Motor City

Adam, My older sister had a Pinto, followed by a Nova, then a Thunderbird, and then … a new 1984 Alliance! The Tinmont (my buddy's name for his new 1978 Fairmont 2-door sedan) was actually a pretty rugged car. He attended a party in Downtown Detroit one night and didn't quite make the turn from one freeway through the sharp turn onto the next, bouncing off the retaining wall. He kept driving for about ten miles or so and called me from a pay phone around 3 in the morning after the radiator gave out! I picked him up and drove him home. The car was towed to a collision shop near my house. The front passenger tire and suspension were bent up several inches off the ground! Yes, he had driven on 3 tires for over ten miles. That's one heck of a car! The Stallion Maverick is another rarity that I saw once, maybe twice. Hopefully someone makes a decal set and you pick up the Jo-Han kit or promo to at least partially fulfill your fantasy. You are now contemplating what foreign losers I will come up with. Let's try the Toyota Echo, Renault Fuego (my cousin had 2 of these), Renault Le Car, Honda Insight, Toyota Tercel, Yugo, Datsun B-210, Fiat X/19, Chevrolet LUV, and Kia Soul.

Adam's Top Ten Fantasy List from the domestic manufacturers: Buick Rendezvous Pontiac Aztek Pontiac T-1000 Cadillac Cimarron Vega Notchback Ford Fairmont Dodge Aries Plymouth Reliant Mercury Lynx Mercury Bobcat How about it, Adam?

Bill, I agree 100% with you. The car is claustrophobic and the blind spots make it hazardous to drive, so I refuse to buy one to replace my rusted out Monte Carlo SS. GM choked big time on this and the previous generation. Sure, they have powerful engines and great handling, but if you can't safely see out of it, how can you enjoy owning one? Pretty much the whole industry has terrible designers now. They create huge blind spots and then want to sell you expensive side and rear blind zone alert packages. Unless you get the leather interior, the upholstery is mediocre, too. They make bland, mostly off-black interiors. GM also refuses to make SUVs without massive blind spots. I'll continue to drive my old cars that are fun and I feel safe driving.

sand down the wheel arches, skip the decals, and call it a day!

I don't work in the model car industry and would never pass myself off as an expert. With the availability of 3D computer technology, digital photography, and actual cars to measure, you have to wonder how so many inaccuracies keep occurring. The body looks passable for a "Cuda except for the wheel arches. The decals look to be way off and no amount of work will make them look right. As stated earlier, you have to question the accuracy of the body creases, too. It's another kit that had a lot of potential that I will not buy. As a designer said many years ago, "it takes as much effort to design a pretty car as it does to make an ugly one" - or something like that. If the body dimensions and decals were scanned properly in the first place, we seemingly wouldn't have these issues to complain about. It probably comes down to an attitude of "good enough" for the mass market these are intended for, children not yet old enough to drive.

It has 20,000 miles, astroroof, Cerulean Blue Firemist (a light blue). I bought it off of the original owners' son, and it turned over 7000 miles as I backed it out of the driveway. It could use a paint job, and the fender extensions are now crumbling. The box art on the Camaro kit is pretty good. Was the price a steal? I think I saw the real thing at a Camaro show. It must be pretty rare. So you're talking about a fantasy AHC Monza? I have the MPC '75 Monza 2+2 kit that I bought when it came out. I was going to paint it orange with a saddle interior, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

I had the AMT '74 Camaro kit, but sold it since it wasn't a Z-28! I'm not as picky now.

Adam, That's quite a haul! I used to have the Eldorado, but gave it to a co-worker who used to have the real car. Too bad they didn't make a '77 Biarritz model since I've owned the real thing for 21 years. I still have the Coupe deVille and built it like a promo. Bad news for your brother. As you predicted, the Camaro AHC-100 is terrible. The plastic is so thin behind the door handles that there was a slight opening (horizontal slit) behind each one! You'd have to add sheet plastic on the back side and paint the body (to fill the opening) to make it look decent. It wasn't worth the work so I sold it. Unless I'm hallucinating, I saw the real thing at a Detroit-area car show a number of years ago.

Snake, This one was a scratched up mess, but since it was molded red plastic, I was able to polish it so it looks new. The rear bumper has a slight twist to it, but the chrome is otherwise decent. I carefully polished the glass so it looks awesome. There are plenty of rough promos out there that can be repainted. The only disadvantage is not being able to open the hood, but how often does anyone open the hood? A black GTO sounds like it would be a real nice choice!

I quit using Testors not too long after ruining a '66 GTO convertible and '67 Corvette coupe way back then. Too much sputtering even back then.

thank you, Tom!

So many on this forum dogged the various versions of this kit that I forced myself to buy a red promo of it. Thanks a lot, guys!

While we're on this topic, does anyone have a rumble seat handle for an AMT '32 Ford that they don't need, or know where I can get one without buying a whole kit? I have my late Dad's roadster, but the handle is missing. Thanks!

My brother and I thought those were cool. A neighbor down the street got one, so we looked at it. Dad wasn't too impressed. He said these were ball busters because the banana seats didn't have springs in them. So we went down to Sears and bought banana seats to put on our bikes. Those seats had coil springs to absorb shocks.

I went to Hobby Lobby yesterday and saw the Porsche tractor and the '34 Ford pickup. They did not have the '59 Imperial, so I bought the '66 Mercury and Ford GT snap kit.

thank you, Steve!

Was a Schwinn 10-speed bike (Collegiate, Continental, Paramount, Varsity, etc.) ever offered as a model?

AMT made this for the '75-'77 model years

Those Brats were fairly popular when new - even in Detroit. Not too many exciting cars by 1978, but it would have been nice to have had a Mark V, Cougar XR-7, Thunderbird, Ranchero GT or Magnum kit.

As Gerry stated above, the '62-'64 Impala SS had the aluminum engine-turned rear trim. They also had engine-turned exterior side trim, dashboard and console trim. If a decal isn't available, which seems difficult to believe, silver paint on these area doesn't look too bad.

thanks for the information, Helmut Jim

WARNING! The box art is also inaccurate. Only the non-SS had a rear cove painted body color. This should have the engine-turned aluminum rear panel. Seriously, though, I always thought the AMT '62-64 Impala bodies had nice lines and accurate proportions.

I had these same issues when I attempted to post to the '72 442 topic in the Aftermarket/Resin section several days ago. It took multiple attempts over a few days to successfully post.

A while back, I asked about the '71-'72 ram air hood for the Jo-Han kit, but the only response was to buy the Revell '72 H/O kit. Missing Link sells a '70 ram air hood, but I'm not sure if it's for the Jo-Han or Revell kit. I got the Jo-Han standard 442 hood (pictured above for those who don't know) of off Ebay, but don't know if it fits the Revell kit. I'm not aware of a standard hood in resin. For those who don't know, the re-issued Jo-Han '70 442 kit (U.S.A. Oldies) has the '71-'72 442 interior, which is not the same seat pattern as what was used in '70. You can get the '71-'72 front bumper/grille, and the '71-'72 hood, with the '71 or '72 (different taillights) rear bumper and make a correct '71 or '72. The real '72 had black painted headlight bezels instead of the chrome used on the earlier cars. I think the Testors kit is the same tooling as the '70 U.S.A. Oldies, but I'm not positive.