Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by garagepunk66

  1. It is interesting to note which promo/Craftsman/Jr Trophy series kits got dedicated tooling and which did not and subsequently shared tooling with the annual full-detail kits. For instance, why did the Craftsman 64 Galaxie not share tooling with the full-detail lighted headlamp version that became the Modified Stocker? Maybe it had to do with the budget that the Automakers allowed for new tooling for promo contracts. Perhaps if the budget allowed, dedicated tooling was cut? Another thing that I'm curious about is another aspect of the whole 65-66 Mustang annual/promo saga.... We know that the Fastback 2+2 body went to the Funny Car and it's interior tub and other trees became the Mach I show car/Iron Horse. Then, lots later the promo notchback body and tub were combined with the Iron Horse guts to become the currently available kit starting with the Countdown series. But there was a full detail annual 3 in 1 65 hardtop (notchback) kit also. Did that notchback kit become the Sonny and Cher kit? If so, this is another example of unshared tooling between promos and annuals. If not, was the Sonny and Cher kit a "clean slate" tool?
  2. Yes, I forgot about the difference in wheelbase. The Revell 72 Cutlass chassis would probably be a better choice, with the Monte Carlo engine and rear axle. On another note, does anyone offer reproductions of the Red Alert decals? I think there is a slump buster box art build in my future....
  3. Yes, I was speaking of the 70 Monte Carlo SS 454 kit that was tooled up in the nineties as a donor. I would think that it would be a simple two-kit bash where the Monte pretty much gives everything that's needed. One might need to try using the AMT 70 Chevelle hood though.
  4. Has anyone tried fitting the AMT new-tool 70 Monte Carlo guts to the Revell Snapper body?
  5. +1 on this. The MPC Charger platforms were the "only game in town" back in the day for getting a more detailed chassis under a JoHan B-Body. My go-to kit was the Dukes Charger as I cared very little about the subject matter and they were often overstocked in the holiday season and on clearance afterwards!
  6. A indicates Galaxie, E is the engineering revision level suffix
  7. Reverse engineering from an unbuilt existing physical vintage kit hardly qualifies for being able to "produce them readily" . Yes, Round 2 has done a wonderful job of recreating lost or missing tooling for certain options on kit reissues by laser scanning original parts and creating virtual models of them within a CAD/CAM system. BUT, if they recreated in whole an entire missing set of tools for a kit, then made them to say,1968 annual kit level of detail, they would be burned at the stake for releasing such simplistic product upon the public. Not to mention the costs and the prospect of recouping that from a relatively obscure car like the Toranados.
  8. Yes, I have noticed this in several instances. The 426 wedge in the Revell Tony Nancy dragsters kit is (ironically) one example. The assembled block is sectioned approximately two scale inches. Ironic, since there is no hood clearance issues as the engine is exposed. The lower block section of the engine has been "fudged" considerably, as the angles of the "Y" shape of the block as viewed from the front are wrong. The 1 to 1 angle is far more obtuse. The Revell Nailhead in the same kit and the Parts Pack and the Ivo Showboat dragster have quite a different problem....the block decks have been tipped in at the top, so they are no longer 90 degrees apart as they are in 1 to 1. I would say it's probably close to 100 degrees. The valve cover surfaces, which should be dead flat, tilt visibly inward on an assembled engine. In addition, the upper block section is shorter as well than it ought to be. I presume this was done first on the Ivo kit to make header clearance less of an issue, then all subsequent tooling used the same "fudged" masters.
  9. I also have a couple unbuilts of this kit on the shelf. The most glaring flaw to my eye is the grille. Headlight engraving too flush and too faint, ends of grille are too rounded, and grille surround molding is too thick for an overall blob-tastic toy-like effect. Does any resin caster offer an improved grille for this kit mastered from the AMT annual?
  10. well, maybe for a 1966 car, but these evolved into VERY "worked" race cars in very short order. later cars had no upholstery except for the seat and maybe front door cards before 1970, so a separately tooled floor pan with interior ribbing, rear axle cooler cutouts and pivot boxes for upper suspension links would be required. probably two trees worth of race-specific parts would also be needed including the extensive engine compartment/shock tower bracing, fully adjustable specialized anti-roll bars with roller links (look very different from OEM), Watts linkage, fuel cell, dry sump parts (legal for 1971 season), Harrison-type engine oil and rear axle lube coolers, specific 4-wheel disc brakes and ducting, etc, etc. Even the body profile was changed considerably on the Bud Moore prepped Mustangs as the nose was drooped by 2 inches! Round 2 nor Revell/Monogram would NEVER put the proper effort into replicating this stuff correctly into any existing kit or new tool that had a dual purpose as a production replica.
  11. I personally love those cars, but i'm not certain for accuracy's sake of a real race version that Moebius is the right manufacturer, nor is Revell/Monogram. I'd like to see some high-end, full-detail kitting of that subject matter from Tamiya or Fujimi, although scale would undoubtedly be 1/24, not 1/25.
