CapSat 6

The MPC Chevette annuals had a canopy that you could probably add to to make a tent. Looks like it came with some other things you might find useful, too...

I gotta say- the artwork for this Daytona is spectacular. That’s a beautiful, dynamic rendering. If they ever sell a print of this, I will have to get one. The first Daytona I ever saw up close was at an indoor car show in Philly (I’m not sure if it was an ISCA show, or???). There were lots of custom cars there. One guy had a Daytona- orange with the black stripe and wing, just like the car on the stamp/ tin art. His was mostly stock, with 80’s Cragar wheels on it ?. That car still really made an impression on me.

The Hatboro PA store on Blair Mill Road had several Gremilns as of yesterday. They seemed to be running low on the Hurst Olds, but had everything else.

Like said above, the MPC '68 & '69 Coronet Hardtops and the '70 Challenger had the trailer. The Annual MPC Chargers never came with the trailer. I think the '70 Challenger was the last kit to come with the trailer. I think the axle for it migrated to the MPC '71 Cuda (to be used as a straight axle). I don't think the MPC trailer ever came with dedicated tires and wheels for it. I think the builder always had to use either spare mags or spare stock wheels (whichever was left over from their car build) to complete the trailer. I think that also meant that the builder had to either use slicks to complete the trailer, or put the slicks on their car and use stock tires to complete the trailer. ? From what I have seen, the MPC Trailer looked more squared off, more modern, and to me, more prototypically like a late 60's U-Haul trailer than the AMT trailer did. The MPC trailer would be great for Round 2 to find. I think the decals in the Coronet kits (at least the '68's) had decals for the trailer that looked like U Haul logos, but said "U-Haul-It" instead.

I went to my local Ollie's on Tuesday, they only had a few Lindberg military kits, leftovers from last time. I went again on Thursday. They had what has been shown in the thread so far: '69 Hurst Olds, '69 GTX, '69 Chevelle convertible, '69 Charger Daytona, Chrysler 300, Gremlin, '97 Mustang, new Camaro, Scirocco, the Pumper, Diamond Reo, '57 Ford, '72 GTO, '49 Mercury, a Peterbuilt, etc. I think this is exactly the same stuff they got the last time around several months ago. I'm hoping they get some new stuff from Revell. A few years ago, they got some nice stuff in and I regret not having picked up more then. One guy had one of those Wacky Willy's in his hands at checkout And- it begins. I have seen a flood of some of these kits on eBay, some with the price tags still on and the prices blacked out, or others with pieces of the price tags. A few sellers start them at $10 each, but most are listing them at $20-$30 each. These seem to sit around if they're overpriced. The GTX and Hurst Olds are excellent parts cars. The GTX comes with both a nice stock Hemi and 440 with 4 barrel and 6 barrel intakes. While the body is a little wonky, the chassis makes an excellent upgrade for almost any '68-'70 B Body kit. The Hurst Olds comes with an excellent chassis you can throw under almost any '68-'72 GM A-Body, and pad printed Goodyear Polyglas GT Tires.

It’s a pretty nice kit to start with. I have a few, but I was actually hoping for a “Coke” release like they did with the Ford Van, with Coke decals and a Coke machine. I have nothing against Turtle Wax, it’s just not an inspiring brand to me.

I hope my personal experience with these cars helps. The 2.6 engine was an entirely different engine- built by Mitsubishi. I know that with ours, the carb was junk, even after just a few years, and the engine was said to have other problems. Our ‘82 ran terribly at 50,000 miles. I really hated that car. The 2.2/ 2.5 were developed by Chrysler. I think the 2.5 was balance shaft engine only, which helps with 4 cylinders, as they are not inherently balanced. People still make the 2.2’s work, but I think the 2.5 is a relatively easy engine to live with. I distinctly remember the 2.5 felt much more powerful than the 2.6...it started and ran without any problem, was very derivable, and was much faster. That car would cruise at 75 mph all day. The Speedo only went to 85 (like most cars did back then, speed limits were pretty much 55 mph across the U.S. in the 1980’s, and 80 mph would get you a fat ticket almost everywhere back then), but you could pretty much get it to 80 and keep it there. The 2.6 was terrible. I also remember the ‘86 had much better road feel. I think at some point between ‘82 and ‘86, they changed power steering pumps on those cars. The ‘82 felt like a ‘70’s car, way over-assisted, while the ‘86 felt much more modern. I think the 2.2/2.5 eventually became the Neon engine. I’m not an expert on these engines, but I can attest to how they drove back in the day, and that they’re fairly easy to work on. A good friend of mine bought a brand new 1992 Dodge Daytona. He test drove two of them: a V6 and a 2.5. He bought the 2.5 because in his mind, they performed about the same and the expense and weight of the V6 (I think built by Mitsubishi) could not be justified. I drove it once or twice, and it reminded me a lot of our ‘86 600 with the 2.5. The Daytona looked very similar to the ‘600 under the hood, and both cars even used the same steel wheels. His Daytona was a dependable driver that we tried to get stuck in snow, but couldn’t ;). He stopped driving it for about a year as he used his work truck all the time. After a year of sitting, he started driving it again and then the transmission gave out. It only had about 40,000 miles on it then. If you find one that has been sitting, or hasn’t been driven much, change the Auto trans fluid and filter before you drive it. DON’T have the ATF pumped out, do it old school and just drain it. Every car I have had ATF pumped out of have dropped their transmissions soon after, so I will NEVER have a shop pump a transmission again. Coincidence? I think not...

