62rebel

i bought this kit just after it came out thinking it wouldn't be around long. here's my short review: the plastic is really fragile; think in terms of model airplanes instead of trucks. the instructions, while better than pictograms, require careful reading, since MANY parts are similar between the truck and trailer BUT do NOT interchange. it would have been better if they'd molded the trailer parts in a completely different color plastic. the solid vinyl hi-miler tires are BEAUTIFUL but too small for the assembled wheels, and quite heavy compared to hollow AMT tires. extreme care must be taken when putting the tires on the rims. locating tabs for springs, axles, accessory air tanks, etc are by and large guesswork. constant reference to the boxtop is a must. the steerable front axle is a great gimmick, but given the weight of the tires and the brittle plastic it should be sacrificed for durability. just my opinion. i'm very impressed with the "look" of the kit, even though i STILL haven't finished mine for lack of more reference material. the 40 ford kit is every bit as good and possibly better than AMT's since it HASN'T been reissued 50 times. there are few extra parts and those are of dubious authenticity, but it builds up nicely with care. another 40 coupe on the shelf is not a bad thing. side note on the tire issue: i assembled the trailer first to get a feel for the kit; i tried to assemble the trailer wheels per kit instructions but the wheel halves would not touch inside the tire. i super glued the rims to the tires in this case. when i built the tractor, i assembled the wheels and set them aside to dry for a day before slipping the tires onto them. it was difficult and risky considering the brittle plastic but it did work, and i MAY try to redo the trailer wheels also.

i recall Revell including in most of their kits (during the '70s mostly) a decal sheet literally bursting with cool sponsor logos, close to if not exactly 1/25 scale (not the humongous 1/20 scale AMT sponsor sheets) and faithfully reproducing era logos. trouble is, at that time i had little interest in drag cars, muscle cars, etc; all i built was replica stock. now that i've broadened my modeling horizons, i'd love to see those sheets back in publication.

admit it; you've been in my backyard!

don't think he'd have had enough room to properly center the wheels if he had put the fenders on the "right" way. i might've shortened the trailing edge to proportion them better but all in all it looks good the way it is. another option IF you had the spare parts would have been to section two pairs of fenders to get the leading portion smaller. looks okay the way it is!

perception and proportion are key to any artistic exercise, be it a model, a painting, or a sculpture (isn't a model sculpture, anyway?) and having the talent and ability to make a box of parts look REAL when put together is a gift. architectural models, built by designers and engineers, never LOOK "right"; perhaps because they MUST adhere to strict dimensions and forgo scale proportioning. our childhood favorites; Matchbox cars, were held to fine tolerances early on. when the competition started up, the quality went down, and late Matchbox were never up to the standard of the early ones. it's true of model kits also; scale fidelity was KEY in the 50's and 60's but by the 70's was a sidebar to quantity of units sold. most kits from the '70's have abominable chassis and engine detail, and often poor body proportions. at least the remaining makers have been retooling some of the really junk kits over again.

when i was working on mustangs and cougars i was astounded especially by the poor factory fit on the cougar hood, fenders, and grilles. you could spend all day getting the left corner to line up while the right would be way out, and the center of the hood never lined up. any cougar that has perfect alignment all the way across has had MAJOR time spent setting shims and body washers. my mother's 81 buick actually had thirteen (!) body washers on the right front fender inside the door jamb area and six on the driver's side. so today i don't bother as long as the hood doesn't bind and chip the paint.

i didn't realize i was living such a forward-thinking life!

palmer kits almost did that for me! well-meaning but budget minded folks are the only reason they stayed in business; buying birthday and Christmas gifts for grandkids and nephews. i been building for 30+ years and i think i'd be challenged by this one. HOWEVER: looking at the kit parts shows little mold deterioration; the lines seem to still be sharp and the parts don't appear to be warped.

you have earned a lifetime "i'm a guy" card; many of us have them due to our insistence that we didn't get hurt as bad as it looked (yeah right!) and we plugged along anyway. glad you came out of it sorta okay; you could have suffered a subdural hematoma and crashed your truck. not gonna say more than that...

i might be little prejudiced (having owned one) but i vote Volvo on this one besides Simon Templar drove the coolest one.

