fseva Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I just started this kit today, and thought someone out there might like to hear my initial reactions. Even though this is a 1993 release, it looked as if it could have been a newly tooled kit! Granted, there wasn't much in the way of chrome, but the plastic here was very nicely cast. For example, the 1-piece chassis was nicely engraved, and there is separate dual exhaust. Everything is very clean, with little in the way of flash. I've finished the engine so far, and even though the only parts that are chrome include the air cleaner and the alternator, the plastic castings are so clean and detailed, it's one of the better looking engines I've built. I airbrushed the valve covers in Alclad Polished Aluminum, and the nicely engraved legend "Power by Ford" really pops! There are 2 transmissions (automatic and 4-speed manual) and 2 driveshafts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledsel Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 In 93 it was a new release. The only negative thing I can say about it is they did not include any upper shock mounts on the top of the shock towers. Other than that, it is a super kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I think it's a good kit, based on their 67 Fairlane kit. I am sure someone here will set us straight on the kit's faults! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Nice kit. Any of the AMT kits tooled in the late '80s through the Millenium are going to feel pretty modern. AMT and Revell both stepped up their game during the big boom in car modeling. Most of the kits that were tooled after the Nova were pretty good in terms of fit and finish. Platform interiors and multipiece suspensions were the norm, Engine details got really nice. It was a pretty good stretch. The kits take a bit more patience and you need to test fit a bit more along the way, as the sheer number of part and the platform interior makes alignment and fit a bit more critical. It can be a bit more tricky to get all four wheels solidly on the ground, compared to the "floating" metal axles in older kits. Also, everything has to be fit together correctly for the chassis to completely get under the body. This is the main concern with both the Fairlane and Comet kits. Make sure you are flush and flat when you assemble the interior. Any gaps or thick glue lines between the side panels and floor will mean that things won't all fit cleanly under the body during final assembly. ( This is why Amy's first Fairlane ended up being fitted with sidepipes from the parts box!) The good side is that the fit and parts are excellent. With that little extra bit of care, these build up into really nice models. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelson Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I remember building this kit years ago,it's a good kit and I agree with Sledsel about the missing upper shock mounts and I thought the air cleaner was a little undersized as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodent Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Our forum member futurattraction supplies the upper shock mounts in resin, hidden among his Futura prostock parts. http://www.futurattraction.com The Comet is a pretty nice kit overall. The biggest problem that I have with it is that it should have a vacuum booster and dual master cylinder. AMT just carried over the '66 manual single master cylinder. I don't remember seeing a '67 390 GT with the '66-style open element air cleaner, but it could have happened. '67s typically had an oddball unit with two mesh inlets instead of a snorkel. I really like the Firestone Wide Oval tires that came in the Comet and Fairlane kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I started one of these years ago when it first came out. I remember having some issues with the body contours on the left side, and had to do a lot of sanding and puttying to get it to a shape I considered satisfactory. Then I blew the paint job, and when I Easy-Offed it, all the putty came off with the paint, all that good work gone! It went back in the box where it lives to this day. I'll see if I can find it and figure out what my issues were and what I was doing to correct. Might compare it with the reissued '67 FC body, which I always thought had a more accurate shape. Will post my results if I can get this done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robberbaron Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I started one of these years ago when it first came out. I remember having some issues with the body contours on the left side, and had to do a lot of sanding and puttying to get it to a shape I considered satisfactory... I seem to recall that was the main criticism of this kit when it was first released. They got the body contours correct on one side, but not the other. That and the chrome badges for the front fenders are blank, but should have "GT" engraved on them. General consensus at the time is that it is a very nice kit that they seemed to rush a little too much to get released before they got all the bugs out (see, it's not something new ) Edited March 12, 2015 by Robberbaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Thought you guys might like to know more about this kit... well, today I realized that the photos of the finished models on the box are correct in that they show no mirrors! I wonder if this was common practice back in 1993. Also, the cover photos plainly show a "GT" decal inside the side stripes, but there is no GT decal in the kit. The photo shows a colorful logo on the front quarter panels, but only the engraving is included - there is no decal. I've just read a post in this thread telling us that there are small chrome rectangles that should have been engraved with the GT - they are on the chrome tree, but they are not engraved, as he reported. They would be useless to me without a GT decal, and that is pretty small. So, I doubt very much that I'll be able to find any in my stash of unused decals. I may simply decide to leave the side-stripes off, and that isn't a bad idea, given the age of these decals. As of today, I have searched through my decals and could not come up with appropriate GT decals for the tiny chromed rectangles. There are also no license plates, but I get the idea that AMT expected these to be cut out and glued to the space in the bumpers. Good thing I have lots of extras, and that's what I decided to use (plus my own license plate decals). Edited March 12, 2015 by fseva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atmobil Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Thought you guys might like to know more about this kit... well, today I realized that the photos of the finished models on the box are correct in that they show no mirrors! I wonder if this was common practice back in 1993. Also, the cover photos plainly show a "GT" decal inside the side stripes, but there is no GT decal in the kit. The photo shows a colorful logo on the front quarter panels, but only the engraving is included - there is no decal. I've just read a post in this thread telling us that there is a chrome piece that should have been engraved with the GT, and they are on the chrome tree, but they are not engraved, as he reported. On the mirrors: was the 1:1 cars sold as standard with mirrors? On the decals and emblems: The box says that it is a retouched photo of model. Maybe the builder of the boxart car was not given any emblems or decals and they where added later to the boxart photos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 On the mirrors: was the 1:1 cars sold as standard with mirrors? On the decals and emblems: The box says that it is a retouched photo of model. Maybe the builder of the boxart car was not given any emblems or decals and they where added later to the boxart photos? Can't say - perhaps someone can answer your first question. You would think that at the very least, a car would come equipped with a rear-view mirror inside the car!? In regard to the box art, it was probably decided well before the project went into manufacturing what the box would look like, and they would have had to dump XXX-number of already printed boxes and then reprint the boxes with the corrections. In this case "retouched" means that there may have been some paint smears or something that would not have looked good on the box, and the final photo was retouched to remove the errors before it went to the printers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Mirrors back then, outside ones, were optional. Inside were mandatory however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I just tried to google when the outside mirrors became standard/mandatory, without success. But not that long ago I came across that information and I seem to recall it was somewhere in the 1962-65 timeframe. This was for the left side only. Mirrors were rare on the right side for a long time, though they might have been optional or available aftermarket. There were rearview mirrors on the inside long, long before that. But I can tell you that mirrors, either inside or outside, were rare in the original '60s model cars. I might have run into an inside mirror or two here and there, but I don't ever recall seeing an outside mirror on any kit I built in the '60s. I'd have to do some research to confirm but I think the first outside mirror(s) I ever saw might have been on Monogram's awful '69 Camaro, which appeared in the mid-70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robberbaron Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I just tried to google when the outside mirrors became standard/mandatory, without success. But not that long ago I came across that information and I seem to recall it was somewhere in the 1962-65 timeframe. This was for the left side only... Somewhere I have an old feature article (Muscle Car Review maybe?) on a 64 Biscayne 409 that had basically no other options besides the engine/trans. The owner pointed out that it didn't even have an outside rearview mirror, so he used a clip on one when he drove it. So that would put it sometime after 1964, but I agree it wasn't much after, pretty much around the time backup lights became mandatory, too. But I can tell you that mirrors, either inside or outside, were rare in the original '60s model cars. I might have run into an inside mirror or two here and there, but I don't ever recall seeing an outside mirror on any kit I built in the '60s. I'd have to do some research to confirm but I think the first outside mirror(s) I ever saw might have been on Monogram's awful '69 Camaro, which appeared in the mid-70s. Actually, I believe mirrors were a bit more common than that on 60s kits, but still very hit and miss as far as whether or not a manufacturer included them. I clearly recall building the AMT 64 Impala and mounting the driver and passenger side mirrors, with the mirror portion being separate from the pedestal. Believe it or not, many of the Johan kits also included mirrors. I recall building the 1960 Plymouth wagon, and questioning the instructions showing the mirrors going on the fenders instead of the doors. The 69 SC/Rambler and the 70 Olds 442 also have them. I should qualify that I built all of these kits in the 1980s, so I don't know if these parts were in the kits when they were originally tooled, but my educated guess is that they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atmobil Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Would the rules for mirrors be different depending on what state you are in? Here in Europe the it has depended a lot on what country you are in. Here in Norway a driverside mirror was mandatory in the 60s (not sure what year) but a passengerside mirror was only mandatory after 1973 or 74 but in Sweden they where mandatory some years earlier and in Germany a passengerside mirror was apparently not mandatory untill sometime in the 80s as I have seen a German advert for the mk1 Ford Scorpio witout a passengerside mirror and that car was launched in 1985. I do agree that a inside rearview mirror should be included in the kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 1017 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Keep us posted on your progress. Good luck Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'm not sure what the situation was by '67, but I have heard that in the early sixties side mirrors were dealer installed, which accounts for differences in styles and placements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Driver's side mirror on all cars sold in the US became manidtory starting with the 1967 model year. Early in the model year, all Mercurys were equiped with a chrome remote control driver's side outside mirror. Sometime later in the model run, by the time my folks bought their '67 Comet, a manual mirror had replaced the remote version as standard equipment. Over all I liked the AMT