Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Bill J

Members
  • Posts

    803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill J

  1. P.T. Barnum was right it would seem. BTW, the decals were done by Powerslide and Cartograph printed. The one nice thing about this piece of kit.
  2. The battery looks pretty well represented but I doubt it's intended location is accurate. Someone mentioned the AMT and MPC Malibu kits, those were originally tooled in the mid '70's. Kits were about $4 back then and there was no CAD/CAM. Models were done by eyeball and hand work. Today kits are done on computers and should be fairly error free with some correct input. These guys laser scanned a weak model to create their 3D images and ran with the inaccuracies.
  3. It would have been great to get an accurate 77-78 Olds kit, or even something close to accurate. The really unfortunate side to this whole deal, is that this company has plans to use this whole chassis, floor pan and engines in all of their proposed kits. A lot of people pointed out the error of leaf springs and they are supposed to be doing a correction piece that is optional. I am sure it will be way off based on how it will likely have to be made. This kit is as bad as a poorly detailed diecast. The decals are first class Powerslide art and Cartograph printed, a waste on this turkey of a kit. You can buy decals only from Powerslide that also include options for other years and body styles. The days of the generic MPC kits were acceptable at the price they were sold for. The bodies were at least close to accurate. To charge a premium price for a kit today and to have the level of buffoonery that this kit includes is just plain nonsense. I seriously doubt that anything they do in the future will be any better. The one size fits all just doesn't work.
  4. Great collection of engines and detailing. Thanks for sharing them with us.
  5. Now that I have seen all of the parts, seems there are some more glaring errors. The chassis is a 2 part thing like the 70's MPC NASCAR kits, the front suspension is torsion bar instead of coil springs, the rear leafs we already knew about. The headers are a Ford or big block Chevy type with all four equally separated. The tires are horrible, not even usable they are molded so badly. As I keep saying the body sides are smooth and rounded and not flatter with the crease for the undercut above the rocker area. The rear bumper is all wrong, the front bumper has nearly no detail to it. Pretty much looks like the old MPC kits done in the early '70's but with more errors. You all can buy this kit if you want, don't let me stop you. Keep in mind that they will put the same level of quality into all their future kits if this one is accepted. I am not buying any, even though I really like the car this kit is a really poor representation.
  6. This reputation will be not because we are cruel but because they chose to put out a poorly researched kit for whatever reason. They have probably lost a lot of respect among NASCAR modelers. Although some seem to accept the flaws as acceptable and due to the hand built nature of NASCAR race cars, that is BS since in those days they used factory sheet metal and were only allowed to widen the wheel openings, the cars were not hand formed like in the early 90's. They 3D scanned an inaccurate resin model and took the CAD drawings and created a kit. No measurements, no looking at a real car just cranked it out. The only plus in the kit are the Powerslide decals. I am holding on to my money. A little error is common, an entire kit done with multiple errors is unacceptable. The markings with Spectra were from the 1979 Daytona 500 and the NAPA Shocks were from 1980, when Buddy Baker won the race.
  7. With the incorrect sides of the body, the wrong rear suspension and the wrong rear bumper there is not much to like about this alleged kit. While it would be nice to get some cars from that era, NASCAR or stock, this attempt is too far from the mark, From what I have seen of the body and parts trees, it looks for all the world like the reintroduction of the early '70's MPC generic NASCAR kits. Hardly worth the premium price tag. At least the old MPC kits had fairly correct bodies. The thing that really gets me is that they have not listened to one single person that has pointed out the glaring inaccuracies and made NO attempt to correct the kit in any way. Just pushing it out. None of the delays with the kit are because of corrections or inaccuracies, they are delays in production, packing and shipping. When I first heard about this kit I was excited but after seeing what it consists of, I am not spending a dime on one example.
  8. Really nice Elvin! Neat old Ferd
  9. Good luck with the Chevy builds. Mark J has some posts of his 63 Chevy Junior Johnson build on this forum, Mark's is one of the very nicest I have seen.
  10. All of the Lobographix decals fit the appropriate cars. The only 63 Chevy kits are AMT and Revell and they are both 1/25. I am sure if you ask Lobographix, they will tell you the decals are made to fit the kits. I have the Jumior Johnson decals and they are sized for the AMT or Revell kits.
  11. https://www.ebay.com/sch/lobographix/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from
  12. Really cool! Chester Burnett was always one of my favorite blues artists! I miss the good old blues music. I listen to the blues on the radio as often as possible. Howlin' Wolf's car is awesome, nicely done!
