Greg Myers Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 same kit in September ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin T Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 It maybe a tin box edition like they did with the 100 years of Chevrolet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peekay Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Molded in different colours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Barrow Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 The orange one should have been the box art for the Mustang Funny Car. They goofed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Janssens Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Not too fond of that kit, think the windshield lays too far back, because of the vent windows look tiny almost 1/25th scale like, sold mine because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 50 Years of Mustang 1/16 kit. Does this mean we can look for a 1/16 scale '67 Camaro in 2017? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Not too fond of that kit, think the windshield lays too far back, because of the vent windows look tiny almost 1/25th scale like, sold mine because of that. It IS too far back Luc. It's one of the reasons I've never built mine, despite having had it for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 For the life of me I do not know how anyone could have tooled up for a notchback instead of the fastback. I was amazed when those kits came out originally and am still amazed! The T-birds and 50s Chevs were cool but a Notchback? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I would rather see a kit of the notchback. They were more common anyway, and harder to find in kit form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 For the life of me I do not know how anyone could have tooled up for a notchback instead of the fastback. I was amazed when those kits came out originally and am still amazed! The T-birds and 50s Chevs were cool but a Notchback? Seriously? The fastback Sportsroof whatever Ford called it wasn't available until the '65 model year IIRC, so knowing the original release has always been labeled as a '64 1/2, I think the only puzzlung thing is why Round2 decided to label it as a '65 this go 'round. I don't know if/what distinguishes a '64 1/2 from a '65, but if nothing nor not much at all, that would explain the model year change. Or they goofed with the model year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The fastback Sportsroof whatever Ford called it wasn't available until the '65 model year IIRC, so knowing the original release has always been labeled as a '64 1/2, I think the only puzzlung thing is why Round2 decided to label it as a '65 this go 'round. I don't know if/what distinguishes a '64 1/2 from a '65, but if nothing nor not much at all, that would explain the model year change. Or they goofed with the model year. I am no Mustang expert but there were no 64 Mustangs nor even 64 1/2. I believe they were all 65s but were available for sale early in 64. I remember when my mom brought our 60 Ford Ranch wagon into the dealer for repairs and ogling the new fastback Mustang. I know that they are commonly called 64 1/2 but Ford never labeled them as such. 65 would be correct. "I would rather see a kit of the notchback. They were more common anyway, and harder to find in kit form." AMT never re-released the Fastback. They made it into an altered wheelbase A/FX. They re-released the notch many times. If you like boring cars ( as some people do) then go ahead and favor the notchback. I found Corvairs to be more interesting than Mustang notchbacks!!! When I was in High School in the 70s, Notchbacks were a dime a dozen especially all of the 6 cylinder 3-speed and auto trans cars. It usually only took $200- 500.00 to buy one. I had one high school buddy who had three of them laying around. Most were rusty as could be. Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack rat Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I don't know if/what distinguishes a '64 1/2 from a '6564 1/2 - generator65 - alternatorThe only obvious difference I can recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 64 1/2 - generator 65 - alternator The only obvious difference I can recall. I seem to recall there was something about the way the front lip of the hood was creased also. Whether there is a distinct 64 1/2 or not has been an item of debate among magazines and authors for decades..seems like it is an expression that came along after the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Picking "nits" and counting "rivets" it's all good. A Camaro in 2016 ? Probably not as it seems the kit manufactures are only using what they already have in their vast warehouse. As to the Fastback (that's what we called em'. Back in the day) and the coupe? (again a term from days of yor ) We got plenty of fastbacks. Let's see Monogram/Revell finish their