RancheroSteve

I don't mind "contrarian" so much, but maybe I'd prefer "truth speaker" - calm down, I'm just joking! I was looking through my '64 Falcon shop manual today - mostly to refresh my memory, but it made me aware of another round of things that I don't think are right (is that better than "wrong"?) with this kit.

This is the second one I've done, pretty much built concurrently with the first, but with a few small differences and improvements. I tried to match the color of the Deora in the Hot Wheels double set, because Mike A himself told me that was the color he thought was most correct.

There's nothing terrible about the Beatnik Bandit kit, if you ask me. Like most of the Revell kits of that era, it has a lot of tiny parts and can be tough to put together (near impossible for kids). The detail and realism are impressive even by today's standards and they build up real nice.

Seconded.

Wow, I'll say! I just followed the link over to his site (http://www.hobidas.com/blog/j-tipo/desktop/) - he's got some amazing stuff. All his builds are top-notch. He's got some shots of the AMT '64 Falcon if you poke around. Not to beat that dead horse, but the comparison is, to my eyes, illuminating.

Very cool, Mike! Keep us posted on your progress. I'm planning to start a couple of Chaparrals soon myself. I have an excellent book called "Chaparral" (naturally) by Richard Falconer and Doug Nye that's a great source of reference.

Gotta say I like where you're taking this build, Gregg - and I'll second what Mark said about the possibilities this kit looking better when built modified. For the record, I've owned both a '63 Ranchero and a '65 Comet, so I've tried to keep my comments and criticisms mostly in the realm of the mechanical parts of this kit because I feel like that's where my experience (notice I'm not going to say "expertise") is most applicable and potentially of value to my fellow modellers. Other folks (Dave Darby for example) who have owned '64 Falcons and have the knowledge and vocabulary to talk about such matters have done thorough critiques of the body issues, so I haven't felt the need to add my voice there. Thanks for posting that comparison shot above - I think it lets people use their own eyes to see what's right or wrong with the kit body. One of the things that catches my eye that I don't think I've seen mentioned is the front portion of the side trim (where it comes to a point) - if that's something that bugs you, it won't be an easy fix. In general I'm done with any more bashing on this kit - I think at this point most people have had their say and we can all make our decisions about whether this kit is worth buying or not for ourselves. I do think the discussion on this board has been healthy - I'm mean, we're here to talk about model cars, right? and to me that entails an honest discussion of the pros and cons of any kit. So when the Ranchero comes out we can start this all up again;)

Without offending anyone, let me say that I find your sense of humor refreshing. But seriously, it might not be a bad thing for your son to gain an appreciation of how things were done in the "good old days" and how the hobby has changed.

That may not be a steal, but that's actually a decent and reasonable price for that kit.

Glad Indycals had what you needed. I forgot to mention that I got two sets from my source, the L&M and the Brumos, which was perfect for me because I have two 917s.

I'm not a Nova expert, but I think I'd have been happy with the Falcon if it was of equal quality to the Nova hardtop. Instead it seems like a step or two backward.

That's the part I find most unfortunate, in a way. I have no way of knowing if anyone from Trumpeter reads or cares about any of what's said here, but I have to feel like they're missing a golden opportunity here to get feedback on their products from potential consumers. So while it might be too late for the '64 Falcon coupe and convertible, is it too late for the Ranchero? Or is it too late for whatever automotive subject Trumpeter might turn their attentions to next? After all the debate over the Nova and Bonneville, would it have been too much to expect Trumpeter to see the light?

I don't want to make a call on that based on the photos alone, but if the intake is any indication, the proportions of the engine will be off. The 289 is one of the narrowest V8s around and the intake distinctively reflects that. I'm also now noticing that the kit's oil pan does a poor job of representing the real thing - it should be much more rounded off.

"I'll say. Gotta love this intake. Only feeds the two cylinders, on the passenger side... What happened???" Thanks for pointing that out, Dave. That's one of the parts that caught my eye as being very poorly done - looks like it was sculpted by someone who's never even seen a photo of an intake manifold. In addition, the width looks way off to me. When people say they can use this kit for parts I have to wonder just which ones they're referring to. You don't have to take my word for it - do an image search for "Ford 289 2 barrel manifold" to see what a real one looks like. It keeps bringing me back to the AMT '67 Mustang GT-350 (which was done how many years ago?) as a great example of what this engine, unibody and running gear should look like.

Nice! I have one of those that I picked up cheap at a show. Not a scale I build often, but it looks like a well done kit.

Nice to see that we can have rational discussion of the relative merits of a kit over here.

Here's what The Snake Barracuda looks like built: The body of this one came from a trashed kit I had built as a kid and the chassis from the "Cop Out" Duster kit. I picked up the aftermarket decals at a show. Looking closely I see that windows are tinted blue. The Snake kit had a blower hat, the Mongoose kit had the injectors, I believe.

Jim, the vendor goes by "storensell" on Ebay. Doesn't look like he's got any 917 decals up right now, but it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Jim, I've also got a couple of those 917s and the Auto Union kit, unbuilt as yet, but they do look like they'll go together well. I was able to find some very affordable repro decals on Ebay just a couple of months ago.

Thanks for posting the detailed photos. The packaging does look excellent, but the more I see of the contents, the more confirmed I become of my opinion of this kit.

If part of this kit was good - either the body or the chassis, I might still buy it, but I see huge deficiencies in both areas. I'm not good enough to fix those body problems and the chassis is inaccurate in so many ways that it isn't really worth much to me either.

We all vote with our wallets. Like most of us, I don't need more kits, but I bought one each of the midgets after hearing what a well done kit it was. Yes, I like the subject matter, but I wouldn't spend my money if it was badly done. In the case of the Falcon (and the coming Ranchero) I REALLY like the subject and would find the money to buy one of each if they were good. Perhaps my familiarity with the real cars makes me more demanding and critical, but I don't think unreasonably so.

I'd be feeling more positive if I knew these were test shots and that (like Moebius) they were going to listen to the criticisms and make corrections, but this is the finished version, right? I'd love to see the Falcon modeled, but this is just a disappointment. I have no reason to plunk down $40 for something of this quality when I have more than enough kits to keep me busy.

Made my reservations today. I'll be there!

Really nice work, Jon. I especially like how you replicated the add-on oil cooler. I've only seen one decent picture of it on the real car, but it's a must for building an accurate 2D as raced at Daytona. I've been getting an urge to start on mine.