1/25 MPC 904 '57 Chevy Flip Nose

[Casey]

2 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

What is "The valve cover issue" ?

SBC valve covers on a BBC...

[Dave Darby]

1 minute ago, Casey said:

SBC valve covers on a BBC...

None of my Flip nose 57s (or 53 Flip nose pickups - same tool)  have that problem.

[Jantrix]

23 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

What is "The valve cover issue" ?

The engine is a big block, but the bolt pattern on the valve covers is for a small block. The art, the instructions and the actual part are incoorect. And yes, the '53 Pick up is the same way.

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Jantrix
better photo

[Mr mopar]

My Model king kit has the BBC valve covers ,but no slicks or mag wheels ,molded in red .

[Jantrix]

37 minutes ago, Mr mopar said:

My Model king kit has the BBC valve covers ,but no slicks or mag wheels ,molded in red .

Photo please - this would verify Round2 or Model King fixed the issue? How many bolt indentations on the valve cover? There should be seven, four bottom, three top.

[garagepunk66]

I am happy to have this kit available again despite it's obvious shortcomings. It's great raw material to start with although I probably would never consider using the existing chassis and engine. I also feel that it is one of the better representations of the sedan roofline. It has the appropriate amount of crown in the windshield header area, whereas I feel that the AMT 55 sedan is too flat there, giving the roof a wedge shape in profile

Edited November 8, 2018 by garagepunk66

[Force]

I don't know if I think the valve covers are such a big problem...how many model kits has a big block Chevy...plenty...and you also have the aftermarket...so get hold of BBC valve covers with the right bolt pattern can't be that hard. 

 

[Jantrix]

10 minutes ago, Force said:

I don't know if I think the valve covers are such a big problem...how many model kits has a big block Chevy...plenty...and you also have the aftermarket...so get hold of BBC valve covers with the right bolt pattern can't be that hard. 

 

You are quite right. I have plenty of others, but the cool thing about these valve covers is that they are finned Weiands. There's a real lack of name brand performance parts (Weiand, Offenhauser, M/T etc.) in scale modeling that to have a nice set that is not correct is just a little frustrating. And as they are molded to fit this big block, they won't fit 98% of the SBC's out there, as they are too big.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Jantrix

[Casey]

2 hours ago, Jantrix said:

 And as they are molded to fit this big block, they won't fit 98% of the SBC's out there, as they are too big.

Have you tried test fitting them on a 1/24 Monogram SBC?

[Jantrix]

23 minutes ago, Casey said:

Have you tried test fitting them on a 1/24 Monogram SBC?

No, though I thought of that just as I posted. Will check.

[Casey]

16 hours ago, garagepunk66 said:

I also feel that it is one of the better representations of the sedan roofline. It has the appropriate amount of crown in the windshield header area, whereas I feel that the AMT 55 sedan is too flat there, giving the roof a wedge shape in profile

Hopefully someone can do a comparison between the MPC and Revell '57 2-Door Sedan bodies.

 

[Mr mopar]

Was just at my LHS today and they have this kit in stock , it now comes with Blue tinted windows and clear windows too ,and fat slicks .

[Sledsel]

On 11/8/2018 at 10:56 PM, Casey said:

Hopefully someone can do a comparison between the MPC and Revell '57 2-Door Sedan bodies.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. The flipnose kit is originally from the 70's and has it's flaws. The Revell is a newer tool and "should" be more accurate. But this is not always the case.

 

[Casey]

HPIGuy/Chris delivers the goods via video again:

 

[Mr. Metallic]

On 11/15/2018 at 2:34 PM, Sledsel said:

You are comparing apples to oranges. The flipnose kit is originally from the 70's and has it's flaws. The Revell is a newer tool and "should" be more accurate. But this is not always the case.

 

Which is exactly why comparison articles exist, to show the reader the differences, high and low points, possible kitbashing opportunities, etc between similar subjects. Some of my favorite articles of all time from either magazine have been the comparisons they used to do. For example, comparing the available 57 Chevy kits years ago in the other magazine, showed each kits high and low points, and what kitbashing opportunities would provide between them.

