Casey

Thanks. Yes, Bill, the air cleaner appear to be two pieces, though this has has been glued together.

Thanks on the t/ls. Yes, it does, Bill. There's a resin copy of this hood on eBay which says it's for a '72-4 Barracuda, and the hood shape does look like it'd be for a 'Cuda, so maybe an MPC 'Cuda Pro Stock kit? Tail lights #3 look like the '72-4 Barracuda, too, so maybe they're from the same kit?

Yes, I think they're from a JO-HAN kit ('69 Roadrunner, perhaps?), but not sure. Just found out the clear hood is from a '68 GTO.

I don't think so, but I agree on body colored, if that's still an option. Fred, any update on the stuff you have shipping to Ron? Interior looks great, Jeff. Beautiful work.

The never-ending part ID topic.

It always seems when you find nothing, I leave with an empty wallet. Best find was a $5.00 parts box containing a mildly damaged JO-HAN '74 AMC Hornet body still in bare plastic, with good bumpers and grille, but I found a lots of things today. Always good meeting up with you, too, Andy.

The curbside Chrysler Turbine Car is one of the ex-JO-HAN kits Moebius is planning to reissue, so while $20 is probably fair, it may be very easy to find very soon: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95288&hl=moebius&page=2

Let's stick to discussing the kit, please.

AMT '68 Roadrunner? The most recent reissue was molded in two colors, one of them yellow.

AMT '37 Chevy. Chrome plating has been stripped on this part:

Hopefully you never will. Giving without the expectation of receiving anything in return is one of the most selfless and difficult things to do.

Use a CA type superglue.

Yes, I believe it is Gregg who handles the MCM facebook page, so you'd probably be better off PMing Gregg and asking him directly.

Part A: While I would agree the forum could be better organized, it just isn't be. We all either have to accept that or find an alternative which better suits our preferences. Creating a special sub-category for every group you or anyone else wants to see would be madness. Where would it end? At some point, you have to understand and accept that your opinions and preferences when it comes to model subjects are the minority, not the majority. Seriously, think about that for a minute. Lots of people are in the same situation as you. Look at member Ira Dahm's builds, and you'll see he's almost all alone in what he builds, yet he still keeps putting out creative models. Part B: If popularity and attention are what you seek from posting your models on a public forum, you're not going to be happy, Justin. "Build for yourself and the rest will follow," as Mark Jones' sig line states. Now, if you are truly interested in improving your work, all you need to do is ask and listen. There are so many people here who are willing to share what they've learned and what they know with others, so try starting your post or a new reply in one of your existing topic with something like "What can I do to make this engine more realistic" or "How should I _________?" If you show you are interested in other members' opinions and are willing to listen to their advice, regardless if you take that advice or not, it will go a long way toward getting feedback from other members.

I think the Moon tanks came in three or four sizes, but I think those on eBay are 3 gallon tanks, so they might be too small compare to the Pulldozer's tank: The brackets are made of thin metal, in this case aluminum.

Are tires are the same as found in the semi-recently reissued Ohio George '60 Ford Ranchero kit, save for the printing on the sidewalls?

I have to agree with Cameron on this point. The bump was totally unnecessary, and probably turned a few people off to reading your future updates. Let your work stand on its own merits, stay humble, and you will see replies. Good work will never go unnoticed here.

Use the multi-quote feature first, then quote a second post. That way, you can place the multi-quoted post either before or after the quoted post. You can't quote more than two posts, though.

I found a new (to me at least) coarse sanding stick at Walgreens recently, and while the grits are probably closer to 180/220 or so, it's much wider than the typical nail files I've found and used:

There are a few companies which make/made aluminum Moon style tanks, including Detail Master, like this set of two currently on eBay:

My first Astro was a '90 EXT, red on red. The red interior took a long time to grow on me. My current daily driver is a '95 Astro with the 4.3L Vortec/T-5 5-speed. Other than the airbag steering wheel and presence of the stock radio/tape deck mine has, our interiors would be hard to tell apart.

I ran into a similar issue when building the AMT Ford C-series kit. The 10.00x20s looked a bit too narrow and left too large a gap between the tires when used on the dual rear wheels, but I think that may be correct. Here are some shots of a GMC Astro 95 with tandem axles for reference: The 11.00x20s look better IMHO, but I don't think the 10" tires are necessarily incorrect, just narrower.

No, there isn't unfortunately. The 1/24 Jada die-cast Econoline pickup and van are the closest thing for now. A forum member was creating one, but no idea on how it's progressing: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80026&hl=econoline

You can say that again. Revell announced a die-cast based G-body Cutlass DONK nearly a decade ago, then canceled it, which IMHO, turned out to be a HUGE gift for us all. Now, the person whose 1:1 G-bodies have been measured by Revell employees posts that info, as well as updates throughout the kit creation process, as we still have the doubters. Do you seriously think Revell would go through two plus years of development on this kit then NOT release it? Everything about this kit's development echos what I heard from another member regarding the '90 Mustang LX's (sorry Ckuck K., had to be mentioned ) development, so I see no reason to doubt this 1/25 '84 Cutlass kit is anything but due for release before the end of 2015. Doubters gonna doubt.

To be fair, Randy posted this in the Kit Review topic and I moved it here, then added the images from PG's page to his post, so the link is now correct.