unclescott58

From what I heard and seen the Revell is the better of the two. It's made from a modern tool. You'll hear a lot bad things here about AMT's old '62. I still like the kit. It looks fine to me (even the headlamps). It's just such a simple kit with less detail than the Revell kit. I don't mind that simplicity. I have an AMT kit. But, not Revell. The AMT kit is good enough for me. Now comes the basing of AMT's '62.

I like the bug-eyed '74 -on up Matator coupes, has long as you kept them clean. And in clean, I talking mainly about staying away from any form of vinyl roof on the car. The '74 and '75 Matador Xs were the best looks wise. I'm happy to say that I have a '75 AMT Matador X that I built a couple of years ago. It looks great with my built original '75 Gremlin and my built recently released '78 Pacer coupe. You can tell how sick I am. Not only do have the '77 Pacer wagon in waiting, but I also have the re-popped '76 Gremlin in waiting too. I love those quirky looking 70's AMCs.

The '74s with the round front turn signals in the even odder looking grille was a lot worst. The '74 Ambassador with the 4 headlights look okay to me though.

I some how missed this review when it was posted 3 years ago. I'm not a big '69 - '70 Shelby fan, which is probably why I missed it. I doubt I'll be adding this one to my collection, but I always appreciate Tim's reviews.

Thank you. Your view on this issue is right on Michael. My earlier post on this subject is totally wrong. And I'm a bit ashamed of it.

Thank you Snake for including with the likes of Tim Boyd, Mark, and Art. Even though I can't help you with still one, I'm flattered you thought I could.

I loved Shawn Carpenter's resin. And love GMCs. So when I could, years ago, I bought his kit for converting the '55 Chevy Cameo into a '55 GMC Suburban pickup truck. By the way, up through the 1950's, and into the 60's, regular "Suburbans" as we know them, were call Suburban Carryalls. Many people back then referred to them simply as Carryalls rather than Suburbans. The mid-50's GMC Suburban pickup truck is not the same the GMC Suburban Carryall of the time. It is their version of the Chevy Cameo. Confusing? Maybe, but being that the "regular" Suburbans were better known as Carryalls at the time, I don't think GMC thought there customers would be confused by a Suburban pickup truck.

Back to Motor Trend's Car of the Year Award. They've picked almost as many loser for Car of the Year, as picking good ones like the '77 Caprice. Car of Year Winner/losers include the '60 Chevy Corvair, the '71 Chevy Vega, the '74 Ford Mustang II (though I would debate this one), the '76 Volare/Aspen twins, and the '80 Chevy Citation. All innovative designs for their times. I think Motor Trend did the right thing at the time by awarding them all Car of the Year. I like all of the cars on above list. I would love to get a model of the '60 Corvair and '71 Vega. I have the Mutt II, the Volare, and a Citation. I love them all.

Oh, and the '89 Escort? Other than the pre-80's Escorts from Britain, I've never liked Escorts. The '81 and later Escorts may have been good cars. But they're styling was just boring, like most other front-wheel drive sub-compacts and compacts of time. Though I got to admit, if Round 2 even reissued MPC's Escort EXP model kit, I'd buy one. The EXP was plain ugly. But, it wasn't trying to look like any other car on road at the time. Kudos to Ford for trying something diffent at the time. It may have not been a big seller because of it styling, and ability to seat only two people. But, like many other loser cars, I have a soft spot for it.

Jesse, the '77 Caprice deserved Motor Trend's Car of the Award. It was a heck of nice car right off the bat. Though I do like the Impala a little bit better. Especially the '77 - '79 Impala coupe. The '77 Chevys were the right car for the times. And unlike the down-sized full-size cars that followed from Ford and Chrysler, GM's B and C have always looked good to me. And Adam, I think you basically hit the nail right on the head with the Pacer. I also think they're a bit like old Beetles, they're so ugly they are now kind of cute. I have only one bone to pick with analysis of the Pacer's styling. I do not see the present day cars being either as cute or ugly as the Pacer. And comparing modern cars to the Pacer is an insult to the Pacer.

Okay, I just got done watching "A Week With Fergie." And I've got to say I like it. Monday was a little lame. But, things got more interesting after that. I especially like the Scrap Dealer and his sidekick. Cute show. A perfect show for young kids. I'm now a bit of a fan.

Why is this car looking better, and better every time I look at them. I liked them when they first came out. But, for many years I was lukewarm on them. Now.... They starting to look pretty cool again.

Boy.... Even as a young kid I could build better than that. I'd be embarrassed to put that on YouTube. Yuck! ?

