Carmak

The rear fenders were rebuilt decades ago using the qtr panels and rear door skins from a rust free 4dr. It actually all metal and not that bad. The nickname was from before the rebuild. I have had this car for over 35 years and I daily drove it in the late 80's/early 90's. I took it on an 800-mile round trip to Hayward, WI with my future wife in 92. What an adventure.

The top is why it's being moved in an enclosed trailer It also has a boot cover sitting on it which makes it look even worse.

Good eye!! That pic was taken 31 years ago. This is what she looked like a couple years ago being moved after 15+ years of storage. Notice the rear trunk emblem.

A very old pic of my 69 Bonneville 428 convertible. This is a stuffed figure sitting on the nose

I have a couple older commercial (department store) display cases. They typically cost $100 or less. I add LED light strips as they can get dark when you load then with models. The pic is a case I have been using to display 50's - early 70's original survivor builds.

Scanner technology is making leaps and bounds but we are still at a place where a VERY expensive 3D scanner is needed to capture sharp inside corners. Examples of inside corners are door lines and raised emblems (most scanners tend to blend emblems into the body). Additionally, the data from the scan can be challenging to manipulate is a CAD program as the raw data is millions of super tiny triangles.

When I lower the front height of a Monogram kit I often reduce the track width a little at the same time. This is a personal tase thing. I don't care for the look of the front wheels too close to the front wheel openings that some Monogram kits have. I also use pins for strength whenever possible.

Very true. The Mustang is even worse

The issue with some MPC and AMT model kits is a combination of mold wear (many MPC & AMT molds are 40-60+ years old) and poorly done revisions or repairs (often changed into race cars and then changed back). This issue is only true with some of their kits as Round2 (the owner of MPC & AMT) is producing new molds and repairing/rebuilding part of old molds on a regular basis. You have to be a bit of a kit historian to know what is in the box. This is why it’s good to research (or ask) before buying a kit. The website “scalemates” can help but is often tragically wrong. Examples of this challenge with three current MPC kits: *MPC 1968 Coronet – Brand new mold. *MPC 1967 GTO – Mold from the 60’s and in poor shape. *MPC Grumpy"s Toy Vega – Brand new mold for the body combined with interior and chassis from the 70’s. This can also be true with Revell kits but to a lesser degree as they sold the vast majority of their older molds to Atlantis. Lastly all Moebuis molds are fairly new. I hope this helps.

The 67 Mustang chassis has an issue with the front track width. It is so wide the tires bulge out past the wheel lips. This is fixable but it's a pain.

Where is the Moebius Retail Store???

From 1966 until it was discontinued the Falcon and Fairlane/Torino shared a platform with Falcon coupes having a 111" wheelbase and the Fairlane/Torino coupes having a 116". This can be seen most clearly in the Falcon/Fairlane wagons/Rancheros which are the same wheelbase (113") and have the same sheet metal except for the front clip. Also take a look at a 66/67 Fairlane 2dr sedan, the roof is the same as the Falcon and looks quite short on the longer Fairlane body.

Regarding the Atlantis (Revell) 55 Chevy kit. It is amazing what the passage of a few years and some cool wheels can do for a kit’s reputation (those wheels really do help). As a kid in the 70’s the Revell Tri-5 kits were known to be somewhere between challenging and unbuildable. In the 90’s and 2000’s the model community was happy to get the AMT 55 sedan kit (based on the 55 Nomad) and thrilled to get the Revellogram 55 HT and convertible kits. No more having to deal with original Revell 55. As a more seasoned builder this kit moves more into the challenging category (now that I make my own door hinges). It looks like a whole generation is going to get a 60’s Revell history lesson, I hope they pass the test. 😊

Steve, that is an outstanding build. The look is just right! Would you share how you made the side trim? It really makes the build for me.

Also notice the 67-68 fender side leading edge is angled forward at the top. The 69-72 the visible leading edge is closer to vertical. The ugly notch is hidden under the 69-72 grille. The top radius looks to possibly be the same radius and in the same location, but the angled top surface extends further forward on the 67-68 fender. I love that this is a collaborative effort between the community and the manufacturer. Everybody DOES actually win.

Same question.

