RancheroSteve

Indeed. Just to clarify - from what I know and believe to be true - there are only a very small number of documented HiPo '64 Comets, available only by special order. The 289 four barrel was a more regular option, as was the four speed. If your friend's car was a Cyclone, it would have automatically came with the 289 4v and the chrome air cleaner top and valve covers. Either way, those parts are easily added.

I've said it before, but just to reiterate, the gold standard for me - mechanical-wise at least - is the AMT '67 Shelby GT-350 and its variants. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/amt-ertl-6633-1967-shelby-gt-350--186589 It has a good, in scale small block with the correct intake and HiPo exhaust manifolds, a decent representation of the unibody and chassis (with separate steering and suspension components). There's no oil filter on the engine, but it's easy enough to add one at the correct angle - something that none of the SBFs with molded in filters get right. And just a bit of trivia for the real purist: as far as it can be determined, no '64 Comet ever came with those HiPo manifolds or a dual exhaust.

Not to mention the exhaust manifolds, either. I've been restraining myself from commenting on the various defects - primarily on the mechanical side - that I can see in the kit. Most are carry-overs from the '65 Comet, of course, so I guess no surprise there. Nowhere near as bad as the Trumpeter Falcons by far, but still a little disappointing. Then again, I realize that I'm probably too close to the subject matter, so it would be easy for me to nitpick. Just don't get me started again on the "k-code" misnomer.

Might be able to help - PM sent.

Oh, realized what you meant by this 1G/2G thing was "early" (392, etc) Hemi vs. later (426) Hemi. Just looked at my HUG kit and it does indeed have the rear mounted distributor like the early Hemi, but overall is fairly blobby, so I can't tell you which Hemi it better represents apart from the distributor/magneto location. In any case, many good scale representations of both generations of Hemis abound. The McEwen car shown in the R&C article looks to have a later Hemi, FWIW. Apart from sourcing a slightly different front axle, it looks like everything else is very close to the McEwen car, at least in the general sense.

PM sent

Not being that much of Hemi expert, I wasn't even aware of this 1G/2G thing, oh well. I suspect if & when I get to it I'll just try get the big, obvious stuff right and build a nice shelf model. On that note, the December 1965 issue of Rod & Custom has several pages on the car, with lots of photos that should be useful for the serious builder.

I will be buying one with exactly that intention. I've already got the HUG kit and the decals. Don't hold your breath!

If you're anything like me, you might have the kit of this car in your stash but haven't got around to building it. Here's some history, reference, and maybe inspiration. Aerotech Reborn: The Stashed-Away 257-MPH GM Prototypes Live to Drive Another Day

Kinda makes one wonder what happened to all those now windshield-less '62 Oldsmobiles, right? Meanwhile, I've got a Jo-Han '62 Olds with a cracked windsheild - maybe I should try the windshield from the Nova.

Apparently some of his parts are now 3D printed, but I believe the carbs are still resin cast in order to get the detail he wants. They really are outstanding and his service is first-rate.

The ASA kits are listed as 1/25 and yes, they have rather nice carbs. Not sure why you're ruling out resin, but Fireball Modelworks has some excellent pieces. https://www.fireballmodels.info/fmr-093.html

Exactly - the dragster is great, but the trailer is especially impressive!

I usually use Photoshop Elements (a stripped down version of Photoshop) when I need to create decals. Not quite free, but you can pick up older versions on disc very cheaply. There's also a program called Krita which is free and works very much like Photoshop - lots of tools for manipulating images. I have it, but I've only used it sparingly.

I'm not Tim (obviously) but from looking at the photos it would appear that most of the mechanical (chassis, engine etc.) parts are identical to the '65. There are a few things I might have liked to see them fix, but such is life.

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.