Moebius 1964 Mercury Comet Pro Touring

[LOBBS]

On 6/21/2025 at 11:30 PM, Radretireddad said:

Let me guess. Those 18” wheels and tube chassis go along with a Coyote or LS swap, right.🙄
I’m really happy a new tool of this subject is being offered as an alternative to the ancient AMT kit but please, please, please give us a stock or near stock version. The Pro touring shtick is one giant dead horse that was beaten to a bloody pulp long, long ago.

 

Pro-touring or restomod builds, along with some truck and/or 4x4 stuff, are all that I build really. The biggest challenge is that most kits just throw in some low profile tires and larger wheels and don't really address any of the chassis upgrades, tho occasionally we do get some disc brakes, and rarely offer anything but some minor dress up items for an ancient carbed engine. This is quite frankly awesome of Moebius to go a bit further than most by tooling up a modern chassis. 3D printing, as well, brought me back to the hobby so that I can finally address what I really wanted to do in that realm with quite a few shelved projects. I'm in my mid 40s, so not exactly a whippersnapper, but these are the kinds of things that can bring in a younger crowd to the hobby. We don't have the quite the built in nostalgia for a lot of the kits being re-issued. We may like the cars themselves but want to build them in a more contemporary style.

[Mark C.]

One thing I love about the hobby is that it means many things to many people.  It’s really just about creating something, whether that is a stone stock version, full custom, race car of many varieties, pro touring like this, or whatever else you may want it to be.

This is why I am happy that there are so many options available to us now, and with 3D printing bringing about models of subjects that kit manufacturers would never be able to cover, it seems like we are just scratching the surface of where this hobby can go.

So I want to celebrate kits like this, the cloned/reissued kits, and everything in between.  There’s truly something for everybody!

[Ragtop Man]

I think the 3D industry is a great candiate for supplying the true restomod/custom content; have seen some very interesting items lately.  They can track the trends with much greater speed than kit companies. The only real barrier is branding and marketing, and knowing who makes what and what fits what. 

Additionally, watchers, it makes sense for OEs to assist/inform the better resin and 3D designers/printers, cos committing tool money for alternate versions to chase 'fashion' items like wheels, engine accessories is risky, given how quickly items (such as those in the earlier parts of the thread) can look/feel outdated. 

As an industry leader said, "every one of yours sells one of ours."  While I doubt that MLRC moved their needle much with a few dozen bodies, the exposure for the builds that used our products was / is outsized within the hobby.

To another point, I agree that the Foose '56 is a standout, have never seen a bad build.  Moby must be watching and thinking... "hmmmm... THERE'S an idea" and that future versions of newly tooled pickups ('67-72 Chevys) would be wise follow a similar path with a true (Kindig, et. al.) version.

To hijack a bit, I'm surprised we have not seen a similar pro touring approach for one of the Moby B-body Mopars, there are now pretty much every '64-'67 iteration known out in the market or inexpensive if out of production. 

 

 

[tim boyd]

3 hours ago, LOBBS said:

Pro-touring or restomod builds, along with some truck and/or 4x4 stuff, are all that I build really. The biggest challenge is that most kits just throw in some low profile tires and larger wheels and don't really address any of the chassis upgrades, tho occasionally we do get some disc brakes, and rarely offer anything but some minor dress up items for an ancient carbed engine. This is quite frankly awesome of Moebius to go a bit further than most by tooling up a modern chassis. 3D printing, as well, brought me back to the hobby so that I can finally address what I really wanted to do in that realm with quite a few shelved projects. I'm in my mid 40s, so not exactly a whippersnapper, but these are the kinds of things that can bring in a younger crowd to the hobby. We don't have the quite the built in nostalgia for a lot of the kits being re-issued. We may like the cars themselves but want to build them in a more contemporary style.

Just a reminder that the newly reissued (for the first time since it was originally introduced in 1998) AMT 1968 El Camino Street Machine has fully 25% of its parts count unique to the street machine kit vs. the factory showroom stock version from the same basic tool. 

The kit includes unique engine induction components, realistically lowered front and rear ride height, mildly tubbed pickup bed and sidewalls, electric (instead of fan belt driven) radiator fans, and more. 

Now I'm not going to claim that the street machine engine parts and wheels/tires/brakes are fully 2025 state of the art (because they aren't!) but with a bit of kitbashing or aftermarket substitutions in those areas, this kit goes a fair way toward the pro-touring or (more accurately) restomod genres than most kit buyerswould expect.  Especially considering it was originally introduced 27 years ago. 

Food for thought, anyway.  

TB 

PS - when I finally get around to it I will be posting pix of my recently completed build of this kit with the above suggested modifications...

[Radretireddad]

10 hours ago, LOBBS said:

I'm in my mid 40s, so not exactly a whippersnapper, but these are the kinds of things that can bring in a younger crowd to the hobby. We don't have the quite the built in nostalgia for a lot of the kits being re-issued. We may like the cars themselves but want to build them in a more contemporary style.

