What did you get today? (Model Car Related Items)

[om617]

This just came today.

An AMT 1964 Pontiac Grand Prix.

I already had one that's a little rougher, but I just had to pull the trigger on this one when I saw the condition it was in.

The other grille half is there, it just fell through & I'll fish it out when I dis-assemble.

 

 

 

 

Wow this looks really clean. Great score.

[om617]

I pressed save once and it double posts? No preview either,and somtimes it loads forever before the thread opens.

Anyway here is some projects i got during the weekend. 60 Edsel builder and a resin R&R 70 Chrysler.

Edited August 14, 2016 by om617

[cobraman]

Came in the mail yesterday. Pinto model and a small Cobra for the collection.

[om617]

It's kind of strange to me that we haven't seen more Buick Grand Sport kits.

With the huge muscle car craze over the years in the model kit world, with all of the Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, GTOs, etc, you'd think we would have seen more than the 2 Grand Sports kitted.

The AMT '66 & the Monogram '70 GSX.

I personally would have loved to see a '68/'69 GS.

My absolute favorite Skylark body style!

 

Steve

 

 

 

I have a 68 GS hardtop i want to do in that color. It is resin but i`m not sure who produce it,it is full detail with open hood. 

I'd love to lay my hands on one of those Skylarks!  Kills me every time I see one of those Modified Stocker kits, seeing how they butchered that tool.  Too bad the 1:1 Skylarks aren't as popular as most of the other midsizers, otherwise maybe it would have been restored like the '65 GTO and the '69 Cobra (Torino), although the '65 GTO is kind of deficient as far as the headlights...

Waited around 2 years for a fair deal to come along. Patience is key,they sure dont show up often,besides on bid wars on ebay.

66 is nice,i do wish it was a 67 with the "star wars" air-cleaner,also the nailhead was gone in 67.

[Can-Con]

Thanks for the details, Jake. The frame on the kit chassis is definitely GM A-body. Wheelbase on '68-'72 GM As was 112 inches on 2-doors; Nova was 108 (or at least Camaro was--Nova might have actually been 110, I'd have to look it up). Interesting that GM would have a sub-112" wheelbase A-frame in Australia. Must not have had much back seat legroom!

The reference page I found says the coupe and sedan had a 111 inch wheelbase and the wagon 114. Could that 1 inch difference be because of axle placement on an A-body frame?

[Snake45]

The reference page I found says the coupe and sedan had a 111 inch wheelbase and the wagon 114. Could that 1 inch difference be because of axle placement on an A-body frame?

Dunno, but the US A-bodes were 112 and 116. It would have only been a matter of stamping different length frame rails. GM did that for the fullsizers--several different lengths/wheelbases from IIRC 119" up to 125", maybe even more.

BTW, the story GM told/sold in 1968 was that the A-body wheelbase was being shortened from 115 to 112 because the 115" wheelbase gave some kind of strange harmonic vibration or oscillation or something with the standard joint length of the US Interstate highways. Oddly, we seemed to get along fine on 115" wheelbases for many many years, including on all the '55-'57 Chevies and presumably many other GM cars as well (to say nothing of other makers).

[JustJake]

Here is a link to how a scale model monaro gts was made ....  http://cs.scaleautomag.com/sca/modeling_subjects/f/29/t/60832.aspx?page=1

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Another one of these for $19 at Hobby Lobby with a 40% off coupon. It's a nice kit for $29. It's a steal at $19.  

[Matt Bacon]

This showed up today:

I've wanted one for years, and now it's been paid for by money for a car modelling magazine article, so I can justify it!

best,

M.

[unclescott58]

Dunno, but the US A-bodes were 112 and 116. It would have only been a matter of stamping different length frame rails. GM did that for the fullsizers--several different lengths/wheelbases from IIRC 119" up to 125", maybe even more.

BTW, the story GM told/sold in 1968 was that the A-body wheelbase was being shortened from 115 to 112 because the 115" wheelbase gave some kind of strange harmonic vibration or oscillation or something with the standard joint length of the US Interstate highways. Oddly, we seemed to get along fine on 115" wheelbases for many many years, including on all the '55-'57 Chevies and presumably many other GM cars as well (to say nothing of other makers).

I've never heard the "strange harmonic vibration or oscillation" theory before. And a standard joint length on US Interstate highways? I've heard rumors of that one. But, even if they had a standard it would be tough to match in a lot of cases. The change in wheelbase on the '68 GM "A" body cars was done strictly for styling. The four-doors were stretched one inch, which did provide a slightly better ride, as lengthening the wheelbase on any car will. The two-doors dropped three inches, because it made them look better. More sportier than the four-doors.

An interesting wheelbase story is the one on the then new '65 full-size Dodge. They dropped the wheelbase of the big Dodges from a 122" wheelbase to 121". One inch. Not a big deal right? Well it was to the California Highway Patrol at the time. For ride reasons they would not accept any car with a wheelbase under 122". (This was changed in the mid-70's.) So Dodge ended up building special Polaras with the rear axle moved back to meet the requirements of the CHP. And for the CHP only. The CHP contract was worth that much to them back then. The contract for CHP cars was so big, that Buick in 1956 built special Century two-door sedans for the CHP only. (The rest of us, if we wanted a two-door Century, we had to be happy with the two-door "Riviera" hardtop. If you want a Buick two-door sedan most years, including '56 you bought it in the Buick Special line. With the smaller motor.) For '67, all full-size Dodges were back up to a 122" wheelbase.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by unclescott58

[Quick GMC]

Edited August 16, 2016 by Quick GMC

[Bill Eh?]

Cameron, I'm interested in your thoughts on the Hasegawa 1/12 bike kit, as compared to Tamiya.      Bill

Edited August 16, 2016 by Bill Eh?

[unclescott58]

This showed up today:

I've wanted one for years, and now it's been paid for by money for a car modelling magazine article, so I can justify it!

best,

M.

I'd love to see a review on this kit. I've seen some photos in the past. Mainly of old glue bombs. But, nothing that really shows what comes in the box. So I'm courious about the detail and general look of the kit? The kit was originally tooled by Monogram well over 50 years ago now. How is it by today's standards? Most Jag E Type kits one sees seem a little off proportion wise. Wow is this one?

[Twokidsnosleep]

Not really a car but it is a Deal's Wheels

[Quick GMC]

Cameron, I'm interested in your thoughts on the Hasegawa 1/12 bike kit, as compared to Tamiya.      Bill

I haven't completed a single bike yet. I started one Tamiya kit, but I really love the older bikes and the Rothmans livery, so I had to have this. 

From what I have heard, they are every bit as good as the Tamiya kits, and this is new tooling, so it should be pretty nice. 

I should do a review, but don't know where to put it since they don't allow bikes on here. 

[XJ6]

This showed up today:

I've wanted one for years, and now it's been paid for by money for a car modelling magazine article, so I can justify it!

best,

M.

Been out of touch on kits, but I sure like that one?

Is this a new release? In this kit at 1/8 scale 

Thanks ?

[Snake45]

I've never heard the "strange harmonic vibration or oscillation" theory before. And a standard joint length on US Interstate highways? I've heard rumors of that one. But, even if they had a standard it would be tough to match in a lot of cases. The change in wheelbase on the '68 GM "A" body cars was done strictly for styling. The four-doors were stretched one inch, which did provide a slightly better ride, as lengthening the wheelbase on any car will. The two-doors dropped three inches, because it made them look better. More sportier than the four-doors.

 

 

Maybe styling was the real reason (more likely saving a couple bucks by downsizing), but that was the story GM was telling at the time. I well remember reading it several times in Motor Trend, Hot Rod, and other car rags of the day, and not just once, but several times. I'll see if I can find one and give you an exact quote.

[StevenGuthmiller]

Been out of touch on kits, but I sure like that one?

Is this a new release? In this kit at 1/8 scale 

Thanks ?

This kit has been around for many years.

Reissued several times.

I have no idea when it was last produced, but I've had a couple of them over the years.

I still have one that I never started.

 

Steve

[unclescott58]

Not really a car but it is a Deal's Wheels

Just finished mine yesterday. Fun kit and it turned out great. Been on a Deal's Wheels kick lately.

