Mark

I have picked up items at clearance stores that weren't available in my area otherwise. Like I said, if I had a couple of bucks burning a hole in my pocket, I'd buy one to experiment with. I have a couple of cans of off-brand "Bondo" type filler bought at one of those stores, that I intend to use in making vacuform molds.

The charcoal was made from by-product from Ford's production of station wagon bodies (other car companies subbed them out, as production was low). The grill was a way to get people into dealerships during the Depression when car sales were way down. I don't know if it's true or not, but I have heard that the Kingsford brand of charcoal is somehow related to the ex-Ford Motor Company wood related operations.

The working time could be an advantage in certain situations. If you already have a Bondic pen (which incorporates a small UV lamp) it should work with this stuff too. I've got the Bondic pen, so if I saw this stuff on clearance I'd be inclined to buy some just to tinker with.

The wagon front seat is molded as part of the bucket. And, being a four-door piece, the seat back doesn't have the split down the center. The AMT '66 Nova with the Bill Jenkins drag version does include a bench front seat, as his two '66 Novas were not SS trim.

That's the SS hardtop, it's bucket seat interior wasn't available in the sedan. The door panels might match those of the more high-end sedan, but you’d still need to find a bench seat for the front

I would guess "no" based on how they have handled the Plymouth and Dodge sedans. With those, they came close to stock but did not include showroom stock interior parts (the front seats in those kits are van units, not offered in cars except for the lightweight racing versions).

It's a variation of the MPC Don Garlits Wynnscharger and Carl Casper Young American dragster kits (with a few new parts). Reviews of either of those kits would apply to this one also.

MPC did some seats molded in tire vinyl in the late Sixties. Those seats look like they are from a sports car, maybe one of the Gunze Sangyo High Tech car kits or a later derivative of same. Being molded in vinyl, they cannot be painted with enamel (it won't dry). You'd have to go with an acrylic paint more suitable for vinyl.

Revell did tool a Mustang body, but its proportions were, to put it mildly, unfortunate. The Ed Mc Culloch car had a Duster body but its grille and taillight details were painted to simulate a Dodge Demon. None of the fiberglass funny car body makers ever did an actual Demon body, all of the "Demon" funny cars back then used Duster bodies. Some of the later "Challengers" used Barracuda bodies with Dodge grille and taillight detail airbrushed on. The 'Cuda body probably had better aero than the available Challenger bodies.

Lettering on the kit pieces is upside down, and not correctly spaced.

If you consider yourself to be "into" Tri-Five Chevys, you ought to take a swing at one of the classic Revell kits. The '55 hardtop is probably the "easiest", followed by the '57 hardtop, then the Nomad, with the '56 bringing up the rear. The latter two have often had issues that prevent them from being built. The Nomad bodies often have a nasty dip in the cowl on one side, the roof pillars are often broken, and ones molded in metallic plastic are to be avoided due to the brittleness of said plastic. The '56 is to be avoided beyond the first couple of issues, as the windows in later issues fall through the openings. Hopefully Atlantis will address this with newly tooled clear parts should they reissue the '56. I'm surprised they did not do likewise with the '57 hardtop, the rear glass fit is awful in that one.

If you must have the Jo-Han versions of the funny cars, those prices aren't out of line. But Round 2 also offers Challenger and Mustang funny car kits. The Jo-Han kits replicate the Gene Snow '70 Challenger and Mickey Thompson '71 Mustang (original issues did include decals for those versions, later ones do not for licensing reasons). Both have unique chassis designs that replicated those cars quite well, and aren't really similar to those of other cars. If you want some other Mustang or Challenger, the Round 2 MPC equivalent kits are probably better starting points as the chassis (same one in both kits) is a more common design. The Cadillac is way high (you can probably find one for half that price if you are patient) but that's my opinion, and everyone has one of those.

Brown plastic would make it a first issue Pro Street version from the early Nineties. As for the brittle plastic, it may have been stripped and repainted already prior to your getting it. I've got a couple of car bodies with damage from multiple strip/repaint/strip jobs. One had all of the detail and crisp edges softened into mush, another is so brittle that the most gentle handling makes it crumble.

