Casey

I don't think so. In which section of the forum were you trying to post the images, and what size were they/was each?

I stand corrected:

I'm assuming the rear wheels and tires from the Gasser Parts Pack will be combined with the newly re-tooled Halibrand spindle-mount Sprints from the recent Hot Rod Mustang and '69 GTO Funny Car reissues and included in this kit? While I'm at it, how good (or bad) is the SOHC in this kit? Similar to (the same as?) the SOHC in the Ohio George AMT '33 Willys? OHIO GEORGE MALCO GASSER 1967 MUSTANG Item No: MPC800 Release Date: January 2014 MPC reintroduces Ohio George's Malco Gasser Mustang, one of the most recognizable cars of the late 1960's drag racing era. MPC has executed major backdating on the existing tooling, along with developing a new, correct '67 flip front hood/fender unit. The kit is now even more exciting and accurate than the original, and it hasn't been available as George's car since the 60's! Scale: 1/25 Skill Level: 2 (ages 10 and up) Glue assembly, paint required Molded in white and blue Newly tooled correct '67 flip front end Fully detailed racing chassis and interior Halibrand drag wheels and factory pre-lettered slicks Wheelie & pushbar setup Blown drag motor Authentic decals Attractive packaging First Time Available in Decades!

I think this was the last reissue under the Buyer's Choice program in '97, so going on 17 years ago. Is there enough demand for 100 sets of p/e details for a '65 Lincoln Continental, and someone willing to do all the drawing and layout for the pieces?

I was surprised how small the original boxes were, too, after seeing one in person. I guess those multi-piece bodies really saved a lot of space.

I'm interested to see what changes and and/or additions Round2 has made to this kit. I don't expect the tail lights to be corrected, bit hopefully they did a little more than including in the Polyglas GT tires and creating new box art this time around.

Gotta agree on the wheel choice and stance.

I want to say the Street Hawk motorcycle kit never made it through to production: I don't think the MPC 1-0450 "Hit Van" was ever produced, even though it look like the "Stunt Van" with new decals:

Is the Compatibility View feature working when you're viewing this website? Make sure your Adobe Flash Player is updated, too, as that is used when the editing function is used.

You'll send it to Jeff, who will handle the interior work. The progression/list is in post #1, so have a look: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79328&p=1009762

Which web browser are you using?

Not just you, but which web browser are you using? If IE, click the "compatibility view" button in the menu bar of IE and see if that helps.

Thanks Tim and Rodney for the info and pics. I did do some cleanup regarding the discussion of the 1:1 options and similar posts, so I tried to keep those posts together in the 1:1 Reference Pics section, and added the link to that topic in post #1 of this topic: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82337&hl=%2Bplymouth+%2Bhemi

Yes, it's been gone for a while now, and the entire Testors lineup has undergone some changes: http://www.testors.com/category/50736/Paints

Welcome, John...and I thought it was referred to as "Rapid"? I would still suggest using an exhaust fan even if you're using water-based paints. A good exhaust fan and booth are one of the first and best tools you can have in your modeling arsenal.

1) Has anyone compared the new Revell body side-by-side with any of the MPC or JO-HAN '71-'74 bodies? 2) Has anyone test fit the base hood from the '74 MPC (AMT) Barracuda promo/kit on the new Revell body?

There are very few topics in the Reviews based on what might be (i.e. kits which have neither been announced nor shown), but the Revell '57 Ranchero and the '83/'84 Olds Cutlass topics are speculative (or at least partially based on facts), so I can see the "speculation" point regarding those two topics. If a person has knowledge of a kit which is to be released but has yet to be announced/shown, that's not speculation, even though very few people may know about it's impending announcement, so I see no harm in mentioning it nor starting a new topic to discuss it.

I see what you're saying. We all have to keep our egos in check and tiptoe the line between hubris and humility on a daily basis, but some are better at doing that than others. At any rate, I think what the MCBM is doing is both important and worthwhile, and I certainly don't envy all of the effort it takes just to maintain the Museum. It's definitely a labor of love, and is probably a way for those involved to give back to the hobby they love and want to see continue growing.

If you're pulling out the n-word (need), no, it's not needed. Neither are many other things in life, but let's not get into need versus want. I had the pleasure of working with one of MCBM HOF Inductees mentioned on page one for about a year, and ego simply never came into play. In fact, I never even realized just how much he had done for the hobby until after he left the company where we both worked and the light bulb went on over my head. He never talked about it, and I never thought to ask about it, even though he had some of his models on display in a few hallway display cases. I think most people would agree it's nice to have your work appreciated and your contributions to the hobby you love recognized, regardless if it's just a simple "thank you" from someone at a show, or if you're inducted into the MCBM HOF. Maybe some do what they do for themselves first and their actions have the fortunate consequence of benefitting others, and maybe the intent was to only help others and not one's self from the start, but either way, the hobby we love benefits, and recognizing those who contributed in a major way is a great way to show our appreciation for their efforts.

The forum software here automatically resizes images over a certain size, though I'm not sure what that limit is. Even if they are re-sized to a smaller size, clicking on them makes them viewable at the larger (maximum allowable) size.

The actual Badman kit still includes the 265 SBC from the original Monogram '55 Hardtop, but the Badman kit's decals say "396".

Maybe you can't review it in the strict definition of reviewing, but it can be discussed. Using the Revell '70 Hemi Cuda kit as an example, we've seen pre-production built ups for close to a year, so we KNOW the kit is coming and we can see what is and isn't included based on the parts boards Revell brings to shows, so we are in essence getting a sneak peak at the kit. Some people take close up pics of the kit's parts at shows, which provide a pre-production look at what's inside, preempting the actual production kit, too, so where does that content belong? Then what should happen to the comments and opinions about those pre-production kits? Say someone post comparison picture of the pre-production kit to an MPC original '70 Cuda body, then when the kit arrives and we can start an official topic in the reviews section the pre-release topic is locked and any info there has to be repeated in the new topic or linked back to in the pre-arrival topic?

So for Jason, Jeremy, Chuck and Steve, all of you are running Internet Explorer (IE), and after clicking the "Compatibility View" option in the IE toolbar, any (and all?) problems you were having disappeared, correct? Jeremy- you are allowed a maximum of ten images per post, but I've only done that using image hosted on photobucket, and copied and pasted into the body of the reply box here, so I don't know if there is a max size limit for the photos as a whole, or if the max number of images allowed decreases as each individual image reaches a certain size.

It was mentioned that some reviews are lacking hard discussion facts and images of the kit being discussed, so I wanted to start a post to gather ideas and suggestions as to how we might improve the Kit Reviews (both the Model Car and Model Trucks) sections, based on the existing "new kits, old kits, reissued kits- opinions, thoughts, comments and a little bit of history thrown in" guide. Would it be better to have a formal review structure? Do you only want to read discussion specific to the particular kit being discussed in each individual topic? Do the Reviews section need improvements and changes? Are they fine as they are now? Let us know your thoughts, please.