StevenGuthmiller

"What's good for General Motors is good for America". We get what we get because that's what they give us. Not like say 1970, when Dodge offered you a choice of 27 different colors for your new Charger, and let the consumer decide. Now, it's more like, "here's what you're gonna get, 'cause we say so". What it al boils down to in my view is that it's so much easier for the manufacturers to offer "packages" instead of allowing the consumer to pick individual options as you could in years past, and likewise, it's much easier for them to offer 6 color choices than it is to offer 27. It all comes down to stream lining the production process and producing as many drab toasters as possible to make as much money as possible. I guess that they're businesses like anyone else, so you can't begrudge them that. Steve

From the photos posted above, I see that the rear of the rear window opening needs to be a little more squared off at the top and vertical, but in my opinion, it's not particularly glaring. The rear wheel openings on the AMT '68/'69 B-bodies on the other hand, appear much more obvious to me, as there's not even a basic match in shape to the front wheel opening as there should be. I suppose that if it was a big enough issue with someone, the rear window of the duster may be able to be corrected, at least to some extent, by removing the drip rail molding and squaring the opening with a very thin wedge shaped shard of plastic at the rear of the opening, slightly larger at the bottom than the top, and then replacing the molding. My opinion? In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure that it's worth the effort. It sometimes occurs to me that occasionally people get too hung up on things that they consider paralyzing issues, like this window shape question, and they'll then spend hours to modify or replace a top, and then in the end, they'll still leave the cheesy door handles, or some other unrealistic or "less than accurate" detail unaddressed. Our quest for accuracy occasionally gets the better of us I presume. Steve

I think sometimes, even noticing some of these inaccuracies can be proportional to ones interest in a particular vehicle. If a particular vehicle is of high interest to someone, they’re much more likely to be aware of inaccuracies that most others might not even realize exists. And then there’s the question of how difficult or time consuming a particular modification might be. Often, it might just not be worth the effort to someone. As an example, on my last project, an AMT 1964 Pontiac Bonneville, the Bonneville script on the rear quarter panel was much larger than it should have been. I was aware of this inconsistency, but then the question became what are the options for changing it, and if possible, is it worth the effort? In the end, I would have preferred to correct it, but after weighing the options, I decided that in this circumstance, I was better off just leaving well enough alone. At the end of the day, I don’t believe that the appearance suffered enough to justify the work that might have been involved to correct it. Sometimes one just has to pick his battles. Steve

And sometimes you have to make decisions about whether it’s worth it or not. Steve

Interior color is always one of our biggest considerations when deciding on a new car color combination, although options are extremely limited. I refuse to buy a car with a gray interior! I can't think of anything more depressing than driving around in something surrounded in gloomy, monotone gray! Our blue Honda S-2000 has a blue interior, and our pearl white Acura MDX, an "Espresso" interior. Steve

Not only that, but “bright” doesn’t necessarily translate into “interesting”. Steve

Nobody will ever take chances like this again! Steve

I guess that most people today want their car’s color to match their car’s soul. Drab and boring! ? Steve

Agreed! Same reason I’m no fan of “resto-mods”. I want my “old cars” to feel like old cars. I can get all the “mod” I can stand with my 2023 Acura. Steve

Which is exactly why they should go in a "different" direction. I think we've already had enough redundancy. Anyway. It's not going to happen, so there's that. Steve

Well, then why not do another’57 Chevy? Or maybe another Mustang or Camaro kit? It’s unlikely to happen anyway, so I shouldn’t have to jump off a bridge. ? Steve

I would hope that if Tamiya were to jump into the classic American car market, they’d go for something a little more unusual. Do we really need “another” ‘32 Ford? ? Steve

https://www.madmodeling.com/ Steve

It scares me a little sometimes! Steve

I agree. Doesn't necessarily need to be an old car to have the same experience either. Steve

Thanks guys! Beginning some of the less glamorous, but necessary changes to the chassis and engine bay. The body of the donor '66 GTO appears to be a bit narrower at the bottom than the '64, so I felt that some fillers were needed to deal with some of the gaps. Some filling was also required with the firewall to get rid of gaps and holes as well. Steve

