unclescott58

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

That had been cleared up earlier.

Interesting you should say that. In general I am too. But, this new Vette does something for me. In fact, it's the first Vette that I've really like since the '73 model. Scott

Yes and no what?

I didn't have to disassemble my model to polish the glass with toothpaste? Scott

Back to the Streetle Beetle in post #7. I've never liked the looks of that particular car. Shorting up a Beetle in that way just does not look good to me. Plus, I dislike the the engine cover/rear hood. What I do like is the '40 Ford front end. I remember seeing these on real Beetles back in the day. They looked great. My question, will the '40 front end from the Streetle Beetle fit any other 1/25th scale Beetle models? And if so, does anybody know where I can get one? Scott

I too got mine recently. And I agree Art, it a very, very nice promo. I especially like the color. I'm now waiting for them to release the 2015 roadster. Scott

I used up my photo quota here several months back. I'm sorry I can not post any photos here anymore. Scott

Oops, I forgot to mention. In the Jetsons Spaceship kit, all the figures come pre-painted. And they look great. Scott

I'd like to see more on both IMC Avenger model kit, and full-size Fiberfab version. Anybody have photos of either they can post here? Scott

I'll be passing on this one. True it's less expensive than a real bike. But, it looks it. Plus, I don't have a shelf big enough to display it. Scott

I don't know if this is automobile related or not. But today I got Polar Lights The Jetsons Spaceship snap kit. The reason I'm not sure if this auto related or not, is I never saw this vehicle as a "spaceship." I've always thought of it as a flying car. Spaceship or flying car, it's still pretty cool. I did not buy the recent reissue of this kit. Because the latest version only comes with George and Astro as passengers. The earlier version came with the whole Jetson family. George and Jane. Judy and Elroy. And of course Astro. (Rosie the robot maid is not included.) So I went on eBay and sought out the early version. I paid a little more than I would, if I was willing to take the version with only George and Astro. But, I wanted the whole family. This was a nice quick build. I did no painting to the kit. But, I did use glue on the non-transparent pieces. It took me maybe a half an hour to build. And it looks great. I like the fact that the transparent/clear dome came in bubble-wrap. So, there was no damage to it. Not a scratch. It was perfect. A fun kit. I've thought about buying one for several years now. I'm glad I took the plunge and got one. Scott

Congrats. That is a big deal. Scott

What's wrong with the car in the first photo? Scott

Okay, here's an old tip I first heard about in an old model car magazine back in early 70's, that really works. Toothpaste. In fact Colgate seemed to work the best back then. And I've found it still does today. Had the exact same problem with a model I was building earlier this year. Super glue was used on a part close to the glass, fogged the glass. Very slightly. But, fogged none the less. My every day Colgate and soft rag cleared up the problem fairly quickly. And I was able to joke with other members of my local model club, that my car smelled minty fresh besides. All joking aside, it really does work. Scott

Some of the reviews here have become a little depressing. Over all, I've liked Revell's '57 Ford (and '70 Barracuda, '49 Mercurys, '91 Mustang LX, and '67 Camaro). And I'm looking forward to Revell's Ranch Wagon kit. Are they prefect? No. But, the kits that are out there that I've seen built, look pretty darn good to me. This nitpicking on details I would have never noticed until pointed out, is driving me a little nuts. I don't know if anyone has ever produced a "prefect" kit or not. I'm guessing not. Nor do I really care. Does it look like real car over all when it's done? And not a toy, or something like the Palmer or Premier kits of the past. Then I'm pretty happy. I never noticed most of the problems on Revell's '57 Ford until reading this review. I looked at mine when I first got it and thought Wow! Is this a nice kit. I did notice the taillight fin relationship being a little off. But, that was minor. Despite that and the other problems I didn't know about at the time, it still looked like a pretty good representation of a '57 Ford to me. And despite knowing about its other imprecations now, it still looks like a pretty good representation a '57 Ford to me. I still like it. And I bet I'll like the Ranch Wagon too. What is the point of these reviews? Were are they going? At the same time I think it is okay to give honest reviews and piont out what's wrong with these kits. Even as done here. But it's the general attitude. It's the condemnation of these kits and model companies that make them that is rubbing me wrong. Scott

Looking at your responses Mr. Eva, it looks like no matter what people say here, your going to dislike or disagree with it. I like AMT's '69 Cougar, and it's time to go on a read more productive threads here. Scott

I'd like to know more about this kit. A web search turns up very little on it. It's my understanding from others on this site, that body was taken from AMT's Astro I kit. I'm mainly interested in learning how much of the old Astro I kit was left unmolested? Scott

I hate to come off a little naive, but what kind of car is the Avenger car suppose to be? GT40 clone? And did the kit have anything to do with old British Avenger TV series? Scott

Interesting helmet the driver is wearing. Scott

Very nice to see one done. This and Dracula's Dragster were the first two model kits I ever built, with my mother's help, way back in the mid-60's. Mine looked no where near as good as yours, of course. It sure brings back fond memories see Frankie and his Fliver, and his yo-yo still hanging from his finger. Several times I've thought about buying another one. This is the first one I've seen since I built mine 50 some odd years ago. Thanks for showing it to us. Scott

Not good news. Scott

Read the reviews here, or ask other modelers here about the kits before you buy it. With the costs of making a new tool of any model, your going to find a lot of older kit subjects are based on old toolings. Most of us are okay with that. And as popular as some of these cars are, or are not, I dont expect model companies are going to put a lot of money into new dies, if the old kit is still useable and sells. Reading your comments Frank, I think your going to be real unhappy with most kits you find out there. That's a shame. Because with a little work, most turn into fairly nice reditions of the cars they represent. Scott

Oh, I'd keep the long version going. But, it would be nice to see a highlight version. Then we can go back and look at what we're more interested in later. For example I really liked looking at the first Ford you showed. The second one not as much. It would be nice to see the car in general before looking at all the detail shots. And great shots they all are. Just a lot to look through on something's that may not interest me as much. Scott

I'm not a big fan of the new Mustang's styling. But, I like it enough to have purchased Revell's Build and Play snap kit of it. Scott