The Forums will be down, Friday, November 24th starting 8 AM PST for upgrade.We'll probably be down until 1PM PST, but it might be longer. I'm doing a major forum software upgrade, so I expect the forums to operate somewhat differently when we come back online.
Yeah, I remember those, too. Lots of people used "The Club", too, thinking that would stop someone from being able to steer their car even if they did peel the column. Didn't take the thieves too long to realize that it only took a minute or two to saw through the rim of the steering wheel itself, then just slip it off.
Yup, that high quality GM steering column that a toddler could peel. That's not much of an exaggeration - I clearly recall a couple news stories in the Chicago area back in the nineties about 10 year old kids stealing Cutlasses and Monte Carlos. About half the people I knew with these G-bodies ended up getting them stolen, including my brother's Monte SS that got totalled in the ensuing police chase.
I fully agree that a plastic '51 Ford has been needed in the hobby for quite some time. You're probably right that a Victoria would be the most popular, but I personally would prefer a Tudor. There's a legitimate argument that it would allow us to mash it together with the '49 and '50 kits to get a coupe, convert, or sedan for any of the three years. But my own selfish motive is to be able to build a replica of my dad's first car.
Looks like they did a nice job on this one, each of the noses seems to have a different grill pattern, which opens up more build possibilities. Also see two steering wheels. VERY nice to finally have a flat hood, as well! Instructions seems to show the bisected style earlier taillights, but with the Olds emblem in the center. For now I'm going to assume that it's just a sloppy edit of the H/O instructions, and hope they got the taillights correct for 1985+ EDIT: Scott, totally overlooked that hood ornament in the instructions - good stuff! I already got 2 of the H/O kits, looks like I'll be getting at least 2 of these bad boys, too...
Sure didn't expect to see the Nova & Chevy II, but very happy they're happening. Glad to see the '65 sedan has a stock wheelbase, many more possibilities this way. Even if it's not in Moebius' current plans, that leaves the option open for a future factory stock (or "closer to factory stock") version down the road. Regardless of how one defines "gasser", you just need to do a Google image search to see that there are scads of 1:1 first gen Chevy II's/Novas that are set up very similar to the Moebius '65 mockup. Many of them are street driven. It particularly reminds me of "The Woodsman Shaker" 62 sedan featured at the link below. If you've never read the story on this particular car, you owe it to yourself to take a few minutes and get the lowdown. Anyone who considers themselves a "car guy" can't help but love the story of how this car came to be: http://www.superchevy.com/features/1501-1962-woodsman-shaker-chevy-ii-too-much/ Note that even though this car currently sports a big block and is altered wheelbase, when the owner first got it back on the road in the late seventies, it surely looked an awful lot like the Moebius '65 mockup, and probably would have been considered a street freak at the time. Also note that although this car doesn't fit the original sixties definition of a gasser, it currently races in a regional racing body called "East Coast Gassers". Also note that it is still street driven occasionally.
Ive been sayin' for years that we need a new first gen Cougar kit. With the argument for multiple versions from the same basic tool, there aren't many cars that could give you more possible variations. Obviously there's both the '67 and '68 model years. Within factory stock variations, there are umpteen possibilities, including multiple high performance versions. Besides the base model for each year, there is also the options for XR7, GT, XR7-G, GT-E. As far as engines, there was the 289 and 302 windsor, 390, 427, and 428 all offered at various times during the 1967-1968 model years. (No Eliminator until '69 though) The basic body shell could also be used for a Bud Moore Trans Am car. I'm sure there are several historic drag cars that could be replicated, too.
Their "Street Custom" 1976 Nova box art showed a factory stock build with the 6-hole rally wheels, but what was in the box was the same old street machine/pro street version.
Their 1972 Chevelle box art seemed to show the old MPC '72 Chevelle (check out the weird, too tall parking lights) with Centerline-type wheels. What's actually in the box is the AMT Chevelle, which started out as the 1970 annual and got updated through 1972. THEN it got backdated to a 1970 by Ertl in the 1990s. Then RC2 retooled additional parts to AGAIN offer it as a 1972 (but somehow managed to use an old MPC for the box art). The interesting thing is that they didn't actually duplicate the old annual AMT 1972 parts. The front end actually has clear headlights and correctly sized, clear turn signals. This is negated by a totally incorrect grille pattern that they inexplicably provided. The kit also does have the correct for 1972 5-spoke SS wheels, plus the same wretched custom wheels from the 1970 version, which I'm not even sure how to describe. Aside from the wrong grille pattern, what's in the box is actually better than the box art indicates on this one (and the original 1972 annual was actually incorrect in several ways, too). One of these days I'd like to post a comparison of the old '72 AMT and this one, to show the differences. If Round 2 would take the initiative and redo the grille with the correct pattern, it could build into a nice shelf model. That's something that's certainly within their capabilities.
Thought the lower trim on the '67 Camaro was correct for the RS - is a problem for building a non-RS. Honestly, the rocker trim is the least of the problems with that Camaro. The whole shape of the grille opening is wrong, and for the non-RS grille they missed the top/bottom trim. And the biggest problem is the whole tail panel is tilted at a weird angle. Hoping Revell eventually fixes those trangressions. Till then, none for me. Funny you should mention the Nova, that has the opposite problem from the Camaro: tail panel is bolt upright when it should be tilted back. As much as people talk about that problem, I'm amazed that I've NEVER seen it corrected on a build.
Sure does, seen it done many times. Think you missed my point: Maybe I should also add that I can't justify the cost of killing a Duster kit just to upgrade the under hood and chassis of the Dart. That's just for myself, totally understand why many people do it....
First off, beautiful build. I have a '72 that I did back in the '90s that I'd like to redo someday too. The '70 would be a good source for the engine/trans if you want a 429 (only source I believe). Chassis would be all wrong: pre-72 Torinos/Fairlanes were unibody with leaf spring rear suspension. 72+ Torinos were body on frame with coil spring rears. The new Revell Starsky & Hutch Torino (& the new factory stock version) is the same generation, so now that we have that, it's the perfect chassis donor for a '72 Johan. I think the engine in that one is a bit of a mish-mash though (not a 1:1 Ford guy, so can't recall the specifics of what's wrong with it)
The problem with that Ranchero isn't just the BBC, it's the totally incorrect inner fenders and underhood compartment. Simply swapping in a Ford engine is kind of pointless if everything else around it is totally wrong. Only way to fix it would be to swap in the underhood area of a different FoMoCo kit that at least resembles the basic Falcon structure. Some people have done it, to their credit, but I just can't get excited enough to put in that effort for that subject. However, I do like it enough that I bought one, and after I build it I'll be fine with it sitting on the shelf with nothing under the hood. Same goes for the AMT '66 Mustang and the MPC '75 Dodge Dart, and I'm sure some others I can't think of right now.