rick6343

I don't remember the last time I bought a new kit at full retail price. Most of my buying is done at shows and everything I look for has a price ceiling. I believe the most I've ever spent on a single kit is about $25. That said, I buy to build. I have some sort of plan in mind (or did) for every single kit I've purchased. That includes parts kits. If that means multiples, then I'll have multiples. For me, that means Indy car models, Monogram 427 Cobras, and Revell '68 Corvettes.

Gary, Some years ago I saw a resin conversion kit to build a '67 Fairlane out of AMT's '66. Unfortunately, I don't know who did it, when, where, or if they're in business. Based on what I know, I'm guessing it would take the grille, hood, and tailights. I think the grille and taillights can be had from Modelhaus, who also have a flat hood. Making the '67 GT's power bulges might take some fabricating with styrene strip. I'm not sure about the upholstery and door panel patterns, but I'd look at AMT's GT, 427, and '67 Comet kits and see which one was closest. Good luck with your project. I built the '67 Comet kit recently and it went together really well. I'd like to build a '67 Fairlane NASCAR racer using the Polar Lights Torino chassis and Modelhaus grille and headlights. The one-year-bodystyle '67 Ranchero would be a cool conversion. There was a nice one running around my town last summer with a "For Sale" sign on it, and I went as far as looking at another one about ten years ago. I'm not sure if the wheelbase would have been any different. Someone on the board made one not too long ago, you might want to do some searching. Hope this helps,

I don't know if this kit looks good or not, but: 1. The kit photos we've seen are all test-shots (i.e. they're not done with them), in plastic, not painted, and (as mentioned above) photographed from angles real cars are seldom seen at. The real subject was metal, painted, and 17 feet long. I'm going to guess that it's going to be really hard to tell if it really is accurate or not from the images posted here so far. 2. I'd be surprised if a "perfectly" proportioned 1/25 model car looked spot-on. Model cars are 8" long and generally viewed from some higher elevation- I would think that a "right" looking model would take some massaging to really look it. 3. Fairly often I've seen a new 1/1 car in a magazine and dismissed it as "boring" or even "ugly." Sometimes I've said the same thing about new cars on stands at car shows. In real life, on the road, or in a driveway, however, the same car might be stunning. Real car styling studios paint their clay models and display them in outdoor sunlight. There's something to be said for seeing the real thing, in three dimensions, in the finish and environment it's actually intended for. 4. While recently comparing three different kits of similar subjects tooled at different times by the same manufacturer, I found significant differences in the body shapes. None were obvious until I started setting them side-by-side and looking very closely for flaws. Bottom line: I can't tell from photographs on my computer whether or not a plastic model kit is a faithful replica of its subject. If I could, I might be wrong anyway. This subject isn't one I'd typically build, but I'd sure like one of these...

Were two-tones that rare? And was the second color restricted to black or white? I've seen one at local car shows that is definitely a two tone: silver over metallic gray.

A few years back, Grassroots Motorsports magazine answered the very question raised above. They pitted a Jaguar E-type and a Porsche 356 against a new Honda Odyssey minivan on an autocross course. If I recall, the Odyssey beat one of the cars out of the box and was a fraction of a second of the other. They then bolted a set of bigger, stickier tires on the minivan-and beat out the two classic sports cars.

Any '97-present (C5, C6) Corvette kit ought to have the transaxle.

Please buy dozens! Or hundreds! Whatever it takes to convince Revell that subjects like this make good business sense. I'm looking forward to building a couple of these.

David, Looks good so far. Good luck. I remember that kit (same original issue) when it was new and it gave me fits then. I've used 25-30 year old decals with few problems-but not from Monogram kits of that era. I hope they work for you.

Tom, That's not my usual subject matter, but your build makes me want one! Thanks for sharing,

I just saw an online article about other uses for those silica gel desiccant packets that you find in new shoes, electronic equipment boxes, and other places. Since they absorb moisture, I wondered if anyone had put some in with their decals to help protect them? Were you successful? Thanks, Rick

Thanks, guys. If lacquers shouldn't yellow, then I'll go ahead and try the Plasti-kote Classic Lacquer I've been using. I haven't used a clear hobby lacquer since discovering this stuff. Works as well or better and is much, much cheaper.

Mark, Isn't Testor's Glosscote, which is notorious for yellowing, a lacquer? Or am I mistaken? Thanks,

TreehuggerDave, I picked up on your tip to use Plasti-kote Classic Lacquer clear, and have been very happy. It helped me get my first acceptable glossy finishes. I do have one question, however. In your (or anyone else's) experience, does it yellow when used over white paint? Thanks in advance, Rick

Both mentioned above are musts. Model Empire for kits and aftermarket. Greenfield for supplies. They also have a huge magazine selection with about any car magazine you can think of.

