80 replies to this topic

[gtx6970]

Interesting that the tail light angle is just now brought up.

I know the tail lights are different , but aren't the quarter panels the same between a 55 and a 56 ?

 

edit, I do not have a parts book to go back that far. But a fiend of mine does and he has a 1/1 1955 C300 in the garage 

 

Actually I think all the sheetmetal is the same. With  just a few different nameplate, emblems, door handles and tail lights being the major differences between the 2 years

Edited by gtx6970, 05 March 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[sjordan2]

I wonder if there are enough similarities between this 1955 Imperial and the 300B to make a valid comparison? Wouldn't the roof be more like the Moebius 300 C? In any case, photographs of the real car and this drawing indicate to me that the Moebius roofline and window opening aren't there yet.

 

Edited by sjordan2, 05 March 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[Casey]

Also, it's apparent that the C pillar on the model is too thin (distance between the side glass and the back glass).

 

Might that be due to the sharper angle of the rear glass "corner" on the model?

 

I agree about the length of the quarter panels rearward of the wheel openings, and the "bug-eyed" headlight surrounds, too.

[Brett Barrow]

 

The point where the rear glass hits the body may be due to the photos, but regardless of the "correctness" of using the photos as a comparison, the fact that the model's headlight bezels stick out too far, the rear overhang is way too short, and the angle of the taillights/fins is off, is obvious.

 

Also, it's apparent that the C pillar on the model is too thin (distance between the side glass and the back glass).

You might be 100% correct on all those points.  But the difference in perspective between the two photographs is going to skew that perception even more, it's going to make things look stretched on the back of the car and squashed on the front.  

 

This would be a make a better photograph (it's an Imperial)  to compare the headlights to, and I agree, they do stick out too far, as they did on the 55 (same basic front end).  

[Brett Barrow]

Interesting that the tail light angle is just now brought up.

I know the tail lights are different , but aren't the quarter panels the same between a 55 and a 56 ?

 

Actually I think all the sheetmetal is the same. With  just a few different nameplate, emblems, door handles and tail lights being the major differences between the 2 years

Again, you have to take into account parallax and distortion in the photographs.  Compare the angle of the taillights in Harry's compo to the gas station's pillars (which I'm going to guess are vertical in real life.  They're not vertical in the photograph.  So how can you use that photograph as a basis for measuring the angle of the taillights?  It's skewed, all photographs are skewed to some degree, and the further you get off the point of focus, the more skewed they become.  

 

I don't want to be Mr. Model Kit Defender in this discussion, but I'm telling y'all, this ain't how it's done. All photographs, unless the've been taken with a telecentric lens (which can only "see" objects smaller than its own lens opening and there's no telecentric lens in existance big enough to photograph a real car) are skewed and distorted to some degree.  

[Harry P.]

 It's skewed, all photographs are skewed to some degree, and the further you get off the point of focus, the more skewed they become.  

 

You're right that the photo of the real car is skewed, and my photographic comparison isn't 100% accurate or "legitimate," but like I said... even taking any photographic distortion into account, there are a couple of very obvious mistakes on the kit body which, to be perfectly honest, I can't understand why they haven't been noticed by the "powers that be."

[Cato]

Brett,

I understand your photo discussion very clearly and why it's not done that way.

 

But let's consider a totally different way, using an example I know very well. I will qualify my comment right away saying 'expense aside'. I'm talking about the 1:1 practice of digitizing the prototype, and in our model case, scale it down.

 

The Kirkham Brothers did this very thing-digitized their father's original Cobra. Then created screen drawings and eventually bucks which were constructed in the Polish plant and the replica aluminum bodies were created. While still in digital form, they corrected asymmetry and other very minor changes from original (I think the rear fender flairs for one).

 

Harry raises a valid point; why not detected by the 'fathers' of the kit? Possible rush to production? Maybe but Moebius is a class act and deserves credit for putting stuff out there for constructive criticism. Digitizing is a way of hitting the mark before the test shot phase. But I have no idea if cost is prohibitive to a company such as they or R/M or Tammy or Trump.

 

Dave has not jumped in here yet and his comments would be significant.

 

 

 

 

[Brett Barrow]

There are a few models made from 1:1 "scans". Some of Wingnut Wings 1/32 WWI aircraft kits are made this way. But the 1:1s were scanned to assist sister company The Vintage Aviator Ltd. in creating 1:1 replicas. Both companies are owned by filmmaker Peter Jackson, and neither are meant to generate significant amounts of profit for Mr. Jackson. But the Wingnut Wings kits are spectacular.

[Harry P.]

But the Wingnut Wings kits are spectacular.

 

Second that! They are spectacular. I don't remember who mentioned that site here originally, but when I checked it out, I was hooked.

[Dave Metzner]

I'm not sure that I can see the value in trying to compare photos of the model to photos of real cars when a few degrees of camera angle radically changes proportions of the subject.

To be honest, this new 56 body is the 1955 body with new rear fenders, tail lights and bumpers and slightly revised headlight bezels. (For those of you familiar with plastic tooling this new body has the same cavity and core as the 55 with new slides.)

