unclescott58

Beautiful!

Looking at the instructions over on another web site, I kind like the old AMT '59 kit better. For building a stock '59-''60 it's simpler and has factory fuel injection. I may still get the MPC when it comes out. I like the box art and the options for building other variations. Looking at the instructions for both the old MPC '56-'57 Corvette and their '60 Vette, it's obvious they took the '56-'57 and just tooled up a different body and dash board. Most of the two kits pieces are identical. Including all the options and accessories. The more I looked at both of them. The more I'd rather have the '56-'57 MPC Corvette kit over the '60.

How many times do we have to answer this? And why is this one pulled up from 2008, when there are so many more recent threads on this exact same subject?

By the way. I wish people were a bright as the automatic headlamps. I'm also amazed at how many people do not know how to use their signals either. For some reason, people who drive Ford truck around here are worst offenders. I've pointed out to a few friends. They seem to now agree with me about this. And we wonder why?

By the way, my automatic headlights, do also turn on when you turn on the wipers. I like it.

What is wrong with that? A Minnesota law too. It's not designed so you can see better. It's so others can see you better. I'm amazed at how many people can't figure this one out. The same problems running at dusk or dawn. Even if you can see the road okay under those circumstances. Others might not be able to see you. Thats why some cars like my LeSabre have automatic headlights and daytime running lights. There are too many idiots out there who have never figured out how to use their headlamps properly. Another pet peeve of mine when it comes to using car lights, are the use of fog lamps when there is no fog, rain or snow. I got a buddy who insists on running with his fog lights all of the time. "Because they light up the pavement right in front of the vehicle." Why do you need the pavement right in front of the vehicle lit up? In clear weather, at speeds most people are running at, you'll over drive the fog lamps beams before they are of any real use. And I find them irritating as they shine into my eyes passing me by on mainly residential streets. What is the point of this?

Dito. The only answer I can think of. That and brush painting the part.

Wow! It's look great so far.

Had no interest in this kit in the past. But, looking at quick review here, and the link provided by Casey above, I'm seriously considering buying this kit. I always felt AMT's '59 was probably a better kit. I think I was getting this one mixed up with the flip nose Vette that MPC also offered. So this one can be built stock? With a hardtop. Looks good to me. The working front suspension with real metal springs would be a nice additional bonus to this kit.

Very nice. Looks great.

Two very nice builds. I really like the Plum Crazy one.

Very, very nice. Got to love those '59 Fords.

Ah, darn. I saw the title and got tricked again. Again no naked girls. I may have to start looking at other places on the web for them. ?

I don't drink. But, I like the name of the beer in the picture above.

Wow! Another great one. Thanks again Greg. You seem to know where to find the right stuff. That's for sure.

Cool! Nice job on a tough kit. Roth and Corvair combined. A perfect combo by my standard.

I too voted for the AMT kit. It's a good kit. Good enough for me to not see a need to add the Revell version to my collection. I have the same problem/reason for not buying Revell's '63 and '64 Chevy Impalas. The old AMT kits of same subject matter have always been good enough for me. The Revell kits in all three cases maybe better kits. But, I've never been unhappy with the old AMT versions. Plus I like the nostalgic feelings I have when building those old AMT kits. Sorry Revell. Since AMT's old '59, '60, '65, and '66 Chevys are long gone I have purchased those from you. Rather than repeating what AMT all readily has available and is okay. How about somethings they don't have. Like a '68 or '69 Impala SS? Or one of my holy grails. A '72 Impala? (This I don't really don't expect to see.) Or a nice buildable and good looking '57 Nomad.

There you go Bill. I like your "EDIT:"/second paragraph above. This more of what we need here. Okay, we know the kit is not the best. It's old and ancient. But, can it be built into something interesting? Dave's green example shows that it can. It just may take a little work. At the same time, I'd like to know/see more about this kit. From what little I'm getting here, it sounds like a kit I will be staying away from. I've never been a big fan of roadster pickups, old lindberg kits, or photo etched parts. But see in some more details of the kit could change my mind. I'm still waiting for Round 2 to restore the enclosed cab pickup truck back to AMT. With the original box art and all the other goodies Round 2 likes to stick in their reissued AMT and MPC kits. I love that trend. And because it, I've purchased several kits I've passed over in the past. The "Lindberg" version of the old AMT enclosed pickup truck has been one of those. I've thought about the kit a few times. It's cool. But, it's not kit I was really hot on. And, the Lindberg box art did nothing to really get me hot for the kit. The retro Round 2/AMT box art and contents will get me to buy the kit. Back to the roadster pickup of this thread. It looks kind of cool on the box art. Kudos to Round 2 for trying to make this kit a bit more interesting. But again, the subject and the box art are not enough to get me to part with my money on this one.

Sorry, I'm unable to post pictures here. I'll be keeping an eye on your build though. Looking forward to seeing more of it.

Anything for us car guys in Revell's 4th quarter announcement?

Pinewood Derby car is as close as I ever came, when I was in Cub Scouts. I never did really finish that car. I remember continuing modifications I made to it over several years.

From what I've read, Tom has hit the nail on the head, as to why they made front gate/door the way they did. If you see Harry Bradly's original sketches, his plan was for the whole door to lift like a more modern tailgate. One of the problems they had with the idea was with the Ford station roof, frame and window not being able to take the weight of the whole thing. The swinging door was a compromise. Also, there are pictures on the web showing how the door intruded on passenger side when open. The setup was done for show. More than practicality. I've wondered several times why they didn't do the door like on AMT's model. Over the years, as I've thought about it. It dawned on me. How would you close the lower gate once your seated in the vehicle? Another problem with getting in and out the real Deora is location of the foot pedals. The pedals are in the stock A-100 location. Have to climb over those. Let's face it. The truck was built for looks. Not practicality. Maybe with modern technology and materials, one could overcome the problems the original Deora had. But, you know what? As impractical as the original Deora was in real life. It's still one of my all time favorite truck designs. I would love to own the real thing. But since I can't. I'll stick with AMT's almost as equally cool Deora model kit.

I'd love to show you photos, but I've had/have problems with loading photos on this site. You can trust the Modelhaus conversion. Like all of Modelhaus' stuff it is top notch. The only problem I found with the parts for this conversion was thickness of the hood. I had to shave a little plastic off the underside edges of the hood to get it to fit flush with the cowl and front fenders. But, it was not a big deal. Go for it. It's a great conversion kit.

Amazing what box art can do in getting me to buy a model. The Ertl era kits with their photograph box art in particular turned me cold to a lot of kits. The old, maybe less accurate, book art art has convinced me to buy several models I passed over during the Ertl era reissues. Have I been disappointed when I opened the boxes and found the model may not be exactly like the one shown on the box art? Yes and no. In my mind I've always know a that some of the kits didn't look as good as they did on the box art. Despite that, I was and am still okay with it. For the most part. There have been one or two that were disappointing. But, in general I've gotten about what I've expected. And been happy. Speaking of disappointments when looking the box art. Old Palmer kits. Sometime the box art would be great. But, never the kits. But, I got enough Palmer kits as a kid to know what was in the box, and not buy Palmer kits. I rarely found that to be a problem with AMT, MPC, Monogram, or Revell kits. And so far, never with Moebius.

Great photos of the real thing Steve. Fun to look at. But, this brings up a question that's been bugging me for a while now. Does anybody know why the Deora nameplates on the original vehicle read "Deora II"? And later Hot Wheels Deora II is called Deora II also. What gives here? Was there another Deora? A Deora I? And if so what is, or was it?