Pro touring kit versions like this is evidence that the tastes of your age group are showing up in the kit manufacturers marketing data. There are also other round 2 attempts and the Chip Foose and California wheels versions that have been around a while. While they’re not my cup of tea, I’m still happy they’re being offered because it’s a smart strategy on the kit manufacturers part to tailor their product line to attract a wide demographic to the hobby. Ultimately everyone benefits from it. I’m very happy you’re a participant in the hobby and I hope more in your age group pick it up. Don’t forget to post pics of your builds.

Edited Wednesday at 01:40 AM by Radretireddad

[Justin Porter]

5 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Just a reminder that the newly reissued (for the first time since it was originally introduced in 1998) AMT 1968 El Camino Street Machine has fully 25% of its parts count unique to the street machine kit vs. the factory showroom stock version from the same basic tool. 

The kit includes unique engine induction components, realistically lowered front and rear ride height, mildly tubbed pickup bed and sidewalls, electric (instead of fan belt driven) radiator fans, and more. 

Now I'm not going to claim that the street machine engine parts and wheels/tires/brakes are fully 2025 state of the art (because they aren't!) but with a bit of kitbashing or aftermarket substitutions in those areas, this kit goes a fair way toward the pro-touring or (more accurately) restomod genres than most kit buyerswould expect.  Especially considering it was originally introduced 27 years ago. 

Food for thought, anyway.  

TB 

PS - when I finally get around to it I will be posting pix of my recently completed build of this kit with the above suggested modifications...

AMT/Ertl was getting a LOT right in terms of trying to push in more contemporary ways with their non-stock versions of the Mueller era kits. Only the '71 Charger could really be called a misstep and that's mostly down to the tragic wheel & tire package. The El Camino is a personal favorite, the '72 Corvette is highly underrated, the Bel Air is brilliant, and the Duster was even pretty cool with its "mini Viper" aesthetic and intake. That's also coupled with the excellent lowrider versions of the Monte Carlo and Riviera, and the 60's custom versions of the '62 Pontiac and '57 300C. It still makes me so sad we never got to see that bullet-nose Studebaker. 

[Radretireddad]

1 hour ago, Justin Porter said:

Only the '71 Charger could really be called a misstep and that's mostly down to the tragic wheel & tire package.

You’re being too kind. I wouldn’t wish those wheels on my worst enemy.

[Justin Porter]

More pictures from Sean Svensden. Now we have the CAD images of the Pro Touring Comet showing the overall model, the chassis, and the engine bay! 

[RancheroSteve]

Looks good, although a couple of quibbles: 

1. Although I guess it looks racy, I don't see much reason to have that twin scoop hood on there unless it's ducted directly to the carbs, like it was on the A/FX cars. Just more unnecessary aerodynamic drag on a touring car.

2. Is that a single reservoir brake master cylinder? Seems a little archaic, hmm? 

Sorry if I'm picking nits here . . .

[Mark C.]

Question for the Ford guys… would it be unreasonable to consider stuffing this chassis under the AMT ‘69 Torino Cobra body?  Not familiar with the evolution of the architecture from ‘64 to ‘68.

It seems like a natural, as the ‘68/9 Torino fastback looks like it’s doing 100 mph when it’s standing still…

[Dave Darby]

34 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

Question for the Ford guys… would it be unreasonable to consider stuffing this chassis under the AMT ‘69 Torino Cobra body?  Not familiar with the evolution of the architecture from ‘64 to ‘68.

It seems like a natural, as the ‘68/9 Torino fastback looks like it’s doing 100 mph when it’s standing still…

Depending on how close to stock it is, the 66 Fairlane chassis would be more correct. The Revell 70 Torino would be even better, as it's more accurately done. The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

Edited Thursday at 01:15 AM by Dave Darby

[Rodent]

3 hours ago, RancheroSteve said:

Looks good, although a couple of quibbles: 

1. Although I guess it looks racy, I don't see much reason to have that twin scoop hood on there unless it's ducted directly to the carbs, like it was on the A/FX cars. Just more unnecessary aerodynamic drag on a touring car.

2. Is that a single reservoir brake master cylinder? Seems a little archaic, hmm? 

Sorry if I'm picking nits here . . .

Are you the charter member of The Nit Picking Old Ford Guys Named Steve In California Club, or am I? LOL. I thought the same thing when I saw the master cylinder. If that is the only misstep, it can be easily fixed with resin or 3D.

[RancheroSteve]

4 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Are you the charter member of The Nit Picking Old Ford Guys Named Steve In California Club, or am I? LOL. I thought the same thing when I saw the master cylinder. If that is the only misstep, it can be easily fixed with resin or 3D.

Haha, apparently we're both members! Seriously though, I don't want to be piling on or going out of my way to find flaws with this kit before it's even done - as I'm glad to be getting it - but figured what's the harm in pointing out what I see. Maybe someone is listening. So while we're at it and as mentioned earlier, if this is being marketed as a pro touring version, a more contemporary powerplant might be in order when the time comes.

[Mark C.]