Okay.... I tapped on the picture of Fergie above, wondering if maybe it was a link to a video. Sure enough it is. And I watched my first episode of Fergie. Hmmm. Charming and stupid at the same time. Why does Fergie hide from the people seeing him moving around by himself? If they except that Scarcrow is alive, they should have no trouble with accepting Fergie. And boy was that episode short. Not long enough to really develop a decent story. The beginning and end credits told more of a story. I'm assuming Fergie episodes are normally longer then that. I'd love to live on farm like the one that Fergie lives at. And maybe take a roll in the hay with Daisy from time to time (if you know what I mean). I assume since this is a kids show (right?), the closest we get to that is Daisy cuddling the baby sheep. Still it's a wonderful fantasy. And I can see why kids would like it.

What's a "Fergie"?

Looking forward to seeing you and your model(s),

Edsel-Dan, many 1/2 ton trucks only came in a short wheelbase version right through to the 1950's. If you needed a longer box, you had to move to a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup truck. Some pickup trucks were referred to as an "express" rather than a pickup trucks by the way. The mid-50's things started to change, and manufactures stated offering long wheelbase 1/2 pickups. The trouble with trucks, mainly before the 1950's, they were designed to do work. People didn't buy a truck to look cool back then. Also, several people are complaining that this Suburban kit is not coming out in a four-wheel drive. 4x4s really didn't start getting popular until the 1970's. Even here in Minnesnowta did you rarely see a four-wheel drive truck in the 1960's. True, Jeeps, Scouts, Broncos, and Blazers were almost always four-wheel drive. But, those vehicles were aimed at a specific market that went for that drive setup. To show you how popular four-wheel drive was in the 1960's look at International's plan for selling Scout in the early 60's. They figured most buyers in 1962 would order Scouts in two-drive and with the pickup truck cab top. They were surprised when the orders started coming in for mainly Scouts with four-wheel drive and the wagon top. On trucks other than Jeep, four-wheel drive just wasn't a big deal in the 1960's. In fact, even Jeep offered some models in two-drive at the time. A '66 Suburban with four-wheel drive was about as rare as hens teeth back in '66. Who needed four-wheel drive with its stiffer ride, higher step in, and no automatic transmission in most cases, when you'll be driving your Suburban mainly on road? Only a fringe market group was going off road. And they liked smaller vehicles like the Jeep CJs, Scouts, and Broncos. GM changed things in the late 1960's with the introduction of their Blazer. Jeep Wagoneer was really the first four-wheel drive vehicle aimed the modern SUV market as we see it today. But, Chevrolet also saw the market changing. Not only could you get the new Chevy Blazer in two or four-wheel drive, but with such luxury items as an automatic transmission, integrated air conditioning, and a fancy interior. And those item were available with the four-wheel drive option. This was a big move in the 4x4 market. It's one thing for Jeep to offer this. But, now even Chevrolet was going after that market! The Brazer was a hit. One last thing, Chevrolet also started offering automatic transmissions on their other 4x4 trucks and Suburbans starting in 1969. This was a big move that helped bring four-wheel drive into common useage. Again, Jeep and even GMC (from 1957 through 1959) offered automatic transmission with four-wheel drive before this. But for Chevrolet, the number one maker of trucks at the time, to offer this feature in their trucks was a very big deal. And even if you or I think driving a manual transmission 4x4 is no big deal. Most of the market disagrees with us.

Okay, going back and reareading the first few threads, the scale was mentioned. So you can ignore that part of my last posting above.

Bringing this thread up again makes me sad. Until seeing this thread a few years back, I never knew MPC made a Chrysler speedboat model. Man, I wish there was away to see the Chrysler back on the market again. A very cool kit. I didn't go back and reread the whole thread. But was scale for this kit ever mentioned? Somewhere recently I read that the Chrysler boat was done in 1/20 scale. Is this correct? It would not stop me from buying it if it came back. But, I do prefer 1/25 scale, of coarse.

As we now know, the above is the Palmer/Lindberg '59 Century Coronado. I still haven't picked mine up yet.

I tryed click on the above website. I got nothing. Is this just a web address? Or a link? If it's a link, it's not working.

A very good take on Motor Trend's Car of the Year winner for that year. I like it. Especially the color. Very nice.

WOW! Maybe the nicest Nomad model I've ever seen. I'm impressed.

Very nice. Did it cheer up the missus?

I, like you and few others, think these Camaros were great too. One of the best designs to ever come out from General Motors design. And I like the job you did on your. I too can not see the flaw in the paint on your roof in these pictures. Very nice.