AMT's 1960 Ford Starliner. (Photos Restored)

[David G.]

Over the past couple of months, I've had various questions relating to Ford's 1960 Starliner. Thanks to all of you who provided me with answers and information. Here's what I've been able to do so far.

I've got the car to the point where I'm waiting a few days for the paint to cure for final polish and assembly. I figured that this would be a good time to post some of the pics that I've taken along the way.

Frame, nearly complete.

 

The kit supplied a fuel line that looked like a scale garden hose. I replaced it with a bit of wire that looks closer to the right size.

 

I thought about adding seat belts and PE door & window handles, but decided to keep it simple. Besides, seat belts weren't required until 1968.

 

My first attempt in more than a decade in wiring an engine bay. Maybe next time wired and plumbed.

 

Dash detail. The instrument details actually use three different colors, Silver, Aluminum and White. I'm still trying to figure out why I bothered.

 

The obligatory mock-up with the first coat of paint.

 

Color sanded, re-sprayed, and ready to polish!

 

 

As always, honest critiques and comments are welcome and appreciated.

Thanks all for taking the time to look.

David G.

Edited June 8, 2021 by David G.
Photos Restored

[charlie8575]

Very nice, David. The black/red looks good. I have one of those kits from the first issue and is definitely on my "build it" list for before too much longer.

Charlie Larkin

[Jim Gibbons]

Very nice! I've done some work on mine, mainly chassis and engine, but haven't decided whether to make it a convertible like the 1:1 I had back in the late 70's. That would require a fair amount of work to duplicate the 3 tone black/red/white upholstery pattern of my red Sunliner, plus I think the door panel pattern is a little different.

I'm in agreement with you on the instruments; I found that color scheme on the real car was difficult to read, especially in daylight as there was very little contrast between the white letters on a grey background and the aluminum trim surround. Not one of Fords "Better Ideas." I think I'll just do a mild black wash on the gauges for a little depth.

Just a hint when you get to the "Starliner" script on the trunk; the lower part of the letter "S" should be painted or foiled solid, as that was a pivoting cover for the trunk lock.

Looking forward to seeing it completed!

[Harold]

Looks great, but seatbelts were required at least by '65 (shoulder harnesses were required in '68),

[mr moto]

That's looking great!! It looks like a really fine kit, too. I wish they'd make a '61 Starliner version of it also!

[Corvette.Jeff]

Looks great, but seatbelts were required at least by '65 (shoulder harnesses were required in '68),

my dads old 1974 chevy pickup only had lap belts.....

[David G.]

Looks great, but seatbelts were required at least by '65 (shoulder harnesses were required in '68),

Thanks for the comment!

On the seat belt matter, I had a '71 Pontiac Ventura that only had lap belts. Also, in the '71 Delta 88 I currently have, the shoulder belts are a seperate piece each with its own buckle on the seat. Given that they're bolted right to the B pillar with no retractors or tensioners, I refuse to use them. That also makes me think that they're a dealer add-on.

Maybe there was a "phase-in" period?

Anyway, I didn't want to bother to put them in, and in 1960, it's possible that they may not have been there... though in all likelyhood they were. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

...I think I just hijacked my own thread...

[David G.]

That's looking great!! It looks like a really fine kit, too. I wish they'd make a '61 Starliner version of it also!

Thanks, I'm really enjoying this kit. It's got a few issues. The frame was a bit warped, pulling the left rear wheel off the ground, but I managed to get it mostly straight by applying pressure in the right direction while holding it under running hot tap water. Gluing the frame to the chassis plate pulled the rest of it in line.

I still have the second engine to build too!

Is the '61 Starliner much different from the '60? Is it too different to convert from a '60?

[David G.]

Very nice! I've done some work on mine, mainly chassis and engine, but haven't decided whether to make it a convertible like the 1:1 I had back in the late 70's. That would require a fair amount of work to duplicate the 3 tone black/red/white upholstery pattern of my red Sunliner, plus I think the door panel pattern is a little different.

