Chuck Most

Do you even need to ask?

I think I have all of them- Monogram's '37 Ford and the Revell Beatnik Bandit II come to mind off the top of my head. The suspension in the Nova is pretty close to the Ford setup, but I know an AMT '67 Mustang setup can be adapted to the Nova chassis, if you just can't live with knowing its a GM suspension under it.

I picked up two of Maisto's 1:27 scale 2010 Ford F-150 STX models not too long ago. One will stay as is (for now), and the other will be downgraded to the base model XL. Here's how it looks stock, in what looks to be a pretty close match to the 2010 Blue Flame metallic paint... The STX has buckets and a console, while the XL has a 40/20/40 bucket arrangement. I'll be cutting out the center console and replacing it with a smaller midship bucket. These seats are identical to the ones used in the XL, and will stay after some mold seam cleanup and paint. I went with Oxford White- I did not strip the model, I just sanded the factory paint, applied primer, and sprayed the white over that. I also filled in the fog lights with two part body filler. You can order the XL with fog lights and a chrome front bumper, but I'm going with the no fog light, semigloss black bumpers and grille look. I had the proper wheels before I got the truck. For some reason Revell put these late model six-bolt Ford wheels in their Expedition SSV (police) kit- wrong for that vehicle, but just the thing for an '09-'14 F-150 XL! Though they're 1:25 and the truck is supposedly 1:27, they look just fine on the pickup. About that... I think this particular truck is much closer to scale than most Maisto diecasts. Many- mostly the long bed and extended cab trucks, look significantly underscale. This truck looks just fine with 1:25 and 1:24 scale truck models. Really hoping this project won't take too long to complete.

Wish I knew. He'd pretty much retired by the mid '80's, so I'm sure they were all gone by then. I've never seen any of them still in the area. I've still got the GMC letters off the front of the old Crackerbox he had before he got the first CL9000 somewhere, though.

Might have to buy more than one of these. Let's just say my great uncle was rather fond of them... Oh, and Alan- never mind Mitchell. He's usually the complainer in the crowd.

The thing is alarmingly rust-free for a 62 year old car- one other thing I really like about it. And I doubt I'd change a thing about it other than replace the tires (possibly with wide whites) and maybe slap on some trim rings for the wheels. And yeah, Mike- I know these old things don't start well in cold weather, but I wouldn't want to drive it in winter anyway. The duct for the heater blower is half gone- for some nutty reason the blower motor is up in front of the engine compartment, and that duct which runs back from it is full of holes. Not even sure why it was left in place- the hole it goes to in the firewall is blocked off anyway. So, I'd not use this thing as a winter beater. I like how this thing looks as it sits, but even I might restore this one back to stock, just because you don't see many of them.

I've been kicking around the idea of using the Pro Street '66 Nova chassis under this kit, with the front suspension modified to a proper Ford setup and a Ford big block. I know some serious cutting of the cargo bed would need to take place, but I think I'm up for it. Good or bad idea?

Just curious- anybody know of a set of six-spoke IH cast wheels, in resin or whatever? Uptown Automotive used to sell a set, but I just e-mailed Jim Amado and he says they'll be out of production for a little while.

Cool! I've been looking for a reputable doctor for some time now. I have this weird growth I need looked at...

I've got the rear radar antenna- that was on every Blue Goose I ever saw from this era and was a very prominent part of the car. Wayne- thanks for the pics. I think I've got some stuff rattling around in the spares box that looks close, if not, I'll scratchbuild if I need to. There might be a pretty long pause before the next update on this- gotta put in an order to Modelhaus for that wheel/hub cap set.

That one's already been grafted to the '65 body... it's just a matter of doing the bodywork (which I hate) and getting it looking good. Might have to blow the dust off that one and get back to work on it...

Because I may be getting my third Slo-Par for that reason... If you're curious, it's a nice, solid '52 Plymouth which runs and would drive, if it weren't for the fact that the left rear brake is set up... but that's a simple enough fix. I can get the car cheap (I have the advantage of knowing how much money the current owner has in it, and I know he's beyond sick of having to plow around it),put next to nothing into it to get it back on the road, and just run the thing until it does start falling apart... which should give me enough time to decide what to do with it if I want to make it into a 'serious' project. Thing is, I've never really wanted one of these cars (not that I never liked them or anything), but the fact this one isn't completely rotten, is missing onlly frivilous stuff like trim and bumpers, and has an indestructable flathead six (with a relatively fresh rebuild, no less) make it seem like almost a good idea. That and the simple fact I don't see fifty of these at every car show I attend. But the thing is, the car just looks so sad sitting out on that lot. Maybe it's that grille, though... Anybody else ever let the same thing happen to them... see some forlorn old project someplace, and just snap it up for the sake of getting it out of its situation? And did that purchase end in a good or bad way for you? I've come close a few times, but this is the first project I've seen, felt bad about seeing it sitting around unloved... and am seriously considering picking up.

