bisc63

If you're lucky enough to have an "Ollie's" near you, they have in stock this week an assortment of Dupli-color "Perfect Match" automotive touch-up paints in 8oz. spray cans for 99 cents per can! I found seven colors and clear I can easily use in modeling. These are acrylic lacquer and spray very nicely. Ollie's price stickers cover the OEM matching numbers, but I was just looking at them as close-enough sort of usage. You can make out some labeling; my dark burgundy-ish color turned out to be GM's Dark Garnet Red Metallic, and my silver is from Honda!

Progressing nicely!

Something very "clean" about this body style. Looking forward to seeing what you make of it!

Yeah, they're definitely workable kits, but not faultless. A LOT of things can go wrong between measuring and final product. The best laid plans...

Great work so far! Keep it coming!

Interesting stuff. I have access to a fixer-upper 65 Buick Skylark that I can pull some actual measurements from - thinking of the greenhouse in particular, which I believe is the same across the GM intermediates of that year. Just thinking out loud, in an internet forum kind of way! Snake, you say the window openings are pretty much the same. That means corrections to the PL C-pillar need to happen at the rear, which is a bit of a complication, but maybe not terrible. Can anyone speak to the accuracy of the AMT 65 GTO roof that was separate from the body ( not the "custom" one) ? Thinking of a glue-on replacement.

Lots to love here, but John, that Watson-esque paint is right on the money!

Love that color! Is there a build thread here on the forum?`

That C-pillar is really noticeable now that you've mapped it out. That old AMT body looks right to these middle-aging eyes. Just holding some lined paper against my screen, the PL body shows to be "taller", and I see it easily, especially in the rear quarter panel. It has a "stumpy" proportion that is the opposite of the "lean-but-muscular" AMT quarter panel. Do you see it? Could be a photo thang! Dangit, now I want one of those AMT bodies. Overall, the PL body looks to my eyes to need about a 1mm slice taken out of the body from stem to stern, a slight pie-cut vertical at the back of the front fender opened up to take a little of the droop out of the front end, and the C-post massaged into shape. Just one man's opinion... Thanks again for the comparison. This helps. I have a couple of these and really want to build them as right as I can. I like my old Monogram kits, but they are 1/24. Was really happy to see these in 1/25 when they came out. I think they have much potential yet.

Well said. Don't forget that applies to your health as well! The key is PROGRESS. A little is still some PROGRESS!! By the way, black will look sweet on this, but I can picture it on the salt flats with a silver body on a red frame. Just sayin... Hang in there. man!

Ron, those builds sound intriguing, and I hope you have time to document and post. Best of luck. I'll be watching for your measurements on those kits as well. Thanks for the effort!

Flatout, that's a sweet build of this old favorite. Greg, I seem to have struck a nerve. That was unintentional. My point wasn't that you couldn't stroke and bore to your heart's content then or any other time, but you weren't going to land on 396 cubic inches with the available hardware from those days. Even the article that shows the 396ci engine doesn't explain how they got there, but talks about the typical 383 you get with a 400 crank in a 350 block. Back to modeling...

Fantastic. Your work is appreciated, and should help quite a few of us! Will be watching...

Snake, had any time to experiment with the C-pillar?

Keep this one going! So far, so good!

Ha! These days, yep. Back in the days of this kit's first run - nope. Read the article, and it was the proliferation of 400 cranks with smaller main journals from the 80s that makes these strokers possible. C'mon man, Monogram just threw us an old 283 because it was already on the tool. Shoulda been a 265 (slightly different) for 1955 anyway. Snake, interesting note on that graphic. Would you happen to have a scan, or a link to share?

The biggest goof with the Badman kit was the side graphic boldly claiming "396 cu.in.", while the kit contained the same old small-block chevy engine from previous versions of the kit, thus your perception that the engine looks "too small" is correct in one way. It is fairly accurately scaled for a small-block, however, and most engines look small in those old cavernous engine bays, even big-blocks!

That's a very classy shade of blue! Diggin' this build, can't wait to see more.

Oh yeah, keep it coming...

You did a fine job. Kudos for not giving up on the project; it says alot about you that you kept coming back to it to make it look the way you envisioned. As for the finished project, taste is personal of course, but your execution is very clean and professional. Great build! Personally, I love the look you've gotten here; very aggressive rod. It looks like a 1980s period piece, that's the way we were building street cars then. It was cool to black out the chrome, if not remove it. it was considered a very "European" look.

Lookin' GOOD!

The body does look a bit "stumpy" as someone mentioned, especially at the front. To me, 90% of the perceived flaw(s) lie in the front fenders; they appear just a little too short front -to-rear. They also slant downward from rear-to-front too abruptly, thus the "banana" reference, though that implies a curve, and it really is an angle issue. Sight down the top of the front fenders as they align with the door belt line and you'll see it. I think the old 1/24 Monogram kit is much more accurately proportioned. My 2cents!

I'll buy it when I see it.

Best of luck with regards to your health. Hope to see you finish this beauty, and many more!!

Glad you're back, Niko. Are you documenting your 1:1 build anywhere? I'd love to see what you're doing with it. Good luck on BOTH projects!