  13. All interesting perspectives. So, here is my thoughts on the whole NASCAR can of worms. In the beginning stock car racing was just that, the racing of stock cars. Along the way the sanctioning body and the racers themselves have lost track of this concept. Their excuse is safety (necessary) and reliability (today's stock cars are more reliable). What would you rather see, a race of 40 stock cars or 40 special built, racing only custom made cars? Yes, they put branding n them to make them seem like actual cars. Truth is both the cars and the racing suck. I first became a NASCAR fan a year or two before getting my first driver license. The one race I really recall was one that had a Ford called a Starlifter. It was 1962 and the car was a boxy Ford Galaxie with the roof replaced with a fastback top from a 1961 Ford Starliner. It made the car much faster by improving aerodynamics and created some excitement and some controversy. Car was banned after a few races. It did create some interest and it was a stock body and chassis car back then. The cars evolved and were regulated to the point that by late 1966 they were custom made cars but still had to maintain certain stock appearances. That actual aspect, of appearing like showroom cars was enough to maintain public interest in the races. Along the way to today, the cars changed here and there until they became the cookie cutter, unrealistic "stock cars" we see today (or don't care to see). What made racing interesting decades ago was innovation in aero design, engine design and drivers that worked their way from the bottom to the top by being talented, bold and fearless. One of the most important factors effecting fan interest was that the cars raced were nearly identical to the cars we could all buy. Not anything like the custom funny cars they assemble for the series today, there is no relationship other than the occasional logo pasted on the hand made bodies. If you take Indy car racing as an example, most of us old enough remember when the month of May was special to race fans. The Indianapolis Speedway opened to testing for the Indy 500 and all sorts of cars/builders/drivers showed up to try to make a winning car. We had innovation, we had weird concepts and we had all sorts of powerplants. try to beat the brickyard into submission and win the Indy 500. Cars like Smokey Yunick's sidecar, the Novi powered cars, the turbine cars. Rear engine cars, front engine cars and exhaust pipes out the top of the engine because that was the only way the engine could fit the chassis. The whole experience was exciting, interesting and yeah, dangerous. We, the fans loved it all. Indy car today is as boring as watching paint dry, in comparison to days past. What is wrong with racing stock cars today? Yes, they'd have to be made safe for racing, roll cages, beefed chassis and other enhancements. The reliability would be demonstrated by innovative design and not by $150,000 hand built engines. Fans would be able to identify with the cars raced, not the logos on them. While we are at it, NASCAR needs to do away with all their fake drama created by "stages", "playoffs" and "the chase". Who really cares for any of that phony stuff? Has it really added any excitement? No, just hyped nonsense. If I owned NASCAR today, I would sell too before any more of the shiny buffs off of the turd it has become.
  14. I was not really addressing Asian made vehicles in my FWD statement. I believe that the Asian successes are the reason all of the US makers began making FWD cars. While it is common for a Toyota or Honda to last 10 years or more, it is also pretty common to see domestic FWD cars get scrapped because of some $3500 replacement of a transmission that makes the cost too great to pay. Not to argue, I just know what I see in my experience. Just as you do.
  15. Don't even get me started on self driving cars!! What a neat concept that may be workable someday but not today. We had a lady killed recently in our state, she was walking across the street with a bicycle and the self driving car hit her without even slowing down. It was also going over the posted speed limit and the person that was supposed to override the system in an emergency was not even paying attention. Our governor has welcomed, invited and begged for these self driven technologies to come to our state. There are just too many variables involved in safe vehicle operation for a computer with a few sensors to be able to safely negotiate current roads and traffic. Oh, and you and I have to demonstrate our driving ability and our knowledge of traffic laws before we can earn a license to drive, but they'll let someone say that their computer controlled vehicle is ready for the road? Wrong!!!
