1/16 AMT '65 Mustang

[Danno]

[Deano]

Ah, I see! Too much stress in my life right now. Subtlety does not make it through the filters.

[Luc Janssens]

???

Train wreck?, dunno just guessing

[MrObsessive]

Sigh..............I see so many things wrong with that model it's not funny. How did this get past the powers that be at ERTL??

[rasafyff]

I listed all the differences. There are several. Many the average joe will not even notice. And no ford did not build the 427 sohc cars. The racers backed by ford did. Ford never installed a 427 sohc in anything. You bought them in crates.

www.dearbornflashback.com/xfiles.asp

[Greg Myers]

Link ? http://www.dearbornflashback.com/xfiles.asp

[RAT-T]

LOVE THAT '67 GALAXY, WISH THEY WOULD RE-ISSUE THAT

[freakshow12]

Yup familiar with that article and it's really just fluff. It's almost ten years since an update and it begs some questions. Why was the car not documented more than a vin rubbing? Why was it not purchased? Also the dso of 84 ( home base fleet ( show and test vehicles included) explains and backs my statement).

[MADDOG]

Comes out July 2014. http://www.round2models.com/models/amt/1965-mustang

Edited June 20, 2014 by MADDOG

[Rob Hall]

The kit has 'em molded to the doors. The builder of that box cover car hacked 'em off for some reason...

The vent windows on that kit look a bit undersized, could be because the angle of the A-pillar is off

[Casey]

Here's the passenger side door...see anything which looks slightly off?

[stavanzer]

No.

[Rob Hall]

10 hours ago, Casey said:

Here's the passenger side door...see anything which looks slightly off?

The vent window frame is angled back too much. 

[Greg Myers]

Oh My !

[iBorg]

Casey- so does the kit come with that used and abused patina out of the box or did you have to work at it?

[Casey]

4 minutes ago, iBorg said:

Casey- so does the kit come with that used and abused patina out of the box or did you have to work at it?

This one's been tumbling around in a parts box for who knows how long. Still shocking to see how far off the windshield angle is, and think someone said "eh, it's fine, let's go ahead with it". 🤦‍♂️

[mk11]

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2014 at 8:14 PM, Modelmartin said:

I know that they are commonly called 64 1/2 but Ford never labeled them as such. 65 would be correct...

True, that Ford marketed them as '65s, but they used the 64 1/2 id for internal documents, part listings etc as they had to differentiate them from the actual '65 model year production cars. Some of the engineering changes during the model year changeover in the summer of '64 were introducing alternators (only five years after Chrysler adopted them) and changing the 289 engine castings to accept six bolt bellhousings, among others. An important change during the '64 model year was the transition from open draft tubes to pcv systems.   

The 260 was dumped for '65 also, replaced by 3 different versions of the 289.

Regarding perspective on this 1/16 body, the roof C-pillar is actually about 3/16" back of where it should be; meeting the rear quarter at about the halfway point between the door rear edge and the back end of the quarter. Moving it forward should restore the proper 40 degree windshield angle. There really is no excuse for such a poor interpretation of this in scale. Scaling up directly from the 1/25 coupe should get a guy in the ballpark.

Now, if we could just get a scale set of F70-14s for this, we'd be set 

Edited February 20, 2021 by mk11

[mk11]

Sure be cool to find one of these for bashing a full detail model. The perspectives are a lot closer than amt's.

No idea who made it...

 

[Rodent]

Wen-Mac. They did a '67 as well. They appear on ePay all the time, but be prepared to open your wallet for a nice one.

 

[Rodent]

1 hour ago, mk11 said:

True, that Ford marketed them as '65s, but they used the 64 1/2 id for internal documents, part listings etc as they had to differentiate them from the actual '65 model year production cars. Some of the engineering changes during the model year changeover in the summer of '64 were introducing alternators (only five years after Chrysler adopted them) and changing the 289 engine castings to accept six bolt bellhousings, among others. An important change during the '64 model year was the transition from open draft tubes to pcv systems.   

 

They are also known as "64 1/2" in the enthusiast community because of the great number of differences from the "real" 1965s. The length of the "MUSTANG" emblem on the fender, the instrument cluster "GEN" warning lamp vs. "ALT". Quite a bit of the wiring harness was different as well, the alternator cars had more body ground wires instead of grounding components directly to the body. The very early 64 1/2 cars had a flatter carpet with a piece of vinyl up the the door sill trim, not true wall-to-wall carpet like the later cars. And of course, the different engine lineup. I have seen a few 65s with 13" wheels, but typically 200 CID 65s I have seen have 14" wheels. The 64 1/2 170 CIDs typically have 13" wheels. The early cars also had a slightly different hood.

As far as PCV goes, we had closed PCV systems in California for the 1961 model year. I found this pic on the net showing a 64 1/2 289 with a closed system. They pulled in the ventilation air from inside the air cleaner instead of from the atmosphere. Conversely, when the engine wore out and had excessive blowby, the crankcase pressure backed up and filled the air cleaner with oil. The typical setup had the PCV valve in the passenger side valve cover with a molded hose to the carburetor spacer plate. I don't remember ever seeing a smallblock with the PCV mounted behind the carburetor where the draft tube went, but I am sure they existed. Pre-65 FEs were set up that way though, even with the California closed system.

 

[Robberbaron]

I seem to recall that the tooling for the 1/16 Mustang was actually obtained by AMT from another manufacturer.  Thought I saw that on this forum years ago, but I'm coming up with zero info in my Google search, my Google-fu must be off tonight.

I seem to recall the original manufacturer was a well established company that dabbled in model kits in the '60s, then cut bait quickly after turning out this epic fail.  That was the explanation for why this was basically a large scale Palmer kit - it wasn't created by AMT.

Doesn't explain why the original AMT and all subsequent owners were shameless enough to keep reissuing this dreck.  At least the '80s box art photo was honest, warning you of the horrors within:

It's really annoying me that I can't recall who the original company was that created it, and getting zilch searching.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Robberbaron

[Casey]

1 hour ago, Robberbaron said:

I seem to recall that the tooling for the 1/16 Mustang was actually obtained by AMT from another manufacturer.  Thought I saw that on this forum years ago, but I'm coming up with zero info in my Google search, my Google-fu must be off tonight.

I seem to recall the original manufacturer was a well established company that dabbled in model kits in the '60s, then cut bait quickly after turning out this epic fail.  That was the explanation for why this was basically a large scale Palmer kit - it wasn't created by AMT.

Thanks for mentioning that....interesting.

So a company like Tonka or similar, which had never previously dipped their toes into the molten styrene pool?

Edited February 21, 2021 by Casey

[Casey]

*edit* eh, not really similar to the AMT model in parts layout...

Maybe? Windshield angle kinda looks off, as on the AMT model:

https://www.coxengineforum.com/t11603-1964-ford-mustang-coupe-factory-radio-controlled-car

 

Looks awfully similar to the 1/12 scale Wen-Mac model, supposedly made by AMF?: https://onemanandhismustang.com/amf-wen-mac-1966-ford-mustang-gt-dealer-promo-model/  They are '66 model year, though:

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Casey

[unclescott58]

I just finished building mine in the last few days. And despite the vent wings, I kind of like the looks of the kit otherwise. It's off. But not as bad as I expected. In general it looks okay.