I'm in agreement with you on the instruments; I found that color scheme on the real car was difficult to read, especially in daylight as there was very little contrast between the white letters on a grey background and the aluminum trim surround. Not one of Fords "Better Ideas." I think I'll just do a mild black wash on the gauges for a little depth.

Just a hint when you get to the "Starliner" script on the trunk; the lower part of the letter "S" should be painted or foiled solid, as that was a pivoting cover for the trunk lock.

Looking forward to seeing it completed!

Thanks for the tip. I'm not sure if I'll use it or not, but it's a good thing to know.

If you get the chance, please post some pics of of what you've done with your Starliner. I always like to see what different folks do with the same kit.

Thanks for the kind comment.

[Jim Gibbons]

I should have a camera soon, as my older cheap one died. Right now, it's just unpainted assembly, but will post as I progress. I'm leaning towards leaving it as a Starliner, as I don't have a number of materials needed to scratchbuild a top well and the other related changes to make a convertible. I'll paint it like mine, though, with a red body/white roof, red interior. The only thing I'll add would be the Modelhaus full wheel covers.

As far as seatbelts went, my Sunliner had them in the front only. Ford offered them as a factory installed option starting in 1956, but more commonly, they were dealer added. Since mine were front only, they were likely dealer installed. Two years ago, I was at a car show, and someone was selling a '60 Sunliner identical to mine in all equipment and color, but there was not a seatbelt or piece of mounting hardware to be seen. I later had a '66 Fairlane station wagon (great car, sweet little 289 with 3 on the tree) that had Ford lap belts all around.

Converting a '61 into a Starliner would depend on measuring the two models side by side. The old '61 annual may have dimensional differences. The real cars shared the same windshield and basic structure, so it's possible to do. The main difference would be at the rear, as the '61 doesn't have the dip in the window between the fins that the '60 does. Hope this helps.

[charlie8575]

On the seat belt matter, I had a '71 Pontiac Ventura that only had lap belts. Also, in the '71 Delta 88 I currently have, the shoulder belts are a seperate piece each with its own buckle on the seat. Given that they're bolted right to the B pillar with no retractors or tensioners, I refuse to use them. That also makes me think that they're a dealer add-on.

Actually, David, the uni-belt we now know didn't really exist until 1972, although a few foreign cars may have used something like it, probably Mercedes.

Your multi-part shoulder/lap belt is a factory item and the cars were designed with those as factory-installed equipment. Used properly, they're reasonably safe, just not very comfortable. At the bear minimum, I'd still use the lap belts.

Some GM cars (like my friend's 1972 Le Mans) had a key arrangement that would secure the shoulder harness into the tongue of the lap belt and lock it in-place almost like a unibelt. That's actually quite safe and is similar to what had historically been used in small aircraft in terms of operation. I think AMC and Chrysler had similar affairs, I'm not sure about Ford.

Charlie Larkin

[Jim Gibbons]

Actually, David, the uni-belt we now know didn't really exist until 1972, although a few foreign cars may have used something like it, probably Mercedes.

Your multi-part shoulder/lap belt is a factory item and the cars were designed with those as factory-installed equipment. Used properly, they're reasonably safe, just not very comfortable. At the bear minimum, I'd still use the lap belts.

Some GM cars (like my friend's 1972 Le Mans) had a key arrangement that would secure the shoulder harness into the tongue of the lap belt and lock it in-place almost like a unibelt. That's actually quite safe and is similar to what had historically been used in small aircraft in terms of operation. I think AMC and Chrysler had similar affairs, I'm not sure about Ford.

Charlie Larkin

My friend's 73 Nova also had the separate shoulder belt/ keyed insertion system that was effective, but a bit of a pain sometimes to insert into the release. Volvo pioneered the "unibelt" and included it as standard equipment in 1959. Saab had the same system, and my father's '60 93F, '63 and '69 96's had them, too. The '60 and '63 only provided the belts for the front seats as standard; rear seatbelts were dealer installed. My father bought a new '65 Mercedes Benz 190D, and it came without belts. My father had the dealer install lap belts. The MB lap belts had an early form of inertia reel; you still had the friction adjustment at the buckle, but when released, the tongue section retracted around a cylindrical arrangement so it wouldn't flop around. I believe by the late '60s, early '70s, most European cars had unibelts with an inertia reel take-up which is how we know them today. My father's '73 Volvo 144 had lap/shoulder inertia reel belts for all passengers, even the middle rear seat.

