RancheroSteve

For what it's worth, MCW sells Ermine White as being the correct color for the Chaparral. I think you nailed it.

All good points, Bill. I guess we're really getting into the weeds (so to speak) here, especially for a post about model cars, but I should mention the set-up I have on my Ranchero. I'm using the Global West Negative Roll upper a-arms, the installation of which involves re-drilling the mounting points (even lower than the Shelby drop) and changes the camber curve quite a bit. It also requires a shorter spring - it doesn't require a stiffer spring, but it works better with one. The original Falcon springs are notoriously soft. The improvement in handling was immense, but I will admit that it's nicer on a smooth road. While I'm at it, I should mention that a common misconception about the Shelby Drop is that it changes the ride height - it doesn't, the real purpose is to change the roll center.

Yes, thanks - I see that. I think it's a real improvement over before, but I'm still of the opinion that the salt flats/LSR cars should be in with the drag section. To be fair though, it doesn't make a huge difference to me most of the time, as I look at all those categories frequently. Didn't mean to come off unappreciative in any way - I'm very grateful for this forum and all that you guys do to maintain it.

I'd like to see the competition car categories broken down like this: 1. Oval track cars: NASCAR, short track, dirt, Indy 2. Road racing cars: F1, sports cars 3. Straightline cars: drag and salt flat/dry lake/LSR I realize there's always going to be some overlap or gray areas, but this is what makes the most sense to me in putting common types of vehicles together.

In the real world, you'd cut the coil springs (or use shorter/stiffer) springs to lower the front on a Mustang, Comet, Falcon, etc. but this would be kind of a nutty undertaking in scale, so go with the dropped spindle approach and it will look fine. The most common method of lowering the rear is using lowering blocks, so this is exactly what cutting the rear end away from the leaf springs and shimming is doing. Good luck!

Some are IMSA, some are TransAm, but still essentially the same basic tube frame/silhouette race car - in fact many cars went back and forth between the series with minor changes. After seeing the above shots showing the engine bay and interior, I'd say that apart from the body, a Revell/Monogram IMSA Mustang would be the best starting point for building a replica of one of these cars.

I've been scouring the Falconer & Nye book for info on those wheels and can't find much. The earlier version of the Chaparral used a wheel that they cast, based on the Lotus 19 "wobbly wheel". When Chevrolet built the Corvette GSIIb (the second photo in the original post above) using the disc type wheels, Chaparral switched to those, but found the brakes overheating due to lack of ventilation. Then the now-familiar spoked wheel was designed by Frank Boehm (an engineer at Chevrolet) but made by Arlington Industries for Chaparral. They started using those wheels at the beginning of 1965. I have no idea if those disc wheels have ever been kitted, so I can't help you there, sorry.

Upgrade/update: I recently began attempting to fashion my own wire wheels. After some trial & error I was able to produce an acceptable pair, so I went back and retrofitted this build. A worthwhile improvement, I think. Moderators: can you move this to the Drag Racing section? (I don't think that section existed when I first posted this).

Looks like John Bauer was the main driver of this car - and a guy named Bruce Jenner co-drove at some events.

I've got this one - might be out of print, but looks like it's still available relatively affordably.

Yes, that was a last minute addition to his donation. I was getting ready to leave when I spotted on a shelf in his garage. In awe, especially as I had recently built the kit, I recognized it right away and asked about it. He said, "Okay, the Museum might as well have this as well." It felt like I had a piece of history in my hands - definitely a window into a different way of designing models than how it's done today! Hard to let it go, but I got to hang out with it for a few days before shipping it off to the Museum and managed to take a whole slew of photos.

I only had the pleasure of meeting Tom West once, when I picked up a donation he was making (mostly literature, etc.) to the Model Car Builders Museum back in 2007. He was indeed a fine gentleman with an outstanding resume.

It is certainly a subtle thing and I agree that it won't make a difference to most people. I have no issue with anyone building it straight out of the box. Part of my motivation in doing it was to see if I could pull it off.

Yes, the recent (2018) version with the go-kart contains all the stock parts and no custom parts (I'm building one now).

Bob, I've got a library full of reference! One of my favorite parts of building is doing the research and trying to get the details right. I built both of the above for the Lynx Project and was able to get the decals made on spec, so I can't help you there, but would be happy to share other materials that I have with you. BTW, links to both of those builds here (WIP links within the Under Glass threads):

A couple of decent sources: the September 1993 issue of Racer has a four page "In Focus" feature on the Hot Wheels Camaro, and issue #20 (Mar/April 1994) has a three page feature that is mostly (black & white) photos. Otherwise, the details are essentially just standard practice for the tube frame/silhouette body TransAm cars of that vintage.

Thanks, Bob. Just for comparison purposes, here are a couple of AMT '64 Comets I've built, both with unaltered roof lines. My general feeling is that the AMT looks better straight out of the box. I don't have any unbuilt Comets - either AMT or Moebius - around, so I can't do a better comparison.

Yes, I went to a fair amount of trouble to correct that C-pillar. WIP thread here (unfortunately, the pics don't link any more because I must have re-arranged the Fotki album they were in) : But here's a shot: Worth it? I don't know - it was for me, but judge for yourself. Subtle, I'll admit.

I'll withhold comment on the hood issue until we see the contents, but I'll quote myself from the other thread on this model (maybe the threads should be merged?): "Excellent artwork, but if you'll allow me to get a little nit-picky here, the "K code" engine in a '64 Comet was not the HiPo 289 that people associate with Fairlanes and Mustangs, but rather a more normal 210 HP four barrel 289. Mercury used different code system from Ford, which has lead to a lot of confusion over the years."

I don't use a figure all that often, but when I do I want him to fit. Putting a styrene figure into a model gives me an appreciation for the flexibility of the human form - both of these guys took a lot of effort to get them to fit right.

I looked at a couple of semi-basket case Muntz Jets up in Malibu for a friend of mine back in the 90s I think. One had the Lincoln OHV, the other a flathead. He (probably wisely) passed. I've got photos somewhere I should scan.

See my version here:

Really terrific!!

Excuse my if I'm getting overly "rivet-county" - but if you're building a Ranchero, none of the available chassis are quite accurate in the gas tank area. Regular Falcons had the gas tank stick through a hole in the trunk floor, but the Ranchero's tank is suspended underneath on straps. I haven't seen a Trumpeter Ranchero, so I'm not sure if they addressed this, but I would tend to doubt it.

I dunno - certainty the Comet chassis will work, but I'd still argue that the '67 Mustang has better detail and is more accurate.