1964 Ford Falcon Sprint Hardtop

[Gregg]

Now, I know, BUILD IT!!!

Just got the kit today

Here are some tease pics.

All the pics are here: '64 Ford Falcon

[Rob Z]

Been curious about this one... Will definately keep an eye on it... Looks like a fairly good kit, I know there are some accuracy issues but, that's not going to stop me from getting one or 3 of them...

[stevez]

Looks very much like a modern Rev. kit, I'd buy at a lower price, as the Falcon name does not knock me off my feet.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, as I consider what might be done to rehabilitate this kit some, I'm encouraged to see a slightly more plausible dual exhaust option.

Of course, that might be academic if you go the full '67 Mustang bash route. I was also thinking an A/FX - style mashup with a Thunderbolt right from the start - looks like the kit fairly cries for something like that.

[Gregg]

It's funny.

I was going through the other thread where thoughts, opinions, and experts were giving their two cents on the Falcon kit, even before any one had actually had the kit in their hands.

I have the Falcon in front of me on the desk, it is primed, and getting ready for paint.

I love it!

I used to own not one, not two, but three '64-65 Ford Falcons and Rancheros

I think Trumpeter has done a great job on this kit.

As Dave Darby pointed out, yes, the intake manifold has an "oops" on it by the runners, but when you get down to scale, and the fact that it may not even be seen once the motor is pau, is it that bad?

I will shoot more along the way.

Yes, I love this kit.

No, Trumpeter is not an advertiser.

My two cents, and I'm sticking to it.

[Harry P.]

Despite what the critics here have said (and I assume their criticisms are correct)... from the pix Gregg posted this kit looks pretty nice. Maybe not $50 worth of nice, but not the disaster some make it out to be.

[Gregg]

Thanks so much for adding to this thread.

I really appreciate it.

Here's some progress on the build.

[Zoom Zoom]

Thanks so much for adding to this thread.

I really appreciate it.

I know exactly how you must feel.

Looks like fun.

[Marc @ MPC Motorsports]

Thanks so much for adding to this thread.

I really appreciate it.

Here's some progress on the build.

Gregg,

Looks like you borrowed a page from the MPC Motorsports playbook. I love it!

If I didn't have the annual, I'd go for it and still might pick one up someday at the right price.

[Guest]

It's funny.

I was going through the other thread where thoughts, opinions, and experts were giving their two cents on the Falcon kit, even before any one had actually had the kit in their hands.

I have the Falcon in front of me on the desk, it is primed, and getting ready for paint.

I love it!

I used to own not one, not two, but three '64-65 Ford Falcons and Rancheros

I think Trumpeter has done a great job on this kit.

As Dave Darby pointed out, yes, the intake manifold has an "oops" on it by the runners, but when you get down to scale, and the fact that it may not even be seen once the motor is pau, is it that bad?

I will shoot more along the way.

Yes, I love this kit.

No, Trumpeter is not an advertiser.

My two cents, and I'm sticking to it.

THANK YOU Gregg! It's good to hear from someone who has actually owned the real car and actually has knowledge on the subject! That thread reminded of an old addage my father used sometimes: "you can read a hundred books and look at a thousand pictures,still don't mean you can go out there and do it".

[spkgibson]

Now that I have seen better photos of the kit, I may go out and purchase one, The Idea of using the Grill and Bumper from one of the AFX Falcons is a great Idea, I would go a step further though, And also use the Back bumper as well, And put it on one of the AMT 67 Mustang Chassis's , The roof would also be an easy swap ,IF everything lined up properly. Or just make a Convertable out of it, Which I'm sure will be the next kit to be released, One thing I would like to know however is, How thin is the plastic on the hood ? Those parts were a nightmare in the 63 Nova kits, Once you glued the bracing in the hood and trunk warped, And you had to skim coat the entire panels, Also, The plastic in those kits crazed with ANY automotive primers, I had to mist on 3 coats of Tamiya surfacer ,Then use the Automotive primers on it. That took care of the problem. I have to say this one looks better then the Nova, I thought the separate chrome was a good idea,But didn't fit well, I'm glad they didn't do that with this one.

