Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About mk11

  • Rank
    MCM Ohana
  • Birthday November 12

Previous Fields

  • Scale I Build

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Full Name
    mike mackie

Recent Profile Visitors

7,912 profile views
  1. Even without the car, I'd love to see a set of those 17 inch 5 spoke wheels in scale. They look good on almost anything.
  2. Sure be cool to find one of these for bashing a full detail model. The perspectives are a lot closer than amt's. No idea who made it...
  3. True, that Ford marketed them as '65s, but they used the 64 1/2 id for internal documents, part listings etc as they had to differentiate them from the actual '65 model year production cars. Some of the engineering changes during the model year changeover in the summer of '64 were introducing alternators (only five years after Chrysler adopted them) and changing the 289 engine castings to accept six bolt bellhousings, among others. An important change during the '64 model year was the transition from open draft tubes to pcv systems. The 260 was dumped for '65 also, replaced by 3 different versions of the 289. Regarding perspective on this 1/16 body, the roof C-pillar is actually about 3/16" back of where it should be; meeting the rear quarter at about the halfway point between the door rear edge and the back end of the quarter. Moving it forward should restore the proper 40 degree windshield angle. There really is no excuse for such a poor interpretation of this in scale. Scaling up directly from the 1/25 coupe should get a guy in the ballpark. Now, if we could just get a scale set of F70-14s for this, we'd be set
  4. Great recent trades with Casey, Cancon and Tom99... Thank you, gentlemen !
  5. You are absolutely right, sir, it is strange. In this case I think it's called marketing... or a mistake made by same. It's true that the two engine families may have had similar looking water pumps/front dress, and even an oil filter in roughly the same place, but that's where it ended. Here's a pic of the standard '68 - '76 2bbl 360/390 FE truck engine. The 4bbl was an option only in '75-'76. This standard exterior design (almost all had the 352 cast on the front) stands in for almost anything FE in scale, with appropriate changes to the valve covers, manifolds, color and oil filter mounting..
  6. If it shares anything with their GT40 kit, Casey, it appears to be underscale... They sure will, as moebius poached their FE engines and chassis almost directly from the amt 75-79 F350 designs. The 360/390 that amt supplied in their kits, calling it a 460, was pretty elemental and the newer tooling in the fairlanes and starliners is better.
  7. Looking for a long or short styleside bed for 65/66 F100 . Thanks
  8. Most current box art does less than nothing for me... let's see some classic stuff made as puzzles even if it's not strictly amt
  9. Those 200S wheels look like they're almost identical to the '65 Mustang wheels, sans the axle boss. Forgot how much fun I had building that one forty years ago; gave it to a friend with a Vette resto shop. Discovered I still had the unused tri-power setup here a couple of years ago.
  10. How about just cutting the nibs off and drilling little holes?
  11. It looks like the wheels supplied in the Tuff Truk (76Ford F350), the '70s GMC stepside and the re-issued model T... among others probably. Don't believe they have a real 1:1 counterpart; just a similarity to the small window drag wheels. ... not a fan
  12. Soooo, about 26" ... just right for my application. How do those wheels fit? I measured my rally GTs (yecch) and they were kinda large in ID. Thanks Casey and Anton
  • Create New...