Regarding models, I think there might be 1/43 pre builts of the earlier ones available. If you wanted to do something in 1/24 or 1/25, the MPC or Monogram Dodge Daytonas more or less had the same engine (although turbocharged) and chassis, but you would be on your own as far as a body and interior go.

I would say go with your passion then.! I think the fuel injected 2.5 cars were the best...I think the 2.5 engine had balance shafts while the 2.2 did not...they were based on the same design (some parts interchanged between the 2.2 and the 2.5) but the balance shafts made the 2.5 more smooth, which ultimately might have helped durability, too. The F.I. 2.5 had decent power for the time, even without a turbo. Save up, plan like a supervillain. Get a good one. My mistake was that I would settle for the first car I found as soon as I had some cash, so I usually had to deal with nightmare rust and mechanical problems. Not being patient with your search will only lead you to heartbreak. Allpar.com should have some good info on these cars. You can do some research there. The merits of these cars were: 1) easy to work on, 2) handled VERY well in bad weather (Philadelphia sometimes got a lot of snow and ice- and we lived in a hilly part of town. Those cars NEVER got stuck in bad weather unless there was an unplowed foot or more of snow!), 3) the 2.5 proved to be very dependable, it never once let us down. 4) these were very roomy cars for their size. I have heard some bad things about the transmissions in these cars. One that has been sitting for awhile might give you some trouble in that regard.

Sorry to hear that you have to let Shiela go. I had a car in college that I loved, that I had to give up, and that 30 years later, I still think about. Save some dough, BE PATIENT, fine a NICE one, and do it again if you like. These cars are out there, some in really nice shape for as old as they are, and aren’t very expensive, but remember that for every extra dollar you spend on a nice one, that’s like saving two down the line. My family had two of these new. We had an ‘84 400 sedan and an ‘86 600 coupe. Stay away from the pre-fuel injection cars, as the carburetors were tough to live with. Our ‘84 had the Mitsubishi built 2.6, and it had a lot of driveability problems starting at 50,000 miles. Our ‘86 had the 2.5 engine, which was fuel injected (so it ran MUCH better for us than the 2.6, and was a much better performer overall) and while almost everything else on that car aged poorly (door handles, door hinges- which were welded and therefore unrepairable, even the buttons on the radio went bad), the engine never gave us any trouble at all in about 80,000 miles of regular use. We sold it to a family friend who was also fairly rough on it, and she drove it everywhere about another 40,000 miles before it gave up the ghost. The 90’s Mopars (Shadow/Sundance/Duster/Spirit/Le Baron/Acclaim) might be worth a look...I’m not sure these are any more expensive than the ‘80’s K cars, but I think they were much improved over the ‘80’s cars.