Now back to '60 Fords!

[David G.]

Actually, David, the uni-belt we now know didn't really exist until 1972, although a few foreign cars may have used something like it, probably Mercedes.

Your multi-part shoulder/lap belt is a factory item and the cars were designed with those as factory-installed equipment. Used properly, they're reasonably safe, just not very comfortable. At the bear minimum, I'd still use the lap belts.

Some GM cars (like my friend's 1972 Le Mans) had a key arrangement that would secure the shoulder harness into the tongue of the lap belt and lock it in-place almost like a unibelt. That's actually quite safe and is similar to what had historically been used in small aircraft in terms of operation. I think AMC and Chrysler had similar affairs, I'm not sure about Ford.

Charlie Larkin

Come to think of it, I once had a '71 Toyota Corolla wagon that had the modern style 3 point uni-belt as did all the '70 to '72 Superbeetles I've owned over the years. I guess the US automakers were a little behind the curve

I do use the lap belt in the Olds, but the shoulder belt is anchored so high on the B pillar that I feel it would run right across my neck during a rapid deceleration event. I'd love to update the belt system in that beast.

[Jim Gibbons]

Sorry, David, that somehow we've gotten away from your beautiful '60, but this has somehow turned into a bit of automotive safety history! It is facinating how safety advances have taken place. In my previous post, I acknowledged Volvo and Saab's inroads in modern seatbelt technology. Since I had mentioned my father's '65 Mercedes, that body design was the grandfather of modern "crush zone" design. The "Heckenfloss," or tailfin design first came out in 1959 with the MB 220SE. It was MB's first major foray into crash research, and the unibody was purposely designed to have progressive crash zones. One of their pieces of literature of the time (I think my brother may still have the spec sheet from MB) showed their crash testing, and one of their proudly shown pictures was of their "popout" windshields and backlights. I guess the philosophy at the time was that injury from solidly placed glass was more dangerous that that which would "skid" away in an accident. There is no doubt that the Europeans had safety in the forefront, and the Japanese followed their ideals.

I'll talk to my brother soon, and if he still has the MB single sheet safety promo, I'll ask him to scan and send it to me for posting. When I do, I'll discuss the many interior safety items I remember from my dad's MB; I think it would be better if I post them in the General forum, and let David have his moment with his beautiful '60!

[oldscool]

Another one of my favorite Kits and these cars look very sinister in black. Looks like they have an evil grin. Nice painting. Keep posting progress pics.

oldscool

[Railfreak78]

Lookin FanPlastic David! Hopefully I'll get to see this one with my own eyes someday!

[David G.]

Thanks for the kind comments, guys.

I plan on smoothing out the paint some more today. And, if I can work up the courage, I'll try some Testors Metalizer for the first time on the hubcaps. Removing the sprue marks just ate up too much of the plating to cover with the traditional silver paint. They've been soaking for a couple of days and should be de-chromed by now.

[Ragnar]

Nice work on this build!! Keep us updated!

CHEERS!

[Jim Gibbons]

Another one of my favorite Kits and these cars look very sinister in black. Looks like they have an evil grin. Nice painting. Keep posting progress pics.

oldscool

I agree with the evil grin in front, but to me, the '60 has a different aspect in the rear view. I always liked the design; it's kind of a love/hate thing with many people. If I recall, Alex Tremulis, who worked for Ford at the time, approved the design which was based on the Quicksilver showcar, but never liked it.

As a child, it was one of my favorite cars. My neighbor had a Country Squire wagon in white with a red interior. I'd look at the rear view, and to me, the taillights looked like smiling eyes. Add the horizontal fins, and it kind of looked like a contented cat with ears down getting his head scratched!

I guess that's why I ended up with a '60 Sunliner; to me, the ultimate model. In reality, it was a bit of a crappy car outside of good mechanicals. Panel fit was horrendous, hardly a piece of trim lined up with each other, and be VERY careful entering a driveway with a slope. There was so much rear overhang that scraping the bumper was easy. Don't ask me how I know! The aluminum trim behind the rear wheels was a great rust trap, but at least if the sheet metal behind it started to rust out, the trim still made it look okay. The narrow trunk lid was one of Ford's worst ideas; you had to be Elastic Man to reach anything that migrated under the fin area, or in back. On the convertible, I found out while working on it on a lift at work, that if you left a door open, you couldn't close it while up due to body/ chassis flex. Changing a fan belt without a lift was a chore; I had to park it over a ditch at the cul-de-sac at my apartment complex to get to the generator mounting bolts. I became an expert at soldering the bloody radiator expansion tank to cure the leaks. I should have simply bought a new one, but I was a poor college student! It was a really wide car, the widest in modern automotive history, yet due to the extreme tumblehome and door thickness, was really not that roomy inside for the size. My previous '56 Fairlane "felt" roomier, I guess the seating and roof height had a lot to do with that.

All said, this model is also one of my favorites. The best part is that all the body panels and trim line up! Something Ford couldn't accomplish in 1960. David's build has inspired me to put my other projects on the back burner, and finish this one soon.

[Jon Cole]

Yep, David! That's gonna look fine! Pure 60's!

[David G.]

Thanks to everybody for all the kind comments.

David G.

[Tradeshowjoe]

looks good David, and thanks for the help with my photos.

I agree about the '61 kit. Found some photos while looking for reference for my '60. Man the '61 looks much faster (while standing still). Much "meaner" lines.

[David G.]

Welcome to the next update.

I managed to get the paint work mostly finished. I found the thought of applying all that foil rather intimidating, so I bought some Testors Aluminum Metalizer paint and started masking and spraying. The results are shown below.

These cars had a lot of chrome trim. The whole car is pretty much outlined in chrome.

Using Testors Metalizer Aluminum from a spray can, I had to mask and shoot this in three stages. I think it was a bit easier than using foil, but the results are somewhat less than impressive.

As a paint job, it came out well enough, but it looks more like a good paint job than chrome trim. I think If I try to go this route again, I'll try Alclad chrome paint.

The grille and bumpers buffed up nicely and looked great until I put clear coat on them. Hopefully, I can buff them back up to the sheen they had before.

It's just about ready for final assembly. I hope to finish it up this weekend.

 

As always, honest critiques and comments are welcome!

 

Thanks for hanging in there with me

 

David G.

Edited September 20, 2020 by David G.
Refreshed Photos

[Jim Gibbons]

Looking good! You still may want to get out some BMF (forgive me if I'm jumping the gun if you already planned it) as the grille surround and lower "lip" of the hood trim should also be chrome. If I recall, the "stars" on the C pillar have a lightish medium blue painted center. Hemmings Classic Car 1960 Starliner Hope this helps. Did a little more work on mine, but need to make a LHS run for white roof paint. I am definitely NOT looking forward to foiling it!

[David G.]

Looking good! You still may want to get out some BMF (forgive me if I'm jumping the gun if you already planned it) as the grille surround and lower "lip" of the hood trim should also be chrome. If I recall, the "stars" on the C pillar have a lightish medium blue painted center. Hemmings Classic Car 1960 Starliner Hope this helps. Did a little more work on mine, but need to make a LHS run for white roof paint. I am definitely NOT looking forward to foiling it!

Thanks for the tips. I think I just might tap some silver Testors on the grille surround and hood trim, the foil would be too bright compared to the rest of the "chrome." Besides, that foil drives me nuts!

After seeing the pics pre-edit, I've found some other areas that need some attention too. I just have to adjust the resolution on my camera. It shows me too many errors that my eyes don't catch until it's too late. I need to set the resolution so it macthes what my eyes see!

Thanks again for the input,

David G.