nope;not an allard; they had a split transverse front axle a la 36 ford hinged in the middle at the frame (very primitive independent front suspension!) and were complete handling BAS%^#DS in bad conditions. the modification was intended to help them in British Hill climbing competition by helping to keep one of the front wheels in contact (!!) with the ground. this car looks very like the caballo de hierro or old yeller and might be contemporary to them going by the engine. (allards could be had with any number of engine/trans combinations depending on the depth of your checquing account)

so it's the same frustration the rest of us feel with them i suppose. i remember monogram's seventies foray into the wider world of near-toy models and carried that image into the eighties and beyond in my mind. the really great monogram kits are long gone IMHO; ditto for AMT and revell (and my oldies favorite JoHan) but even incorrect issues of kits are better than none at all. i developed a marked distaste for revell's kits in the eighties due to bad engineering, incorrect details and some kits that just plain couldn't be built well out of the box. i very nearly gave up car modeling altogether during the plastic-tire period; virtually no example of those tires looked accurate/correct/realistic no matter what you did with them (except TOSS them). i used tires from junked or old kits to build new models as long as i could; after that i let the hobby slide for ten years.

jbwelda; what happened to you that has made you hate AMT kits so much? AMT management, SURE; development, yeah; but the whole line? i used to be ambivalent towards Revell for some of it's older kits being pure PITA to get looking good, but as far as hating them? at least they aren't Palmer ######; the ones our well-meaning but utterly clueless aunts and uncles bought us for birthday and Christmas presents!

it's always a rough time when you get hit by the missing parts gremlin; i guess i've been fairly lucky to only get a few kits in 30 years with this problem. it's also tough on us when a manufacturer changes what USED to be a modeler-friendly missing parts program to a f-o policy. buying mail order seems to be your only alternative to being fleeced by your local shark. blaming rc2 or revell or the guy next door is easy; but if they took the wal-mart approach to everything (money back no questions asked) many businesses would find it hard to stay open. if rc2 doesn't have a program to help RETAIL customers, what makes you think they honor claims from retail STORES? the only remedy to this guy's problem is IF he must buy from the local hobby shop is to open and examine the kit AT THE COUNTER at the time of purchase with witnesses to vouch for the condition and contents. otherwise, i'd stay ncompletely away from and keep my friends out of that shop, period.

regardless; still an awesome model. you could always claim you added mounting points to the block! IMHO; 99% wouldn't notice/know the difference.

it is indeed a beautiful build but i have noticed a flathead peculiarity that many may have seen and not commented on. the fomoco 8ba /8cm didn't have any provision for motor mounts on the sides of the block; they were part of the water pumps on the front of the block. the mercury kit block you've used had a simple molded projection to cement it to the merc crossmember, also not prototypical but that's what AMT did. the engine from the R-M 50 ford f1 pickup has the correctly styled mounts and water pumps but i would not want you to change your build at this stage! i'm truthfully picking a nit with this but if you were doing another one.... again i am truly impressed with "Topper" and your skills.

that bites. reminds me of the melted VHS tapes video stores used to keep on display to keep you mindful of rented property and in-car heat. IMHO; put it in a display case and keep it at the clubhouse. there but for the grace of God go I....

yeah; don't attempt a 58 oldsmobile in one stretch.... some cars would probably be easier to chrome the BODY and paint in the COLOR later! or use aircraft model monokote type stuff on it.

i can't recall if the dragon lady was a more detailed kit or just the AMX kit with pro stock extras; i imagine the repop with white metal wheels was more expensive and thereby harder to find/buy? i'm impressed by the scale fidelity and accuracy of the EXTERIOR of JoHan kits per se; was always hoping to be able to improve the chassis of their annual-based kits.

dude; i never saw that one before! i know lindberg is not known for being too precise with engine detail, but i'd have to see how it went together before making a judgment on this kit. it looks really tough on the cover; let's hope it looks just as tough finished up. tear into it!

i know that the old sox&martin cuda, pro street comet and s/c rambler were done but did the AMX coupe get done also?

Bill; you are amazing. in plastic sculpture you rival the Wingroves' work in metal. i've read your watch pin article in SAE and learned not only your technique but to look at everything from a modeling point of view as regards it's use and potential. of course, working on the 1:1 as well as the scale versions also gives great insight into what can serve a purpose it may not have been intended for!

very nice! i have only a couple of really old builds left myself, one is the old JoHan 64 Dodge polara and the others are probably AMT 49 fords. i have a big batch that has smoke and fly ash damage to them from being on display in a wood-heated house, and they all need cleaning and polishing before going back on display.

i have been eyeing the remaining lindberg kits at the LHS and i might snap them up now. i'd built the 32 roadster pickup many years ago and was very happy with it; not being as nit-picky as i am now. but nit-picky and me don't get along anymore due to bad eyesight and beginnings of arthritis, so back to simple stuff from time to time! i like both the builds shown immensely; they could have been the same car under construction at different times in the owner's life.

man; to do that much bodywork on the dukes shell, you're going to use a different interior and chassis i hope! that's great work though; looking forward to seeing more.