RancheroSteve

Thanks for the tips, guys. Just picked some up today at my LHS. I'm going to try using it as a base for vacu-forming a windshield.

True, I joined long ago and I was occasionally lurking here, but lacked the motivation and willpower to learn a different board format until recently - 'nuff said.

Just my two cents: it's the internet - there's always going to be a certain amount of drama and you can take as seriously or non seriously as you like. I will say that because of the format here, it's generally easier to avoid the drama, if that's your intention. I've only been on here the better part of the last two weeks, but mostly what I've been seeing is people showing their models and talking about them. That's the reason I'm here.

This sign?

Here's a full detail one I did a few years back. Just as it came in the box except for a little BMF on the sides.

In fact what he was doing was removing the side cover to show off some more of the engine and he admitted to being somewhat nervous. I guess it turns out that he didn't have too much to worry about - I think he won everything that he was up for. I have to say that I was struck by how humble Randy, John Teresi and all the other winners at GSL were.

Got mine edited & uploaded: http://public.fotki.com/Roullier/other_peoples_model_cars/gsl-xxiii/ I didn't get shots of everything (it was pretty overwhelming), but made several passes around the room and tried to get shots of what caught my eye. Below: Randy Derr does model building as a spectator sport.

Big F1 and road racing fan here. Nice build!

That's right, there are two versions: The Quickbuilder (slammer, basically) and the Full Detail (with engine, interior and chassis). Same with AlumaCoupe.

Randy did have the book there as well. It made me appreciate what went into that extraordinary model even more. Seemed that John Teresi had at least a dozen models in the show, each one of them was incredible! The overall quality of models this year was really, really high, just too much good stuff to name. Everyone seemed to be having a great time - it was wonderful to see old faces and meet some new people. I just got back and I'm about to crash out - I think I've been running on adrenaline for the past few days. I'll have photos up in a day or so.

"the Sprint engine with dual four-barrel carbs, finned valve covers" etc, etc. Misinformation abounds - ahh, the internet!

Thanks for posting those pics, Dave. Finally, a few parts that look pretty good - the shock towers are almost spot on and the brace, upper shock mounts and generator bracket look really good (see, I can say something nice about this kit).

Very well done! Nice subtle touch on the weathering. I've got one of those I need to build one day.

Here's one from the '63 Falcon manual - '64 would be only very slightly different.

The differences between a Falcon and a first generation Mustang floorpan are primarily just a matter of dimensions.

I totally agree with that Darin! This is 2011. To me it just shows a lack of respect for their potential consumers. I don't expect perfection, but for $40-50, I want something I'd at least be willing to work with. As I've said before, this isn't it.

Wow, lots of new posts on this topic this morning! I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, so I will: that's a great underbody shot, but it's far from stock - looks like a unibody that's being prepped for a street machine or pro touring car. Right off I see: 1. Front crossmember for a Mustang II type suspension. 2. Sub-frame connectors tying the front and rear halves of the unibody together. 3. Non-stock trans mount. What it does show pretty well are the torque boxes - those plates just behind the front wheel wells - that the six cylinder cars don't have.

It's scratchbuilt. The tonneau is only in the very first issue of the Deora, but that one's not even really correct - the insert is much too wide.

Actually the radiator is the wrong shape, so it won't even hold the correct scale volume of water, haha. But this is Gregg's thread so I really don't want to get into all that . . .

Hurry up and finish Greg, so we can have something else to talk about!

That's what I'm talking about! Nice build, Phil.

Well, yes and no. I do think "100" is an over exaggeration and the kind of comment that's likely to get one in trouble, and why I like to stick to specifics, so the flaws that I enumerated above were limited to what I could see in the underbody photos Drew posted. I've seen flaws in other photos that I didn't mention those in post above, but until such time as I'm actually able to examine this kit in person and take detailed photos, I won't commit to saying, "this is the final list of what looks wrong to me." As I said before, I've been concentrating on the mechanicals and haven't been mentioning the body much - more qualified folks than me (Dave Darby, months ago) have taken on the specifics of what they see as being wrong with the body shape, and for what it's worth, I agree with his assessment. And I wouldn't say it's "unworkable", just a disappointment, given my affection for and knowledge of the subject and not anything that calls out for my kit dollars.

I'm the first to say (about this or any kit), "If you like it, build it, and build it your way!"

Thanks for that illustration Drew - that's an excellent graphic of what we've been talking about. But just from looking at that underbody shot, a few more things stand out to me (most of which have been pointed out by others here): 1. Steering linkage is incorrect. 2. No torque boxes on the unibody. 3. The oil pan is much too squared off. 4. The bellhousing, transmission and mount are all poor or incorrect representations. 5. The rear wheel tubs continue to bother me. If this kit is being marketed as "Stock Plus", why not include both stock and widened versions? I know, I know - picky, picky. While I don't consider myself a "rivet counter" at all and I don't think I've ever built a kit factory stock, I've spent a lot of time looking at this stuff and the errors really jump out at me - I guess to the extent that I don't think I could actually enjoy building this kit. When I have a little more time I'll try to post some scans and photos to illustrate some of this better, so you don't just have to take my word for it.

Sure the base Falcon was a pretty basic econo car, but by late '63 with the introduction of the V8 and the Sprint option, it became a bit more than that. In addition, I've seen a lot of folks go gaga over first generation Mustangs without even knowing what they are: re-skinned Falcons. Maybe we Falcon and Ranchero owners get a little defensive hearing such talk, but I can take it - I'm not offended by your opinion and support your right to it.