62rebel

very nice looking build, and nice to see something without a set of 22's on it slammed to the ground.

that'll teach you to mix your liquors.

the MPC body parts fit very well with the AMT chassis with slight mods; the MPC kit has a non-stock chassis more appropriate for a gasser-type vehicle. i like to use the chrome bumpers and grille from the MPC version on the AMT kit. i've never had one of the '57 gasser kits, but the frames do look very similar in the instruction sheets i've seen. the MPC kit does have a killer BBC engine and a set of cool fenderwell headers. the "wire mag" wheels don't cut the mustard, though.... and the front axle is VERY fragile. i like the in-bed wheelwell extensions, but in reality they don't add much extra clearance for larger tires. widening the rear fenders works better, by using Revell '56 F100 rear fenders. using the '56 gives the opportunity to steal the "crest" type taillights as well.......

even the ancient Lindberg kits have clear and accurate photos of the built kit, right on the box top. if the box has photos of a built model, then at least ONE person has been able to build it correctly and be otherwise satisfied with it. heck; even some Palmer kits can be built to look somewhat decent..... impulse buying is what MADE model cars such a big success in the '70's.... every store from Sears down to Quik-E mart had models in it, even our local Kings grocery store had them, on an end cap near the checkout lines, right there for kids to pester their moms for a couple of bucks for..... shelling out 20-30 bucks for something on IMPULSE today is out of the question. i've been to the local HobbyTown several times recently and found NOTHING worth shelling out 30 bucks for..... NOTHING, not even the new Moebius Chrysler, which i already have a kit of, but would buy another.

trying to answer the OP, probably a Maverick or Nova, maybe a Hornet or Valiant/Dart? so few American cars not thought of as compacts or economy cars even HAD manual trans for a long stretch of time..... and one way to cut costs was to eliminate the clumsy column shift in favor of floor shift, especially when top-mounted shifters became the norm. fleet operators, long considered the bellwether of "cheap" cars, grew away from manual trans for ease of maintenance and repairs on rental cars and motor pool vehicles. by the mid-'80's it was getting hard to find people capable of PROPERLY driving stick.... and a few hammer-handed drivers could ruin stick-equipped cars pretty quickly. i know that Granadas came with floor shift three speeds, so Mavericks were probably Ford's last column shift cars.

which is why i almost never offer criticism of a build, only approval. the ones that have caught my eye as referenced in my opening post are NOT beginner efforts and have had wiring, etc, added... begging the question, "why superdetail and leave seams/flash?"

very nice and very interesting build! looks real enough.... is it a representation of any specific truck, or just your imagination bearing fruit?

i've seen several builds lately that, while well painted and otherwise cleanly built, still had tons of seam lines and flash that weren't removed or smoothed out. still others had ejection pin marks that were obvious. i applaud good building skills and wonder why these errors were overlooked, unless the builder didn't have any reference other than the box art to go on? please do some research while you're building; scrape down those seams and clean up that flash.

why not move this to "how do i".

catering to the widest possible consumer spectrum means making choices in how far to go in providing details. we builders with the experience in deaing with fine-scale parts can take or leave tiny parts in stride... less experienced builders may simply get frustrated, lose interest in the kit, or even start flaming it in reviews because it had fiddly bits they couldn't handle yet. having waited several months in anticipation of the second Moebius car kit, and having been overwhelmed by the Hudson kit, i feel that criticizing Moebius for such a slight omission is really sort of sour grapes. sure, there are Japanese kits that have wipers and door handles; lots of them are curbsides and have flat pan chassis.... and still cost between thirty and fifty dollars sometimes. surely you should get an engine in a kit costing thirty bucks or more? BTW the Revell Chevelle wagon kit has two sets of door handles in it, IIRC... enough to do the kit in the box and a couple more.

flagging interest might be another indicator.... i don't comment on stuff that has zero interest or that i feel isn't done well. i don't begin to know how posting records work in that manner, so i can't offer any more explanation.

Impala.

very convincing build, Gregor.... showroom style, nice and shiny. lots of guys dislike this kit because of it's ancient design, but i've built two identical blue-and-white ones and think they're great. i'm not a big fan of 4x4's but i like oddballs and this is definitely an oddball these days.

in a word, NO.

for all the guys that insist on separate door handles and wipers, consider the cost and efficiency of tooling four more pieces accurately enough to appear close to scale and STILL be robust enough to withstand being molded, bagged, stuffed into a box, shipped ten thousand miles, shipped from warehouse to distribution center and then to stores without breaking, and then withstand being cut from the sprue without breaking or going astray.... the consider it's nearly a miracle of faith in your product that it will sell well enough that you risked tooling it up in the first place. IMHO i've seen LOTS of builds with separate wipers where they simply will not sit "right". door handles, not so bad, but plenty of misaligned wipers.

have you tried doing this with the kerfs (cuts) to the inside of the bend, as you would when bending wood? there's a specific formula for how many kerfs and how far apart to obtain a given radius curve, but i don't have it at hand. placing the kerfs inside the curve reduces the likelihood of breaking and gives you gluing surfaces to hold the stock in place without having to add fishplates. cabinet makers use this method all the time for making curved faces out of plywood/lumber. you can even bend drywall using this method.

Dominik, you kill me with your builds... off the scale! that is a beauty, no doubt about it.

i wish MY first had come out as well. nicely done! sits level, shiney paint, no goofs: job well done!

he's right; that's the OHC version of the Hemi, an oddball MoPar powerhouse. i've never bought a kit with it simply because i could never come up with a car that it would theoretically have been installed in! it's a unique item to include in a build, though....

i don't have much enthusiasm for anything that doesn't at least have SOME accurate scale parts in it. i never got much into cartoon kits as a kid, either, and at the prices some of these are going for, they're too expensive for "slump busters". even my own scratchbuilt "flights of fancy" strive for some sort of functional realism. "rat rods" don't do much for me, either, because i remember what real hot rods were intended to look like. stagecoach wheels on muscle cars give me nausea as well.

that's him... awesome work.

patience and tape and very sharp Xacto blades. there's no pre-printed decals that i know of to do that car in that design. there's a member in France that does marvelous panel painting jobs that might help with this.

IMHO it's too common of a kit to worry over. i cut up two of them to repair my AMT Iron Horse Mustangs and never gave it a second thought. they're readily available fairly cheap.

we had cupcakes after dinner. they were delicious.

that's a good result from a reviled kit.... silk purse from the sow's ear, so to speak.