  12. suspension is quite different than the actual Shores & Hess car too. the chassis was built by Don Long..front axle was chromed tubular, no drop when it was SBC powered (later when the BBC was put in, a mildly dropped axle was fitted). a transverse torsion bar setup similar to what was in favor with the Fuel Altered and Top Fuel crowd was placed behind front axle with chromed hairpins for location, ladder bars are wrong, etc, etc. some good reference material here.... http://theamazoeffect.blogspot.com/2013_10_01_archive.html
  13. This build is inspiring! Those Monogram kits may have been dead simple to build, but they had something that the AMT early-Ford kits did not...stance and presence. For the first time in a long time I have the itch to do a traditional, 1963-era early-Ford Hot rod build. i just got a buildup of the Early Iron Series (moulded in black) and I'm going for a quasi-box-art build with it using Lil' Coffin rolling stock
  14. I just purchased a '65 Chrysler 300 kit from his E-Bay store. My first purchase from TMR and a very nice kit.
  15. wasn't the Revellion based on the 62 Dodge Dart body? sure would like to see any of the '62 Mopar annuals reissued
  16. yes, in absence of existing aftermarket this is my plan. i'm "between" desktop PC's right now, my old one which had my CAD and CAD/CAM programs on it had a failure in the power supply and was very old. i chose to purchase a used engineering-purposed workstation PC from the 'Bay and have spec'd out and purchased the Hard Drives and memory for it but have yet to have it built. anyone have some good measurements from any old 1:1 413, 426, or 440 manifold? would need...port spacing, overall length on each bank, bank offset ( i am presuming one port width would be accurate enough of a figure) bolt spacing, face angle (as measured from the horizontal plane), width at top of port flange at ports, bottom width at ports, etc., etc.
  17. thanks for the replies fellas. yes, i'm aware of the kit parts in the JoHan Chrysler 300 kits of 62-3; however those are rare as stated and pretty inaccurate to boot, as it seems to represent a dual-plane. the real deal is single plane as shown. with a set of air cleaners and Fireball Modelworks AFB's , a manifold like this would very nicely back-date Revell's excellent 68-69 Charger 440 and AMT's great 71 Charger 440 engines for early-'60's hot rod duty and would look great under the hoods of the Moebius 65 Satellite and Lindberg 64 Dodges & Plymouths too
  18. Does anyone cast the factory cast-iron low-rise inline dual-quad intake for the 413 powered 59 - 62 Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars as shown? I could find lots of uses for a vintage setup like this.
  19. Another point to ponder is that if you can live without the knob-spinner feature, one can just use the ER8 collet chuck as-is; no machining required!
  20. Also, don't overlook your local tech college. It's a one-class-period project for a reasonably bright and CNC functional student.
  21. Yes Greg, i tend to agree to a point. But these days networking is king, and even if you don't know a "guy who knows a guy", the hobby machining bulletin boards are full of guys looking for request-for-work quotes
  22. I purchased a low-cost import ER8 collet chuck on Ebay for about $15.00, and 5 different size collets; .2mm, .5mm, 1mm, 1.5mm and .125" from various online sources. Since i don't operate the CNC lathes, i told Curt, the day-shift Mazak guy what i wanted. About 1.75" of length needed to be removed and the end turned and threaded for the knob from the old pin vise. The Mascot pin vise uses a 5/16-40 (pretty unusual) thread form. The threaded portion is about .200" long. The major and minor diameters as well as the thread pitch diameter were all found in Machinery's Handbook. This is essential information for the lathe programmer. About 1/2" of length was turned down to the major diameter. One word of caution about using the collets; the collet "snaps" into the cap before screwing onto the chuck. The picture below shows the collet installed in the cap correctly. The collet can easily break if you attempt to place the collet and tool into the chuck and then try to screw the cap on. Mine also required a 9mm wrench and a 12mm wrench to tighten The finished product....
  23. This is my first tech thread, so any kind suggestions or constructive criticisms will be welcomed. I have had a German-made Mascot pin vise since the mid-1980's. It is still a serviceable unit, and works fine as pin vises go. My problem with it has always been its inability to hold a small bit straight in the infinity collet, not since day one has it done this to my satisfaction. Recently, upon re-entering the hobby and evaluating all of my tools, i decided that i would try to build something better. But first, a little more background.... A few years back i had a career change; for 25+ years i had been an auto parts counterman in dealerships, with a 9 year stint in the middle as an assembly mechanic in the paper-making-machinery industry. In 2010 after a layoff from a parts job, i decided to go back to school for CNC setup & programming. I now work as a programmer/setup machinist, running vertical machining centers in a toolroom for a local company that specializes in making deep-drawn metal stampings in progressive-die presses. This has afforded me a familiarity with various tooling systems and opportunities to do some things for myself. We use ER (Erickson) series collets at work for holding drills and endmills. ER16's go from about .030 up to about .437, and ER32 for larger shanks. They work nice and even the cheap import collets will hold .0002 total indicated runout in a good collet chuck with a good nut. I got to thinking about my pin vise one day and wondered how small the smallest ER series was and what the range was and if a collet chuck could be made into a pin vise. Enter the ER8 series. The collets go down to .2mm (.0078") and up to 5mm (.196); perfect! more to follow....
  • Create New...