Ace-Garageguy

Yup. Wow.

I would have to disagree at this point in time. I just recently acquired two of the Exterminator kits as well as two of the old Lindberg Yellow Canary, and I've been using them as parts sources for my 1/8 Revell Big Deuce-based channeled rod build. Frankly, I was VERY enthusiastic when I opened the kits and saw how much potential is there for building old-school machines in 1/8 (building out-of-the box leaves a little to be desired though). The Lindberg parts are 1/8 (though built-up the Canary looks a little odd, it's more a poorly-proportioned hot-rod than poorly-scaled parts). Parts swap between the Lindberg kits and the Revell 1/8 kits just as easily as parts in 1/25 swap between manufacturers for kitbashing. The rear end in the Canary is out of scale slightly (too large) but otherwise, the kit is very close to 1/8 in most dimensions...including the T tub being quite close to the Revell version in the Big T kit (I just compared them). The only two downsides to the Exterminator are the engines and the front wire wheels. Though the engines kinda look like small-block Chevys, they aren't (though I'm sure I'll get argument on this). What they ARE is generic V8 engines based on Ford Y-blocks. The Exterminator engines are based on other Lindberg V8 engines, and the blocks and heads are identical to the engine in the Yellow Canary kit...which has almost every readily identifiable Y-block characteristic including the front sump / rear angled distributor, plugs directly under the exhaust ports, and the signature front cover design. The engines in the Exterminator have been 'genericised' with the addition of a different timing cover, and the magneto being installed as on a Chevy rather than angled like on a Ford Y-block. The front wire wheels measure out to be about scale 22" rims. I've seen 22" motorcycle wires, but 17" is probably more common on old diggers. In the final analysis, these are both great kitbashing starting points, and I really hope to see more of the old Lindberg offerings re-released.

Great project. There's something special about a hot A-powered rod that really goes back to the roots of the sport. I love the old engines, and you're the one to do this kind of a build justice.

I'm quite aware of that, sir. And MY point is that we builders who are doing this stuff for fun (?) shouldn't have to re-do work that some "professional" got paid to do and couldn't be bothered to get right. I'll STILL buy the kit, but when the manufacturing "pros" are getting innies confused with outies, it kinda makes me wonder about the scale fidelity of the model in other areas that may not be so obvious. It's scale fidelity that separates toys from "scale models". When I buy a "scale model" of a car, I don't think it's too much to ask that the parts reasonably represent functional parts in the real world, if that's what the kit designers intended to represent. I've yet to see any brake rotors in the real world with bumps...and this has nothing to do with expecting Tamiya quality from a cheap snap kit. But hey...I'm one of those unreasonable old PITAs who think that people who get paid to do something ought to do it right, and if there are several tiers of adults checking on the 'rightness' of a job of work, somebody ought to catch a whole lot of wrong outies and make them innies before it goes to production. I know. Completely entirely unnecessarily harsh and potentially killing the hobby by having the audacity to criticize the kitmaker gods. We should all be ecstatic that anything shows up on the shelves to build, no matter how ill-proportioned or poorly scaled or just flat wrong.

But see, here's the thing. For the folks who design and manufacture and sell the kits, it IS a profession. And we're not talking getting the right number of rivets on the rotors either...just being able to tell the difference between an innie and an outie...which I believe most 5-year-olds can recognize. That said, I'll buy the kit, eventually, and correct it. But I shouldn't HAVE to correct it. Somebody already got PAID to do it right. A "professional".

Art, thanks for taking the time to re-explain your process. I've got a good airbrush now, know how to use it, but have simply put it off because I used to be able to turn out consistently fine paint jobs using rattlecans...something I've offered advice on at length in the past as well. Things have changed somewhat, obviously, because my tried-and-true rattlecan methods no longer work acceptably well. Time to adopt your techniques, I guess. And again, thanks for posting so much detail. I ought to be able to make it work.

"Tantrum mode"? I don't see any tantrums evident in ANY of the above posts. PJ's linked auction, on the other hand, ought to be the example for Webster's definition of "tantrum". Have you actually looked at it? Hysterical ranting, cry-baby-not-really-an-adult-man behavior. Geez. Or is that what being an adult has devolved to? No wonder this country's in trouble if it is. Hmmmmm...kinda reminiscent of some "leaders" in the news recently. Sigh.

Trust me on this. That's clearly a heat-melted hole...not a solvent-melted hole, due to heat produced by an exothermic reaction from...probably...an epoxy product that was mixed up on a hot day and "went-off" somewhat unexpectedly. The bubbles visible in the stuff bear this out. That would also explain the tenacious adhesion, the relatively smooth surface and the hardness. And it looks like you will be able to salvage at least enough to make a racing screen, if not for this particular model, then one in the future. Applause for trying to make something useful from a piece of carp most everyone else would toss.