I'd first look at Goldwood Yellow, which was available on '64 Chevelles. The drag car very likely started life as a stock Chevelle, and it may have retained the stock color after being reworked into the racing version.

Another thing: if you don't use the tub as a tub (shower uses less water, and why would you want to steep in dirty water anyway) take out the mechanical stopper thingy and get a drain screen. Regardless of male pattern baldness having already taken effect, and even if you don't consider yourself to be particularly hirsute, you're gonna be surprised at how fast that screen loads up and slows the flow. And, prior to the screen, all of that was going down the tub drain and mingling with that bar soap runoff. Dumping a huge pot of boiling water down there once in a while will help keep things flowing, without having to mess with chemical drain cleaners. Don't wait until you've got a standing water problem, that just makes it more time consuming to clear up.

2X on the bar soap. I quit using it after the last time I cleaned the buildup out of my tub and surround. It builds up in the drain in the same manner, almost like fiberglass (think of the soap as the resin, and hair standing in for fiberglass matt or cloth).

A lot of people don't like the Testors nylon brushes, but I do. I prefer the ones with equal length bristles, not the angle cut ones. As for brushing enamel, I prefer Humbrol but do use Testors on occasion. I picked up a few of the new Tamiya enamel, but haven't tried those yet. Making sure the paint is thoroughly mixed is half the battle. Settled paint will have too much "carrier" and not enough pigment. The latter issue will prevent proper coverage and probably slow down the drying process.

If you are open to going with something really different, you might consider the AMT double dragster chassis. I'd use the side-by-side dual engine frame, and replace the section where the engines go with simple straight channel stock. This chassis will move the driver back into the trunk area, which will change the car quite a bit. You'd probably leave all of the windows out, and you'd maybe have to actually make the roll cage taller so the driver could see over the engine and hood. But the chassis and front axle look stout enough to be realistic.

One of the things on the kit chassis that I was never crazy about was that crossmember that loops under the engine. It's not needed, and just makes it necessary to raise the whole car up a bit. Really, that big heavy engine is pretty much a structural element in the car, with the chassis being built around it to attach the wheels and driver compartment. Too, the aircraft engine removes the car from competition and puts it into the exhibition category. Still, to turn a tire on an NHRA strip, the driver's compartment needs to be sealed off from the engine, and from the fuel tank(s) and battery (ies). Getting rid of that loop crossmember, lowering the car a bit, and separating the driver's compartment from the engine will go a long way towards making the car look more plausible as a 1:1 piece.

Not too many of those early chassis will have a long enough wheelbase to work with the Thunderbird body. Too, the frame rails probably won't be spread apart enough to fit the engine. The structure of those frames won't have enough beef to support that engine either. Actually, the kit frame isn't too far off from something that would have been used. If you're bent on a different design, I'd look at actual Allison-powered cars from the period, and copy from those.

A lot of the online sellers are trolling for a buyer. They've got the item, they're dangling it out there trying to find one person who has to have it NOW. Putting it out there with a high price doesn't cost much if anything, they can just let it sit there and wait for someone willing to pay their price.

The original Edsel body wasn't completely unchanged. The chassis and interior mounting posts were eliminated, the hood ornament hole was filled, and the recessed areas for the taillight lenses were filled in. Only the body and skirts from the annual kit were included in the funny car kit. No glass, no chrome. Newly tooled parts included the outhouse door front spoiler, a pair of Fifties style mud flaps, two pieces to raise the interior bucket from the chassis, and a "broken" ladder for "driver entry".

I would doubt that the original body still exists. I've got a couple of the funny car bodies (including one unused one), they are pretty rough. The tooling was used for promos, toy store frictions, and kits so it was probably worn out by the time they got to the funny car kit. Had it existed in usable condition during the Ertl era, they probably would have cleaned it up and done a snap kit and/or retro promo with it.

If it does appear, I'd expect it only after the F-85 roadster runs it's course, because both (and the altered wheelbase '65 Malibu) all use the same chassis.

Probably not many of those Camaros with the "liquid tire chain" option originally installed on the car still exist. After all, those who would order such a thing probably drove the car in the slop, rusting it into oblivion!