RancheroSteve

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.

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.