Mark

There is one...it just happens to be open for the picture...

No, that's the same width. That cheater slick was tooled in only that one size. There is a styrene version of it too, same size. I have a pair of those, but don't know which kit had that version.

I'm reasonably sure the Continental tire is from an IMC VW Beetle. The M/T cheater slick was in a few MPC annual kits between 1974 and about 1976, also the silver '67 Charger street machine version. The Dunlop tire is IMC also, pretty sure their issue of the Cougar II has them.

Agreed...reliability isn't in question, only manufacturers' efforts to make perfectly good, still serviceable products obsolete by not providing support or parts, and trying to prevent others from doing so.

I don't think the scale difference amounts to much in any event. Has anyone measured the trailer? I'm wary when it comes to diecast, as many of them are smaller than advertised in order to fit a specific package, which takes up only so much space on a store shelf...

The Rambler is 1/24 scale also. Jo-Han called the AMC items 1/25 on the kit boxes, but 1/24 on the promo specific boxes (not to be confused with the generic "toy store friction car" boxes). AMC would have had more "say" over the promos, also every Jo-Han AMC item I ever put a ruler to measured out to 1/24 scale in critical areas like wheelbase and overall width.

The Shifty Seven is the last issue with all of those neat Stylizing parts, including those Edsel taillights. Next up was the original Flashback issue, which eliminated those parts but added drag version parts, including a set of injectors that aren't correct for the Y-block engine. (The paired tubes need to be "clocked" 90 degrees.) The Round 2 redux Flashback issue has some of the Stylizing items back (vertical quad headlamp pods) but not the Edsel taillight pieces. The injector tubes for the drag version are in the space on the parts tree where the taillight bezels used to be.

The top doesn't look too different from a stock one (to my eyes, anyway) other than the sides being more closed in. The back looks like it leans forward a bit also. So some degree of alteration will be needed with whatever you start with. If you are working with a Revell '32 highboy (or Rat Roaster) body, you might try the ex-Monogram "on the small side of 1/24 scale" roadster kit's top. This is the ex-Little Deuce, with the fenders and chassis molded as a unit. It isn't very much bigger than other '32 Ford kits known to be 1/25 scale. I haven't got one of the more recent reissues of that kit, but I am led to believe that some of them do not include the raised top. Based on that, I wouldn't buy any issue of that kit unless it is specifically shown on the box. If you are working with an AMT roadster, the very first issue (only) had a raised top. No other issues I am aware of had it. Seeing as how you will have to modify it anyway, you might try a Model A roadster top. One of those ought to be easier to find.

Used to be too, the average guy could do a fair amount of maintenance and repairs on a car. You really want to see that today, when a lot of people can't even fix a sandwich?

I won't mention brands, but my current driver is sneaking up on 55,000 miles. I had the rear brakes done last fall...pads, rotors. Other than that, and oil changes...nothing. My two previous vehicles (both from the same manufacturer, but not the same as the car I have now) on the other hand, had the brakes done on all four wheels, twice, by the time they got to 55,000. If anything, the current vehicle gets more stop-and-go driving than the previous two. It would appear that some manufacturers are better than others when it comes to customer satisfaction and getting their products to last beyond the warranty period.

It's heading towards a per month (maybe per mile) cost...vehicle, maintenance...only separate items will be insurance and fuel...maybe they'll figure out how to fold those in too. How much car do you want, how much are you willing to pay? Everyone is trying to sink their hooks in with "automatic, per month" charges. I ran my car through the car wash the other day, to knock the road salt off...they were pushing unlimited car washes for $20 per month.

Newer cars aren't designed to be taken apart, they are designed to be assembled as quickly as possible (fewer labor hours). They simply don't care how long it takes to get at something. Once it's out of the assembly plant, no longer their problem.

I have always thought that, if you can't afford a particular car new, you probably can't afford it used either. A high-end car (any car, for that matter) with 50,000 miles on it is just 50,000 miles nearer to needing something major taken care of. I have bought all of my daily driver vehicles new (four of them between 1979 and 2017), and have leaned towards mid-price vehicles, avoiding radically new technology. The gap in quality and longevity between lower and higher priced vehicles is probably narrower than ever right now.