2 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

Depending on how close to stock it is, the 66 Fairlane chassis would be more correct. The Revell 70 Torino would be even better, as it's more accurately done. The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

Thanks Dave, I was just thinking in terms of making a relatively easy pro touring Torino with a quick chassis swap, since this one will already have all the bits engineered to fit together nicely.  I’m not even sure if the wheelbases are the same, but if so, then maybe it would be close enough to look decent.  Just noodling anyhow…

[Stef]

5 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

More pictures from Sean Svensden. Now we have the CAD images of the Pro Touring Comet showing the overall model, the chassis, and the engine bay! 

 

Awwwwww yissssssss

This is wicked awesome. Wide fat lopro tires, sinister stance, all designed from the ground-up to be a modern killing machine.

Will be getting this Pro Touring version, and a K-Code for an African Safari Rally version, too.

May the best Merc win.

[Radretireddad]

4 hours ago, Mark C. said:

Question for the Ford guys… would it be unreasonable to consider stuffing this chassis under the AMT ‘69 Torino Cobra body?  Not familiar with the evolution of the architecture from ‘64 to ‘68.

It seems like a natural, as the ‘68/9 Torino fastback looks like it’s doing 100 mph when it’s standing still…

Go for it! Stick it under anything it’ll fit. The ‘69 Torino is one kit that really needs a better chassis.

Edited Thursday at 04:50 AM by Radretireddad

[Radretireddad]

6 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

More pictures from Sean Svensden. Now we have the CAD images of the Pro Touring Comet showing the overall model, the chassis, and the engine bay! 

I could probably find a new home for a few of those parts. Now how about some images of the one sitting next to it.

Edited Thursday at 04:52 AM by Radretireddad

[Mark]

11 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

Depending on how close to stock it is, the 66 Fairlane chassis would be more correct. The Revell 70 Torino would be even better, as it's more accurately done. The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

If you put the Moebius Comet and AMT Fairlane parts side by side, they'll look awfully similar.  Same goes for Moebius versus AMT Ford pickup chassis, and Moebius '61 versus AMT '62 Pontiacs.

[Radretireddad]

I’m inspired to combine the very racing like drivetrain and chassis with say any one of the old AMT modified stocker series kits to build a neat vintage trans am series style road racer or hill climb specialist. It may slip right under the ‘65 Fairlane, ‘69 Falcon and ‘69 Torino. Just season with the powerplant of your choice.

 

Edited Thursday at 04:15 PM by Radretireddad

[RancheroSteve]

14 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

True, but this pro street version looks to have a Mustang II type front suspension, which eliminates the shock towers and frees up a lot of width in the engine bay.

[thatz4u]

just checked my 64 Comet brochure, 2 V-8's ....260-2bbl & 289-4bbl...shows only flat factory hood...

[Stef]

11 hours ago, Mark said:

...look awfully similar... Moebius '61 versus AMT '62 Pontiacs.

Agreed. Years ago, I saw a review/buildup of the Moebius 61 and I'd swear it was the same underpinnings as the AMT 62 I'd just finished.

Did Moebius license/borrow/buy parts/tooling from AMT/Round 2, did they outright copy/clone, or was it something else?

[Mark]

Moebius probably had some of the same designers that Ertl had.  At some point RC2 (not Round 2) cut back and let everyone go, after that they were probably freelancing.

Lindberg's '61 Impala chassis and engine look an awful lot like AMT's '62 Chevy kit pieces as well.

[Mark]

23 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

Depending on how close to stock it is, the 66 Fairlane chassis would be more correct. The Revell 70 Torino would be even better, as it's more accurately done. The 60-65 Falcon/Comet architecture wasn't designed to accommodate a big block.

The pre-1963 six cylinder Falcons and Comets won't take a 289/302 V8 as a bolt-in deal.  Ford re-engineered the Falcon to take the V8: different suspension bits, heavier gauge metal for front "frame rails", torque boxes, etc.  One of my brothers put a 302 into a '62 sedan delivery in the Seventies.  The transmission tunnel even needed a bit of "persuasion" with a small sledgehammer to fit a C4 transmission and bell housing.  He split the difference and spaced the transmission crossmember down a bit, as he had a really solid Arizona car and didn't want to hack on it.

I don't know if it's true, but I have heard rumors of V8 converted early Falcons having issues with front frame rails and shock towers spreading further apart under the strain of the conversion.  A Mustang II front suspension or tube axle might be the way to go with those cars now.

[RancheroSteve]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

The pre-1963 six cylinder Falcons and Comets won't take a 289/302 V8 as a bolt-in deal. 

Right you are, Mark. Also bigger brakes and a 8" differential. I can't imagine a six cylinder Falcon platform holding up very long to the stresses of a V8 without those changes.

A further bit of trivia on the transmission hump issue: to put the four speed T-10 in the Falcon in late '63 (like my Ranchero), Ford just rather crudely hacked out a part of the tunnel and riveted in an extra piece to clear the shifter. When I stripped that part of my car down I was kinda startled to see how rough the cut was. As far as I know, they continued to use that piece in '64-65, but I'm not sure if they did it any more cleanly .