This is the rear crossmember, salvaged from the gluebomb chassis. I had to cut the ends off to get it out of the frame (half a tube of glue), and even though I've narrowed the frame a tick to be able to channel the body over it, I've added material to the ends of the crossmember so I'll have something to fit and fill gaps when I put it back in where it will have to go to carry the rear spring correctly. We'll be using the quick-change from the big Deuce kit (it will be modified), so we need to figure out where the crossmember needs to go back in to get the spring in the right place. Once again, just like a real hot-rod build. We have a fair idea of where the axle has to go to get the stance we want, so we're using a carpy axle from the gluebomb glued to notches in the inner fenders to check location. Mocking up again, and checking the wheelbase relative to the rear axle centerline, with the body positioned (and glued lightly) correctly on the frame. With the rear tires on the car, the tail was a tad low, and the front axle ended up slightly too far forward. (The wheelbase on a '32 Ford is supposed to be 106". Even though I will lengthen it slightly on this car, I like to start with things in the right places FIRST, and then go on to modify.) It took a little juggling and re-positioning of the axle to get the right rear height and wheelbase. Taking the time to get things right at this stage will pay off in the end, with a killer stance and just-right proportions (things that a lot of rushed builds often miss).

Glad youse guys are liking it. The front tire mods are coming along nicely. I put in several rings of .030" stock to reduce the ID of the hard plastic whitewall insert to fit the wire wheels I'm using, and then started the fill process using my old trusty Bondo "professional" 2-part glazing putty. One difficulty with zeeing '32 frame rails is that the resulting zig-zag mess after 'welding' the stacked parts back together isn't very pretty. I fix this (on real cars too) by cutting and welding in 'finishers' to smooth out the curves. Then, "boxing plates" get fabbed from sheet stock (again, just like a real car) to close the rails off on the inside. Besides making everything look neat, this adds tremendously to the rigidity of the frame.

Pretty wild. I usually like Liberty Walk's styling. Nice work.

The point is...just how damm hard IS IT to find SOMEBODY on the kit design staff who realizes that brake rotors DON'T HAVE BUMPS ON THEM? WHY is this considered acceptable? We make all sorts or criticisms of "pro" modelers trying to pass off amateur-quality stuff, but these REAL PROFESSIONALS (whose JOB it is to get things RIGHT) continue to get pass after pass after pass. What's up?

Seems like it would be pretty straightforward. Remove most of the blob from the 'glass' with a drum-sander on a Dremel, down to about 1/32" from the surface. Take it just to the 'glass' with small files...a flat one on the outside, a half-round one inside. Finish with progressively finer and finer wet sandpaper grits, polish as you usually do.

Yup. Preparing the next comparison update as we speak.

Then I oughta be a "LEED" leader. Half the stuff I own is recycled or repurposed cast-off junk.

There was also a Revell parts-pack Harley chopper first issued in about '64 and repopped in about '82. Good luck finding one, and be prepared to spend. The Monogram Cherry Bomb kit has a Harley chopper as well.

I can't honestly say I know every version and permutation of the Riley heads, and the variations are many, which is not that surprising given that the tooling and casting was all done pretty much by hand in short runs. That said, the AMT kit engine seems to me to be lacking the 'ledge' on the carb side of the head that's supposed to be there (at least on every one I've ever seen, and every photo, if I remember correctly). And THAT said, I would guess that the more rounded shapes of the AMT rocker covers are more in keeping with the earliest design, of which this is a recent exact reproduction. I'd also suspect that the AMT tooling isn't particularly accurate. Their engines of that period were notoriously blobular, which is why I preferred Revell's level of detail at the time. The slightly later heads, with the spark plugs still on the driver's side, appear to have more square-cornered rocker covers, more like the Revell version. Another early-style Riley 2-port head (below) with a different design rocker cover. Also note the the tach-drive coming out of the old distributor drive hole on this engine. Sorry I can't give you a really definitive answer. Though I know a fair bit about these engines, I certainly don't claim to know everything. It's interesting to note that there were several manufacturers besides Riley making OHV and cross-flow heads for the A and B bottom ends, and even Chevrolet and Oldsmobile heads were also occasionally swapped on to the old Ford.

Pretty sure I have a helmeted, goggled, seated driver figure out of one of the old Monogram Indy cars I could send your way. Might be tricky getting him in through the window though.

Alexis, I hope you won't be offended if I correct some of your information. You're quite close, but there are a few things slightly incomplete or misleading. I had reason to research these engines extensively a few years back, and my comments are based on original-source documentation, and first hand observation of the real parts. I also have copies of every kit under discussion on the shelves, and have checked the accuracy of my statements just now. The red type is not intended to be offensive or screaming, as I've been accused of by posters in the past, but simply to differentiate additional information.

Good looking work on this one, definitely. If you decide to leave it in "launch" attitude, it might be interesting to do a little dragstrip dio for it, and raise the front wheels off the ground to really get the full effect.

Cool model. I had no idea it existed. I remember when the prototype came out in around '76. I believe it was powered by the inline-six Datsun (Nissan) L28 engine.

Correct. It is DEFINITELY the AMT version. The Revell version has a separate transmission, front cover assembly, side cover and starter as well...and is generally a nicer piece if much of the engine is going to be visible.

I love '57s, especially three-tones. I'm with Harry too...love the colors. Your wheel choice works well with the lines of the car too.

Looking good. Beautiful crisp and clean masking job on that frame too. Shows what some care and patience can accomplish.

I don't think anyone here is "piling on" the guy because of the quality of his work. It's quite adequate for many folks as a "shelf" model, and exhibits about average skills. What IS irritating is his self-labeling of barely average work as "pro". I can plink out a recognizable song on the piano, but I'd hardly ever call myself any kind of "musician". Same thing, no?