already great Mustang series ( Fastback, GT350, GT350H, Convertable ) with the missing (and ubiquitous ) coupe, notchback , hardtop or what ever you wanna call it. As Lee pointed out, "most common" Edited April 7, 2014 by Greg Myers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAT-T Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I THINK IT'S AN OK KIT, BUT YOU CAN STILL FIND SEALED KITS OF THESE ON EBAY FOR $10 I HOPE THEY DO THE '55 & '57 CHEVY HARDTOP TOO, THE '57 NOMAD GOES FOR GOOD $$ THESE DAYS, I WONDER IF THEY PAY ATTENTION TO THAT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) 1964 "1/2" = 260 V8 ; 2-speed automatic (Ford-O-Matic) in its final year ; and , no back-up lamps (not required until calendar year 1965) . 1965 = 289 V8 ; C4** "Cruise-O-Matic" ; disc brakes ( I believe...) ; Sportsroof / 2+2 ; GT package . My high school ( in 1985 ) girlfriend's mother had a early-production "1964 1/2" Mustang coupe which she bought new . It was a base model I-6 / 3-speed manual whose only options were AM radio and power steering . It had wheel covers (13" wheels ) ; I'm not sure if they were standard fare ; I've never seen a pre-1967 Mustang with hub caps . It was sans back-up lamps . ** The "C" in "C4" , in FoMoCo part numbers code = 1960's (e.g. , "A" =1940's , "B" = 1950's , ad seq. ) , and the following number represents the parts' year-of-application . Therefore , "C4" = 1964. This practise of alpha-numeric part numbers was dropped / revised / changed after the 1998 model year (ending with "F8") ; 1999 = "X" , 2000 = "Y" , 2001 = "Z" ; 2002 = "2" (ad seq.) . Edited April 7, 2014 by 1972coronet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 I've never seen a pre-1967 Mustang with a big block . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I've never seen a pre-1967 Mustang with a big block . You're right about that . A friend of mine swapped a 351 W into his '66 Sportsroof / 2+2 , and it barely fit ! I can only imagine what it'd take to sling an FE or MEL into that '64-'66 boilerroom ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Wasn't there also something about the headlight nacelles changing to a one-piece design later in the '65 m. y.? Always thought that C-scoop chrome side accent was specific to early '65s (64 1/2s) too, while the later '65s were clean there - but I'm not certain about that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Hmm. Coulda sworn the headlight bucket and door were integrated into one piece at some point, but I could find no verification. Did find this... http://www.svs.com/zim/mustang/64body.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Love 'em or lump 'em, that 1/16's gonna need work. A-pillars is just all kinds of wrong 'n the front fascia's pretty cocked-up too. And yet... poring over shots of builts and thinking back to the last one I had, I'm wondering how hard it'd really be. *sigh* This fool and his money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I've still got the 1/16 I built over thirty years ago here and pull it out of the box once in a while considering how much I need to do to make it look right. The awb fastback will be a nice reissue to have as it's easily restored to stock using the coupe quarters. Not sure if missing link still has the interior in it's repertoire though... mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 You're right about that . A friend of mine swapped a 351 W into his '66 Sportsroof / 2+2 , and it barely fit ! I can only imagine what it'd take to sling an FE or MEL into that '64-'66 boilerroom ! A sledgehammer and some torching??? Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 64 1/2 had beveled headlight buckets in inside edges because lip of hood was not folded over like on 65s. The rad support had 3 cooling holes on generator side, they had non movable seat tracks, gauge cluster had gen instead of alt warming light. Headliner was different moon skin material, the D code 289 4 barrel was only offed in first 6 months which if you were lucky to find one was a dead giveaway. True all were titled as 65s they ran the first run with these oddities until the end of May. I restored and sold an April 17 built D code 4 speed 64 1/2 coupe in prarie bronze with black interior a few yrs ago so I know the subject : ). I also know how hard some of the parts are to find. The headlight buckets are costly. 25 bucks for a 65/6 bucket and up to 400 for a 64 1/2 bucket. Thank god I only needed one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Love 'em or lump 'em, that 1/16's gonna need work. A-pillars is just all kinds of wrong 'n the front fascia's pretty cocked-up too. And yet... poring over shots of builts and thinking back to the last one I had, I'm wondering how hard it'd really be. *sigh* This fool and his money... Also from the box art, the wheels and tires always looked funny to me..like the wheelcovers stood out too far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.