LDO Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) My daydream is a '56 Continental MkII. Not much else can be done with the tooling (as far as I know). I certainly won't say Möbius would be "making a huge mistake" by not issuing one...but wow, what a car. Maybe a '71 Riviera in stock form and a low rider issue. Also- there's probably a reason why plain-jane versions of cars have not been issued. More people like the SS/GT/Hemi/big block version. The whole "I drove a '74 Buick to high school, therefore it would sell a million copies" is preposterous. Even the '64 Chevelle Z-16 kit was a dog. Edited June 16, 2014 by LDO
Swifster Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Just a little about the Studebaker Hawks... The chassis is the same from 1953 to 1964. If there is a difference, it is a brace or two. The body shells for the coupe are the same from 1953 until 1961. The body shells for the hardtop are the same from 1953 to 1958. The body shells for the GT Hawks are the same from '62-'64. The Golden Hawks are the same from 1956-1958 except for the engine. All Studebaker engines are the same except for the 1956 Golden Hawk (Packard engine). And yes, I know the '57 & '58 Golden Hawks are Supercharged, but the basic engine is the same. The fins on the '56 to '61 Hawks were bolted on... The front clips on these cars are similar but not the same. The '53 and '54's are the same except for the grille inserts. The '56 to '61 are the same, but the side trim is different on the '61. The '56 to '61 dash panels are the same. In '54, both Commanders and Champions were in the La Carrera Panamerican road race. Since the race was revived in 1988, Studebaker has dominated the event. OK, say Moebius tools up for a '56 Golden Hawk. With just tooling up for a new engine, they also have the '57 & '58 Golden Hawks as well. If they tool up for the '57 & '58 Golden Hawk, with a body change, they get the '61 Hawk. Or they can swap bodies for a 1954 race car. Any car from 1953 up until the last GT Hawk could use the same platform. Just make the side panels for the interior trim separate so that the base tub can be used from one car to another. Edited June 16, 2014 by Swifster
Harry P. Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I had the privilege of meeting with Dave Metzner of Moebius last Sunday, with one of the items up for our discussion and review being the tooling mockups for the '65 Satellite. The tooling mockups I saw had only a few fairly minor issues to be corrected (needed corrections are almost always a part of any mockups for a new model car kit, BTW), and they looked fantastic. Art Go, Moebius, go!
MrObsessive Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) The fins on the '56 to '61 Hawks were bolted on... Hmmmm........I thought the fins on the '56 Hawk were just fiberglass add-ons. I've seen them stripped down, and they looked liked they were just fiberglass caps over the existing '53-'56 rear fenders from the lesser models. I've seen the later years under resto, and yes those fins were metal bolt ons. I'd sure like to be surprised by ANY '56-'64 Stude Hawk kit! Edited June 19, 2014 by MrObsessive
High octane Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 A mid-50's Lincoln Continental kit would be awesome, but I won't hold my breath for that or any other kit. Besides, I have enough to build and I'm getting tired of tying up ca$h for boxes of plastic.
Art Anderson Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Hmmmm........I thought the fins on the '56 Hawk were just fiberglass add-ons. I've seen them stripped down, and they looked liked they were just fiberglass caps over the existing '53-'56 rear fenders from the lesser models. I've seen the later years under resto, and yes those fins were metal bolt ons. I'd sure like to be surprised be ANY '56-'64 Stude Hawk kit! Your thinking is correct: The '56 Golden Hawk used fiberglass "finlets" which were bolted on, while the '57-61 Hawks were fitted with (also bolted on) sheet metal fins. Art
Art Anderson Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Just a little about the Studebaker Hawks... The chassis is the same from 1953 to 1964. If there is a difference, it is a brace or two. The body shells for the coupe are the same from 1953 until 1961. To be more precise, the actual bodies were the same 1953-61 including the roofs The body shells for the hardtop are the same from 1953 to 1958. Same as the coupe. The body shells for the GT Hawks are the same from '62-'64. Actually, the GT Hawks used the same body structures as the pillarless hardtop Starliners, '55 President Speedster, and the '56-'58 Golden Hawks, only the roof stamping changed, courtesy of a very masterful, rather low-cost styling upgrade by Brooks Stevens. The Golden Hawks are the same from 1956-1958 except for the engine. All Studebaker engines are the same except for the 1956 Golden Hawk (Packard engine). And yes, I know the '57 & '58 Golden Hawks are Supercharged, but the basic engine is the same. The fins on the '56 to '61 Hawks were bolted on... The front clips on these cars are similar but not the same. The '53 and '54's are the same except for the grille inserts. The '56 to '61 are the same, but the side trim is different on the '61. The '56 to '61 dash panels are the same. The front fenders, bumper and lower valance are essentially the same 1953-64 (yeah, there were a few '64 GT Hawks built before South Bend closed. For 1956 and the coming of the Hawk, a "Mercedes-like" grille was added, which of course necessitated an all new hood. At the same time, a new trunk lid was tooled, carrying a look similar to the newly restyled hood and grille. This trunk lid remained all the way to the end of the Hawk in December 1963, with added bright trim off and on. With the facelift of the '53-vintage Starliner and Starlight (the "post" coupe) a new rear bumper was styled, which also carried forward through December 1963. In '54, both Commanders and Champions were in the La Carrera Panamerican road race. Since the race was revived in 1988, Studebaker has dominated the event. OK, say Moebius tools up for a '56 Golden Hawk. With just tooling up for a new engine, they also have the '57 & '58 Golden Hawks as well. If they tool up for the '57 & '58 Golden Hawk, with a body change, they get the '61 Hawk. Or they can swap bodies for a 1954 race car. Any car from 1953 up until the last GT Hawk could use the same platform. Just make the side panels for the interior trim separate so that the base tub can be used from one car to another. Personally, I'd love to see a model company do a new kit of this series of Studebaker cars, beginning with the 1955 President Speedster (Oh I know, that thing with the so-termed "ugly chrome snout" up front, and the rather heavy-looking "butter knife" chome side trim spears), To follow that with a series of Hawks actually becomes a bit problematic, as any change to the body sides (chrome trim, and the eventual elimination of that upside-down "checkmark" side cove) will require at minimum new body side core mold sections, for each variant. The bolted on fins are another matter, of course: The least expensive way to provide the variants of those would be to make them as separate parts, which with modern tooling technology (which can give very thin injection molded cross sections) are at least theoretically possible, although I would question as to how well such a concept would be recieved by most model builders. If the fins cannot successfully be tooled to an acceptable level as separate parts, then pretty much there would need to be a new "upper body mold core, as well as new body side mold cores for each variant considered. Thus, were it my call to make as a product manager, I'd go for the '55 President Speedster, a '56 Golden Hawk (with that awesome, but boat-anchor-heavy Packard V8) a '57 Golden Hawk with the Paxton blown Studebaker 289, not worry one whit about the 58-61 Hawks at all, go straight to the '62-64 GT Hawk. But that's just my pipe dream! Art
gtx6970 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I have enough to build and I'm getting tired of tying up ca$h for boxes of plastic. Agreed, If none of the companies come out with anything new that I want/ need in the next 10 years ,,I am good. Although I am glad to see someone finally doing a 1965 Plymouth B body and will definitly get a few for the shelf
Swifster Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 A 340 and a 318 are visually the same. The 'new' 318 is visually the same. The 318 used until 1966 was a poly head V8 and looks nothing like the 'LA' engine.
thatz4u Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) 1954 Hudson Club Coupe http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Hudson/1954_Hudson/1954_Hudson_Brochure/dirindex.html for you detail people who build only stock And for the kitbasher....... Edited July 21, 2014 by thatz4u
Swifster Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 The two-tone green and the red over white both look stunning.
jbwelda Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 >The bolted on fins are another matter, of course: The least expensive way to provide the variants >of those would be to make them as separate parts that would certainly make logical sense since they were separate parts in 1:1 anyway. its kind of funny (to me anyhow) that they would do a total "JC Whitney catalog" thing like that on a production car. but those were certainly awesome cars in the looks and performance departments though I think they were all a bit heavy for their time? I would buy one of all variants myself. jb
mr moto Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 I don't know why separate Ventura and Catalina versions of the '61 Poncho are needed but basically all of those subjects have been crying out to be kitted for a long time. The '65 Plymouth is one that I've been wanting. Besides making excellent kits, Moebius seems to have a keen sense of the marketplace.
