Mark

Just picked it up...literally a one-hour job. Apparently there was a redesign towards the end of the '97-'04 generation truck, and the shop manual wasn't updated. It's nice to open and close the door without it sounding like someone cracking their knuckles. Now, to get the CD player straightened out, and get some tunes back...

There are actually two of them...the one pictured was built to be part of a between-rounds "funeral procession" along with a few other vehicles. The running one has smaller front wheels, a painted frame (show car has a chromed one), and a 426 Hemi (show car had a Desoto engine with Chrysler rocker covers). The "procession" didn't do wheelstands, smoke the tires, or anything else...just putted down the strip very slowly. Apparently it was done only once or twice.

Just my opinion, but to me it looks like there is a very slight "pie cut" section on the cowl, if not the cab itself. If the top is chopped, it's a minimal amount. The height of the window openings vary about 1/32" between this cab and the AMT '53 Ford. Same goes for the width of the cab through the middle of the doors. From the looks of it, it shouldn't be too tough to slice the roof off of the Foose cab just below the bottom of the side window openings (taking the top of the cowl along with it), do the same to the AMT '53, then piece the two together. The curvature of the hoods in the two kits at the cowl are incredibly close considering these were created over 50 years apart, by different companies, using completely different design methods. Nothing matches exactly of course, but they're close enough to be encouraging...

All that would be needed is the section of tooling that presently has the name engraved into it. For all anyone knows, Revell may have already planned ahead and cut tooling inserts for an alternate (post-Foose licensing) version. Blank tailgate, blank license plate, different wheels, maybe some other different parts, just enough to differentiate it from the current version. Looking at the specs for the 1:1 truck, I didn't see anything about a top chop, but the cowl and hood have been reworked. I'll be sticking the Foose chassis under another truck; plans for the leftover '56 cab include measuring and checking to see if the roof can be made to fit an AMT '53 cab. If it does, then it's just a matter of seeing what can be used from the old Revell '56 pickup kit to bring the rest of the '53 up to '56 spec.

Overhead cam...definitely not an Iron Duke.

How exactly does this one work?

It's a far newer kit, someone more familiar with the 1:1 car can probably find something to pick at, but it looks pretty good to me. Probably the best '67-'68 generation Mustang out there (a '67 Mustang GT was also offered, which shares a lot of parts with the Shelby).

Unless this is a straightforward slot racing track, it's likely nothing else will work. Aurora, Lionel, and others all brought out "slotless slot racing" sets back then, each had their own unique design which locked you into buying only their cars. Even with conventional slot racing, the track without the cars generally isn't worth too much because the vast majority of people collecting the cars don't seem to actually run them...

I'll find out Thursday when I drop it off...

My nephew sells new cars, and I've heard him talk about people taking out 96 month loans. I've never done more than 48 months, and that's only because I had to take 48 to get the zero percent financing that went with it. Eight years for a car? I paid my house off in 13...

Quick update, for anyone who cares... ...yesterday I went to a collision shop near work, one my employer uses and trusts. The guy there looks at it, checks his crash estimating program, and tells me there's no mention of pulling the dashboard...it's a one-hour job. So either my shop manual or his estimating program is wrong. I'll let him do the job...if his info turns out to be wrong and I tear into the job, then I'm seriously jammed up...

The rear wheels look deeper. MPC put shallow/deep wheels in their Pontiac Firebird annual kits, probably '70-'72. Their Dodge Challengers had them too, but I think those were all the same width. None had the axle stubs though. The slicks and tires pictured are probably plastic and not vinyl. The front tires look like those included in several MPC late Sixties/early Seventies annual kits; the Pontiac GTO comes to mind.

I'm still going to have a collision shop guy look at the thing, but I might attack it from another angle. The hinge itself is still "good"; that is, the door still pivots on it without any slop that I can see. It's the complicated little two/three stage check device that has worn through the bushings, causing the thing to sound like it is cracking its knuckles every time I open/close the door. The off-the-rack bubble-pack replacement parts from the auto parts store are junk, extremely cheap/soft metal. I might wind up disassembling the new piece and swapping the door-check parts onto the original hinge. I hate the idea of disassembling a brand new part and not using half of it. I'm just trying to avoid "jiggle the handle" fixes and little annoyances that pile up. Whether intentional or not, those little things piling up do cause a lot of otherwise good vehicles to get junked. The average guy can't fix much of it, the dealer charges too much with the idea of "hey, for XXX per month you can be driving a new one", and so on. I've only owned three go-to-work vehicles since 1979. The first one went over 200,000 (rust finally got it), second one went 180,000 and I saw someone driving it three years after I sold it. This one still runs good, the only things I see killing it are if the (manual) transmission takes a dump (try finding a replacement), or if it doesn't pass emissions at some point. Even that shouldn't happen; the catalytic converters are part of a unit with the Y-pipe, and that had to be replaced two years ago...

