AMT 1960 Ford Ranchero

[Edsel-Dan]

Except for the Convertible & Hardtop versions of their Annuals,

AMT's Kits most likely did not share tooling between different body style cars of the same vintage/year

untill the 64 El Camino & Mailbu Wagon kits.

We can see that in the re-issues of the 65's which is what became of the 64's!!

Engine, Chassis and Chrome tree are shared. Body, & Interior are different between the 2 kits.

How many parts are shared between the Original AMT 60 Impala Hardtop/Convertible and the

El Camino or Wagon??

Remember, the Wagon was Only a Promo in 60 too!

It came out as a Kit in 62-63 in the Junior Trophy Series

Also, Did the 63 Nova/Chevy2 Wagon share any parts with the Hardtop/Convertible??

Edited December 9, 2013 by Edsel-Dan

[Craig Irwin]

..don't recall what's under the hood besides a Chevy engine, which makes no sense in a Ford.

Never been to a street rod run have you?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Craig Irwin

[RancheroSteve]

I couldn't wait. So, I grabbed the Ranchero, the '66 Fairlane and the '67 Mustang. For me, the Fairlane chassis is the winner hands down. The only modification necessary is taking six scale inches out of the length to get the wheelbase right. Anyone familiar with the Fairlane chassis knows that it's a simple modification. The width is right and the length behind the rear wheels is right.

The Mustang was wrong everywhere. Wheelbase is off 2-3 mms. Too narrow by six mms. Too short behind the rear wheels by 12mms. I'll take sectioning 6mms out of the Fairlane chassis over that mess any day.

Interesting to know - I'll have to pull some boxes off the shelf and check that out.

Keep in mind that in the "real" world, the Mustang components are a much closer match to the Falcon and Ranchero. While all are unibody cars with similar suspension design, the Mustang was directly based on the Falcon, while the Fairlane is more of a mid-sized car. Although when the Falcon got the V8, some parts came from the Fairlane line, so one could argue for some cross-pollination.

So it all just depends on how crazy you want to drive yourself for the sake of scale accuracy.

[Mark]

Except for the Convertible & Hardtop versions of their Annuals,

AMT's Kits most likely did not share tooling between different body style cars of the same vintage/year

untill the 64 El Camino & Mailbu Wagon kits.

We can see that in the re-issues of the 65's which is what became of the 64's!!

Engine, Chassis and Chrome tree are shared. Body, & Interior are different between the 2 kits.

How many parts are shared between the Original AMT 60 Impala Hardtop/Convertible and the

El Camino or Wagon??

Remember, the Wagon was Only a Promo in 60 too!

It came out as a Kit in 62-63 in the Junior Trophy Series

Also, Did the 63 Nova/Chevy2 Wagon share any parts with the Hardtop/Convertible??

The '65 Chevelle wagon and El Camino don't share any parts (except for a small tree with parts for a supercharger setup, that floats between the two kits). Everything is similar, but again, not the same. Same goes for the '64 kits that they are based on. In fact, the '64 bumpers for the two kits have the "1964" in the license plate areas in different fonts. And the chassis aren't exactly the same: the wagon piece has the little spare tire well at the back.

The Nova wagon parts are different from those in the hardtop and convertible kits (the latter two did share a lot of parts). The front bumper/grille units are way different: if you put a hardtop/convertible hood on a wagon, there will be a noticeable gap between the hood and the upper grille trim (which is attached to the hood on the 1:1 car). The parts do interchange, but you have to use the both the hood and bumper/grille unit from the wagon, or hardtop/convertible.

The '60 Chevy hardtop/convertible, wagon, and El Camino were all different (though again parts did interchange). The Junior Craftsman wagon used the rear bumper from the hardtop/convertible, reworked to move the license plate below the bumper. Probably just a case of "just patch it together; it'll be good enough".

[Rob Hall]

Never been to a street rod run have you?

Not into that stuff...

[Tom Geiger]

Not familiar w/ the original, I assume it may have been a curbside like the '61 Falcon annual was?