  16. I think, and it is just my opinion not based on any data from anywhere, that front wheel drive cars are the real problem. It can be a so called crossover, or a SUV or a passenger sedan, if it is front wheel drive it is a self destructive vehicle. I know that FWD has some advantages in certain conditions. Overall though, I think FWD is rough riding, steers weird and the biggest problem of all, FWD vehicles are too expensive to maintain and repair. You hardly ever see a FWD vehicle last very many years. Something breaks and they get scrapped. It's the repair costs that people can't afford. A friend had a Dodge and the tranny went out after the warranty was expired, car was about 6 years old and the repair estimate was way more than the car was worth in running order. Scrapped. Unfortunately, some so called SUV's and about all "crossover's" are FWD. Maybe they are cheaper to build when you just drop all the running gear into the front end. Whatever the reason, it ends up being a pain to repair and costly. It is not a surprise to see trucks sell so well. Most of the larger SUV's are based on the trucks and have RWD, full frames and are sturdy. Their downside is poor mileage and purchase prices that are becoming too costly for the average buyer. To my tastes, most of the SUV's and all of the crossovers are too car like, too cushy and not very capable except as grocery getters. Basically, they are high roofed station wagons. The old days of heavy duty Blazers, Broncos and Scouts are over and replaced with vehicles that are more like cars than tough trucks. Ford has so many SUV style vehicles and they are all basically the same except for size. Maybe the new Bronco will be more of a realistic utility vehicle. GM is basically the same. Both makers offer some heavy duty SUV options as long as you have over $50K to spend on a Tahoe/Suburban or Expedition. The average buyer is stuck with an Equinox or Escape at $30K, FWD pavement loving wagons. So for Ford and GM to drop cars makes sense because not many buyers than have been around awhile really want to spend $30K+ on a disposable FWD vehicle. Those same manufacturers should not be surprised when their disposable FWD wagons don't sell all that well in the future. For the record, I drive a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, still complex but more basic than most offerings around today.
  17. If you have a Hobby Lobby nearby, there is a paint in a spray can called Bonnet Blue that is from craft paints section. It is made by one of the usual paint companies, forget which off the top of my head. It is an enamel, regular gloss paint that pretty nearly matches the Gulf Blue. For the orange, not too hard to match that one. Paint is Krylon "Short Cuts" comes in a 3 ounce spray can, cheaper than Testor's IIRC. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=sOCHYczH&id=F2AA55E5A1E8F9B12EFFFFDA234B662190F5A45E&thid=OIP.sOCHYczHb2Vebetk75NzbgHaHa&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fimg.hobbylobby.com%2fsys-master%2froot%2fh36%2fh4e%2fh00%2f8892945596446%2f464479[5].jpg&exph=350&expw=350&q=krylon+short+cuts+bottet+blue&simid=608006194130259761&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
  18. I actually have a correct 6 cylinder engine that came out of a gluebomb and I have all my parts painted for building another 150 with the 6. I have the white paint on the body and some Harbor Blue Chevy paint for it. I know that was not an optional paint choice but was probably special order-able to make one like that.I am planning on using a back seat from the Revell 57 2 door BelAir kit so that my next 150 has the optional back seat too. I wish they would have included one as an option in the 150 kit. Love that Revell kit, I have 2 built, one street Black Widow and one Buck Baker NASCAR version.
  19. What Tom said is correct, the radiator is in front of the radiator wall and the top hose inlet is in a different position also, on the six cylinder cars..
  20. Nice Chevy 150, looks great. As far as I know, the last time I checked, the only kit with the correct 6 cyl. engine is the AMT 1960 Chevy pickup. The air cleaner is not correct for the passenger car but the engine itself is the correct one. The engine first used in 1955 I believe.
  21. Okay, that is a positive sign. It still leaves the wrong rear bumper and the body crease missing unresolved. That is not just a line down the side of the car, it is a bend where the shape of the side bends inward. You may add a line but hard to add a bend in the side shape of the car. Get it right, it is no harder to make it correct the first time around.
  22. Maybe? https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-24-Meko-Nissan-Fairlady-Amuse-Z34-Transkit/192504327148?hash=item2cd226ebec:g:NH8AAMXQBuNQ7M4H
  23. Strada Sports was in Missouri, they quit sending people things they ordered some years ago. It likely is a European or Asian product, I would check Scale Productions, Spot Model and Grand Prix models, some European dealers, they may carry that.
  24. According to Dr. Craft's book, the first Petty Monte Carlo began life as a Dodge Miranda. The car was said to perform so poorly that they took it back to the shop and skinned it as a Monte Carlo in a day. The car when raced as a Monte Carlo had coils in the rear, as required. I have no idea what sort of rear suspension a Dodge Miranda had. Best I can tell the last car that ran leaf springs in NASCAR was the Dodge Magnum. Ford products ran them on Mercury 70-71 Cyclones and used that style car until eligibility expired. They then went to the Mercury Montego which had coils. The Torino began coils in 1972, same as Mercury. Dodge used leafs at least through the Magnum in early 80. GM cars had coils at least since 58. The long trailing arms are from Chevy pickups, began in 1959, ended in 1972. Seems they worked so well that they are the rear suspension of choice today, still.
  25. Ok make it personal Brandon, I should have known. I think you're already asleep dude, dreaming about perfect Olds kits with leaf springs and such. Glad you're happy now, you've made a new friend.
×
×
  • Create New...