Can-Con

Very nice !!

I've thought about this before too. My solution would be to find another stock car body and use the rear wheel openings as a basis for the new front ones. The shape is very close between the front and rear so should need minimal bodywork to look right.

Very nice

Another nice save Snake. I think the grille turned out particularly well.

No, he WAS a yam ,, and what a yam !!

I was just looking at my old Aurora/Monogram kit last night. I think I'm gonna build it as a custom and get one of these when it comes out.

I suggest you get some foil adhesive. I haven't used the gold much but I did find that it doesn't stick as well as the regular foil. That said, it's looking great so far.

What a sweet little roadster !! Love everything about it especially that it's built from spare parts. ???

Ray, is that the one with the lights and electric motor that went inside the engine block? My father got me one like that when I turned 7 or 8. As you can imagine, it was wasted on me at the time but I'd kind of like to take another crack at one if I could figure out just exactly which kit it was.

Look'n good Tom. Love the wheels you're using. The Jackman looking wheels look cool too. BTW, this kit never came with a console between the seats, just a shift lever and park brake lever.

Those are not the same wheels as shown on the new boxart. They have a flatter face on the spokes, not concave like a traditional Hurst wheel as shown on the box art..

True. It really needs the headlight area corrected. It was fine before the track car butchering and hasn't been brought back even though they already took a couple trys at it. New tail lights or just casting the tail lights into the rear bumper/grille piece would be a big improvement too.

I built this over 15 years ago. AMT kit with Revell Buttera T suspension grafted on the kit frame with scratch made crossmembers. 302 from a Revell '32. 2 spoke "banjo" steering wheel made from scratch. HOK Bittersweet pearl paint with custom mix Testors beige enamel.

, , And that's what makes building street machines and hot rods fun. everyone had different tastes and ideas on how they want their car.

I copied this from the Q&A section from pontiactripower.com " First, a 455 has the same deck heigth as the 326, 350, 389, 400, 421, and 428. That said, the head is the critical factor. Heads from 61 to 64 have different water passages, a different bolt pattern, and a different angle where they meet the intake than do the 65 and later heads. Therefore, what most people want is the popular 65 or 66 tripower to fit the improved and readily available 65 up heads. A 65 or 66 tripower will bolt directly to the 65 to 71 Pontiac heads. However, starting in 72, Pontiac has an extra exhaust crossover port in one of the heads. The 6X head is a mid-70s head and has this extra port. The 65/66 intake will not cover this port. There is no special intake gasket to accomplish this. The force of the exhaust is too intense for a gasket to stop. Best method is to have a machine shop fill this extra port while you are having the head work done. At least one customer filed this port while the head was on the car, using JB Weldand reports no problems. I am much more comfortable with the first method." So, id dosen't look like all that much work but I agree with Snake and the others, A good 4bbl would be much more common and just be a better choice for a street driven car at the time. The only real reason for a tripower over a well set up 4bbl would be for looks but even then it would look old and "out of fashion" for a car of that vintage.

Dual. And if I showed you a pic of the GMC and Chevy plates, cropped to show just the section between just behind the rear axle and where they grafted the section into the Chevy plate, you'd swear thet were from the same kit. Also. the raised ridges under the bed area are a touch wider on one. [forgot which even though I just looked at them 10 minutes ago ?]

So was the MPC long bed stepside. Both are from the same kit.

Oh, good , now I don't have to take any pics. , , BUT, just what should I do with all those pickup parts all over my workspace now? ?? Yea, it's kind of a mess. They just should have cut a new box for the MPC kit. I'm wondering if it doesn't have something to do with The Dukes of Hazzard? Last time we seen that MPC Chevy, it was "Cooter's tow truck". Maybe they didn't want to mess with a Dukes product and hacked up the AMT GMC instead? Just a wild guess there. I have no more ideas of why they did what they did than the next guy.

The area of the cab I meant is the bottom corner. I didn't look close at the interior. I will tomorrow if I have time. No, the GMC hood dosen't fit well in it's cab but it's a worse fit in the MPC cab. It drops right down into the opening and there's quite a gap all around. I know what I'm saying doesn't really make much sense but , , , I'll have to take some pics for you. I'm having some plumbing troubles right now and I'll have to have a real plumber in tomorrow to snake out a line so I'll see about that after all the home owner drama is worked out. ?

Bill, the reason for the center sump pans differing on the Rivieras is to accommodate the X-frame , possibly to clear the steering center link, I'm not sure right now. By the time that generation engine came out, the only Buick using the x-frame was the Riviera. All other Buicks had conventional perimeter frames and would use the rear sump shown.

Canada didn't get regular Pontiacs in the 50's and '60s because tariffs would have made them too expensive to sell competitively so GM Canada created Acadians and Beaumonts from Novas and Chevelles to fill the small and mid-size niches. That would be a '66 or '67 Acadian Canso. Although,, the car in Howard's pic had Nova tail lights, not Acadian. [hope this pic works.]

Honestly, I'd just use the 430 pan if you want. %99 of people won't know the difference. But if it really bugs you , maybe you could find one from something else that's close and modify that. Easier than modding the 430 pan, probably.

I switched between 350 and 455 on my '73 Centurion and didn't have to change the pan. The 350 was out of a '70 Skylark so whatever the shape is of the one on the Monogram GSX kit should be correct. Rear sump,IIRC [???] I suspect the pan on the Riviera is mid sump to accommodate the shape of the unique Riviera frame which was designed for a nailhead originally.

Nope. That issue of the GMC was out in 1990. The Chevy didn't show up until the end of the '90s or early '00s. I do have the 3 cabs . Aside from the trim, the newer Chevy cab is about identical to the GMC cab, including the mold misalignment at the bottom of the driver's side door back. The MPC is fine there. The hoods don't exactly interchange. The GMC hood fits the AMT Chevy , not so well on the MPC cab. The headliner and sun visor molding is different between the MPC and AMT. with slightly longer, and narrower visors on the AMT. The GMC matches the AMT Chevy here. Not to mention that if they used the MPC as the basis, they wouldn't have had to cut that new '72 grille/bumper for the kit ,,, which is awful compared to the MPC kit, which not only much better rendered, the bumper is also separate from the grille. I'm pretty sure the box is new tooling cut for this truck. [but I don't have an older one for comparison] If you compare it to the cabs, the side contours don't match either cab. It's dished in more just above the character line. I had to do some careful filling to get it to match the contour of the cab side. They SHOULD have used the MPC kit for the reissue. It would have been a lot less work for them and have a better kit. Just thinking about it now, I can't really think of anything they might have used out of the MPC kit on the newer one. But, anyway, Tom Carter has also told me that it was mostly the GMC that got the torch to make the '72 Chevy so there's that. PS, I just cracked open my last unbuilt '72 longbed to do this comparison ?