What might have been?
#41
Posted 28 April 2010 - 01:35 PM
#42
Posted 28 April 2010 - 05:45 PM
#43
Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:47 PM
#44
Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:32 PM
#45
Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:52 AM
#46
Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:15 AM
Harry- have you ever tried a '70 Mustang with hideaway headlamps? It would've been cool looking. I have a suspicion that the styling department had precisely that in mind, but the bean counters nixed it, and they just slapped on those stupid, standard sealed beams in the grille.
Never tried that.
#47
Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:34 AM
You should! It would be cool. (You know, reiterating what I said earlier!)Never tried that.
#48
Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:55 PM
You should! It would be cool. (You know, reiterating what I said earlier!)
I never did like that style of Mustang... with the "inboard" headlights. It always looked a little goofy to me...
#49
Posted 04 June 2010 - 09:30 AM
Well get to 'shoppin and show us your rendition....................
OK... 2 different ways to go...

#50
Posted 04 June 2010 - 01:18 PM
NICE (to both). If I had ta pick one I'd probably go with the 1st one simply cause its blue.
I actually like the second version. Not the color so much, but the "normal" headlights where they should be (not in the grille like the stock '70).
#51
Posted 04 June 2010 - 01:35 PM
Had a feelin you'd pick that one. Especially since I took the other one. Do we EVER agree??
![]()
Not so much!!!
Congrats, Harry...for inventing the 1970 Palmer Mustang kit 40 years later...
![]()
Huh???!!!
What the heck is the story behind that??? (and BTW, I've never seen that before!)
#52
Posted 04 June 2010 - 01:47 PM
That's just what I said it was, actually...it's a 1970 Palmer Mustang kit (built with replacement wheels/tires). Note the full width grille just like your photoshopped second picture. Granted, they did put the fender "eyebrows" on the sides of the fenders, but trim those off, and put on side marker lights instead, and you have a pretty similar front end treatment.
Yeah, but what was the deal behind that? Was it supposed to be a "custom" Mustang or what? How was that kit marketed?
#53
Posted 05 June 2010 - 04:08 AM
It was "marketed" with a nice drawing of a stock Boss 302 on the box. Typical Palmer...what was on the box and what was in it had no relationship. No Boss stripes in the kit. Typical multi-piece body with molded-in interior. The kit was an update of prior years' Palmer Mustang kits. I cut the interior out, and put the body together and smoothed it prior to paint. The only non-kit parts were the wheels/tires.
Strange that they would manufacture a kit that was obviously so wrong... I mean the whole front end is completely different than the "real" car.
That front end would be more accurate for a '60s Camaro!
#54
Posted 05 June 2010 - 05:52 AM
#55
Posted 05 June 2010 - 07:01 AM
Never knew Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles were employed as product managers for Palmer...
#56
Posted 05 June 2010 - 07:21 AM
Mark, you must have some of the "nicest" Palmer build-ups in the world!
What a magazine feature that would make: "Palmer Models–When Accuracy Didn't Matter!!!"
#57
Posted 05 June 2010 - 08:02 AM
Complete with a comprehensive article by Chuck Most, on how to fix the problems with a Palmer kit! Here is a sneak peak at the article in its entirety!What a magazine feature that would make: "Palmer Models–When Accuracy Didn't Matter!!!"
FIXING PALMER KITS
by Chuck Most
Take the Palmer kit (as shown in Photo 1), and flush it down the nearest toilet (as shown in Photo 2).

PHOTO 1: The kit you probably shouldn't have bought.

PHOTO 2: The tools you will need to set things right.
#58
Posted 05 June 2010 - 08:51 AM



#59
Posted 05 June 2010 - 10:00 AM
In regards to your Charger wagon, I believe I beat you to it.
That depends. I did mine several years ago. Along with a few others:


#60
Posted 05 June 2010 - 01:21 PM
So i fixed it!
RX8 Before:

RX8 After:













