Chuck Most

Chevy's aren't as cheap to build compared to other engines anymore. Still a bit cheaper, but by how much is arguable. I'd personally go with the Monaco just for kink factor (that and the kit already has a big block), but that Mustang would be very workable as a bracket car.

But here's the thing- EVERY kit has something off about it. Yes, even Tamiya kits. If it isn't body proportions, it's the detail. Even the Polar Lights Batmobile has a few hiccups, and it was based off scans of the actual car. Not many, mind you, but they are there. When you consider that this is only Moebius' second all-new automotive kit (third counting the Lonestar, IF you discount the fact the body on that was based off International's own CAD files, not a total clean-slate job like the Hudson and Chrysler, and not counting the two '52 version spinoffs of the '53 kit), I'm pretty impressed with the kit so far. Really- does this look like a product from a company which was a non-player in the automotive hobby kit market just a few years ago? If I put money on any manufacturer getting a classic American subject 100% right, I'd put it on Moebius. At any rate, I guess I just don't get people constantly comparing quality and engineering between such-and-such American kit manufacturer(s) and Tamiya. You're talking about two entirely different companies (in two entirely different countries on two entirely different continents no less). Of course they aren't going to approach things the same way! I will say this kit, in terms of layout, engraving, and engineering, kind of reminds me of the Galaxie Limited Chevrolets quite a bit more than the contents of a Tamiya box, though. I suppose it boils down to your own personal preferences, and how anything that may be off looks to your eye. For me, this one falls WELL within the acceptable criteria.

He said side-by-side, not end-to-end. But if done end to end, yeah- where would you park the freakin' thing?

Maybe it's off a tick- but just imagine how hillarious this kit would be if Trumpeter had kitted it instead.

Basically what I'm getting at. Even someone who might be lost in earlier automotive era could pick a Fusion or Camry out of a lineup of modern-day sedans. I just think the 'all cars look the same' mentality is questionable when it's only applied to modern cars, because it has pretty much held true the entire history of the auto industry. One manufacturer comes out with a style or design that 'works' with the buying public, and the competition will follow suit sooner or later. Same as it ever was.

Same size, same shape, same style cars. You mean like the '50's, when every car was 20 feet long, had tailfins, a huge wraparound windshield, and acres of brightwork? Or the '40's, when every car had pontoon fenders? Or maybe the '70's, when all the US manufacturers had full-blown love affairs power-bulge hoods and formal roof lines? Yeah, this 'all cars look the same' idea must be a symptom of the modern era.

It's one of these, which one kind of depends on what kind of mood I'm in.

I do have a '93 Ranger that 'needs' a V8, so I might be able to cook something up.

Love it! Greatest movie starring an alien EVER.

Nice!

Go back and poke through SAE's annual 'most wanted new release' polls, then do a quick inventory of what has actually been introduced over the last couple of decades. In fact, I posted something about that a while back- http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49545&hl=lunatics&fromsearch=1 Obviously, the kit manufacturers DO listen... they don't just pull subject matter out of thin air. And at least one kit manufacturer takes what online forum members have to say quite seriously (cough, cough, Moebius), as they have formed a habit of posting test shot photos and asking the forum members for their input. And quality is much improved- lack of tire lettering aside, the kits introduced the last decade or so pretty much blow away the stuff we were getting even in the late '90's as far as detail and accuracy go. That would never have happened if the manufacturers had not paid heed to the 'serious' adult modelers. I think the kit manufacturers deserve a great deal more credit for listening to what we have to say and following through than we may give them sometimes.

True, but a Merc would look silly with pasties.

Exactly. One change begets another. And another. And another...

When you can actually find one for sale? Yes. This transkit is a bargain at half the price.

That's the one thing that's stalled the few diecast-based projects I've had on the table. You've heard the 'Chinese puzzle' metaphor? It applies. Granted, the same can be said for plastic kits with lots of opening panels, but plastic is a bit more forgiving to work with than diecast metal.

Basically a repop of the original Ertl variant of its stock SSII kit, cleanly molded in white resin. It of course features the door cutouts of the 1:1, with a unique body tub to match... The SSII-specific grille with its vertical spats (an oh-so-subtle flick under the chin at Jeep, perhaps?) The SSII-spec bucket seats and interior tub/chassis casting round things out. I used parts box mirrors and a rollbar from a Revell Jeep J-10 to finish mine off. An AMT/Ertl Scout II reissue supplies everything else. I added the missing hood peak and subtly reshaped the hood and top edge of the grille, as the Ertl parts aren' correctly shaped. I also added a few missing body panel cut lines on the front splash apron, cowl, and taillamp panels. Those ommissions on the body aren't Time Machine's fault- they were absent on the Ertl kits as well. Very nice little transkit, and adapts to the kit parts with zero fuss. Now I just wish somebody would reproduce the parts for Ertl's third Scout II variant, the 'Off Road' version!

At least Revell made up their minds... the AMT kit has an automatic shifter, but it also has a clutch pedal.

I'd hate to be Don Holthaus. He has a really nice cubside resin kit, but that just won't cut it for some! I seriously doubt I'd personally buy one (unless I got the itch to build one of Ida's 'Lower 48' customs), but for all the times I've seen this one brought up in 'most wanted' polls and mentioned in 'wish they made x' conversations, I don't doubt it would be at least a modest success.

'Why?' comes to mind....

Jim built something shiny? The devil you say! Very nice, on a serious note.

I will never protest a kit being built, and I've got a soft spot for Mercurys, so this project has my personal blessing.

http://adaptivestrategies.com/Asanti_Stone_Series_Wheels.html

You had my attention with 'burlesque'.

I'm thinking of building a Prostar in that exact configuration to tow the Great Dane. Well, I MIGHT hang onto the aluminum wheels.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a dying hobby at all. Is it as huge as it was in the '60's? From what I've seen and heard, no it isn't. But what it lacks in sheer size, compared to where it used to be, it more than makes up for in diversity and subject matter. So, yes, I see a more focused (selective, perhaps?) market than in the past, but by no means dead or dying. People have been building miniature replicas of vehicles long before the invention of the old annual kits... before cars,even. That's going to continue, whether kits are available or not.