Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by unclescott58

  1. A question about cutting out the vent wing glass. How tough is this to do? Any tips on this? What the best tools to use? I worry about this one. It seems so easy to damage clear parts. I've developed cracks cutting windows away from their sprue, using sprue cutters. So taking a saw to the unwanted vent glass scares me a bit.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

    R. Scott

  2. So many of these mentioned proposed kits would have been so cool. The three I would have bought in a heart beet are, Polar Light's '54 Corvette Nomad show car, AMT's '50 Studebaker, and IMC's Dodge L series cab over.

    Speaking of the Polar Lights Corvette Nomad. I wish someone would do one of its companions, the '54 Corvette Corvair show car.

    As far the JoHan's '69 Fury police car. The first Auto World catalog I ever got, and still have, shows a picture of this kit. I'm pretty sure it also appeared in '72 besides. That I'd have to check. I wonder what happened if you tried ordering one. Did they just send you JoHan's '68 instead?

    And what happen to the MPC Stiletto show car? I remember buying vending machine trading cards of different custom cars in the late 1960's, early 70's. And I had the card with that car on it. And it did mention something on about MPC models owning or offering it as a kit. If that one ever hit the selves, I'm sure I would have gone for it. I still might today.

    Ah... It's a shame. Not only were there those proposed models that were never offered, so they can never be reissued. But, how about the great kits where they messed with the tooling and we'll never see back? Sad.

    R. Scott

  3. I like many others love this kit. True it's no Revell '32 Deuce, but considering its age it still builds well. I haven't seen mentioned in any of the other postings, my only complaint about this kit. The firewall. If your going to use the Hemi or any other non-stock motor, you need to cut the firewall for the engine to fit. Using the firewall included in this kit, done as instructions tell you, never has looked right to me. A little fabricating needed here. Other than that is a fun kit from the early day of modeling. And well worth building.

    R. Scott

  4. Don't know about the rest of you guys, but the first thing crossed my mind when I saw that blue one was.............


    Joe, the song you linked to from YouTube is not one of Jan and Dean's better efforts. Never heard this one before. And if I never it again that will be OK. At the same time I'm glad you posted it.

    R. Scott

  5. I wish Revell would restore the old Renwall Visible V-8 back to its former glory. Back with the electric motor and lighting spark plugs. There are a lot of us out there with fond memories of the kit in that form. Revell ruined it by simplifying it.

    By the way, several of us in the Model Car Club of Minnesota (MCCM) ageed that the old Renwall V-8 most closely reassembled the old real full-size Studebaker V-8. Everything but location of the generator matches the look of the 1951 Studebaker designed V-8. Curious if others out there agree.

    R. Scott

  6. Love this kit. I've built a couple over the years. With a little paint and chrome foil, one has pretty nice looking '63 Vette. Despite the old tooling, I think it looks as good as Revell's modern snap-kit version when done. Though I do like that the Revell version portrays an air conditioned Vette with a Powerglide and basic wheel covers. The old AMT can be built as carbureted or a fuelie, but only with the four-speed and optional aluminum wheels. Both versions are cool. Close, but different. I like that.

    This is one of those classic old AMT and MPC kits that I'm glad Round 2 keeps on reissuing. I love the new stuff, with it's greater detail. But, I still very much enjoy building these old classic kits. With a little work they still make fine replicas of my dreams.

    I do wish Round 2 would consider reissuing MPC's old 1/16 scale '63 Corvette. Another fun kit that hasn't been seen in a while. And I wonder when and if, someone will offer a nice promo or kit of 2014 Stingray in 1/25 scale?

    R. Scott

  7. Just got this kit. And all I can say is wow! I've read this entire forum, and I understand what's wrong and what's right with kit. All in all, more looks right than wrong to me. For the most part I'm an in box builder. Adding little more than paint. And have been building this way since the mid-60s. Compared to kits offered back then, this kit is fantastic. Parts fit and look good. Details are much better that in the original kits. Things like seperate rocker panels. Decals for gauges and emblems. Show me an original '70 annual kit with this kind of detail. And I've remember lots of inacuraticies in the original annual kits. Some times from one side of car to other. Again, overall this 'cuda looks right.