The original '61 had two issues. There was the annual and in 1962 they did the customizing version. Yes, it was curbside with the hood being molded as part of the body. The other differences between the originals and the later issues, aside from the open hood and the Chevy engine... the chassis on the original is curbside with a single exhaust on it. The later issue has a cut out for the Chevy engine and dual exhausts molded in.

The original has screw posts and the front and rear bumpers go on those posts. The later versions don't. The original also has two part tail lights with a chrome surround and a red clear lens. The later issues have a one part chrome tail light.

[Guest]

Here's some quick and dirty photos of the Fairlane and Mustang chassis' under the Ranchero. There isn't going to be a truly "correct" chassis out there for a Ranchero.

First are the two photos with the Fairlane chassis. I put a piece of 6mm tape across it where I plan on making my cuts. I'll do some exact measurements to make sure of the amount that needs to be taken out before making the second cut. I think this will make a cool project in the future.

Here's the Mustang chassis. I don't think anything else needs to be said this mess.

[Tom Geiger]

_{Thanks for the visual Roger. I would have assumed that the Mustang chassis was the way to go. How about the Trumpeter Ranchero chassis? I haven't seen one so I don't know how nice it is, but if created properly, it would be the right chassis. The wagon / Ranchero may have had a different gas tank etc from the cars.}

[RancheroSteve]

That does look very close, Roger! Definitely close enough to pass for a Falcon unibody to most eyes, and certainly better than the Trumpeter.

Yes, the Ranchero has a different gas tank than the Falcon - hung by straps under the bed vs. dropped in through the trunk, but it looks pretty much the same in plastic.

[Chuck Most]

I couldn't wait. So, I grabbed the Ranchero, the '66 Fairlane and the '67 Mustang. For me, the Fairlane chassis is the winner hands down. The only modification necessary is taking six scale inches out of the length to get the wheelbase right. Anyone familiar with the Fairlane chassis knows that it's a simple modification. The width is right and the length behind the rear wheels is right.

The Mustang was wrong everywhere. Wheelbase is off 2-3 mms. Too narrow by six mms. Too short behind the rear wheels by 12mms. I'll take sectioning 6mms out of the Fairlane chassis over that mess any day.

I've got a '67 Comet kit with a toasted body (I'd rather not get into that part...), so I think I just might give that a try, since it has the same chassis as the '66 Fairlane.

[Mark]

Here's some quick and dirty photos of the Fairlane and Mustang chassis' under the Ranchero. There isn't going to be a truly "correct" chassis out there for a Ranchero.

First are the two photos with the Fairlane chassis. I put a piece of 6mm tape across it where I plan on making my cuts. I'll do some exact measurements to make sure of the amount that needs to be taken out before making the second cut. I think this will make a cool project in the future.

Here's the Mustang chassis. I don't think anything else needs to be said this mess.

The Fairlane/Cyclone piece appears to be the way to go. However, I wouldn't make the cut where you have it indicated. The AMT Ranchero has the underside "shapes and locations" generally correct; I'd use that as a guide. I think you'll end up making the cut in the tunnel area, more forward of the proposed location. The stock Ranchero gas tank is smaller, and offset to the driver's side, leaving space for the muffler between it and the passenger side leaf spring. The AMT Ranchero chassis never had a gas tank, either as a separate part or molded as part of the chassis. If one had been molded into the stock chassis, the second muffler added for the V8 engine issues wouldn't have fit where it is.

You will probably have to tweak the engine compartment walls, or make new ones. The Fairlane's hood opening is wider, and the engine compartment side panels flare out to meet the sides of the opening. They will need to meet the sides of the Ranchero hood opening in exactly the same way.

For a pro street conversion, where you aren't concerned with stock appearance, take a look at the pro street '66 Nova underbody. I've got one of those fitted into a '62 Falcon body, and will even use the interior with some tweaks. The engine compartment pieces aren't stock, so they aren't too "Chevy looking", but you can change things around a bit and smooth them up even more. The stock Nova underbody has too many Chevy/GM characteristics to make using it for a replica stock Falcon worth the effort. The Fairlane setup looks like the way to go, even with the amount of work needed.