It’s gonna be a problem bring some of these back. Off the top of my head, here are some that I think the tooling has been altered beyond their original early ‘80’s forms: 3rd gen Camaro (this was updated annually through 1992). It would be a great one to bring back, but it would ultimately come back as a ‘92, and would no longer fit the design theme you’re going for. 6th Gen Mustang (updated to about 1988). Recently rereleased. Same as above re: the theme. 3rd Gen Firebird (updated to about 1992, but the Knight Rider version was recently rereleased, so perhaps there is more than one tool for these Firebirds?). Those are tricky, because they were Sooooo ‘80’s. It would be tough to do a series like this without some of them. I think there are excellent candidates based on the general interest there is in these cars and trucks, they would be good sellers with their original 80’s graphics: Toyota Celica Gen 2 / 1981 Camaro Ford Bronco Ford Van (although some digging / reconfiguring would be needed for some of the custom parts and/or 2wd/4wd variants). Funny Cars (Corvette, Firebird, Omni). Any Jeep CJ kits. I think the muscle cars would be best done with the retro treatment that most of the other muscle cars have already been getting. Some good examples of this are the ‘73 Mustang, ‘78 Dodge Pickup, and the ‘74 “GTX” Road Runner. They seem to be very popular sellers, and a TON of value was added with the new boxes, decals, and the corrected parts. The MPC ‘72 Chevelle, ‘74 Charger, ‘67 Corvette and ‘74 Cuda as examples could REALLY benefit from the same treatment (stock parts, ‘70’s retro boxes and stock graphics), but that does not mean that they would have to leave out the parts that were added in the ‘80’s. The ‘72 GTO was recently rereleased several times and still comes with everything, including the decals, needed for it’s 80’s form. For these cars, an ‘80’s side panel on the box could call the ‘80’s building versions and parts out, and optional dark tinted windows would be a plus. The Mako Shark, Hemi Hunter, and Pro Stock/ Gasser kits could also be done with appropriate ‘60’s or early ‘70’s retro boxes, but could still include an “80’s idea pack”- decals, instructions and a color printed card showing their ‘80’s alter egos.

I have noticed that some older Jo Han kits are like that. I have gotten a few as built ups. I don’t have a lot of these as they are always pricy. I do take some apart to restore, but it seems that the ‘70 Road Runner that I once had (I sold that one off) and a ‘64 Plymouth Sport Fury (molded in red, with the side trim and stock interior pieces) were very, very brittle. The old AMT and MPC builts I have from the same era do not seem to have this problem.

This one was one of my favorite from the era. It was perhaps earlier than the era Stef is touching on, but I always liked the side pipes and t tops on an older muscle car. I’m actually going to try to recreate it.

And while I’m kvetching about tinted glass (I’m done after this, promise! ?), I’m pretty sure some of the old General Lees I bought way back when came with tinted glass, too. Now that I think about it, that would be suitable for an 80’s Street Machine. My dream cars back then were always painted metallic blue or screaming zonkers yellow. Tinted windows would probably fit the look, along with Centerline wheels, traction bars, and random multicolored stripes. I know I built a few like that back then.

Haha! I remember the tinted glass being a crapshoot. Some of the same kits came with it, others didn’t. I tried building the ‘74 Road Runner- known then as the “ ‘74 GTX”- as a stock-ish car. That was tough because there was no source for the stock stripes in the early 80’s, and the one I had had tinted glass. I think I still have that build somewhere. I’m pretty sure I got a TJ Hooker Cop Car with tinted glass one time! I do have some tinted glass from some of these kits squirreled away for possible future use, like for whenever I want to build some kind of dementedly customized Limo-Cop-Rod. ? I think maybe the new box art for the ‘79 Firebird they did recently might trip your trigger. That one had a neat retro ‘80’s look. Maybe more of that will come about.

A lot of these kits were older tools that were given the Harry Bradley graphics treatment, along with updated mag wheels and dark tinted windows, and moulded in color. Myself, I prefer white plastic, stock graphics, and clear windows. I always thought MPC tools had some nice details, especially the later ones, and these are some great subjects, but I already lived this era of model building. Myself, I prefer white plastic, stock graphics, and clear windows. I have had enough of trying to cover black, yellow or red plastic with another color for an entire lifetime. Take the Super Charger for instance. I think it would be MUCH cooler if they brought that one back with clear windows, stock stripes, and a 70’s retro box, much like Round 2 has been doing with their other releases. They did reissue the “Fuzz Duster” in it’s early 80’s form, as well as the Jeep Commando, but I think that was because of budgetary considerations (as in: no money for new decals or box art). I would like to see a lot of these kits back (especially the Ford Van, Corvette and/ or Omni Funny Cars, and ‘74 Charger). If they have to be done in their original ‘80’s boxes, then that’s ok, just don’t model them in color. Sorry, I just don’t really share your vision here, but I do wish some of these subjects would come back.

I have to say- fireworks lose their charm after dealing with a fast fuse. When I was about 12, I lit a small firecracker to throw once, and the fuse burnt really, really fast. You usually had about 4-5 seconds after lighting, but this one went off immediately. It was barely out of my hand when it went off. My hand was numb and I was deaf in one ear for about an hour. That was one of the small crackers, mind you- not an M-80 or anything. Even back then, you heard about fireworks accidents, and I can definitely see how they occur. I'm sure most fireworks are not at all made to the highest standards. In PA, they have recently changed the laws as far as buying and using fireworks. In the summer, one can hear them going off all the time now. It's terrible for the dogs, because they are always scared to go outside. I'm pretty sure most of these are being set off by adults. They have no appeal to me. I just don't get it now...