In the 1:1 vintage car show world I am not a fan of open hoods at car shows. I like to appreciate the shape and lines of the car being displayed and an open hood disrupts that. I appreciate that many of us in the model building world really live for engine and chassis detail that can only be seen with an open hood or on a mirror base. On the flip side I love seeing a model that can capture a look and pull you in with no engine or chassis detail at all. I think the new Round2 Craftsman Plus curbsides are a great compromise. They have open hoods and fair firewall and radiator support detail so adding an engine is not terribly difficult. Their simplicity allows subjects to make it to market that may not otherwise be seen.

Back in the early 90's I daily drove a 76 Dodge Aspen wagon \6 with a 3 on the tree. I bought the wagon from the original owner who had factory ordered that car (as a very low-cost family car). The original owner told me that what the car was delivered the dealer told him the 3 on the tree option had just been discontinued.

Those 65 Oldsmobile bolt on magnesium wheel covers are some of the most impressive wheel covers ever made!

I can't ID that boot, but this is what an Imperial boot looks like.

Of the kits you posted I feel the 69 Bonneville coupe would have the best chance at being cloned. As the 70 Bonneville convertible tooling is known to exist in good condition all that would be needed for a 69 couple is a body/hood, front and rear bumpers, rear glass and of course the canoe . The original 69 Bonneville kits used wheel covers, but Rally II wheels would also be correct. Interesting trivia: The Model king issue of the 70 Bonneville with the boat shows a built 70 Bonneville kit with what looks like 69 wheel covers however the kit contains a completely different style of wheel cover (similar in style to the 14" GP wheel covers).

I submit the Ford Magic Cruiser. Originally shown as a concept as a 66 and re-skinned as a 67.

The 63 Tempest AWB and the 65 Nova AWB may share the same chassis (if not they are of similar style). The original stock 63 Tempest and Stock 65 Nova did not share any tooling.

My advice is to watch E-bay and buy a nice built original MPC 72 Challenger ($60-$80) and rebuild it. It will require patience to find one, but the results will actually look like a Challenger. As for the Cuda the MPC 74 Easy Build kit is essentially an unassembled promo. If you are comfortable with removing the massive bumper guards from the 74 bumpers you can convert it to a 72. Watch out for the 74 Cuda Pro Street kits, they were issued in the 80's/90's and have a pro street chassis with large wheel tubs (probably not what you are looking for).

Kits manufacturers from the 60’s and early 70’s had very distinct personalities and styles. Each had pros and cons to their style of kit. Below are my general OPINIONS of each of the big manufacturers of 1:24/1:25 scale American car kits during the first golden era which ended in the mid 70’s. There are exceptions to everything I say below. These are my general OPINIONS. Revell. Pros: Kits with many functional features with good detail. Kits of actual show cars and competition cars. Cons: Cars were not their only kit type. Challenging to build with very fragile parts (early multi-piece bodies). Late 60’s into early 70’s kits design quality decreased. Monogram. Pros: Easy to assembly kits. Best molded in color kits ever made. Tom Daniels kits. Their “Classics” kits built well and look good. Con: Cars were not their only kit type. Inconsistent scale choices. Poor proportions on some kits. AMT / SMP. Pros: Promo based business model allowed for a very wide range of fairly well-proportioned annuals each year loaded with custom and race parts (3in1 kits). Most trophy kits were good subject matter and straight forward to build. Cons: Promo based chassis and interiors on most annuals. Late 60’s into early 70’s kits design quality decreased (poorly modified re-issues). MPC. Pros. Promo based business model allowed for a wide range of fairly well-proportioned annuals each year loaded with custom and race parts. MPC non-annual kits were good subject matter and straight forward to build. Stock bodied Funny Cars are either a Pro or a Con depending on the point of view 😊. Con: Promo based chassis and interiors on most annuals. 70’s kits design quality decreased (poorly modified re-issues). JoHan. Pros: Promo based business model allowed for a decent range of the best proportioned body annuals each year loaded with custom and race parts. Their “Gold Cup” kits were well proportioned and second to none for functional features. Con: Promo based chassis and interiors on most annuals. Slowly withered in the early 70’s with few new kits.