When we make the Falcon/Mustang comparison, we're correct in saying that some of the suspension parts are similar. I don't think that the underbody sheet metal is shared, though. Someone who owns a Falcon or Ranchero can confirm this...do any Mustang underbody patch panels fit a Falcon or Ranchero?

[RancheroSteve]

Good points, Mark. Like you say, the AMT Ranchero chassis isn't too far off in general (besides the lack of a gas tank), but keep in mind that in the real world, the Ranchero (and sedan delivery) were built on the two door station wagon platform, so the floor continues flat behind the bed for a bit, then there is a pretty pronounced kick-up over the rear axle where it becomes the bed floor. This flat area behind the cab is where the rear passenger foot well would be in the wagon. This is also why there's a removable panel at the front of the Ranchero bed. Good for battery re-location, or accumulating leaves and gunk which will hasten the rusting of the floor pan. If you look closely, there's actually a mold seam line on the model that sorta represents this.

[mustang man]

Hello

hope this helps

60 - 65 falcon same the small high spring front end , small block only ,and have welded shock tower braces on early cars

66 to the end in 68 Falcon have the mid size car front end ,think Fairlane , 66 and up .This will hold a big block .FE or 429

69.5 falcon is a cheap line Tornio

65/66 mustang have the small high spring front .bolt in shock tower braces

67 to 70 have a big block front end but is mustang/cougar only

71 to 73 mustang and 70 and 71 Torino have the new large front end ,for the 429

69 Maverick/Comet and later Grandia have new mid sized engine compartment.

While most/some front end parts cross over ,

the engine compartment sheet metal /fire wall were to : each car line and/or body line

the shock tower stampings and motor mounts were mostly the same ,but not always

Ford used this setup all the way up until 1980

As being around these cars since I can walk .

I would use the AMT new tool 66 Fairlane kit as being the closest.

RM 70 Torino is way to big The

new tool Amt 67/68 is no where close and is a joke

A new tool 65/66 Mustang would be most welcome

There has not been any engine compartment that is any were near be right , in any of the Ford kits

Now why did Ford put the high spring front end in the car to start ?

Thanks MM

[Mark]

The Ranchero kit chassis is "shallower" than it should be, probably to make it easier to mold. The driveshaft tunnel in particular is "flatter" than it ought to be, because it has to clear that interior/window mounting boss that is molded into the underside of the cargo area floor. Other than that and the rounded inner fenders, it isn't bad. As I remember, it checked out pretty well against a '62 sedan delivery my older brother owned some years ago (he'd just bought it when I saw the '77 reissue Ranchero kit, and grabbed one). I started cutting all of that stuff out of a kit chassis, and once the holes are filled back in (deeper driveline tunnel, higher kick-up) I can then get rid of the molded-in rear axle and spring detail. I cut the rounded inner fenders and suspension detail from a '60 Comet underbody and built a more correct engine compartment for that one (yet another unfinished project that is staring me in the face!).

But the Fairlane conversion looks intriguing. The kick-up gradually drops back down behind the rear wheels to create a deeper trunk floor in the 1:1 car. That can be fixed, though. I'd probably approach it by removing the interior mounting boss from the inside of the Ranchero body (and trimming the rear mounting posts), then shorten the Fairlane underbody and fit it in. I'd then cut the Fairlane piece at the highest point of the kick-up, and rebuild from there back with sheet plastic tacked to the bottom of the bed floor. I've got a set of Ford parts books that cover 1960-64 that include pretty decent line drawings of the underbody stampings...between those and the original Ranchero piece as reference, I think it is possible to come up with a much-improved Ranchero. The transmission tunnel will be larger than stock, but unless you are going 100% stock that is actually a plus...

[RancheroSteve]

Maybe (?) oddly enough, the '69 Falcon "modified stocker" has some pretty good shock towers (inner fender wells). The rest of the kit, not so much.