Had a talk with my best friends' 20 year old son about setting up a photo account and then showing me how to setup links, so I can start posting photos here again. The only trouble is the kid is going with his girlfriend to Mexico on a week long trip. And they fly out tomarrow morning at 5 am. So it will still be a week or two before I can start showing thing like my just finishing Deal's Wheels "The Baron". And other Deal's Wheels cars I have finished in the last couple of months.

Edited August 17, 2016 by unclescott58

[XJ6]

This kit has been around for many years.

Reissued several times.

I have no idea when it was last produced, but I've had a couple of them over the years.

I still have one that I never started.

 

Steve

Thanks for the information ?

[1930fordpickup]

I should do a review, but don't know where to put it since they don't allow bikes on here. 

Try- All The Rest.

[unclescott58]

I haven't completed a single bike yet. I started one Tamiya kit, but I really love the older bikes and the Rothmans livery, so I had to have this. 

From what I have heard, they are every bit as good as the Tamiya kits, and this is new tooling, so it should be pretty nice. 

I should do a review, but don't know where to put it since they don't allow bikes on here. 

There is an area here labeled "All the rest". In that area, they do allow bike reviews. Amongst other things. Do your review. Just put it in the right place. By the way, I'll read it. I love almost all kit reviews.

[Snake45]

Just scored an original annual AMT ’65 Vette roadster on ePay. A little more than I usually like to pay for a “glue bomb,” but this one comes with original box (the only original AMT ’63-’67 Corvette box I don’t already have), instructions, decals, and most of the original kit parts including the cut-down wraparound windshield I’ve been seeking for over a year.  The thing looks horrible in the pics but I THINK it’s just a coat or two of AMT or Pactra Candy Pagan Gold over bare white plastic, which SHOULD strip right off.  The soft up-top is on the body in the pics—hope it’s not glued on, or if it is, that it’s not too hard to separate.  At any rate, I have a couple other ’65 Vette roadster bodies (though neither has a windshield frame at the moment) so I ought to be able to do SOMETHING with whatever comes in the box. Oh yeah, it’s got the semi-rare removable hardtop, too—was disappointed to see that Modelhaus had discontinued those when I submitted my epic Last Order Ever.

It came today. Some good news, some bad. The seller packaged it magnificently--have never seen better. The box is in exceptional shape. Looks like it just came off a 1965 LHS shelf. Instructions are good. I was right about the paint--it's Candy Pagan Gold over the white plastic. Fairly thin and extremely smooth. Almost a shame to strip it, except for a couple heavy areas/runs. Should come right off. If not, it would be hard to sand as necessary and paint over, if need be. The soft top was NOT glued on, TTL, and the hard top and its glass, and the cutdown racing/custom wraparound windscreen is present and undamaged. I think pretty much everything is here--I know the four '65 wheel cover wheels are, as are the original tires including cool vintage slicks.

That's the good news. The bad news is relatively minor. The body has been drilled for the custom third taillight. That's fixable. The windshield frame is broken (but not bent) on the right side, and the top of the vent window frame is missing on the left, but those are fixable--a PITA but definitely fixable. The engine is about 80% built as one of the custom or racing versions, but I have a number of replacements from '63 kits including full FI, so no big deal. There's some kind of huge glue-booger on the inside of the stock windshield, but it doesn't seem to be tube glue--might be white glue or some kind of silicone. That MIGHT be fixable but if not, I can replace it from my parts box.

So all things considered, I'm very happy and consider it money well spent. I have two other '65 roadster bodies, both missing the windshield frames; I was going to repair one of those for a stock '65 but now I can use this one. AND I have plans to build both a full custom and a road-racer using the optional parts from '66 roadsters, so I can use one or both of those damaged '65 bodies for those. The main difference between the '65 and '66 bodies would be the "trunk" emblems.

It's a happy day in the Snakepit! (Scott, I figured you'd appreciate a complete report.) I might try to take and post a couple pics of the thing before I start reworking it.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Snake45

[Deathgoblin]

Went to Discount Drug Mart today.  I picked up a 1992 Firebird Formula and a Revell Dodge Ram VTS Pickup kit.  $9.99 each.  I love that place.  Almost got the 1965 Chevelle Z-16 for $10.99

[Twokidsnosleep]

Do these AMT kits have any tiger traps in them??