Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

1964 Ford Falcon Sprint Hardtop


jjsipes

Recommended Posts

There is something to like about the new kit, however. The engine compartment (Shock towers and braces, etc) look pretty good. It's also the only kit to have a proper generatot bracket, so props for that.

Here's a link to my photos of the box contents. Gotta love the two barrel intake manifold with the two runners and the offset carb mounting flange.

Trumpeter 64 Falcon kit contents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, putting that roof on a convertible would be pretty correct, as the hardtops and convertibles use the same windshield. I can attest to that, as my own 64 Sprint had a cracked windshield when I got it, and the replacement came from a 63 convertible at the boneyard. The headlights on the annual do stick out some, but at least the grille pattern is right. The grille should have alternating rows of thin and thick bars, and the thick ones would be indented at each end (black paint on the indentations) to look like floating bars.

04_12_grill_before.jpg

P7120166rt-vi.jpg

There is something to like about the new kit, however. The engine compartment (Shock towers and braces, etc) look pretty good. This would be a much better swap under the 64 Comet than the Revell Fairlane Thunderbolt chassis, which is all wrong for a Falcon. It would also be great for the 61 Ranchero, and any other 60-65 Falcon Comet. It's also the only kit to have a proper generatot bracket, so props for that.

Here's a link to my photos of the box contents. Gotta love the two barrel intake manifold with the two runners and the offset carb mounting flange.

Trumpeter 64 Falcon kit contents.

Well dang. I was thinking that even a black sharpie to fake those indentations on the alternating bars might go some ways to helping things out, but the way the grille is arranged kind of scotches any hope for putting a thicker chrome lip around the top perimeter - you'd have to cover up a few of those top-most grille openings to do that.

I'd agree about the engine bay appointments, though - and if those separate accessory drive belts can be installed without looking out of scale, they might just be a neat little touch on their own.

Your pics remind me of one other current phenomenon: inaccurate parts of nice material quality. Sometimes it's tricky not to get so seduced with crisp molding and clean processing that you overlook other shortcomings in a kit. That's happened to me on more than one occasion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I seldom pay any attention to that other forum I made a point of looking up that thread when it kept getting mentioned here. It seemed overly-obvious (least to me) that the person who used the "100 plus" descriptor of faults with the Trumpeter Falcon was not being literal at all, and in fact it appeared to me that what he was referring to was everyone seemingly saw some different sin when they looked at the kit...

Absolutely. The guy's drollness was pretty clear - but you have to come from a rational place to see that. And I think you're dead-on in your assessment of the various ways to quantify all the various peccadilloes - that's what I was getting at when I wondered how close to "100+" we'd actually (ironically) get, given enough time.

Ah, my sweet AMT Mustang. If only it coulda been uniformly brilliant all the way thru... but that's alright. Some more appropriate Revell rubber and '68 headlight buckets make all the difference in the world. Gitcha self some MCG and R&MCo aftermarket love, and you're golden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A less 'demanding' scrutiny:

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/tru/kit_tru_2507.shtml

Although this is not a build critique, it is typical of the 'brochure' type press releases by other mags or sites.

Note that under pros/cons-"Cons-nothing noted". The issues noted here on MCM are not even hinted at. This does a disservice to a modeler who may expect an accurate replica and does not seek further research.

Jus' sayin'...

That's 'cause cybermodeler is primarily an armor and aircraft review site. I actually recall one FSM review - 1/12 Otaki Countach, or 1/16 Fujimi Boxer or Miura, I don't exactly remember - where the reviewer basically said it wasn't as important to research the subject 'cause it was a car.

I might as well review Hobby Boss's new 1/48 F-14 without even looking up the 1:1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great set of photos, almost as good as looking into the kit box which for me is still in the mail. From what I can see, there looks to be many parts that were done quite well. That being said, I talked to my model car kit vendor yesterday who said that for him, the kit seems dead in the water and that was true even when he was taking pre-orders. Is that because of all the negative reviews or are Falcons just not a very popular subject? Personally I have always liked Falcons and owned a '65 Futura Hardtop 4-speed which I still miss. I always found it hard to understand why people did not think it was the coolest car on the street!

Edited by Jon Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to my model car kit vendor yesterday who said that for him, the kit seems dead in the water and that was true even when he was taking pre-orders.

Well, if nobody was intersted in ordering the kit before it was released and before any reviews of the kit were published, I'd say odds are good that people have decided they...:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Falcon kit arrived yesterday. First impressions - it comes in a very big box, the parts are well packaged and I was glad to see the dual exhaust option. Generally I think I like it and because I do not plan to build it as a factory stock replica, the accuracy issues will not be a big problem for me. Overall the parts remind me of the Fujimi 427 Cobra which was a nice kit but not entirely accurate and was considered expensive compared to the R/M Cobra [which also is a nice kit for the money but has always not included engine compartment/wheelwell panels].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

My .02 pennies so far on my purchase of this kit. While it does look decent I do see a lot of the issues discussed here. One of my beefs is the Pro-Touring mini tubbed rear chassis, so i realizing that this kit is slightly larger than the AMT offerings I mocked up the Monogram GT 350R chassis and it will work. Besides I am goig to make mine an SCCA type racer anyway. and for and engine the AMT 67 Mustang series of kits will look better. this is just my observations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...