Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum
Greg Myers

1/16 AMT '65 Mustang

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64116mstg_zps5eec316e.jpg

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?? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

797397882_PXL_20210218_1834384872.jpg.d170d78bd6e5b9f9e45d8bcb7defa301.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Casey said:

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

797397882_PXL_20210218_1834384872.jpg.d170d78bd6e5b9f9e45d8bcb7defa301.jpg

The vent window frame is angled back too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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". 🤦‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

63cbr260.jpg.adb87ff6ec083894809535da02129b83.jpg64must1.jpg.57b90ff4c8f07778495bbd6cfdccb5aa.jpg

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  B)

Edited by mk11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

66mtrzmst112.jpg

66mstmtrz112.jpg

66mstmtr112.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Image 1 - Vintage-AMF-WEN-MAC-1967-FORD-MUSTANG-FASTBACK-1-12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Image result for 64 ford 289

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

image.png.d7984dc2715a6efb08af85a10c54b938.png

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

Edited by Robberbaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Casey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*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

mustan15.jpg.ca3acf79ada2fe50b1d938b75e449696.jpg

 

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:

66model.jpg.a0abdda74090adb3ff4c3ff7733300e4.jpg

 

Edited by Casey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

IMG_4387.JPG

IMG_4388.JPG

IMG_4389.JPG

IMG_4390.JPG

IMG_4391.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...