    Despite the inacuraticies of this or the older kits, if they look close enough I've always been happy. Growing up I got a lot of Palmer kits as gifts for Christmas and Birthdays. The flaws in the AMT, MPC, Revell, Monogram, or IMC models were nothing compared to those. Yet I build them and displayed them with my other kits. But I would never buy a Palmer kit with my own money. My point is? I love this new Revell '70 Hemi 'cuda. The body looks OK to me. The detail is much better and more accurate than I remember of old annuals kits. Body may be more correct on the original MPC kit. But I'm not 100% sure of that. I know the other small details are not as good. Yet I'd still love to own one of the originals. But, the new 'cuda is what's available now, at a price I can afford. It looks like a win-win to me.

  8. Curious, what is the paint you used on this? It looks great. A nice build all of the way around. Never had any interest in Zingers when they were first out. Now I think they're very kool.

  9. Monogram Slingster Dragster. Just got mine today. I was inspired to get the kit by reading this forum and the fun I've been having building AMT's Double Dragster kit.

    Overall I like what I found when I opened the box. Very nicely done. Great instructions. I even like the wire wheels. They look OK to me. What I do have mixed feelings about is the frame. It maybe it's fairly accurate for looks in scale. But, it's kind of a fiddly to assemble. Here I find the 50 year old AMT kit much easier to work with. I decided I needed to do some sub assembly before painting. What a pain to get those cross members to line up. Does anybody out there have any tips on how to make this frame easier to assemble?

    One other minor complaint. I wish they'd given a couple of extra parts to complete the second unused engine. Things like having more than one magneto. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice to have couple extra parts like that to display the extra engine.

    The rest of the kit looks great. I can see few, if any other problems in assembling this kit. I love the Bantam body. It will make a nice and different style of dragster from the two cars I'm building from the AMT kit.

  10. Wow Art! Looking at your build inspired me to buy this kit off of eBay. Just got it today. I like what I found in the box. Nice and simple.

    Two things confused me at first. One was the instruction sheet illustration showing a metal rear axle. There was no metal axle in the box. But, there was what looked like plastic axle on the tree. The written instructions cleared this up. It comes with a plastic rear axle, part #4. Second, I could not figure out what part #26, the "line guide" was? And there were two of them on the parts tree. Then it dawned on me that this kit was designed at time when it was still popular to motorize model cars and run them on a line. Looking at the bottom of the kit body, one can see were these would mount. I doubt I'm going to use them.

    This kit was design way before the time I started building models. But, I remember seeing kits like these still around in the mid-60s and thinking they were kind of cool. It's going to be fun stepping back and build a little history. Seeing what the early days of our hobby looked like. Thanks to you Art for inspiring me to buy this kit. I hope mine turns out half as good as yours. And thanks to Revell-Mongram and Galaxie Limited for making this kit available. And also thanks to Modelhaus for making and supplying the very cool whitewall tires. Great job, everybody. Boy is this fun!

  11. Got my '78 Ford pickup two days ago. And it's very similar to the kit I bought back in the summer of 1975. For all the faults others have mentioned about this, other than the windshield problem, I like it. A lot of people are complaining about the longggg... box used in this kit. And the inaccuracy of the 4-wheel drive set up.

    Remembering back to the time when the original version of this kit came out in 1975. Offering the kit as 2-wheel drive F-350 Camper Special made a lot of sense. First one needs to remember, that 4-wheel drive pickups were no where near as popular then as they are now. Even here in the land of snow and ice. It wasn't until about this time that 4-wheel drive trucks were just becoming civilized. Before the late '60s-early'70s very few 4-wheel drive trucks were offered with automatic transmissions. Most were tall, rough riding vehicles designed for work only. As this started to change in the '70s more and more people started buying 4-wheel drive. By the '80s, in this part of country at least, 4-wheel was becoming the way to go. But in 1975, not so much.

    Throughout the '60s and '70s slide in truck campers were very popular. So it was natural that AMT would design their model truck as a one ton camper special. I thought it was very cool at time. Still do. Only Ford offered the spare tire mounted in the right side box fender, as depicted in the AMT kit. This spare tire setup was only offered with the Camper Special package. Can you imagine crawling under your other pickups with a camper on to get after the spare? With the waning of the popularity of slide in campers, Ford did not offer this option on their new redesigned pickups for 1980.