[stevez]

What type of whitewalls: inserts or decals? Wish the parallel leaves were separate from the axle, so you could lower stance if desired. LOOKS COOL!

[Foxer]

I have nothing to say about accuracy of any kit, but is there anything that can be done about the complete ugliness of any Falcon?

Actually, I have to correct myself. Gregg's mock up photo looks good .. has to be the wheels and lowering that does it.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, one thing I'll look into doing is putting in a thicker chrome perimeter strip around the sides and upper edge of the grille. That should go some way to filling that gawky space between the headlight buckets and the leading edge of the hood.

As for getting the body to roll under a bit more at rocker panel level, looks like a cut will be necessary between the lower rear quarters and the rear fascia behind the bumper - kinda hope boiling the body and bending it in that region will do the trick. Always wondered how clamping a still-warm rocker panel into a vise and trying to curl it a bit there might work...

[Harry P.]

Well, maybe I'm in the minority here, but all the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing you guys are involved in regarding how "horrible" this body is, seems to be a bit much. Is the body perfect? No. But to my eye, whatever inaccuracies the kit body may have sure don't seem to warrant the incredibly negative reaction...

It's not perfect, but it looks like a '64 Falcon to me. I don't see this body being any more inaccurate than a lot of what the "domestic" makers have produced lately.

[Danno]

Well, maybe I'm in the minority here, but all the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing you guys are involved in regarding how "horrible" this body is, seems to be a bit much. Is the body perfect? No. But to my eye, whatever inaccuracies the kit body may have sure don't seem to warrant the incredibly negative reaction...

It's not perfect, but it looks like a '64 Falcon to me. I don't see this body being any more inaccurate than a lot of what the "domestic" makers have produced lately.

Well, we won't really know how great it can look built up until we see Gregg's finished build, now will we?

I'll see your one 'reasoned post' and raise you two 'Kahuna strokes'.

Nothing like a friendly game of Falcon Joker Poker. [insert missing ninja emoticon here.]

[Chuck Kourouklis]

That's all well and good, Harry, but your comparo photo has exposed a whole new set of problems around the front end for me.

Geez, look how far Trumpeter's fender peaks jut past the headlights. I'm still hopeful about filing down the fenders as they drop just behind the front bumper and ahead of the rear, but I'm now a lot less sanguine about minimizing the grille's apparent height with that perimeter strip.

And if these deviations offend everybody's eyes a little less than the Moebius Hudson originally did, the pattern is still the same: overstating the critiques in the service of impugning the reviewers. I've seen some pointed observations, but if the words "horrible" or " disaster" were used anywhere, I missed ' 'em...

[Guest]

I'll take the opinion of the man who has owned three of the real cars that has an intimate knowledge of them and actually has the kit in his hands, over anyone else's any day. The rest of the opinions..........well........

[Harry P.]

I do see slight differences between the model and the real deal... but c'mon, guys! You're really splitting hairs and picking nits here. I'm not saying the kit body is perfect... I'm saying it's nowhere near the all-out disaster some people are making it out to be. Heck, the Moebius Hudson and Chrysler bodies had waaaay more obvious flaws initially... even after they had been given the "ok" by the people involved in the project!

The retail price of this kit is a whole 'nother issue. Couple that with the few minor (in my opinion) flaws the body has, and yeah... some people will take a pass on this kit, and that's all well and good. But cost aside, talking about just the accuracy/inaccuracy of the kit's body and proportions, etc., I just don't agree that it's all that bad.

[Zoom Zoom]

I don't think the issue here is what people have found wrong, as much as how many times and how many places they've gone over and over and over and over it to death, the horse isn't beaten it's now a soup-like puree.

I don't get why so much energy is being spent on this. It is what it is. Buy it if you want, don't buy it if you don't. Gregg's "thanks" comment is being completely ignored by the horse-puree folks. There are no gold stars for anyone's forehead over what else you can find "wrong" with the model. When I saw the beautiful black model, I saw a lot more "right" in it than some will ever give it credit. The amount of obsession over this kit is...

