Casey

If I understand correctly, this is the body shell which will be included if the SSII version is in fact reissued?:

My suggestion- separate the parts (carefully, leave a tiny bit of sprue intact) from the runners, then bag and label them with the kit number and a description (1/24 Monogram '29 Model A Pickup), and save them. This kit (and its multiple variants) is very common, but the parts you keep may help someone one day.

Hopefully Kris Morgan will have them soon:

I will add it to the list, Brandon. Also, please consider adding an e-mail address or similar to allow people to contact you. Shapeways requires you to be logged in in order to contact you, and some people might be willing to say "forget it" at that point and never proceed.

"Construction site accessories" = six pack of beer. Are the steel rear wheels the same depth as the front wheels in this kit? Are they any good?

Pics of the mini bike when you have a chance, please.

The decal sheet alone makes the kit tempting, but then I remember all of the kinda-sorta close details that abound in this kit, particularly in the chassis/floorpan, and I have to pass.

I can see this particular kit having some appeal with the "my first glue-together model I built with _______" consumer, due to it's hot rod/show rod-ish makeup, so I can understand why Round2 might've given it the green light. It's likely already near the mold facility, too, so minimal investment would be required. We do sometimes hear/read complaints that younger builders aren't being catered to, too, so, I don't mind one out of every six kits not being uber-retro and aimed solely at the 55+ crowd.

Yeah, that whole "made in the U.S.A." angle falls even flatter as a selling point when the product contains obvious errors. As always, what's most important is how it's made, not where.

Finally, the wait is almost over! This kit is a good source for a Chrysler 3.5L V6 engine if needed, so there's that.

I would usually agree, but the long side box image is clearly a 3D rendering, so this is what the kit is, for the most part, going to look like. If the kit includes a parallel leaf style rear suspension when it should have coils spring and trailing arms, that is a major, major error. If it was simply the die-cat model they modified to give people an idea of what the final model would look like, fine, no harm there...but this is what was designed from scratch on the computer. I said it before, and I'll say it again-- the stakes for this kit are so very high, that any major gaffe will surely be the beginning of the end. One need only look at Trumpeter's similar foray into automotive kits to see what happens when a kit lacking in details and accuracy enters the market. Nobody can get away with "eh, close enough" or "well, we know it's not totally accurate, but..." in this day and age. Consumers have too many tools at their disposal to verify things, and multiple reference photos a few seconds away via Google. Factor in the whole NASCAR market isn't what it used to be (even separating then-current from vintage, the latter which certainly gets a boost when the former is popular), and the margin for error is extremely thin here. The Dodge Mirada was a J-bodied ('80-83) vehicle, closely related to the F-body ('76-'80) and M-body ('77-'89), so they all used parallel leaf springs in the rear.

Where was it shown or stated the actual model would have leaf springs?

Guess not. Ah well, this kit still contains a very nice early Hemi, which can be used in many other vehicles.

They are definitely both very much in tune with the time they were released, when wacky, zany, and krazy were "in", so you can't really fault AMT for trying to capitalize upon the fads of the day. I'd honesty rather see the Va.Va.Vette reissued over either of the two Stroker McGurk kits they chose, but I digress. I looked over both kit at a show a few weeks ago, and they are quite a bit larger than I would've thought, though in fairness, the box lid does list dimensions. There's a Va.Va.Vette on eBay currently, so I snagged these pics for reference:

Here are some reference pics to a very similar car from the same time period which should help. This one has been restored, but it's pretty close to what's inside the Revell Charger F/C kit: https://www.dragracermag.com/features/vels-parnelli-jones-mustang-funny-car-a-horse-of-a-different-cuda/ The Revell 1/16 Vega and Grand Am F/C kits contain a Ford 9" style rearend, and it mounts the same as the Halibrand style quick change rearend if I remember correctly. If you post a want ad in the Wanted section, maybe someone has one to spare or trade:

How much has to be different for you to start a new topic discussing the same basic kit? What's relevant for the 2001 reissue of AMT's '60 Ford Starliner is likely going to be, for the most part, relevant for the 2008 and 2017 reissues, too, so what is the benefit of posting the same info again? I can certainly understand someone showing and/or mentioning the new features-- tires, decal sheet, box -- but if the only thing different about the majority of the parts is the plastic color, why not just state the contents are mostly the same and focus on the new features? If there were images which have gone missing due to people not willing to pay for web hosting I completely understand why someone would post new images of the same parts. Even without images, a good description if the contents goes a long way toward providing valuable information, so images aren't always necessary. I think the bigger issue is apathy, especially those who aren't willing to spend the time and effort to find the answers to the questions they have. There has been a pinned "How to Search..." topic for a few years now, and while one might argue it would be far more effective to have that post located somewhere much more visible, there are sill those aware of how to search, yet they choose not to. Maybe because it's a free forum and little to no effort and time is required for them to get what they want? Someone is always willing to just tell them the answer instead of showing them how to search? They just don't give a _____ and feel it's someone else's responsibility to fulfill their sense of entitlement by providing them with an answer which satisfies them? I can't answer for anyone else, but I can say with some confidence there are a few members which are either too spaced out on something, or simply don't have the mental capacity to effectively participate on this forum at a basic level. Not judging here, either, just going by years of observation and experience as a moderator here for a few years. I think members wanting to contribute in a meaningful way is a factor, too. Not adding any reply when you have nothing new or relevant to contribute is an exercise in checking one's ego, and realizing you don't have to post something just because you want to leads to better, more thoughtful content. One need only look at members such as Mark B and Don Sikora II to see the immense value in the content of their posts. You'd never expect to see any members like that post "My xxxxxth post!" because they understand what quality over quantity means, and also understand the value in other member's posts. Sometimes there is nothing new, better, or more helpful which can be added, and that's OK. TL/DR: If the subject is highly related, the posts discussing that same topic should be together. If something has drastically changed, a new post is a good idea.

Post the link to your Shapeways store, an e-mail address, or some type of contact info, please, and I'll add it to the list.

Dreams do (mostly) come true...sometimes.

Can this be moved to the Tips & Tutorials section, please?