These are exactly the same changes that were made by Chrysler in 1956. Please note that the real 56 shares every body panel except for rear fenders with the 55. Also note that the 56 is exactly 2 inches longer than the 55 and those 2 inches reside completely in the ends of the rear bumper.

If this new body is as wrong as noted above then our 1955 is too.

The folks who have seen the 1956 in person and had it in their hands did not see all these glaring shortcomings.

I trust that the actual model will get better reviews than these less than wonderful photos of the mock-up have.

 

Thank you,

 Dave

Edited by Dave Metzner, 05 March 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[gtx6970]

I'm not sure that I can see the value in trying to compare photos of the model to photos of real cars when a few degrees of camera angle radically changes proportions of the subject.

To be honest, this new 56 body is the 1955 body with new rear fenders, tail lights and bumpers and slightly revised headlight bezels. (For those of you familiar with plastic tooling this new body has the same cavity and core as the 55 with new slides.)

These are exactly the same changes that were made by Chrysler in 1956. Please note that the real 56 shares every body panel except for rear fenders with the 55. Also note that the 56 is exactly 2 inches longer than the 55 and those 2 inches reside completely in the ends of the rear bumper.

If this new body is as wrong as noted above then our 1955 is too.

The folks who have seen the 1956 in person and had it in their hands did not see all these glaring shortcomings.

I trust that the actual model will get better reviews than these less than wonderful photos of the mock-up have.

 

Thank you,

 Dave

 

 

Thats what I wanted to hear.

 

I have a couple of the 55's and will definitly add a couple fo the 56's to the pile once avail.

 

 

Now , I f we can just get a 1958 300 done

Edited by gtx6970, 05 March 2013 - 11:33 PM.

[Cato]

Dave-thanks for coming in to describe the changes.

[Dave Metzner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the 58's just a 57 with different tail lights and grille - even less difference between a 57 and a 58 than between 55 and 56 - sheet metal on 57 & 58 is the same - differences are all superficial...actually the 59 shares the same sheet metal as the 57/58 - The AMT 57 300 C would be a very straightforward conversion to either a 58 or a 59... just tail lights grilles and bodyside chrome differences between the three cars.

Dave

[MrObsessive]

Dave you would be right about the '58's. They were just simply '57's with oddly "shrunken" taillights, very slightly changed wheelcovers, and the new for '58 "bubble canopy" windshield for hardtops. Interior seat and door panel patterns may have been different as well.

 

It wouldn't take much work at all to convert AMT's '57 to a '58 save for maybe that windshield frame. '59's were a bit more changed, but mostly at the rear with an all new taillight shape and rear bumper.

[John Goschke]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the 58's just a 57 with different tail lights and grille - even less difference between a 57 and a 58 than between 55 and 56 - sheet metal on 57 & 58 is the same - differences are all superficial...actually the 59 shares the same sheet metal as the 57/58 - The AMT 57 300 C would be a very straightforward conversion to either a 58 or a 59... just tail lights grilles and bodyside chrome differences between the three cars.

Dave

 

Dave, I'm looking forward to the '56. The mockup shots look good. The only thing I see that appears to need reconsideration is the apparent length of the rear overhang and the angle of the bumper and tail fin in profile. But that could be due to the photos as others have said.

 

As to the difference between the '57 and '58 Chrysler 300s, the '58 and '59 hardtops have compound curved windshields with a higher crown. Pretty sure it's the same piece that was used in '57 on the convertible only. That would be the most difficult part of the '57 to '58 conversion.

[gtx6970]

Actually for me personally I would like to have a 1958 300 onvertible kit ( good friend of mine has one ) it is/was one of the lowest production numbers of all the 300 letter cars. I hope to get the job to restore it someday soon.

I have the 57 hardtop kit, I may one day try to convert it to a vert on my own

[dimaxion]

Yes , I am in for this '56 as I would be for the '58 (do you hear me Round II) as a change in grille texture , taillights {aren't the Custom Taillights in the '57 kit '58's ?} , and 300 Emblems from 300C to 300D . There is a ragtop '57 Body out there for the 300C . This would make a correct '58 as for the windshield . Anyone remember who makes it . I am wanting one . I've lost my list of "whodunnit & where to get" . A '59 300 E , a '60 300F , a '61 300G , a '62 300H , a '63 300I , a '64 300K a '65 300L would be most excellent to have the whole string . If all of these were kitted , I'm in even though it means duplicates for me . Yes indeed on the Bendix Jetronix FI on the '58 MoPars . . When it was set up right is outperformed the GM "Dribble and spurt" system . Same problem as GM ; not many Techs mastered these early versions of FI . Fouled Plugs  was a constant problem . Running too rich is the cause . Same fix ; convert to 4bbl Carb(s) .    Thanx ..

[Cesar Bossolani]

Dave, any news?

[High octane]

So how hard would it be for them to do one of these...

'55 New Yorker Town & Country.

A REAL "family hauler." Now yer talkin'.

[Dave Metzner]

News is that the kit is in tooling now - 1st test shots around middle of May..

I believe that the New Yorker Wagon rides on the same chassis - other than that you're looking at an entirely new body tool and all new interior tooling - Not nearly as simple as going from a 55 to a 56 300.

I'm surprised that somebody hasn't already done a resin conversion..