[Guest]

The Fairlane/Cyclone piece appears to be the way to go. However, I wouldn't make the cut where you have it indicated. The AMT Ranchero has the underside "shapes and locations" generally correct; I'd use that as a guide. I think you'll end up making the cut in the tunnel area, more forward of the proposed location.

No, I'll be making my cuts where I have them indicated. I thought about cutting the chassis right at the kickup and at the ends of the frame rails. But, after looking it over, I decided to make the cuts where it would be the easiest to join it back together. I have no intentions of using any of the Ranchero's chassis or floor pan. I'm just going to shorten the Fairlane chassis and call it good enough. If the Ranchero body and interior were a little better, I would put more effort into the chassis. To me, putting the work it would take to make an absolutely correct chassis for the Ranchero makes about as much sense as hanging a chandalier in an outhouse. I'll leave it up to someone else to build a "correct" Ranchero.

[RancheroSteve]

Haha - not to get too off-topic, but the outhouse probably represented real progress at one time. Just think about how things were done previously.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RancheroSteve

[Tom Geiger]

If the Ranchero body and interior were a little better, I would put more effort into the chassis.

I think the body is just fine, and you can replace the interior if you think it's too simple. This one is the back half of the AMT '66 T-Bird interior and has worked out pretty well. It has a console and I pinned the original Ranchero dashboard to it. I actually did it out of necessity. This was built from an old original before we got the reissue of the 1990s. I didn't have an interior for it. The dash has photo etched gauges because the ones on the original were melted with dope silver paint. Ah, making something from nothing.

[RancheroSteve]

There's really only a couple of things wrong with the body as I see it, and they're both pretty fairly easily fixed.

First, the lip above the rear window (I assume it's still there in the current re-issue) shouldn't be there - grind it flush and re-scribe the trim line.

Second, the rear cab pillar is sculpted wrong, but this can be vastly improved with some work with a sanding stick and maybe a little putty.

The photo below illustrates more how things should look:

Apart from that, like most AMT kits of the period, it gets the look of the car about right to my eyes.

[Guest]

The biggest problem I have with the Ranchero's body is the front end. It has a "pinched" look. The grille and bumper also don't fit well at all. The head light rings should not be visible from the side view. The leading edge of the front fenders has a curve that I don't think should be there either. I think that's part of the problem of the head light rings being visible. The front end definitely need some work. I'm going to separate the grille from the bumper and do some massaging to those front fenders when I build the next one.

[RancheroSteve]

I guess while we're at it, the other thing that isn't quite right is the inside of the tailgate: it should have the same slant as the outside (forward towards the top). I'm guessing that might have been a compromise necessitated by molding technology. Not so easily fixed, but you can throw a tonneau cover over the bed and call it good.

[Tom Geiger]

There's really only a couple of things wrong with the body as I see it, and they're both pretty fairly easily fixed.

First, the lip above the rear window (I assume it's still there in the current re-issue) shouldn't be there - grind it flush and re-scribe the trim line.

Second, the rear cab pillar is sculpted wrong, but this can be vastly improved with some work with a sanding stick and maybe a little putty.

The photo below illustrates more how things should look:

Apart from that, like most AMT kits of the period, it gets the look of the car about right to my eyes.

Here it is all fixed Steve!

[38 Crush]

We'll unless I read the box wrong the new ranchero comes with a caddy engine ! Also gas cans, bumper jack custom roof, Fender skirts plus much more!!

[The Junkman]

FYI: I found a 170 c.i. Ford 6 cyl engine on Ebay. No connection with the seller

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Resin-Ford-170-C-I-engine-Mustang-Falcon-Fairlane-Ranchero-Missing-Link-/350951953843?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item51b65dd5b3

[Guest]

We'll unless I read the box wrong the new ranchero comes with a caddy engine ! Also gas cans, bumper jack custom roof, Fender skirts plus much more!!

Could you show us the box Harold? I haven't seen it yet. I know the other issues had a big block Chevy.