MrObsessive Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 that would certainly make logical sense since they were separate parts in 1:1 anyway. its kind of funny (to me anyhow) that they would do a total "JC Whitney catalog" thing like that on a production car. but those were certainly awesome cars in the looks and performance departments though I think they were all a bit heavy for their time? Studebaker was really hurting for cash even back then, so this was probably the cheapest/most cost effective way to "update" the cars without going through a lot of expense in making new fender dies. Yeah, the Hawks were pretty ponderous for their time. IIRC, their wheelbases were something like 120" or thereabouts. So they certainly were no lightweights! Studebaker wouldn't get much on track again until the '59 Larks hit the road, but by that point the writing was on the wall.........Stude wouldn't make it through the '60's.
Mike Kucaba Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 I don't either, but a feature in Collectible Automobile makes a point of there being a difference. I think the Ventura is a higher -line model. My quote button stopped working and I can't seem to copy & paste either
High octane Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 Havin' been a Ventura owner myself back-in-the-day you are correct Mike, as the Ventura is an upgraded Catalina
Dave Metzner Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 I have 65 Plymouth tooling mock-ups here now - they'll go back to the factory on Monday.. Tooling ought to start in the next week or two!
Art Anderson Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 >The bolted on fins are another matter, of course: The least expensive way to provide the variants >of those would be to make them as separate parts that would certainly make logical sense since they were separate parts in 1:1 anyway. its kind of funny (to me anyhow) that they would do a total "JC Whitney catalog" thing like that on a production car. but those were certainly awesome cars in the looks and performance departments though I think they were all a bit heavy for their time? I would buy one of all variants myself. jb Studebaker Hawks really weren't all that heavy--they ranged from about 3100lbs for a '57 Silver Hawk, up to just over 3400lbs for the 1956 Golden Hawk. Much of that extra weight of the Golden Hawk was due to the rather heavy (even when compared to say, a 50's Chrysler Hemi even!) Packard V8, which apparently was designed and produced without much thought given to its weight, considering that it was designed for a full-sized luxury Packard. What really hampered the '57 Golden Hawk was the handling. With the extra 200-250lbs of that Packard 352cid V8 (used in the '56 Golden Hawk as the only engine option) positioned as far forward in relation to the centerline of the front wheels, that car had a nasty tendency to "plow" into a corner (push in racing terminology) and then suddenly spin out. Studebaker Packard discontinued the Packard V8 (first introduced at Packard in 1955) and sold the tooling and rights to AMC, leaving Studebaker with their original small block V8, which started out at 239cid, ultimately to be poked out to 289 cubic inches. While that engine was comparatively heavy, compared to say, a small block Chevy and certainly to the 221/260/289/302 Ford V8 of the 60's, it didn't affect the '57 through 64 Hawks all that much, given that the basic Hawk design is almost exactly that of the 1953 Studebaker Commander coupes and hardtop. Art I have 65 Plymouth tooling mock-ups here now - they'll go back to the factory on Monday.. Tooling ought to start in the next week or two! Definitely a drooling-instigating model coming up! Art
Art Anderson Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I don't know why separate Ventura and Catalina versions of the '61 Poncho are needed but basically all of those subjects have been crying out to be kitted for a long time. The '65 Plymouth is one that I've been wanting. Besides making excellent kits, Moebius seems to have a keen sense of the marketplace. Pretty much because it will take only a few added bits of tooling to mold the Ventura--body shell (pretty much only the side slide-core dies) along with seats and interior side panels. Frankly, I think the interest in both versions is quite high, so why not? Art
mangodart Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Big block wedge Thanks, a pity they didn't choose to reproduce the Polyhead 318ci....
Dave Metzner Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 There is a very good reason why we went with the big block.
Recommended Posts