Cyclone kit that we are talking about here. There was also a '67 Cyclone kit offered back in 1967. But, within a year or two, it's body was modified into a altered wheelbase funny car. As noted, the recent '67 Cyclone is based on the newer '66 Fairlane kit that came out in the early 1990's. For that reason a few minor things as mentioned by others are wrong on a '67 Cyclone kit, but right on a '66 Fairlane GT. As already pointed out, the single master brake cylinder and the open element ain't cleaner. These too would be correct on a '66 Cyclone GT. The other one is the windshield washer bag. Which is correct for the Fairlanes in both 1966 and '67. But, the '67 Comets came with a ridged square plastic molded jug to hold windshield washer fluid. About the side stripes. They were different between the '66 and '67 Cyclones. And only came on the Cyclones with the GT package, replacing Cyclone's standard rocker panel moldings. The chrome badge in the stripes on '67s came in two different styles. On manual transmission cars, it just said GT. On automatics, the badge read GT/A. If I remember correctly, I beleive that AMT designed their kit to be built as a manual or automatic transmission car. It's been a few years since I built the kit, so I'm not 100% sure on that. If you chose did to a "correct" '67 Cyclone with out the GT stripes, you would need to replace them with chrome rocker panels and switch the carburator on the 390 to a two-barrel. The 390 four-barrel setup only came with, and was standard with the GT package on the Cyclones. This is not the same as the Fairlanes, were you could get the 390 four-barrel on other models than the Fairlane GT. In fact the only Comets in 1966 or '67, with the 390 four-barrel setup was the Cyclone GTs. Since my folks bought and owned Comets back in the day, and my favorite year was 1967, I love the '67 Cyclones in real life and miniture. There maybe one or two things wrong with AMT's kit, but over all it's pretty good. I like the one I built. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Stock Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I built this kit last year, and I have to say it was a great. Ok its lacking the top shock mounts and the GT badges but it really was an enjoyable build, so much say that I have bought another for the pile I also have its cousin the Fairlane to do at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I built this kit last year, and I have to say it was a great. Ok its lacking the top shock mounts and the GT badges but it really was an enjoyable build, so much say that I have bought another for the pile I also have its cousin the Fairlane to do at some point. Now that is sweet. Love the color, what is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Stock Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Thanks Lee I think it is a Peugeot metallic blue paint, unfortunately its almost impossible to get the correct paint over here in the UK so sometimes you have to do a bit of guess work ! Lol. So this is my take on Mercury medium blue poly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 By the way Gary, that is one very nice looking Cyclone you built. I really like the color. It looks great. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Last night I managed to find both the '67 Comet funny car (i.e., what's left of the original annual body) and my first-issue (early '90s?) AMT kit. As to the latter, wow, you guys complaining about shock towers and GT emblems..... As I remembered, the old body is better. The new one does have seam lines on the front and rear fender caps, and possibly a better front fender emblem, but that's about it. The front wheel openings aren't like the original's at all (I'll have to check refs to see which is more accurate--I suspect it will be the original). As I mentioned above, I had a lot of work in sanding the contours of the left side of the body. My left now matches the right, but I don't remember what it originally looked like. I also filled in the lower door lines and rescribed new ones about .050 lower, as the original rocker panels were MUCH too tall. I THINK I opened up the top edge of the windshield, too--I know the Fairlane body needs this but I can't remember with 100% certainty if I did this on the Comet body or if the forward roof is okay on this one. I scribed the windshield frame and can't tell if I scribed to the original line or filed the molded frame off and scribed a new one completely. I'll try to take pics of the two bodies sometime in the near future. In looking at the new body again, I was reminded of my general disappointment with the thing, which is why I never finished it. It is so very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Stock Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) By the way Gary, that is one very nice looking Cyclone you built. I really like the color. It looks great. Scott Thankyou Scott, I enjoyed building this one. Snake to be honest when I built this one I did notice the lack of emblems and shock mounts but only because they are simply not there, when it comes to body contours and shapes I'm afraid sometimes I cant see what everyone else sees. I suppose being in the UK I don't really get to see these cars up close and personal like you guys to know what looks right and wrong, and to be honest its quite an eye opener for me when someone points out a fault and you take a look and you realise yes it was there all along but my eyes just didn't see it.! Lol It doesn't necessarily bother me (Unless the kit is WAY off ) but I can see why some can get pretty upset over it, this is proven in various kit review threads. each to their own and i will in no way disagree with someone who has far more knowledge than I have. I still like the kit though .. Edited March 13, 2015 by Mr Stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I suppose being in the UK I don't really get to see these cars up close and personal like you guys to know what looks right and wrong, and to be honest its quite an eye opener for me when someone points out a fault and you take a look and you realise yes it was there all along but my eyes just didn't see it.! The Comets/Cyclones aren't the best known or most popular cars over here, so the shape isn't as familiar even to "car guys" as some others such as Mustangs, Camaros, and GTOs. You're lucky to see one feature a year on a Comet in all of the musclecar resto magazines put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.