But if you've ever owned a Ranchero, or a Rampage, or an El Camino (the last of which I have owned, unfortunately) you know that the title and registration say "pickup". SUVs would go in light commercial, but what are they considered? Wagons. Same deal for passenger vans. Yet for some reason, putting a '96 Tahoe in the Light Commercial section is a no-brainer, but putting '66 Chevelle wagon in the light commercial section would raise a few eyebrows, even though they're both considered wagons. My rule of thumb is this- if the 1:1 vehicle would have 'pickup' on the title, it goes in the truck section, even if it's a "ute". If not, it goes in Under Glass. Wagons go in under glass. If it gets moved to another category after I post it, I'll let that be my little problem. Even though again I don't see why cars and trucks (not to mention resin and diecast models) really need to have separate sections in the first place...

Always wondered what those bow ramp-looking things were for, but never thought of asking anybody. Now I know. This puppy gets more and more impressive all the time, Charlie!

Hey- no need to apologize for that- somebody was going to notice, and somebody had to be the first guy to point it out. This time, you happened to be that guy, that's all. And considering all the other things Revell DID get right... ... and many other kits. Ever see what's supposed to be a distributor cap on the Ertl International Scout II, just as one example? Now that John has pointed out the S&M car, I'm kind of wondering if that had something do do with the iffy character line, too. I know little about early '70's Pro Stockers, so I'd not be the guy to give any kind of definitive answer on that.

He'll be missed- he was the guy behind projects like the fanatsic Pro Modeler '40 Ford kit. Cancer is one disease I'd love to see eradicated already, myself...

Right, but then there's no need to add 30 spark plug wires, or whatever. And then people wouldn't get to use the good old cop out "that's so wrong I don't even know where to start" schtick. Here's an idea... start with the first thing ya see wrong, and proceed from that point. Or start from the front of the car and work your way back. Seriously- I'd love to see what's so horribly wrong with the engine bay in the pic, when 1- I've seen detailed built models with pretty much the same amount and type of detail actually win those contests you seem to worry about so much and 2- I have no idea what specific car Danbury used as a reference/inspiration for their model, and I'm pretty sure you haven't either, so without that benchmark, allow me not to make any assumptions on the accuracy of the model, thanks! Seriously though- you could win a contest with incorrect detail. I've seen models win the "box stock" class with things like wheels from other kits and aftermarket decals. If judges are letting stuff like that slip (or not checking against a 1:1), I guess adding correct detail would be of no meaning if all you want to do is win contests.

Fixed it for ya! Seriously, though, adding MORE categories won't help- they'd just get shoved about midway down the home page. I'm convinced that 95% of the people who check out the forum stop scrolling about a third of the way down from the top of the page...

Oh, yeah, that'll do. That'll do very nicely indeed! And I thought I was the only one who used pennies to prop up a low-slung body during mockup. Guess not!

That's okay- I'm guilty of the same charge.

So I guess that means you're already aware of Funny Pages across the street, huh?

No idea... I'm not a trophy hound. You tell me.

Nice! I have almost no interest in WWII-specific subject matter, but I'm getting at least one of these. It's just such a cool, imposing-looking car! Is it just me, or are these new 1:24 ICM kits somewhat reminiscent of the old Heller 1:24 kits? (And I mean that in a flattering way.)

It happens- the first Moebius Hornet I built was from a test shot- it was in the '53 box, but had the '52 grille and hood ornament (in addition to the '53 parts, obviously) as well as both the full covered wheels and the plated open steel wheels, the latter of which were not in the '53 coupe kit (but did make it into the '52 Convertible as an option). It also had two pairs of wing vents on the clear sprue for some reason. Shortly after I got the kit Dave Metzner mentioned that the '53 coupe kit would not include the aformentioned parts.

I've pored over all the pictures of this kit, and have looked at a few in person, and besides the 7-lead distributor cap, the only thing I really see weird going on (to my eye) is that character line over the rear wheel opening. Something just seems weird enough about it to register, but I'll not profess to be any kind of expert on E-Body Mopars. And I guess in the grand scheme, that 7-lead distributor isn't weird... remember when it seemed like Revell was under the impression the cars they were producing in kit form had 10-volt electrical systems (ie- the infamous five-cap batteries)? I think this kit is proof that Revell's listening- not only to complaints about the accuracy of their last two attempts at a '70 'Cuda, but some of their other past efforts, which were viewed by many as being almost comically flawed. If you really want to sit there, pick this thing apart, and crunch the numbers, I'd still be willing to wager it's a marked improvement in quality (as far as being an accurate depiction of the subject) over, say, the '69 Novas, the '48 Ford Coupe, or the '72 Cutlass. I'm guessing this kit was probably too far into development to change much when the war cries over the weird roof on the '90 LX were heard, but maybe that backlash helped them to try a bit harder to get the important stuff right with this one too. Some Revell kits of late have been real head-scratchers for me ("Something looks off... but I just can't put my finger on what...") but so far this kit hasn't had that effect on me, personally. Of all the new kits Revell has introduced over the last few years, I'm thinking this one's head and shoulders above the rest in terms of accuracy. And if somebody takes me up on that wager, and I win, I'd be more than happy to use my winnings to purchase a new set of bifocals for anyone who still thinks this kit looks more Camaro than 'Cuda.