Not even sure where all of the seat belts are. Crumpled up under the seats somewhere most likely. Steve

When I jump into the seat of my 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix to take it out for a spin, the absolute last thing that enters my mind is how "unsafe" it is. Don't care, and never will. I don't even wear a seat belt!!!!! Steve

They had to have stolen that '59 Chevy for this comparison! I certainly can't see anyone in his right mind donating it, and if they bought it, they absolutely didn't tell the previous owner what they were going to do with it! Steve

I use pre-wired distributors from M.A.D. all of the time. Nothing better or worse about doing them yourself versus buying them pre-wired. It's just a matter of what you would rather spend your time on. Personally, I see no reason to spend time on wiring a distributor when I can buy one that's better than what I'm going to do anyway, is cheap, and allows me to spend that time on other things. Wiring distributors feels a lot like "busy work" to me, and yes, I have done it many times in the past. Steve

I get that. That’s pretty much the same reason that I used it for a number of years. The biggest reasons that I stopped using it were, A... the caustic fumes that it pumped into the air every time I used it, (really nasty stuff) and B... when I discovered that Super Clean was actually much more economical due to the fact that it can be used over and over again, (I’m still using the same gallon that I bought probably more than 4 years ago) It’s just much more user friendly in my opinion. No muss, no fuss. ? Steve

The Revell ‘66 GTO has a pretty nice engine. The AMT ‘62 Catalina and Moebius ‘61 Pontiac kits are also nice depending upon the era that you’re looking for. The GTO and Moebius kits have tri-power intakes, and the AMT Catalina a dual quad, but of course you can modify the intake as you see fit. I used the ‘66 GTO engine with a single 4 barrel intake for my ‘64 Bonneville, and the ‘62 Catalina engine with the tri-power from the GTO for my ‘64 Grand Prix. Mind you, neither of the engines shown are straight out of the box. Both have had numerous modifications performed. Steve

It’s helpful to plan a little further in advance. It would have been infinitely easier to remove the kit distributor and prep for its replacement long before any paint was applied. Steve

Sodium Hydroxide, (lye) is what almost all of these cleaners have in common, and is the ingredient that is most responsible for its effectiveness. The concentration of the sodium hydroxide in the solution is the key to the extent of that effectiveness. I feel as if I’m constantly trying to make people in the Facebook groups understand that virtually all of these cleaners/degreasers, (Super Clean, Purple Power, Easy Off, Totally Awesome, Simple Green, etc,etc) all have comparable ingredients, and their effectiveness is directly related to the concentration of the “active ingredient” and the circumstances of the job that they’re expected to perform. Your success or failure is much more likely to pivot on what materials you’re trying to remove and how they were applied than the product itself. There seem to be a lot of guys that for some reason have the impression that their product of choice is made of fairy dust and unicorn farts and is the “only” one that works, which is absolute BS, but there are some that will work better than others on some of the tougher jobs. If you’re just stripping basic chrome or simple enamel paint, one is as good as the other. The lacquer under chrome or lacquer paints can require a little extra oomph! Steve

One of the things that I like about using Super Clean over oven cleaner, (there are several reasons) is the fact that it can soak for as long as is required to remove stubborn things such as this. With oven cleaner, what I've found is that the majority of the activity is early in the process, (maybe the first half hour to an hour), and then it begins to loose it's potency. Not due to the fact that it's ineffective, but just due to the much lower volume of the solution used. If you spray a couple of tablespoons onto your parts in a plastic bag, there's much less of the active ingredient, (lye) contacting the parts, than the half a gallon of Super Clean that they're floating in, which maintains it's potency for months. The parts can be left to soak for a week or two if need be. With oven cleaner, it will require a number of reapplications, and I could very well be wrong, but back when I was using oven cleaner, it seemed as if the huge bulk of it's effectiveness ended after the first application. I remember vividly trying to strip paint from bodies, and having it look like it was working quite well after the first dunking, but subsequent applications seemed to do very little. It was almost like it went so far, and that was it, regardless of how many times I re-applied. Just my observations from my personal experience. Steve