1964 Ford Falcon Sprint Hardtop

[sjordan2]

I couldn't resist any longer. This subject now has 21 pages on two threads. But 21 pages of conversation over a flippin' low-rent '64 Falcon?? This was a cheapo car that no one ever aspired to, but only settled for. It all escapes my understanding.

Edited April 22, 2011 by sjordan2

[Chuck Most]

No, they didn't miss them, they're just "scaled more appropriately".

-rimshot...-

[RancheroSteve]

I couldn't resist any longer. This subject now has 21 pages on two threads. But 21 pages of conversation over a flippin' low-rent '64 Falcon?? This was a cheapo car that no one ever aspired to, but only settled for. It all escapes my understanding.

Sure the base Falcon was a pretty basic econo car, but by late '63 with the introduction of the V8 and the Sprint option, it became a bit more than that. In addition, I've seen a lot of folks go gaga over first generation Mustangs without even knowing what they are: re-skinned Falcons.

Maybe we Falcon and Ranchero owners get a little defensive hearing such talk, but I can take it - I'm not offended by your opinion and support your right to it.

[Zoom Zoom]

My Falcon arrived today.

Compared it to my original (built nicely by somebody) '65.

The model is a headscratcher, for sure. So much promise...so many oddities.

It is what it is. I'm reading up on the Japanese website (thanks to Google Translate) where the black one was built, looking at photos of real Falcons. No doubt that it will look decent and should be a fun build...but I'm not under any delusions, I really wish they'd have sweat the details more.

Photos on the Japanse website of the convertible shows the "Falcon" lettering on the decklid that is missing on the HT. The CV has a more basic steering wheel, more basic air cleaner, a bench seat, and some bigger tires for the optional 5 spoke wheels.

For those complaining about the stock exhaust...just use the custom dual exhaust. It looks much better and much more believable as an exhaust system. It's no more "wrong" than the stock setup.

[sjordan2]

Sure the base Falcon was a pretty basic econo car, but by late '63 with the introduction of the V8 and the Sprint option, it became a bit more than that. In addition, I've seen a lot of folks go gaga over first generation Mustangs without even knowing what they are: re-skinned Falcons.

Maybe we Falcon and Ranchero owners get a little defensive hearing such talk, but I can take it - I'm not offended by your opinion and support your right to it.

The thing is, the Falcon never received the makeover or the hype of the Mustang. The '63 Mustang was intended as a sporty, entry-level car for young drivers and women, with a bit of the aura and much less finesse than the Thunderbird – an affordable "personal car," that was announced early, eagerly awaited and a huge success at introduction – though very underpowered and cheaply made. But there has probably never been in the history of automobiles such a branding turnaround in so short a time as the transformation of the Mustang from a girls' car into a throbbing muscle car that, in certain incarnations, now gets over a million dollars at auction. Between Ford's vision, Carroll Shelby and "Bullitt," it became a muscle car icon. Poor Falcon, intended as small personal or family car, never figured into that sort of attention.

Edited April 23, 2011 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

I couldn't resist any longer. This subject now has 21 pages on two threads. But 21 pages of conversation over a flippin' low-rent '64 Falcon?? This was a cheapo car that no one ever aspired to, but only settled for. It all escapes my understanding.

Yeah, it's not exactly a gullwing Mercedes... but a Falcon Sprint was a pretty hot little car back in the day. Heck, it was the Mustang before the Mustang!

So we'll pencil you in to the "loyal oppostion" side of things, then...

[sjordan2]

Yeah, it's not exactly a gullwing Mercedes... but a Falcon Sprint was a pretty hot little car back in the day. Heck, it was the Mustang before the Mustang!

So we'll pencil you in to the "loyal oppostion" side of things, then...

Not to draw too fine a point on it, but I have never in my life encountered anyone who had nostalgia for a 60s Falcon until now. Beetles I understand. My ex-wife even had a Gremlin that she misses. I have friends who fondly remember their stock Novas, Civics and Chevelles. But never a soft spot anywhere for a Falcon. I had a new 1966 Mercury Comet sedan that was one of the biggest losers I've ever driven from any standpoint.

[Harry P.]

Not to draw too fine a point on it, but I have never in my life encountered anyone who had nostalgia for a 60s Falcon until now.

You can add me to that list. My dad's very first car ever was a 1960 Falcon, turquoise with a white top, and I remember that car to this day. He was so proud of it, and happy to finally have a car... because it meant he didn't have to take the bus to work anymore (actually, three buses each way). So I'll always have a soft spot for Falcons...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Oh, I'm just fine with "naysayer", myself.

Of course, the messy little reality I represent is that of the "naysayer" who's getting a kit or two anyway.

[Harry P.]

Oh, I'm just fine with "naysayer", myself.

Of course, the messy little reality I represent is that of the "naysayer" who's getting a kit or two anyway.

Why, you oughtta be hoisted by your own petard...

[Rob Z]

Being raised in a family of GM owners I have a tendency towards GM products... Through my teens I learned to appreciate MOPAR and am a major fan of MOPAR but, the one thing that sticks out in my mind about my youth, maybe 8 or 9 at the time, is a neighbors Falcon Sprint. From the first time I saw that car I wanted one, mind you I am not a Ford fan by any right, just a Falcon fan. The cars are amazingly plain looking and simple but, can pack a real punch if equipped correctly... Will I ever own a 1:1 Falcon? I doubt it but I will definately be adding the Trumpeter Sprint to my collection...

The naysayers in the crowd can say what they will but, whens the last time AMT or any of the other major companies even considered releasing a Falcon, with the exception of the '61 Ranchero, that in my opinion was a waste of plastic...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Why, you oughtta be hoisted by your own petard...

Mine broke.

[Chuck Most]

Skip- here in Central Michigan, Falcons are ADORED! They're about equal to Novas and Chevy IIs in terms of popularity. Maybe it's a reigonal thing?

[Chuck Most]

Isn't there like a national organization for Falcon owners, too?

Yes, but there's one for Trabants, too...

Still, I can think of at least a dozen Falcons in my immediate, not-really populated area, and all are adored by their owners and atendees at car shows- yours truly included.

[Chuck Most]

'Ere we are...

http://www.falconclub.com/

[Foxer]

http://www.falconclub.com/

That is REALLY scary!

Edited April 23, 2011 by Foxer

[2002p51]

That is REALLY scary!

Why would you say something like that?

What's scary about a national club for enthusiasts of a certain make of car?

(Proud member #14044 of the Falcon Club of America)

[2002p51]

Okay, I haven't seen one of these Falcon kits in person and, given the price, it's unlikely I'll be buying one, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But having said that, I will tell you that I have read all of the threads on this and that "other" board and, quite frankly, I don't see where this kit is all that far off.

Except for one glaring error!

Look at the kit exhaust in these photos:

Notice how the two pipes from the engine come together in a 'Y' just behind the transmission, then travel down the center of the car under the driveshaft, then make two sharp 90 degree turns to get over to the left (driver's side) of the car and out the back.

This couldn't be more wrong.

Here's a scan from the '64 Falcon service manual:

Notice that the left side exhaust goes down and under the engine and meets the right side there. Then the rest of the system goes down the right (passenger) side if the car all the way out the back. No 'Y', no sharp 90 degree bends.

This is the way almost all single exhaust V8 Fords have been done since the flathead days.

So, there's something definitive that Trumpeter messed up. No opinions, no bias, I report, you decide!

[Jordan White]

So, there's something definitive that Trumpeter messed up. No opinions, no bias, I report, you decide!

I believe that's the one thing the rest of us already noticed, since it's such a glaring problem!

[RancheroSteve]

But having said that, I will tell you that I have read all of the threads on this and that "other" board and, quite frankly, I don't see where this kit is all that far off.

Except for one glaring error!

Look at the kit exhaust in these photos:

Notice how the two pipes from the engine come together in a 'Y' just behind the transmission, then travel down the center of the car under the driveshaft, then make two sharp 90 degree turns to get over to the left (driver's side) of the car and out the back.

This couldn't be more wrong.

So, there's something definitive that Trumpeter messed up. No opinions, no bias, I report, you decide!

Thanks for that illustration Drew - that's an excellent graphic of what we've been talking about. But just from looking at that underbody shot, a few more things stand out to me (most of which have been pointed out by others here):

1. Steering linkage is incorrect.

2. No torque boxes on the unibody.

3. The oil pan is much too squared off.

4. The bellhousing, transmission and mount are all poor or incorrect representations.

5. The rear wheel tubs continue to bother me. If this kit is being marketed as "Stock Plus", why not include both stock and widened versions?

I know, I know - picky, picky. While I don't consider myself a "rivet counter" at all and I don't think I've ever built a kit factory stock, I've spent a lot of time looking at this stuff and the errors really jump out at me - I guess to the extent that I don't think I could actually enjoy building this kit.

When I have a little more time I'll try to post some scans and photos to illustrate some of this better, so you don't just have to take my word for it.

[Chuck Most]

Most of the kit's biggest hiccups (lack of torque boxes, wrong steering and oil pan, too wide rear wheel wells) don't bother me. They're all on the bottom of the model. This might sound strange, but I like to display my models with the chassis pointed DOWN. The exhaust? Deep six it, what good's a V8 without duals anyway? I do wish they'd done a better job on the body proportions, but though it doesn't look right 100% of the time, it looks pretty good from most angles. I'll say it again, at least it's not the AAR 'Cuda...

