Moebius future kit prototypes from November, 2017 NNL Motor City...

[Matt T.]

The I-beam was, in fact, not introduced til '65

Mike, I mean a single, side-to-side beam axle. Like all F100s prior to '65. I owned a '64 for several years.

1965 introduced twin beams.

[Rob Hall]

Art, Moebius can get a ‘64 from the new F100 tooling, if they want. That was not a unibody truck, but they did have an I-beam front suspension and either a Y-block or six. 

Just a thought. 

They would have tool up a new chassis and suspension also...the '64 chassis was related to the '61-63 model, '65 was a new chassis.

[mk11]

Mike, I mean a single, side-to-side beam axle. Like all F100s prior to '65. I owned a '64 for several years.

1965 introduced twin beams.

 

You are correct, sir. For some reason I was reading twin I beam into your note; time for an eye check

They would have tool up a new chassis and suspension also...the '64 chassis was related to the '61-63 model, '65 was a new chassis.

bingo  

Even though the box fit all '64-'66 trucks, the wheelbase in '64 was 128" with the front single beam axle and for '65-'66 the w/b was 129" with the new twin I beams.

 

mike

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by mk11

[Ron Hamilton]

For those of you who are commenting on the body contours of the mock-ups of the Nova and Chevy II

Please NOTE those mock-ups have been reviewed and a list of corrections have been sent to the factory. 

We don't, normally, grow a second full set of mock-ups for corrections to be made after we see them. Usually we review mock-ups and send a list of corrections that are made to 3D files.  On occasion we may do grow parts a second time. In the case of the nova / Chevy II we just made corrections in 3D files. We chose to show the mock-ups because it's pretty difficult to display the 3D file

I appreciate the critiques but think you all should know that those mock-ups are NOT the final product. For us a mock up is more like an intermediate step to a final item.

As for the stake pocket on the step side bed we know it doesn't belong there - once again these are product development mock-ups not finished items.

THESE ARE MOCK-UPS the whole purpose of mock ups is for us to see the model in a form we can pick up in a 1/25 size and see in an actual 3 dimensional form. We have sent notes with  numerous corrections to all the mock-ups we showed yesterday to our factories. In the case of the Chevy II kits corrections have been made and they are ready to tool

In the case of the F100's we are waiting for a revised mock-up cab to arrive for a final review as there are some shape issues we wanted to see corrected in the actual part before we move ahead.

Those of you who are commenting on these things as if they are the final product are barking up the wrong tree and need to just chill for a while.

 For those of you who want a delivery date, I have some disappointing news there are no release dates for any of those items. Tooling has not started on any of them yet. We will announce release dates when we have something much closer to finished.. As I explained to everybody who asked that question yesterday - best possible scenario IF we started tooling tomorrow would be a minimum of 9 months before we had something we could put in a kit box.SO best case for any of those items would be late 3rd quarter 2018.

We don't even know which version of the Chevy II or 65/66 F100 will be released first at this date the whole purpose of showing them yesterday was to give a little peek at  FUTURE products to our end customers.

 

Dave,

I for one, appreciate the effort s put forth by your company, as I have bought most of your company's offerings, including the International, even though I am not a big rig guy, I am happy with the way you are presenting future product, and I am quite sure that they will be satisfactory to me for my modeling purposes. I will be there with cash in hand when the kits are available.

[Mercuryman54]

Regarding the flareside box; a little closer research will reveal that no '53-'72 short flareside box ever had the middle stake pocket that shows up on that prototype in the picture. Fwiw, '64 was actually the year that the styleside box in the newer configuration was introduced to replace the '57-'60 boxes used on non-unibody '61-'63 trucks. 

 

mike

 

I know this is a moot point, but the Modelhaus did a 1964 Ford F-100 long bed. Mine is in the lineup to be built someday. I had a 1:1 years ago. 

Dennis

[espo]

I know this is a moot point, but the Modelhaus did a 1964 Ford F-100 long bed. Mine is in the lineup to be built someday. I had a 1:1 years ago. 

Dennis

That looks like a copy of the old AMT kit.

[Mark]

That looks like a copy of the old AMT kit.

