tim boyd

Watch here on Saturday or Sunday when I post my "Upon Reflection" part of the build album, after I show the finished model tonight. It can't be any clearer or simpler than that. TIM

duplicate post, sorry. tb

Count me in as hopeful something like that might happen, someday.....TB

Casey, I did the research and photography last night to address as much of your questions above and from your post a couple of days ago, as I am able to knowledgeably do. Same with several other of you who have posted questions over the last couple of days on this subject. I'll post the results and my takeaways in the "upon reflection" follow-up after I show the finished model tomorrow. Someone (sorry, don't recall exactly which of you) noted that the blower scoop was substandard, and at least on that point, that was also my reaction. It does not live up to the detail standard of the rest of the kit, in my view. Simple parts box swap. (See above....no kit is 100% perfect...) As far as speculation on what is wrong with the body and why it is wrong, be careful, some of you are digging yourselves a very big hole. Just sayin'... Can't you wait another day or two and see the result, then fire away if justified in your mind? I doubt that all of us will come to any kind of final consensus or agreement on the subject, but at least the conversation will be based on looking at a finished model of the very latest test shot status... TIM

Guys, boy what an education this has been. All I can say at this point is: 1) the body is not 100% perfect, few model kits are perfect in every way. When I show pix of the finished model, you can draw your own conclusions. 2) for most you, please keep an open mind until you see the above. Among those who are negative about the kit, the pattern among some here seems to be a) speculate the body is wrong b) speculate where and by how much the body is incorrect c) speculate why the body was done this incorrectly d) therefore the kit is junk or worthless e) do all of the above before all the evidence is in front of us. In an odd way, this has actually been a positive development because it allows me to go back and investigate some of these theories and accusations. Revealing the result of those investigations is gonna be fun....and we're going to see that several (not all, but several) of the definitive statements (err....speculation) above about what/why is wrong are....well... just wait and see. Again, the body is not 100% perfect. Dave M. would probably tell you that himself. But again, for most of you, my advice is to keep an open mind for just a few more days on just how short of perfect it really is, and whether that will, along with all the other elements of the kit, make it worthy of your purchase dollars and your build time. Finally, I have just verified my earlier thoughts about how to make the body better with a few quick swipes of the file, which I will present along with the above in a follow-up post (after I show the finished model tomorrow) that I will call "upon reflection". Now, as my UK colleagues from my career would say, let's all "Carry On".... TIM PS - Some of you on this board and others continue to speculate that for some reason I can't tell the whole truth, most theorizing that I am afraid that I will offend the manufacturer. Simply stated, I tell it the way I see it. Because at times I have been brought under the tent at the kitmakers during the kit selection and development process, I do understand more of what it takes to put together a kit than some, and that makes me have a more balanced, in my view, verdict on kits as a whole. But I also recognize that everyone has their own view, and for some, a less than 100% perfect body is a definitive "no purchase" result, just as for me the lack of a complete, stand-alone powertrain/engine in an otherwise amazingly good kit from an Asian kitmaker is a "no purchase" condition for me. Also, on this and other boards, I have tried to share what I have learned about kitmaking with you so that you too can better understand how and why kits end up the way they do. You are free to learn from that, or reject it. But please do not accuse me of being afraid to offend the kitmakers. That is just wrong. TB

For those who still care, just posted another update on the build at the bottom of this thread.... TIM PS - should be able to post pix of the finished model on Friday this week....TB

UPDATE #4 - Building the Moebius 1965 Chevy II Gasser Well, the website availability to update the title has now expired, but I do have another update for you to check out. Today's updates include completing the engine compartment, body componentry, and beginning final assembly. In the next and final chapter of this review, which should follow in the next couple of days, I’ll do an in-depth look at the finished model as well as the decal livery sourced from Slixx Decals (as the Moebius decal sheet had not yet been prepared when I built this model). I'll also provide some final impressions from having built the test shot, as well as how I might build my own, mildly kitbashed version of the final kit when it is available for sale early next year. It will be posted either in the "Under Glass" section or at the end of my original post on the kit in the "Car Kit News and Reviews/Industry Corner portion of the forum..... ***** (Please remember, because of the nature of this presentation, the following images are copyrighted and may not be reproduced or copied, either digitally or in printed form, without my express permission in advance. Thanks.)

Bill.....a terrific post....and congrats at being back at the bench. And don't worry too much about what engines you pick.....just follow the creative urge and go for it. Congrats and best wishes as you carry on....TIM

John....as somebody on another board commented tonight, those flanges are actually engraved on the cylinder heads and I missed them. Painted white to match the headers, they would have looked very good....another item to be added to the list when I build a mildly kitbashed 2nd copy of this kit when it becomes available early next year!

