Snake45

Very nice, clean build. What's not to like? I wish there were a comparable kit in 1/25...I'd have to have one. Well done, Harry, and Model On!

So you're going for a modified, '70s or later look, then?

Wow...those other pictures look like Model Master Italian Red (which is actually more orange than red) might be right in the ballpark.

I didn't realize this before but I just did some google-imaging and you're right--the MPC kit is almost nothing like the rear car, except for the chopped top. Oh well, I think I'll just restore my old MPC builtup OOB anyway. Does Model Master Chevy Engine Red look about right for the body color?

Very interesting! I too have an old built MPC kit that I'd be interested in restoring if I could get good color information for everything--and new decals. (I think the decals are available from somebody.)

I wouldn't waste time with the stretched screw bidness. Just rescribe the lines in using a semi-sharp (i.e., not BRAND-new) #11 blade. If you do it right, this throws up a little ridge on either side of the cut. After paint, it looks pretty convincing. That's what I usually do. Another thing you can do is, AFTER paint, just draw the panel lines back on with a very SHARP pencil. This can also look convincing.

Very nice indeed! I'm amazed at how well the MPC hood fits the Revell body. I've never tried it, just assumed it wouldn't work. Very cool!

No more calls, please, it looks like we have the answer! Gentlemen, thank you so much!

A model airplane friend needs to know. I have no idea, but I'm sure someone here will.

Yeah, but I also commonly see jacked-up "gasser style" cars described as having an "aggressive stance." Apparently, anything that's non-stock is "aggressive." Or maybe, like the word "tactical" in firearms circles, it's such an overused and indefinite cliché that it now has no actual meaning whatsoever.

Yellow can, Heavy Duty.

I've seen that kind of thing. I took it off with Easy-Off oven cleaner.

Will do. I'm planning to take a masking tape "pattern" off one of the other roofs mentioned above, then lay that on the PL roof. What's left over on the front edge will be the area that needs to be trimmed back.

I'm thinking of rolling with that high stance. One possibility I have in mind for this kit is a late '60s-early '70s New York street racer, the kind of thing you'd seen in one of Joe Oldham's old articles on the NY street racing scene. Oh, and BTW, what exactly is an "aggressive stance"?

Interior's almost certainly different. Check the Modelhaus website, see what they have listed for '69 Road Runner (repros of JoHan parts), and buy all that. OR you could haunt eBay for a JoHan '69 RR. JoHan is of course TU so all their stuff is rising in price, but the kit's not THAT rare, and the body is better shaped than AMT's. A restorable glue bomb should also be quite affordable.

Guess Who, No Sugar?

Indeed. I don't hear it often on the classic rock station, but when I do, I CRANK IT! Stay rockin', my friends!

I think maybe the roof might be contributing to the look you're talking about. See my comment above. I think if that C-pillar gets slimmed down, the whole car might look notably better.

Very sharp build!

About two or three moderate flips should do it. Go nuts and you will have silver paint all over the inside of the cap--and soon, the outside, your hands, your workbench, your floor, etc.

I bought one today with a 40% off coupon at Hobby Lobby, just to see what all the to-do is about. At this point, have only had a quick look at the body, no details yet. First impression on opening the box was that it must be 1/24, but comparing it with an original AMT annual showed them to be virtually identical in length, and front and rear width. My body is NOT "bent like a banana." The lower body edge, and the lower body character lines, are dead straight. There is a very slight rise and then fall to the lines of the upper fenders and doors, front to back. It's not eye-jarring obvious (to me, anyway), but it's there, and it's not on the AMT body. Just spent a few minutes google-imaging real ones. I think maybe there should be a slight drop or taper to the rear fenders, from the "hump" back, but it looks like the front fenders and doors should be more or less straight. It MIGHT be possible to straighten this line out a bit with some careful filing/sanding, but if it's not, I'm not gonna sweat it. I've seen many, many popular models built with more obviously wrong body lines than this one, and some of them are sitting on my own shelves. One body problem I DID notice right away, though, is that the roof C-pillars are too broad/wide/thick, front to back. It looks like the leading edge of the C-pillars is too far forward, and maybe a degree or two too vertical. Very apparent when comparing with the AMT body. I want to compare it to some more '64-'65 A bodies, including the AMT '64 Cutlass, AMT '65 GTO, and AMT and Revell '65 Chevelles. But if that's a problem, it should be easy to file that line back to where it should be. Overall, the AMT annual body is more crisply molded and appears more accurate. BUT the Polar Lights body isn't as bad as I've read here and elsewhere, and I think I fine model can be built from this kit. AMT body is better but I don't think it's THAT much better to justify paying collector price for one, unless you are a REAL '64 GTO fanatic.

I do exactly the same thing! The newer one is, the less of this is necessary, though. You can also shake them like a thermometer to get the paint to the tip. Not TOO much, though, or you'll have a mess!

Agree. SF is a great "neighbor" as long as you keep the payments coming and never make a claim. Make a claim, and they'll pay it, then boot you, and make it hard for you to get insurance anywhere else. BTDT. I've been with Erie for car insurance for more than a decade now. Great rates, great service, no hassles, even after a claim. I'd recommend them to anyone. I'd MUCH rather have that than several million dollars' worth of semi-amusing cartoon lizard commercials, etc.

It looks good to me, too. I don't think you took as much out of it as the one in your OP. Whatever, the proportions look pretty darn good.

Taking the bait, I googled 1, 2, and 5. Would have never got them. Only moderately familiar with one of the songs, even less so with another, and I don't think I know the third one at all.