They clearly used the '63 kit as a starting point, but the '64 is considerably different from the '63.  The roof is different, doors are different, and the unibody style was no longer available in '64.  AMT didn't update their '63, they reissued it in a '64 style box but with "1963" in the fine print.

[Ace-Garageguy]

They clearly used the '63 kit as a starting point, but the '64 is considerably different from the '63.  The roof is different, doors are different, and the unibody style was no longer available in '64.  AMT didn't update their '63, they reissued it in a '64 style box but with "1963" in the fine print.

And I believe you'll find the continuous floor shown on the model above is appropriate for the "unibody" version of this general body style, but it's not appropriate for a separate-bed design.

[Mark]

And I believe you'll find the continuous floor shown on the model above is appropriate for the "unibody" version of this general body style, but it's not appropriate for a separate-bed design.

With some of the Modelhaus complete kits, the chassis is basically there to have somewhere to put the axles and wheels.  The exhaust pipes terminate at the back of the cab too; that wasn't corrected either.  The (topside) bed floor and inner wheel wells are changed from the '63. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yeah, I'm kinda havin' a "DUH" moment about it all now - wasn't aware the floor was continuous, but integrated bed quarters don't really work unless they have that foundation, do they?

Hmm. True unibody then. Wow.

[Jonathan]

Dave,

I for one, appreciate the effort s put forth by your company, as I have bought most of your company's offerings, including the International, even though I am not a big rig guy, I am happy with the way you are presenting future product, and I am quite sure that they will be satisfactory to me for my modeling purposes. I will be there with cash in hand when the kits are available.

^^ what he said!  I admire what you guys are doing, and I too, will be planning to purchase.

[unclescott58]

Yeah, I'm kinda havin' a "DUH" moment about it all now - wasn't aware the floor was continuous, but integrated bed quarters don't really work unless they have that foundation, do they?

Hmm. True unibody then. Wow.

The real trucks were not "True unibody." They still road on a full seperate frame.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

They were more unibody than I reckoned - I was not aware of the continuous floor pan between cab and bed.

See, I was having trouble with "unibody" for the exact reason you list, 'cause I was certain they ran a full ladder frame. But while they're not exactly body shell and subframe in the passenger car sense, the term's better justified than I thought.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Ace-Garageguy]

They were more unibody than I reckoned - I was not aware of the continuous floor pan between cab and bed.

See, I was having trouble with "unibody" for the exact reason you list, 'cause I was certain they ran a full ladder frame. But while they're not exactly body shell and subframe in the passenger car sense, the term's better justified than I thought.

Which is why I almost always use quotation marks around "unibody" when discussing this particular vehicle...when I remember to.  

And the "integrated" cab and bed does make for a considerably stiffer structure overall.

[mk11]

...And the "integrated" cab and bed does make for a considerably stiffer structure overall.

Even then, it wasn't designed strongly enough to make for a structure that would last for years under moderate to heavy use. That led to the adoption of the '57-'60 style bed as a stop-gap until they came up with the properly matching styleside bed for '64. Interesting article on that here...http://www.fordification.info/tech/wrongbed.htm

 

mike

[Chuck Kourouklis]

How very enlightening.

Thanks, Mike!

[moparfarmer]

The real trucks were not "True unibody." They still road on a full seperate frame.

R.Scott..Unclescott58  See you Friday night at Chile's in Shakopee at 7:00  in the bar..Look for me, Iook like the avatar without my dog..See you then..I'd email you but it doesn't show how to get to your site or email addy..

[unclescott58]

R.Scott..Unclescott58  See you Friday night at Chile's in Shakopee at 7:00  in the bar..Look for me, Iook like the avatar without my dog..See you then..I'd email you but it doesn't show how to get to your site or email addy..

I'll be there if I can. 

[Art Anderson]

Which is why I almost always use quotation marks around "unibody" when discussing this particular vehicle...when I remember to.  

And the "integrated" cab and bed does make for a considerably stiffer structure overall.

Had Ford engineers thought to include an "X" crossmember to the frame, the Unibody would have been just fine.  Consider that the Unibody structure resulted in a body structure that was at least as twisty as a convertible body shell.