[RancheroSteve]

Most of the kit's biggest hiccups (lack of torque boxes, wrong steering and oil pan, too wide rear wheel wells) don't bother me. They're all on the bottom of the model. This might sound strange, but I like to display my models with the chassis pointed DOWN. The exhaust? Deep six it, what good's a V8 without duals anyway? I do wish they'd done a better job on the body proportions, but though it doesn't look right 100% of the time, it looks pretty good from most angles. I'll say it again, at least it's not the AAR 'Cuda...

I'm the first to say (about this or any kit), "If you like it, build it, and build it your way!"

[Danno]

Thanks for that illustration Drew - that's an excellent graphic of what we've been talking about. But just from looking at that underbody shot, a few more things stand out to me (most of which have been pointed out by others here):

1. Steering linkage is incorrect.

2. No torque boxes on the unibody.

3. The oil pan is much too squared off.

4. The bellhousing, transmission and mount are all poor or incorrect representations.

5. The rear wheel tubs continue to bother me. If this kit is being marketed as "Stock Plus", why not include both stock and widened versions?

I know, I know - picky, picky. While I don't consider myself a "rivet counter" at all and I don't think I've ever built a kit factory stock, I've spent a lot of time looking at this stuff and the errors really jump out at me - I guess to the extent that I don't think I could actually enjoy building this kit.

When I have a little more time I'll try to post some scans and photos to illustrate some of this better, so you don't just have to take my word for it.

Somebody on another board (as if there really was another board) said there were "100-plus" things wrong with this kit. I pointed out that was a pretty bold and specific allegation, and I asked him to enumerate all "100-plus." He has been unable to do so.

I might add that he said his "100-plus" were in addition to the ones listed here.

This is as close as anyone has gotten to a specific list, and I was even spotting that dude these five items. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, looks like the dude exaggerated this kit's so-called flaws by 20 times over!

It doesn't look so unworkable to me, but then ... it's a Falcon in the first place!

I'm sure those of you who like Falcons will buy the kit and build lots of nice Falcon models with it. I won't buy the kit or build a Falcon model myself, but I'll enjoy the ones you guys build.

I've seen way worse kits.

I'll enjoy them

[RancheroSteve]

Somebody on another board (as if there really was another board) said there were "100-plus" things wrong with this kit. I pointed out that was a pretty bold and specific allegation, and I asked him to enumerate all "100-plus." He has been unable to do so.

I might add that he said his "100-plus" were in addition to the ones listed here.

This is as close as anyone has gotten to a specific list, and I was even spotting that dude these five items. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, looks like the dude exaggerated this kit's so-called flaws by 20 times over!

It doesn't look so unworkable to me, but then ... it's a Falcon in the first place!

I'm sure those of you who like Falcons will buy the kit and build lots of nice Falcon models with it. I won't buy the kit or build a Falcon model myself, but I'll enjoy the ones you guys build.

I've seen way worse kits.

I'll enjoy them

Well, yes and no. I do think "100" is an over exaggeration and the kind of comment that's likely to get one in trouble, and why I like to stick to specifics, so the flaws that I enumerated above were limited to what I could see in the underbody photos Drew posted. I've seen flaws in other photos that I didn't mention those in post above, but until such time as I'm actually able to examine this kit in person and take detailed photos, I won't commit to saying, "this is the final list of what looks wrong to me."

As I said before, I've been concentrating on the mechanicals and haven't been mentioning the body much - more qualified folks than me (Dave Darby, months ago) have taken on the specifics of what they see as being wrong with the body shape, and for what it's worth, I agree with his assessment.

And I wouldn't say it's "unworkable", just a disappointment, given my affection for and knowledge of the subject and not anything that calls out for my kit dollars.

[Chuck Most]

While I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, I also think that argument's a bit of a slippery slope. I mean, I display my models with the hoods closed, too ... does that mean it would have been acceptable for Trumpeter to portray the engine in the Falcon kit as an undetailed blob of styrene? And, while it would not have bothered me if they'd done the kit as a hood-molded-shut curbside, I don't think you'd wanna know how bad the Interwebs would've broken had they done so ...

Touché...

I guess it might me a personal preference thing. Yes, a lot of my models wear hoods, and cruddy engine detail is a BIG pet peeve of mine (mostly because cruddy engines don't look good in models with no hoods at all), but personally, on a full-body car like a Falcon, I can live with substandard chassis detail. I know some guys like to go crazy with chassis detail, and I drool over their efforts... doesn't mean I have to do that myself on my own stuff!

Maybe Trumpeter should do a 'Throwback' series for their next car kit. Slab chassis, metal axles, sealed hood, the whole deal.