Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Bob Ellis

Members
  • Posts

    2,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bob Ellis

  1. fseva, it is a helpful review. Everybody knows what this kit is now, if they didn't before. It's a mixed bag. Round2 is the caretaker of all of the remaining AMT/MPC/Lindberg/ERTL tools. Round2 may try to update these 10-56 year old tools, but I would guess that you can only do so much. I don't see any all new kits coming from Round2, but maybe somebody knows differently? No matter how simple these 40+ year old kits are , their fidelity to shape makes up for lack of detail on all the old AMT. Most of us could not kit bash them or scratch build them either. That 64 Comet is a good example. We are all friends. Not going to get mad at each other over this Cougar kit.
  2. Everybody knew this '69 Cougar kit pretty well before it was released. I did not expect state of the art. Only the box art surprised me, sort of. But I am glad the tool still exists. A clever person would adapt a newer Mustang kit chassis to update it. It makes me think about the simple kits that are now lost, that I wish still existed. Those include the AMT Craftsman kits like the 59 Ford, Mercury and Lincoln or even a MPC '68-'69 Impala. We were lucky that the 63 Impala and 64 Comet were found. Before ERTL found the '63 Impala, that un-built kit was getting $200 in 1985 or so. Builders don't want to pay collector prices. $25-30 is a better price for them. You never know, this might be the last opportunity to buy a cheap un-built '69 Cougar.
  3. Okay, I understand your disappointment. For $25-30 you expected contemporary detailing. This Cougar kit dates back to 13 TV channels and rotary telephones. It was the Kat's a$$ back in 1969 when before all the kit's chassis consisted of one solid piece of axles and exhaust held on with 4 screws. I was wondering how Round2 was going to make a classic AMT '69 box, since the XR7 and 390 details were gone. It is what it is, I guess.
  4. Your model is beautiful. When I saw the vinyl roof and trunk lid treatment, it reminded me how people wanted to upgrade the early Roadrunners. It's strange what people did back then. They buy a Roadrunner because it is cheap at $2800. Then they add a whole bunch of options because it is too bland. They immediately criticized the post coupe with flip out windows and Plymouth offers a hardtop for extra cost. In 1968, some commented that the Roadrunner reminded them of a taxi cab for it's Spartan interior. People tried to make them into a GTX, which they were not.
  5. The tail lights make a big difference. I guess that is an extra cost dress up option reflectors on the trunk lid?
  6. Nice detail work on the motor. Those hubcaps are great on this model.
  7. It's funny, but I never built the AMT version in all these years. Just the Revell. How do they compare?
  8. The reissues of the Johan and MPC kits all have the same problem; last version of the interior used. Good luck on your 62 Chrysler.
  9. I think Premier's name was changed to Palmer so they could get an extra 10 years to fool people.
  10. Joe, that shoebox link is in Portuguese.
  11. You can get a motor from the AMT 49 Merc
  12. The original AMT 64 GTO is very nice in proportion, but it lacks in detail.
  13. The biggest problem is the driver and passenger door to match a 49 Ford front end to a 49 merc woody body. The merc woody doors indent at the A posts. I just finished examining photos of both Fords and Mercurys, and I think it could be a fairly simple job
  14. I have to admit that the tinting of the windshield blue is a nice detail.
  15. If the dealers and distributers don't show interest in the project, it's dead. No matter how good of an idea some of us think it is. Trying to sell it as a Donk tells me just Donk guys care, and there wasn't enough of them at that. The problem is; nobody has really fond memories of '80s cars. It's a lost decade for automobiles. Nothing exciting really happened back then. V6s and K cars.
  16. This may seem strange to hear, but it find some of the multi-piece bodies have a greater fidelity to shape and detail. Particularly the Revell kits. The manufacturing of one piece bodies means flat shallow details that allow the plastic piece to be easily ejected from the tool. All of the new kits has gone to separate interior parts in lieu of a interior tub that had minimal detail on the sides. If you are careful, the multi-piece bodies can be built as well as any. This Ranchero looks great.
  17. Gaute Yes, there is a better frame. I used an AMT '70 Challenger for the chassis and engine. Required a lot of modification to fit, but it looks good. It took me a few days to figure out how to make it fit. You would think the two bodies (Cuda and Challenger) would be exactly the same, but because one is MPC and the other is AMT, they don't fit. The MPC Cuda body is a little short, or the AMT Challenger chassis is too long .Can only shorten the chassis. I removed some of the AMT Challenger chassis to match the Cuda wheel base. I cut the inner fenders of the AMT Challenger and glued them to the MPC Cuda body, My greatest recommendation is this; lightly glue the parts to test fit. I glued a little too much and after that I realized it didn't fit well, making it difficult to take apart to modify.
  18. I compared a ERTL Blueprinter trailer with an original '60-'62 trailer. They are the same but the tool has met some modification over the years. I think I saw a flyer in the '60 El Camino kit to buy the trailer separately. They even suggested using it a wheel-less display like you might have seen at the used car lot. Yes, the trailer from the '64 Vette is totally different.
  19. If you want to go crazy, Bare Metal Foil any '58 car. The '58 Impala is a bear too, but I think the '58 Olds 98 would be worse!
  20. The trailer used in all these combo kits dates back to 1960. The were found in the 1960 Chevy and Ford pickups. I believe the first came with a single axle and option to buy the second.
  21. Nice job Did you tint the glass, or did it come that way in the kit?
  22. great job John You are correct, a great kit and even more considering it was designed in 1962-3
  23. It's a nice kit and you did a good job. not too hard to open the hood should you decide to make another
  24. It should be noted this kit was made to be sold as a promo, where it got it's simplified design.
×
×
  • Create New...