[stevez]

I do see slight differences between the model and the real deal... but c'mon, guys! You're really splitting hairs and picking nits here. I'm not saying the kit body is perfect... I'm saying it's nowhere near the all-out disaster some people are making it out to be. Heck, the Moebius Hudson and Chrysler bodies had waaaay more obvious flaws initially... even after they had been given the "ok" by the people involved in the project!

The retail price of this kit is a whole 'nother issue. Couple that with the few minor (in my opinion) flaws the body has, and yeah... some people will take a pass on this kit, and that's all well and good. But cost aside, talking about just the accuracy/inaccuracy of the kit's body and proportions, etc., I just don't agree that it's all that bad.

Gotta agree Harry, looks like a 64Falcon to my eyes. I'd recommend a real 3/1 kit at the $40 price, stock, street custom, and racing, with 2 engine options, if we are to pay $40. I think this is the real objection that the critics have with the kit.

[spkgibson]

RANCHERO Steve, too ... duh!

Personally, though, I don't think you have to have owned a 1:1 Falcon to see the problems with the Trumpeter kit. You just need a pair of functioning eyes and a bit of objectivity.

What did I say something wrong? I like both of the photos of the builds on here. My eyes are perfectly fine. I'm not taking the bait on that one my friend, Thank you so much. The build looks nice .

[charlie8575]

When Harry posted the picture of the model and a 1:1 at about the same angle, to my eye, a lot of the problems seemed to go away. I'm not too sure about the roof, but the basic lines seems about right to me.

At the requested price, I doubt I'd buy one, at least anytime soon, but it's not as bad as it could've been by a long shot. Personally, I'm looking a little more forward to the Ranchero; for the money, though, I'd rather buy a Modelhaus Craftsman series repop.

What amazes me is that Trumpeter, who has made some really good military stuff and proved it does know how to make a vehicle with the ALF, consistently blows it in some way with civilian cars, and then charges very high prices for their errors.

In 1897, Ransom E. Olds contracted with his investors to "build one motor carriage in as nearly a perfect manner possible." This scale motor carriage, while improved, has a ways to go to be the outstanding model that I know that Trumpeter can make.

And for $50 (or $40 online,) I want the details right. Models have become so expensive, both in production and for purchase, that no manufacturer can afford a misstep, lest they be ready to receive the wrath of the modeling public.

Charlie Larkin

[Harry P.]

Harry, if you can look at the front bumper (or the entire front end, for that matter) on Gregg's model and the one on the 1:1 car in the pic you posted and still tell me with a straight face that I'm "picking nits," I'll take back every criticism I've leveled at this kit.

In the meantime, Bob's probably correct, plenty has been said on the subject, so I shall say no more ...

For the record, I think the fact that you guys have stepped up and given your critiques is a good thing! After all, that's how we got Moebius to fix their upcoming Hudson and Chrysler. So I definitely don't have a problem with forum members airing it out. In fact, I think that's exactly what a forum is for. I just don't agree that this kit is all that bad.

And I also don't buy the "beating a dead horse" line. If anyone doesn't want to read about this kit (or any other kit)... just stop clicking on the topic and go build a model. I really don't think any of us needs to tell any other of us when it's time to stop commenting on a particular topic. As long as the posts are civil and nobody is getting out of line, I say keep the conversation going as long as you want to!

Back to your comment... yeah, the front bumper is probably the most obvious thing, but even at that, it's just not that bad... especially compared to a lot of what everyone else is putting out these days. I've seen bigger, more obvious flaws on models of current American cars (from other manufacturers).

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Oh, I heard that "thank you" loud and clear, Bob - that's why I steered more toward the corrections I'd make.

I too would have to observe that the deviations are far more serious than nits, and that the real hand-wringing is going on among people reacting to the critiques - but I appreciate your last post just the same Mr. P.