Chuck....here's how they looked on my original build. These look pretty good to my eye. But looking more closely, they may have been the result of kitbashing.///the rears are larger than the fronts. Guess I need to pull out that old SAE and refresh the details....TIM

John...right on the money, or at least based on my reference sources...TIM r

This is actually one of MPC's best kits from the 1980's, and unless my memory of building this kit is a lot more foggier than I think, it would nicely hold its own against today's kit toolings. The tires, though, as you point out, might be a bit of an issue. TB

Watch this space....I suspect this one will actually happen, sooner or later. TB

Now that is a really good set of questions, and I don't have the foggiest idea of the answer to any of them. As we know, most kit tools have survived over the many years, but this one? Who knows? TIM

Michael....Hah! That's a good one! Best....TB

...thanks Craig...TB

For those that are still following my build project, I just posted another update in the "WIP" cars section of the forum....TIM

For this update, I will show the engine parts, assembly of same, and how the interior comes together. Here's two images from the updated photo album/review at this link; in the course of this update I show both these assemblies in their completed forms.... Check back tomorrow for more updates, including completing the engine compartment, body componentry, and beginning final assembly. Thanks for looking! TIM ***** (Please remember, because of the nature of this presentation, the following images are copyrighted and may not be reproduced or copied, either digitally or in printed form, without my express permission in advance. Thanks.)

The Sedan Delivery kit was not part of the original Switchers series (the original Switchers Deuce kits were the 5WCoupe/Roadster and the Sedan/Phaeton), but the Sedan Delivery was clearly derived from the Tudor Switchers and shared almost all its contents (other than the body itself) with that prior kit....TIM

Casey, I do respect your views and your long track record of contributions to this forum. But I object to a suggestion that I cannot be brutally honest with my review. You are dead wrong with that. I have been doing model car journalism for four decades now, and I would never - never - choose to compromise my integrity with model car hobbyists by sugar-coating what I say in a review or preview. Having said that, I continue to stand by my view that the images shown here so far are apples to oranges, and that you cannot effectively value a model kit's accuracy and proportions until you build, paint, and trim it. (I have witnessed many instances in this hobby where people formed a point of view based on incomplete information that turned out to be inaccurate when the actual kits were made available.) No one is going to change my mind on these points. So I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on these points. When I'm done building the model, everyone can then make an informed decision by looking at the results - but it would be even better if they built the model themselves and then made the call. Many here may very well conclude the green house dimensions are not completely accurate, but then they'll be making it with with all the facts. Some of those who come to that conclusion may decide the kit is not worthy of their purchase, and if that is the case so be it. Others who look at the overall content of the kit, no matter what they think of the body, may conclude that this is one of those "can't miss it" kits and drop everything for a "clear the desk" build. Again, based on full knowledge. Finally, for those who do conclude that the proportions are not quite right, I'll mention a couple of ideas I have for easy mods that would address their greenhouse appearance concerns. As I remarked earlier, Dave told me that they did change elements of the roof in this round of tooling refinement. He also sent me both the Sedan and Hardtop windshields and clear shots, and yes, they were different. I wish I had taken a picture of them together, but regrettably, I didn't at the time. Guys, I'm not gonna waste any more discussing this. You all can make the call when I'm done. Which should only be a few days now. Best...TIM

John, make your views known to Round 2. I would bet this kit is on their list of possible topics for scanning/cloning/creating a new tool. In fact, I would think it would be relatively highly ranked, though not sure what it would be up against in terms of competing for new tooling dollars at Round 2....TIM

Chris....yep....that has certainly crossed my mind, too. I'm also seeing other early-mid 1960's compact bodies....the JoHan Olds Cutlass....the AMT/SMP Valiants, the Revell Lancer/Valiant, the AMT '61-63 Comets, and several years of Falcons. In fact, I think an AMT '66-69 Falcon body, with this Nova Gasser underbody suspension, and maybe a kitbashed/blown 289 Ford V8, might be a highly cool build project.... TIM

For those still interested, I just posted the second update of the build progress at this link....TIM

Build Progress Report #2 Today we look at the front and rear suspension elements, how they look in assembled form, and how the front suspension locates to the subframe Moebius has engineered into the kit. Here's one of the eight images with commentary posted at the update link....check out the engraved individual leaves on the front springs..... Check back tomorrow for the next update, where I will show the engine parts, assembly of same, and how the interior comes together. Thanks for looking!TIM*****(Please remember, because of the nature of this presentation, the following images are copyrighted and may not be reproduced or copied, either digitally or in printed form, without my express permission in advance. Thanks.) Today we look at the front and rear suspension elements, how they look in assembled form, and how the front suspension locates to the subframe Moebius has engineered into the kit. Check back tomorrow for the next update, where I will show the engine parts, assembly of same, and how the interior comes together. Thanks for looking! TIM ***** (Please remember, because of the nature of this presentation, the following images are copyrighted and may not be reproduced or copied, either digitally or in printed form, without my express permission in advance. Thanks.)

Those not familiar with the kit may want to check out my in-depth online review of the original 2016 version of this kit at this link. The new boxed kit shown at the beginning of Kit's post up top is exactly the same as the one in my preview, other than the revised box art and decals, the substitution of the Nailhead V8 for the SBC in the original kit, instruction sheet, and apparently the lack of the Halibrand wheel option. TIM