Art

[tim boyd]

As a zone manager for Ford in the late 1970's I asked some of the older dealers in my rural zone about the Unibody pickups.  The answer they gave me was that the pickups were engineered to easily handle the rated payload capacity, but farmers being farmers (their words), they typically vastly overloaded the pickups (beyond their rated capacity) and that resulted in the body torsional issues.  (FWIW, and based on my personal and professional knowledge of how pickups are engineered, I personally doubt that a different type of frame crossmember would have made any difference.)   TIM 

[Ace-Garageguy]

 (FWIW, and based on my personal and professional knowledge of how pickups are engineered, I personally doubt that a different type of frame crossmember would have made any difference.)   TIM 

From my personal experience and professional knowledge of the principles of engineering involved with steel structures, I'd say you're probably right.

Anyone who's ever lived with a body-on-frame vehicle, especially an older one without "boxed" frame rails, will have surely noticed that it sags and twists on a lift, or even if parked with one wheel higher than the other three.

This twist...even when frames have an additional X-member...is often so severe that the doors won't open or shut.

Ford's "unibody" pickup shell would have countered this lack of torsional rigidity initially, but the thin-gauge sheetmetal it was made from would have lacked sufficient fatigue resistance to have lasted.

A typical older pickup frame twists very noticeably just going down a potholed road, with the bed moving relative to the cab.

Though this would have been minimized when the "unibody" trucks were new, I would suspect metal fatigue at the junction of the cab and bed would have begun quite soon if the trucks were operated on anything other than smooth pavement.

[socal76]

For Dave Metzner, could you possibly make a small tree that included the needed stock '65 Nova parts? That way you can sell a few more kits for those that might want to build 2 of each year in the two different versions. Or you might just sell extra 64's for those wanting to build stock versions of each year. You may already be selling a few extra '65's for those wanting to build gassers of each year. Don't know your exact plan for the interior of the '64, but it would be extremely nice if you could just swap the chassis from the '65 into the '64 to do the gasser. and vice versa to do the stock. Much less p***ing and moaning about "I wish they had done this/or that"! Just a suggestion/wishful thinking. And to add some suggestions for a couple of other kits on my list I would like to see (none on the list yet)

1. Cal and Mary Ann Method '66 Chevy Biscayne and '66 Chevy impala wagon (Yes I stay in my seat to watch the Stock and Super Stock Eliminator cars when I go to the races). It could be done as either a Stock Version or NHRA Stock Eliminator without too many changes being needed

2, The rumored '67 Cougar

3. '66 and/or'67 Nova wagon

4. '67 Nova SS done like AMT did their '66 Nova SS (could be done like you are doing your '64 & '65 Nova kits). Also to steal some of AMT's chance to do a '67 after all the time since they did their '66 Nova

5. '70 & '74 Matador Nascar. I believe (but may be wrong) that the same chassis and engine could be used for both kits. Two distinct body styles and only one has been kitted and it is a bit lackluster in detail compared to Moebius other kits

[Mr Dedo]

A Rambler Marauder?

[Bill J]

I cannot understand anyone wanting a 67 Cougar model. The kit was done back in the day and could be redone I would imagine. As far as a new tool, why? Insignificant car in real life, didn't sell well and was just another Mercury attempt at a muscle car.

I have to say, I owned a 67 Cougar GT, 390, 4, speed car. it would burn rubber and make noise and was generally fun to drive. I would never want a model of that car or any other 67 or later Cougar. I only bought mine, In 1968 because it was cheap compared to a Mustang with the same equipment. I was in the army at the time and had limited funds.

[Snake45]

19 minutes ago, Bill J said:

I cannot understand anyone wanting a 67 Cougar model. The kit was done back in the day and could be redone I would imagine. As far as a new tool, why? Insignificant car in real life, didn't sell well and was just another Mercury attempt at a muscle car.

I have to say, I owned a 67 Cougar GT, 390, 4, speed car. it would burn rubber and make noise and was generally fun to drive. I would never want a model of that car or any other 67 or later Cougar. I only bought mine, In 1968 because it was cheap compared to a Mustang with the same equipment. I was in the army at the time and had limited funds.

Well then don't buy one. More for the rest of us.