It might not even be parts. The president of General Motors has already stated that you may own the car, but they own the software needed to operate it. Right now I'm wearing a three year old Fitbit that no longer connects with my phone or computer. They chose to make it obsolete by not supporting the software. It still gives the time and counts my steps, but that's it. I can see that happening with appliances and cars just as easily.

Yeah, the '66 Thunderbirds are pretty much the same, except the top/tonneau. I have an unbuilt annual convertible but not a hardtop (might have a box lid for one though). I haven't compared them but I'm pretty sure both had the same optional parts. The SMP/AMT pre-'63 Corvettes are the same deal. Same kit except for the hardtop. The '59-'62 hardtops were one piece, molded in clear. The '62 hardtop included only a custom fastback roof. When you built the "hardtop" kit stock, you had a convertible! The hardtop in the recent reissue '62 Corvette kit was added for the first reissue.

The '66 Thunderbird hardtop annual kit was just the convertible with a separate, glue-on roof. AMT did tool a promo body with the roof attached, but never issued it as anything except a Craftsman kit. Likewise, yes they did all three Mustangs, but if I were running the show back then, there would have been a coupe kit with the roof molded in, as opposed to the convertible with separate coupe roof. The Mustang was popular enough back then to support kits of all three.

The reissue '66 Thunderbird kits are all the hardtop. I'd guess that the tooling insert for the roof fit in the same space as that tonneau piece. Gotta wonder why, in '66, AMT did two Thunderbird kits. I'd have done all three Mustangs instead.

Chevy in Ford started (of course) in the mid-Fifties, with the Chevy replacing a flathead V8. -Chevy has the distributor at the back, fits nicely in the notch in the firewall that was needed for the flathead's fuel pump. -Chevy has the oil pan sump at the rear, same as the flathead. -Chevy has the starter on the passenger side. No worries about it being in the way of the steering box. '55 and '56 blocks didn't have an oil filter pad on the block, which was on the driver's side. Even when it was added for '57, it wasn't in the way. Other early V8 engines like the Buick (the previously favored overhead valve V8) had to have the starter moved over. The transmission adapter took care of that, but the Chevy was simpler yet. For a lot of builders, it just made sense.

And each of those engines had multiple water pumps and sets of pulleys, and radiators with outlets and inlets to match up with the water pump. Meanwhile, a small-block Chevy had, for many years, a choice between two water pumps, "short" and "long".

I would scratch the step bumper. A lot of those were fabricated locally, with each fabricator making them a bit different from one another. The cap wouldn't be too tough to scratch up either...break it down into shapes, and start looking for materials. The glass in those was all flat, making that part easy. Adapting an existing piece (not that I'd know where to find one) wouldn't look as correct as one made specifically for this project.

AMT and MPC both sold '69 Chevy pickup kits in 1969. AMT actually created both, as their '67 somehow went to MPC to become their '68-'72. AMT tooled another one for '69. Theirs had a big-block engine while the MPC pickup had a small-block. Both were long wheelbase Fleetsides. The current '72 kit has some parts of both of the old annuals, plus some new parts.

Not my father's Oldsmobile, but my mom's...without the T-roofs, but with a set of Appliance Wire Mag wheels. On the pokey side (had a 260; Mom thought the 350 would burn a lot more gas) but it had a nice ride.

Those parts are from a pro stock version MPC marketed in '72. Some of those parts stayed in the '73 annual kit, and in the subsequent reissues. MPC mocked up the Boss 429 on the 428 block that was already in the kit.

Should have waited for the non-007 version, which is molded in white. Same parts except lettered tires in place of the whitewalls in the 007 kit. I found the "new" version at Hobby Lobby (first place I saw it), bought one mainly because of the new stock wheels. It looks better than I thought it would. I'll drop in a 351 Cleveland (mix of parts from an AMT NASCAR kit, this kit, and an AMT Mustang), conjure up a few other parts, and live with the kit's exhaust system.

The Jo-Han '63 annual kits included a rubber band, not sure about the reissue Plymouth hardtop though.