    As far as square vs round headlights. Square headlamps were first offered, and as standard equipment on the upper level Fords for the 1978 model year. The lower models still came with round headlamps in similar bezels. The square headlamps were optional on the lower level trucks, and became standard on all full-size Fords trucks for 1979. By the way, most versions had black painted bezels. Top of the line models they were chrome.

    Another inaccuracy on this kit are the gas fillers. The '73, through I believe '76 Fords had this set up. The later trucks of this generation hid the fuel fillers behind doors/flaps. Not a big deal to me. But, incorrect none the less.

    As far as real Firestone give away truck. I believe it was an F-150, not a F-350 as depicted with the model. I know it was 4-wheel drive. I have been able to find little to nothing on this truck on the web. I found few ads for the Super Stones sweepstakes with the prizes listed. But very little detail on anything else anywhere on the web. What do others out there know of the real vehicles given away in this sweepstakes. And were are they today?

    All in all I like this kit. My plans are to build it as a 2-wheel drive Camper Special. After all Ford did not offer the F-350s in 4-wheel drive until 1979. With the grill being basically the same between '78 and '79, other than the incorrect front suspension for an F-350 4x4, one could claim it was a '79.

  12. Amendment to my info on headrests. Some '69 Fords, like some Mopars, built before January 1, 1969 did leave the factory without headrests. As far as I can tell this was not the case with GM cars. All 1969 GM cars built before or after January 1, 1969 came with headrests.

    As far as optional headrests on GTOs before the '69 model year. Headrests became available on most GM cars starting with the '66 model year. For 1966, 1967, and 1968 GTO headrests are listed as Pontiac option #571 with bucket seats. They came standard with optional reclining buckets (Pontiac option #574). Bench seat models had different style headrests - Pontiac option #572. So, the headrests in the MPC '67 GTO kit are correct. They look like the ones shown in the Pontiac cataloges.

  13. Just picked this kit up yesterday at my local Michael's. I've heard and read what a piece of junk this kit is. Lots of flash. Molded in blue. Nothing but trouble. First, as I was looking at the box in store, it stated on the side it's molded in white. Good! I get it home, open the box, and got a very pleasant surprise. Round 2 must be paying attention to us hobbiest out here. The body in my kit looks beautiful! Very nice. Very crisp. No flash on the body what so ever! Other trees and parts had some flash. But nothing too major. You can tell the kit is old. By today's standards the details on the engine and chassis are very low. But, I like what I'm finding in the kit I just bought. I should have no trouble building a fairly nice looking '67 GTO out of it.

    About the headrests. Headrests were available as an option on the real '67 GTOs. Not standard. And not commonly seen. But available none the less. Starting January 1, 1969 all cars by federal law were required to have headrests as standard equipment. GM and Ford made them standard as soon as their '69 models hit the show floor. Chrysler for the most part waited until January 1st. That is why you'll see a few early '69 Mopars without headrests.

  14. Question about Monogram's Deusenberg SJ Roadster/Convertible. Was this kit modeled after a real (1:1) car? From what I'm seeing about the kit, it supose to be Rolston bodied car. Is it? I can find nothing in any of my books, or on the web indicating that Rolston (or is it Rollston?) ever offered this body style. Plenity of info and photos of a Convertible Victoria they built. But nothing on a Convertible Roadster. So, is Monogram's model based on a real car or not? Or is like their '33 SJ Murphy bodied Town Car, which is really modeled after a 1930 Model J Murphy Town Car? But, they made it a '33 SJ because their other Duesenberg models were already '33 SJs, to save on tooling.

    Real or not, I do like the looks of Monogram's 1933 Duesenberg SJ "Rolston" roadster. And still hope to some day to build one. But, still I wonder? Is it based on real 1:1 car or not?

    That brings up questions about of the other Monogram Classic Cars. From reading the previous attached posts, it sounds like Monogram's Mercedes 540K Coupe my not be based on a real car. That they just took their 540K Convertible and added a top that made it look close to a real 1:1 car. Is this the case? And if so, what about the other Monogram Classics? Which are based on real cars? And which are not?

    R. Scott Aho

  • Create New...