Moebius Hudson & Chrysler 300

[Chuck Most]

Art-

Any hints on what the box art might be like? Are they going to include any 'bonus' goodies, like maybe a little booklet with color reference photos for the interior and engine compartment? THAT would really up the ante!

[Luc Janssens]

Art-

Any hints on what the box art might be like? Are they going to include any 'bonus' goodies, like maybe a little booklet with color reference photos for the interior and engine compartment? THAT would really up the ante!

Not Art, but IMHO it would be wiser fro Moebius to "post" photo's of the subject on their website, for reference to build the kit.

In a perfect world, a pictorial sequence as per instruction sheet would be the way to go, maybe we can talk Art into doing just that when the first test shots come in....

Art are you there?

[Chuck Most]

I like that idea too, but the booklet would be a real boon for modelers who still don't have full-time 'net access, and besides, it would just be a cool thing to have.

[Art Anderson]

Not Art, but IMHO it would be wiser fro Moebius to "post" photo's of the subject on their website, for reference to build the kit.

In a perfect world, a pictorial sequence as per instruction sheet would be the way to go, maybe we can talk Art into doing just that when the first test shots come in....

Art are you there?

Nice ideas, but not my call.

Art

[Chuck Most]

Couldn't you just tell 'em "Hey, I'm Art freakin' Anderson here!"? If I were an exec at Moebius, that would be reason enough for me!

[Guest Chris V]

I like that idea too, but the booklet would be a real boon for modelers who still don't have full-time 'net access, and besides, it would just be a cool thing to have.

While it might be nice for those with limited internet access, and those only planning to buy a single kit, I think that most people (at least on this board) would consider it an unnecessary expense to have a color-printed booklet included - I imagine that it would drive up the retail price considerably.

[Guest]

I wouldnt mind paying a bit more for it. I prefer print to internet anyway.

[Jim Gibbons]

I have to go though my issues of Hemmings Classic Car magazine (or do an article search in Hemmings website), as there was a really good restoration profile of a 300 that has great detail photos of all the bits and assemblies. The only thing I found different from that restoration, and an old assembly line photo of a '55 300, was that the assembly line photo showed a fully undercoated body section being lowered to the chassis. I don't know if the undercoating was standard or a factory option. Maybe Art can assist on that one.

[Zoom Zoom]

Perhaps the '55 chassis is painted satin black, like the underhood area. In '56 Chrysler cut costs and the underhood area was pained body color.

[Jim Gibbons]

Perhaps the '55 chassis is painted satin black, like the underhood area. In '56 Chrysler cut costs and the underhood area was pained body color.

I have to find the photo; I forget which book or magazine it was in, but it looked like textured undercoating; a bit lumpy. If I come across it, I'll scan it.

[Art Anderson]

I have to go though my issues of Hemmings Classic Car magazine (or do an article search in Hemmings website), as there was a really good restoration profile of a 300 that has great detail photos of all the bits and assemblies. The only thing I found different from that restoration, and an old assembly line photo of a '55 300, was that the assembly line photo showed a fully undercoated body section being lowered to the chassis. I don't know if the undercoating was standard or a factory option. Maybe Art can assist on that one.

I'd be pretty certain that undercoating was optional at extra cost, either done at the factory, or at the dealer's. The reason simply would be that in much of the US, underbody rusting was never a problem--say in the desert southwest, but in the snow belt, a completely different story indeed.

Most automakers, from the introduction of steel firewalls (most early brass-era cars had WOODEN firewalls!) seem to have painted at least the firewall in the same color as the lower body, simply because that was quick and easy, particularly with the advent of spray-painting in the early 1920's. In addition, appearance meant a lot back then, under the hood as well as anyplace else a potential buyer was likely to see as the salesman showed him/her the car (the main reason so many engines by the 50's were being painted multiple bright colors).

From my memory, 50's Chrysler products all had their firewalls painted with the same paint and color as used on the lower body panels. Most likely, as with just about everything Detroit, the underside of the floorpan was left in whatever color primer was used--more often than not in the 50's, that would have been red oxide primer. Depending on the dedication of the workers in the paint department, there would have been at least a little bit of overspray on the bottoms of the rocker panels, perhaps reaching inward onto the floor pan a couple of inches or more. There likely would have been a bit of overspray at the bottom of the firewall, where that panel met the upward-angled toeboard section of the floor as well. I know Fords and GM cars had this, pretty hard to believe that Chrysler would have been any different.

I believe also, that most everyone painted the inner fender panels black, but I could be wrong with say, Chrysler, although I'd been under the hood of Dad's 50's Plymouths more than enough times--you'd think I'd remember stuff like that. Hudsons and Nash's had their engine bays completely painted body color, for the simple reason that they had unit body construction, making the sides of the engine bay, and the radiator core support panel structural members of the body, meaning that they were welded in place, pretty much as unibody cars are made nowadays.

I plan on doing my builds of the Moebius kits in this fashion, unless Dave comes up with info to the contrary, puts that on the instruction sheets.

