter look, and I think worth the extra engineering effort to achieve it.
  19. The worst problem with the Marlin is the roofline. It's just an ugly curve. I'm certain the "reason" for it was to maintain rear-seat headroom, but it's still a just flat ugly line. It looks like a whales butt. Rake the windshield back a little and fix the roofline first. And remember...styling changes DON'T have to be dramatic or radical to make vast improvements in a vehicle's overall first-impression. As little as 1/2 inch or less (in full scale) difference in a line or curve can transform something that looks goofy and clunky into something graceful, elegant and sophisticated. And adding more crapola doesn't usually improve a design either. Simple and clean is good...and it's a lot harder to do well than adding a lot of carp lines going every-which-way and useless "details".
  20. I think cleaning up that useless and overly complex bumper is an improvement, but the strakes over the wheel arches have an actual aerodynamic function on this particular car.
  21. This looks like WAY too much fun. Guess I'll have to learn Photoshop next. So much of my work is heavy restyling... Of course, it seems like with your proficiency, you can knock these out in just a few minutes, where they'd probably take me days... Like I said, WAY too much fun.
  22. At the ACME show in Atlanta today, I saw a well-known aftermarket supplier taking pre-orders for a very comprehensive upgrade kit. Sorry, but I forgot and left the show before getting the particulars. But rest assured, it's coming...and judging from the rest of their stuff that was on display, it should be a real knockout.
  23. Hmmmmm...I fairly recently picked up a Revell "plow" kit, and the first thing I noticed on opening the box is that it seemed kinda BIG. Then I noticed the box is marked 1/24. The intention was to do a full-detail Blazer based on the old MPC snapper, but they're obviously different scales. Anybody have an issue with that?
×
×
  • Create New...