Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Are You Human?
  • Scale I Build

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ashland KY
  • Full Name
    Rick Dalton

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RickyD's Achievements

MCM Friend

MCM Friend (4/6)

  1. They'd have pay for licensing to release it as either of those, though, which Revell doesn't seem all that willing to do anymore unless it's Fast & Furious. To yours and Matt's point, though, the AG '55 diecast would make a great plastic kit and I'd be way more interested in that than another reissue of the malproportioned 1/24 kit.
  2. I wonder where Revell might go next with this tooling. One thought I had is if they were to produce additional bodies to be used with it, they could be different versions of body styles they've already done. Imagine a chopped 3-window or chopped sedan body setting on this chassis. I'd be in for sure.
  3. They kept what was good about the Rat Roaster (wheels, tires, stock-ish firewall, etc.) and jettisoned the stuff that wasn't so good (interior, headers, hood with the goofy-looking Buick portholes.) Great job, Revell!
  4. Does the chocolate in Switzerland live up to its reputation?
  5. My most recent completion. Box-stock build painted with Model Master Fathom Green.
  6. An absolute stunner, Dennis. My favorite build of this kit that I've seen to date.
  7. It was on topic to the extent that Revell used deceptive box art on the initial release of the Buttera-based '34 Ford coupe and did so again with the Camaro F/C from the same era. But, yeah, like I said, I won't make that mistake again.
  8. I may not have the kit in my stash, but what I do have is functioning eyes. I've seen that Revell body numerous times and I am quite familiar with what it looks like _ a distorted mess. And you did notice Tim Boyd backed me up, right? And Tim was 100 percent correct; the A-pillar angles make it rather obvious that the two bodies are not the same. Wasn't really looking for an argument here; just thought I'd post what I considered an interesting nugget. I won't make that mistake again!
  9. I do not. That isn't a kit I would waste my money on.
  10. It did, and it fit like it was made for the kit. I have the Austin that was also part of the series and uses the same chassis and running gear as the J. Maybe I'll grab another 427 wedge to drop in itnif I ever get around to building it!
  11. Are you sure about that? Compare the side window openings in the two; that's what makes me think they're different. I will say, that was some mighty skilled photography if they managed to disguise the flaws in that turd!
  12. That's for sure. Revell's interpretation of a Ford SOHC motor is downright ghastly. The good part is that just about any other engine will drop right in with no modification. I built a Henry J a few years back and used a Revell Parts Pack Ford 427 wedge in it.
  13. Revell pulled aimilar box art shenanigans with this kit. The body they used on the box art model is mostly likely an MPC one. It looks nothing like the distorted mess that's actually in the box. Very deceptive.
  • Create New...