I paid for the majority of my stuff and generally I kept it in very good order (I still have lots of artifacts from those days), but I still think most teenagers go through a destructive phase. I didn't blow up model cars with any regularity, I think I blew up maybe 3 total, and the novelty kind of wore off. I still have built models and parts from when I was about 11 or 12, and I have rebuilt a few of those from back then. Since I paid for the fireworks (my parents sure as heck didn't buy them for me as they would have just about had a conniption if they knew I had them), I'm pretty sure I wanted to do more with them than light them and laugh, so something had to be blown up. I think the thought process was: that I couldn't blow up somebody else's stuff, so I had to use something of my own. At least I was respectful of other peoples' things. I knew a lot of kids who weren't. I think model cars make a natural target, because they're a little fragile to begin with. My guess is that if you wanted to blow up actual toy cars (plastic or metal) with regular fireworks, you would not get reliable results. You would practically have to use M-80's on regular toys, and my recollections are that M-80's were pricy, rare, and somewhat dangerous. I think some friends of mine got an M-80 just one time, and we lit it off in the woods. I think we might have piled wood on top of it or something before we set it off. I think I remember that it left a crater where we set it off, and that we were showered with dirt and debris. I did know other kids growing up who regularly broke all of their stuff, which did bother me back then. I have a cousin who was the opposite- he had the factory packaging for every toy he ever got, and each toy he had was packed up in the matching box immediately after he used it. He had a set of "Classy Crashers" (Kenner SSP Smash Up Derby Cars- approx. 1/24 scale - a Lincoln and a Rolls) which I always wanted to play with whenever I went to his house.

Dude- that's not a firecracker. I think that's an M-80!

I bought a box of MPC Dodge Monaco Cop Cars at the NNL East several years back. There was one 2-door "Force 440" build in there. Firecrackered. I was still able to salvage a few things from that one, but the roof was blown off at the "a" pillars, and the roof and interior tub were a bit melted. I did firecracker a few when I was a kid (MPC kits! ). I remember blowing up an MPC '72 Chevelle (reissue), and a '78 Dodge Pickup. We had a side door in our house that had an inner and outer door that were about 16" apart. I would set the model on the floor inside the two doors, stick the firecracker in it, light it, and close the door. This would keep the noise down to an inconspicuous level (I was a city kid), and contain all of the shrapnel. I would open the door to a twisted body and scattered parts...

My call would be that Daisy's 1971 car was probably a Satellite Sebring Plus, painted up to look a little like a Road Runner. That was the top model 2-door in the Satellite range (other than the GTX). It's roughly equivalent to the Charger SE. The serial #'s started with "RP" ("R" for Plymouth Intermediate, "P" for "premium price code"). I owned two 1971 Satellite Sebring Plus cars. One had a 318 engine, Amber Sherwood Metallic with a black vinyl (full) roof covering, green bucket seat interior with auto console shift. Power steering but manual drum brakes all around. That was my college car. The other had a 383 2 barrel, Autumn Bronze Metallic, with a black vinyl canopy top, black bucket seat interior with NO console and a column shift. It had power steering and power disc brakes. Both of them had AC, the Rallye dash clusters (round gauges), bucket seats and the GTX-style upper door skins. I think the SSP and GTX more or less shared interiors. Bucket seats and Rallye gauges were standard on both models, but consoles were optional. All Satellite models, except for the Road Runner and GTX, got the standard "flat" hood. That is to say that Satellite Sebring Plus cars never got Performance Hoods (the non-functional "twin scoop" or "Air Grabber" hoods) from the factory. I have looked at some pics online- regarding the rocker panels, it looks like all three styles (Road Runner/ Satellite thin, Sebring Plus- broad/ flat, and GTX, ribbed) show up on old pics of the car(s). You could either use the GTX rocker panel trim, or replace it with broad, flat pieces of sheet plastic, if you see those in pics of Daisy's car.

The F&F kit comes with the door panel that looks like the one up top. The old Monogram '71 Satellite comes with one that looks more like the one in the ad picture. It looks like bucket seat cars got either of the door panels above.

Very nice work. I really enjoyed learning about this car and model as well!

The body looks right to me. It's a bit different than the MPC kit, but I think it still looks right. Perhaps the bumpers are a little heavy handed compared to the MPC kits, but I would still buy and build these, no problem. It's nice to have the right style grille inserts in this kit. The MPC kit did not get that right on their Petty cars.

Looking great, Tim! Are the white stripes the kit decals?