Ace-Garageguy

You "hear" that, do ya' ?

Yes, I think exactly what Harry thinks on this .

And THAT is one of the great truths people try to pretend isn't really at the heart of not getting things accomplished. I should know.

Whenever my cat whines for extra food after she's had plenty (likes to eat for entertainment, just like me), I tell her "consider yourself lucky and stop whining. There are starving people in China who EAT cats"

Though I don't have either kit in stock, i think it's a pretty fair assumption that they ARE different kits. I base this assumption on the fact that the box-art on both appear to be built-up models of what's in the box, and though the cars ARE similar, there are immediately obvious differences in the grilles, side trim, etc. PS: Misha's post came up before I posted this. THANKS for the info, Misha. I've been wondering if one of these had a non-blobular chassis.

I inherited my grandfather's axe. Years ago I replaced the head. Recently I had to replace the handle. Is it still my grandfather's axe ?

Good looking model.

Hmmmmm...

A little more information here might be useful. Many styrene kits from from 50+ years ago (I'm currently working on a 1961 Johan Mopar original issue) were made from plastics that were MUCH more chemical-resistant than today's cheap-as-possible goo. The old Johan kit-plastic is so tough, it will withstand SEM self-etching primer with NO crazing whatsoever, but the same stuff would ruin a current Revell '50 Olds kit. Speaking of which, the Revell '50 Olds I have going on another thread (and just painted the hood on) is getting primered with Plasticoat, as a back-to-back experiment compare / contrast with Duplicolor primers. I shoot my primers medium-wet to full-wet, in order to get good flow and leveling (and avoid lots of coats and sanding). Shot medium-wet over BARE plastic, the Plasticoat WILL CRAZE THE REVELL PLASTIC. But as Plowboy says, once the primer is dry through, it makes an effective barrier under any paint. It's important to watch what you're doing, however. IF YOU SAND THROUGH YOUR PRIMER and have a bare-plastic spot, you'll need to get more primer on it to avoid possible local crazing from topcoats.

"Luke, I am your father, the car..."

Yup, and don't forget to include shiny-sparkly bits in the interior too, to finish out the look...

Tesla is secretly testing some beyond-next-generation cars at a secure location in the desert Southwest, but if I told you any more than that, I'd have to shoot myself.

...Which is one of the reasons I'm shaving the rear fenders on this one, as well as most of the side molding... to minimize what I'll have to deal with. I've got so much effort in the top swap that I don't want to spoil the build at the end by buggering the foil work, so I'm trying to leave as little on the car to be foiled as I possibly can.

Fine looking work...

I use Duplicolor and Plasticoat sandable primers from the auto-parts stores. They come in several colors...gray, black, red oxide and white. High-build versions of some of them are also available. The problem is that they're pretty hot for today's styrene-kit material. They will often craze the surface of bare plastic (if shot wet, especially) but letting them dry thoroughly, sanding with 600-800 grit, and re-primering as necessary will kill the crazing, and give you a very good base for your color. This is Duplicolor light gray over some heavy bodywork, including a scale 3" top-chop. Finished car, shot with Testors "one coat" (it took 5 coats of color and 3 of clear).

Yes, it certainly looks like a good, clean build. Very nice paint too.

Looks good. Nice subtle color combo and details, perfect stance.

Really like it ! Nice to see models of cars that have to work for a living.

Once again, thanks for the interest and comments. I'm trying to keep going on this one, and there isn't much bodywork left to do. I'm probably dragging it out, subconsciously, because I'm a little apprehensive about buggering the paint with my first foil job.

The hold up now (it's always something) is deciding if the "reachover" (the height of whatever obstructs the rear load floor) needs to be improved. I know, nobody is ever really going to load little engines or surfboards or groceries into a model, but I like to get things so they COULD work in real-life. Cutting down through the taillight casting and housing, and making the center part of the light assembly raise up with the deck is the obvious solution, but the saw-cut will go right through the centers of the little molded-in "bulbs" in the reflective housing, and will miss the scribed-in lines on the lens casting itself. It's always something.

I realize this isn't a styling-analysis thread, but I have to agree with Lunajammer that the earlier PT "face" is interesting and unique, with most of the lines and forms related, and the mo-better, later version is bland, insipid and un-inspired, and certainly less coherent.

Yeah, but I'm still kinda wondering why it takes a "team" of engineers to design one little switch. I could do it in a week, and still take an early, long weekend. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As far as the collection goes, the High Museum of Art here is currently running a show focused on prototype and concept cars. A couple of the notables from GM's collection are included, and they really are quite beautiful and impressive in the flesh, so to speak.

My duh. I missed it... I should have actually READ the thread through...

Yup, I'd have to be making $2500 a week to have the buying power I had in '71.

I fondly remember when a shot of decent Scotch was $.75 (that's 75 cents to those of you who were in school recently). Today it's $7.50. The only problem is that I'm not making 10 times more money now than I was then. Same goes for models, gas, pork, rent...