In the popular (for aircraft) scale of 1/48, Tamiya recently released a series of armor kits. A natural evolution would be WWII-era "staff cars" like '40 Fords and Chevys. I heard speculation that this was a way for them to test the waters of a universal scale that would become the standard for all subjects. Whether or not I think this will succeed is a different question; 50 years of history with 1/24-25 scale will be very, very hard to break. Military modeling never really settled on one popular, accepted, common scale like automotive modeling did. Still, would I like to see a series of 1/32 kits? Sure. (I thought the NASCAR snap kits in that scale were a GREAT idea) Would they be successful? I doubt it.

For the teal, you might want to look into Testor's Grabber Green lacquer. It might be a bit lighter or slightly greener than your sample. If you want an acrylic, look at the Polly Scale railroad colors for something close. They're flat, but it is possible to clear and polish them into glossiness.

Looks great! I'm glad to hear everything went together well. One of these is on my list. One of the best-looking paint schemes ever run at Indy...

For a very yellow-ish tan, try "desert yellow", found in many paint lines. Bill's right, it would look good with the gunmetal paint. I like red, but you're right, it's very common. A bright blue, maybe on the lighter side? An intense green? Orange? How about a two-tone: Black with red or gold or bright blue or??? seat inserts? Be bold and don't be afraid to try something different-if you don't like how it turns out, you'll know for next time and can do something different.

Ok, here goes- (donning flameproof underwear...) Is it silly and overdone? Yes and yes. Absolutely. With that in mind, I actually like it. And I don't like show cars/show rods/etc. And I don't like the roof-the pickup roof (or whatever that is) doesn't work. But the rest of the car, keeping with the silly and overdone theme, is ok by me. Including (especially) the green flames on pink. I'll even say that it's nowhere near as ugly as the MINI coupe mentioned in another thread.

Thanks, guys! As far as I know, the interior colors are not stock. After painting the body, I decided that it would need a touch of color. I figured red would be about right, but an all-red interior would be too much. I did take some engine photos, but nothing that came out. Due to public demand, I'll give it another try!

This is AMT's early-'90s vintage '67 Mercury Comet Cyclone. Paint is Tamiya Gold and Gunmetal under Plasti-kote clear. It's the first paint job I'm really happy with, flaws and all. Wheels are from one of the AMT '69 Cougars, modified to fit. Tires are from the kit; the redlines are thinned red acrylic paint in the groove molded into the tire. The engine is the 289 from AMT's '67 Mustang, with an oil filter and plumbing and wiring added. It's mounted to the chassis with scratchbuilt motor mounts. Not too crazy, but there are a few added details here and there. Mostly from the box; it's a very nice kit that goes together very easily-something I assume can also be said about the '66 Fairlanes. Enjoy, and your comments are encouraged... Scroll down for the new pictures Chassis (be kind, I still have some touch-up painting to do) Engine (nothing like a digital photo to show off that ejector pin mark you forgot...) The brake booster and master cylinder are from the '67 Mustang kit. The upper shock mounts are scratchbuilt from pieces of styrene. Not 100% accurate, but they look better than the flat surfaces the kit provides.

Hawk312, I'm not necessarily a fan of that subject, but your model looks great! I love the stripe and car color combination. Please don't worry about the quality of the photos-those are gorgeous!

I've heard the horror stories about this kit and have wondered what the parts actually look like and how well it actually builds. Like you said, the real cars are made this way-and show it. I hope you'll bring it to the next club meeting?

Those look great! My trip to the Speedway museum this year got me excited to build some of these; I just wish I could find those bodies you used! Did the Rathmann and McClusky cars require different bodies, or were they modified from the kit? They look pretty similar... (For all of them) What brand of decals did you use? Thanks for sharing,

Those are great photos! Thanks for posting them. I have a Mustang Trans-Am car on the bench, and ran into the same problem trying to find reference material. What I did find was that the real cars actually look a lot simpler than the kit. I believe that the Camaro kit was retooled from the '89-90 Trans-Am Mustangs, which were in turn retooled from the '85-87 IMSA GTO Mustangs. This is ok-they all used the popular Riley and Scott chassis. I'm guessing that the differences are due to the original IMSA GTO subjects being endurance racers as opposed to Trans-Am cars that ran sprint races. I'm planning on cleaning up a lot of the extraneous and molded-on stuff and hopefully building a more-accurate model. One thing I spent a lot of time on was trying to figure out oiling system plumbing. I've got it all worked out-but where is the dry-sump pump supposed to go??? There are pulleys for two accessories, but one of those looks to be for power steering and the other I assume is the alternator (not included in the kit, btw).