The newer stuff is specifically designed so the average person can't work on it. The primary considerations seem to be ease of assembly, and saving time on the assembly line. After a couple of rounds of pins and bushings in one of the door hinges on my Dakota, I figured I'd bite the bullet and put in a new hinge. The OEM piece isn't designed to be serviced (says so in the shop manual), and the pin/bushing sets you buy at the auto parts store are cheap junk anyway. I bought a new "genuine Mopar" hinge without first looking at the shop manual which I have on CD. I figured I might have to take off the front fender to get at the hinge bolts. Nope, you have to take out the dashboard to get at the nuts from the back side! On top of that, the hinge removal instructions in the shop manual refer you to another section for the dashboard removal, and that section got left out of the manual. I'll try a collision shop; someone there has probably done this before, and would know if it can be done without pulling the dashboard out. Someone mentioned pulling the gas tank on a car to service the fuel pump...my Dakota is like that too, and that includes the fuel filter. My '88 Dakota had the filter outside the tank, on the inside of the frame rail. But that one had the throttle-body FI setup which operated at lower pressure, so they could get away with tying the filter in with short lengths of rubber hose and a few hose clamps.

I'm not positive, but I believe Budd Anderson went to IMC first after leaving AMT, then went to MPC after that. The short-lived Automotive Modelers Society ran parts of a Budd Anderson biography in their magazine; unfortunately it was never finished. It was supposed to have been compiled for a book; if so, that didn't appear either.

I wouldn't say "millions" because the kit was first manufactured by IMC, which was never anywhere near as big a company as Revell, AMT, or Monogram. In the Seventies, they were "Hawk/IMC" which was even smaller with few stores carrying their products. Then there was about a twenty-year gap between the last Hawk/IMC kit and the first of the Lindberg reissue kits. A few hundred thousand would be my guess.

Maybe the roadster was chosen to be brought back first. That would be strange, since around here the roadster kit was always available even when the rumors were flying.

Besides the (single-axle) '64 Corvette version, the four-wheel version was used in a couple of racing team kits.

Some people have different hobbies now, like taking pictures of themselves and posting them to Facebook. To a lot of people, the traditional hobbies seem like "work". A lot of people I have worked with over the years don't want to work when they're at work...why would they work at anything else? Around here, we've got three hobby shops. One specializes in R/C. They used to carry model kits (in the Sixties, they even operated a slot racing center) but have evolved and now cater to the niche that works for them. Whenever I drive past that place, they seem to be busy. The last time I was in there, they were extremely busy. Next place opened a few years ago, the (husband and wife) owners are both modelers and IPMS members. They sell online, carry high-end stuff you usually only see at the IPMS shows, are clued in to new developments like the Molotow chrome markers, carry several paint lines (a couple of which aren't available anywhere else within a hundred miles or so), and offer coupons every month. The third is evolving slowly...it took several years of getting their brains bashed in by the craft store chains before finally getting out of crafts, and they are trying to fill the space by handling other things like teachers' supplies and even supplies for tattoo artists. But they don't discount anything, nor do they do coupons. It's no wonder they seem to be struggling while the other two (the R/C guy is a stones' throw away) seem to be doing well.

The '66 annual kit engine is carried over from the earlier Jo-Han American kits. The first American kits with engines were the '63s, then the axle hole in the block was altered and the engine used again in the '64-'66 kits. It's the earlier ('56-'65) engine, not the 199/232/258 series. The automatic transmission with those kit engines is the Borg-Warner unit AMC used through 1971; the Jo-Han piece ought to fit with one of the Pacer engines.

The switch to the Torqueflite was made for '72, though some late '71 fleet cars got them.

For the late Sixties AMC six, the Pacer unit makes a good starting point. The AMT wagon and MPC hatchback are totally different kits, tooled by (then) competing companies. IMO the MPC hatchback engine is the better one. The Javelin would probably have a different air cleaner, fan, and pulleys, and definitely a different automatic transmission.

Comic Sans belongs at lemonade stands and garage sales, and NOWHERE else.

Someone at USPS is extremely proud of the fact that the trucks in their area are all filled to, or near, capacity...

Monogram was later than most companies in bagging parts. I'm thinking they didn't bag them until the late Seventies. I was going to check a '57 Chevy kit that I have, but I can't find it right now.