Art

[Jim Gibbons]

Here's the link to the Hemmings Classic Car restoration profile; great pics. This restorer painted the entire underbody red; as Art stated, it was most likely primered. However, as the owner states, it was a California car from day one, and it was undercoated. I'm wondering if Chrysler applied it to their premium lines as standard. I'll have to do a little more research on this.

http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2007/01/01/hmn_feature13.html

[Jim Gibbons]

I sent an email to the Chrysler 300 Club, Inc. tech expert on the '55, and asked the questions of whether undercoating was optional or standard, primer color, and inside front fender finish. I'll post the answers when I receive them.

[S. Svendsen]

I'm working on the box art for '53 Hudson Hornet now. The box will feature an illustration I created inspired by the advertising art of the 1950's. The box layout may have photos of a built model on there too. We'll have to wait and see how the production schedule lines up. Once the art is approved and I have an OK, I will post some pics.

Frank tells me they have are using photos of a real car for the box art on the Chrysler kit.

[lordairgtar]

Would it be easy to build a 55 into a 56 Chrysler. A friend of mine owns this one.

http://www.amcarguide.com/custom/custom-1956-chrysler-300b/

[59-Desoto]

I was going though some links and at Plastic Models . com they are listing the Hudson and Chrysler as coming in early Oct. as well as Int'l Lonestar at a price of $52.95 and a price of $ 21.79 for the Hudson and Chrysler . Art is this about right for this release date ? Here's the link for anyone who might want to see it .

http://www.towerhobbies.com/plastic/listings/1-25_scale_car_model.html

Edited July 17, 2010 by 59-Desoto

[Art Anderson]

I was going though some links and at Plastic Models . com they are listing the Hudson and Chrysler as coming in early Oct. as well as Int'l Lonestar at a price of $52.95 and a price of $ 21.79 for the Hudson and Chrysler . Art is this about right for this release date ? Here's the link for anyone who might want to see it .

http://www.towerhobbies.com/plastic/listings/1-25_scale_car_model.html

I believe it's always been November-December for the Hudson and Chrysler C-300, January-February for the Lonestar. I would go by what Moebius has to say in any case though.

Art

[59-Desoto]

Good deal thanks Art , I'll be looking forward to their coming to the self for sure.

[Art Anderson]

Would it be easy to build a 55 into a 56 Chrysler. A friend of mine owns this one.

http://www.amcarguide.com/custom/custom-1956-chrysler-300b/

There's not all that much difference between 1955 and 1956 Chryslers, mostly the rear quarter panels (fins(, taillights, rear bumper, some side trim, and the dash--'55 had its Powerflight automatic controls in a "stalk" that extended out from the dashboard to the left of the steering wheel, where the '56 introduced the pushbutton controls for automatic transmissions that became characteristic of Mopars well into the 1960's, placed in a pod on the left end of the dashboard.

For all intents and purposes, any other differences were very minor, many invisible from viewing the car or componentry externally.

Art

[Art Anderson]

I have to go though my issues of Hemmings Classic Car magazine (or do an article search in Hemmings website), as there was a really good restoration profile of a 300 that has great detail photos of all the bits and assemblies. The only thing I found different from that restoration, and an old assembly line photo of a '55 300, was that the assembly line photo showed a fully undercoated body section being lowered to the chassis. I don't know if the undercoating was standard or a factory option. Maybe Art can assist on that one.

Interesting that you refer to a '55 C-300 being on the assembly line, as that isn't how those cars were built. Chrysler 300 letter cars, through the 1961 300-G were "craftsman built", meaning that they were built at a special station off the line, all parts and components brought to that area for assembly, almost as if custom-built. Beginning with the 1962 300-H, letter cars came down the regular assembly line. (I say "Letter Cars" as for 1962, Chrysler used the term "300" as a trim level car, which wasn't the high performance 300-H, just a rather ordinary Chrysler trading on the reputation of the fabulous letter car series).

Art

[Jim Gibbons]

Interesting that you refer to a '55 C-300 being on the assembly line, as that isn't how those cars were built. Chrysler 300 letter cars, through the 1961 300-G were "craftsman built", meaning that they were built at a special station off the line, all parts and components brought to that area for assembly, almost as if custom-built. Beginning with the 1962 300-H, letter cars came down the regular assembly line. (I say "Letter Cars" as for 1962, Chrysler used the term "300" as a trim level car, which wasn't the high performance 300-H, just a rather ordinary Chrysler trading on the reputation of the fabulous letter car series).

Art

Actually, I guess I used the term generically, as the photo is a rear view shot of one car's body being lowered onto the chassis. I didn't realize, though, that they had a separate assembly station. I am still unpacking from my March move, and haven't uncovered the book or article the photo was in yet.

[Danno]

Licensing approval mock-ups for the upcoming Moebius '55 Chrysler C-300 and the '53 Hudson Hornet will likely be showing up soon ... Dave Metzner has them and will be showing them off. I'd post links but I don't want to steal his thunder ... he deserves it. The mock-ups look great!

Stand by for some excitement.