[tim boyd]

5 hours ago, Mr. Metallic said:

 For example, comparing the available 57 Chevy kits years ago in the other magazine, showed each kits high and low points, and what kitbashing opportunities would provide between them.

That was the November, 1982 issue of the other model car mag.  Looks like it is sold out on their back issue section of their website. 

I would say that the info/conclusions in that article are still largely valid when it comes to the four kits that were reviewed in that article.   

I'd also like to think that it subtly encouraged the model kit makers to up their game in terms of accuracy and fit/finish, and to also pursue derivative body styles and features vs. just more and more kits of the exact same topics (in this case, three of the four kits were '57 Bel Air two door hardtops....whereas now we have a whole series of '57 Chevy kits and bodystyles, even including the base 150 sedan....)  TB 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Wouldn't be surprised if it did, Tim. LANDMARK comparison article.  So much so I felt obliged to refer back to it for the review of AMT's new-tool '57 back in '98.

[Dave Darby]

13 hours ago, tim boyd said:

That was the November, 1982 issue of the other model car mag.  Looks like it is sold out on their back issue section of their website. 

I would say that the info/conclusions in that article are still largely valid when it comes to the four kits that were reviewed in that article.   

I'd also like to think that it subtly encouraged the model kit makers to up their game in terms of accuracy and fit/finish, and to also pursue derivative body styles and features vs. just more and more kits of the exact same topics (in this case, three of the four kits were '57 Bel Air two door hardtops....whereas now we have a whole series of '57 Chevy kits and bodystyles, even including the base 150 sedan....)  TB 

I have that article myself. It's actually amazing the choices we have today for 57 Chevys compared to 36 years ago. As recall, the now old tool AMT 57 was top dog. Today the distorted side trim alone would relegate it to third place behind the under appreciated new tool AMT 57 and the Revell snap kit. (For hardtops.) If we include all the body styles, for accuracy and detail, the clear winner overall would likely be the Revell 2 door sedan. 

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Dave Darby said:

 As recall, the now old tool AMT 57 was top dog. Today the distorted side trim alone would relegate it to third place behind the under appreciated new tool AMT 57 and the Revell snap kit. (For hardtops.) If we include all the body styles, for accuracy and detail, the clear winner overall would likely be the Revell 2 door sedan. 

I agree. 

[Junkman]

For me the top dog is the Revell snapper, all body styles considered. It just looks so right to my eyes.

The MPC kit still has the four bolt SBC rocker covers in this issue and sadly it also has a back seat.
Both should be easily rectifyable.
The side trim, although incorrectly shaped,  appears to have its leading edge at about the correct position, unlike the box art.
Weird.
 

[Dave Darby]

1 hour ago, Junkman said:

For me the top dog is the Revell snapper, all body styles considered. It just looks so right to my eyes.

The MPC kit still has the four bolt SBC rocker covers in this issue and sadly it also has a back seat.
Both should be easily rectifyable.
The side trim, although incorrectly shaped,  appears to have its leading edge at about the correct position, unlike the box art.
Weird.
 

Agreed.

[Oldcarfan27]

On 7/11/2018 at 3:26 PM, ChrisBcritter said:

Stunt car:

Burn car:

That was one heck of a crash! Compare the 2 pics.

Not only did the dents move around, but the rear wheelwells went back to stock, some chrome trim fell ON the car (see the side rear bumper), the front wheel fell off, the front bumper angle moved and the trunk CLOSED! Oh, yeah and the wheels changed too.

Ah, the magic of miracle movie making. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Oldcarfan27

[stavanzer]

Ah, Hollywood.

[Deuces ll]

Well, I do have the purple '53 Ford flipnose chassis.... I guess it's a start.... ??

[TransAmMike]

Got this kit in today off of Ebay.  Meh, not particularly impressed.  I'm sure with a lot of tweeking it can be made to look more "real".  Won't be building it very soon due to a couple of other projects but when I do it's gonna take some modifications and some different parts.