Substitute Chassis for an AMT '65-'66 Mustang coupe ?

[Greg Myers]

What I really want is to see Revell / Monogram finish their great Mustang series, (yeah, I know, It's 1/24th scale )

So barring that, what would be a good, accurate, and dare I ask ,one that fits without too much work? The "Promo" style chassis really turns me off on the entire kit.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I've been wondering that too. How much did the chassis really change later in to the '60s, and how similar is, say, a '65 Falcon? Would the Trumpeter Falcon chassis be close enough? After all, the Mustang was built on the Falcon platform.

[Snake45]

Best fit I can think of would be the AMT '67 Mustang and Shelby kits. Probably not 100% accurate for a '65-'66, but probably pretty close and almost certainly the best available. The Revell '69 Mach I and Shelby kits might work, too.

The Trumpeter Falcon is expensive, and then what are you going to use as a chassis for that?

Personally, I don't mind the one-piece chassis for most builds. The older I get, the more I build curbside style. I'd much rather have three or four or five curbsides on my shelf than one or two full-detail builds.

[Greg Myers]

Thank you both, pretty much what I came up with, caveat included , what to do with the expensive Trumpeter left overs.

[Ace-Garageguy]

,,, what to do with the expensive Trumpeter left overs.

Maybe on a generic rectangular tube frame, which I think would have been class-legal in 1965 or thereabouts...recall that the Malco Gasser Mustang was built on Montgomery's old '33 Willys gasser frame...

Edited November 3, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

Maybe on a generic rectangular tube frame, which I think would have been class-legal in 1965 or thereabouts...recall that the Malco Gasser Mustang was built on Montgomery's old '33 Willys gasser frame...

Only "class" that would have been legal in in 1965 would have been Altered. Gassers back then had to be based on a stock frame.

Truth be known, most of the so-called "FX" cars of '65 and '66 weren't class legal for anything (except maybe Altered or Comp) and were match racers--run whatcha brung. That paid better than legal competition.

[Rob Hall]

Thank you both, pretty much what I came up with, caveat included , what to do with the expensive Trumpeter left overs.

The Trumpeter kit chassis is probably the weakest part of the kit..rather flat and lacking in detail. The AMT '67 is what I've thought of using, though the AMT '65-66 Mustangs I've built I've stuck w/ the stock chassis..

[Ace-Garageguy]

Only "class" that would have been legal in in 1965 would have been Altered. Gassers back then had to be based on a stock frame.

Truth be known, most of the so-called "FX" cars of '65 and '66 weren't class legal for anything (except maybe Altered or Comp) and were match racers--run whatcha brung. That paid better than legal competition.

Two questions. 1) What year was the stock frame requirement dropped? The '67 NHRA season allowed the Malco Gasser Mustang to compete as a gas-class car, built on the old Willys frame, modified and stretched.

2) I'm not understanding what was "so called" about FX. If I recall correctly, it was a specific class for "factory experimental" cars. Granted the rules were few, but there WERE rules stating the car could only be built from major parts available from the manufacturer (parts could be swapped between model lines, which is how Mickey Thompson got away with a solid rear axle and a 389 in an early Tempest shell).

Edited November 3, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Guest]

I have both kits (AMT '66 coupe and '67 fastback). The '67 fastback is, without a doubt, the best donor for the '66 coupe. The chassis is practically a perfect fit. It's only about a mm narrower than the '66 body. But, the body will still easily glue to it. Wheelbase is spot on. I'm either going to build a detailed '66 coupe or convert the '67 to a coupe.

[1930fordpickup]

Rodger the guys over at the Motor City Resin Casters make a nice resin 67 coupe .

[Snake45]

Two questions. 1) What year was the stock frame requirement dropped? The '67 NHRA season allowed the Malco Gasser Mustang to compete as a gas-class car, built on the old Willys frame, modified and stretched.

2) I'm not understanding what was "so called" about FX. If I recall correctly, it was a specific class for "factory experimental" cars. Granted the rules were few, but there WERE rules stating the car could only be built from major parts available from the manufacturer (parts could be swapped between model lines, which is how Mickey Thompson got away with a solid rear axle and a 389 in an early Tempest shell).

The frame didn't have to be built on THAT car's stock frame, but it had to be built on SOME stock frame. That's WHY the Malco Mustang was built on the Willys frame. Dunno what year things were changed but the Malco Mustang was, I believe, instrumental in changing them.

I'm now looking at the 1971 NHRA rulebook. Gas class says frame "must be stock automotive type frame." HOWEVER, all supercharged cars, A/G, B/G, A/SR, B/SR, and "all cars employing unibody construction [which would include Mustang, Camaro, etc] are allowed the use of rectangular or square steel tubing in frame construction...minimum size 2" x 3" rectangular or equivalent in square configuration."

I was just reading an old R&C magazine from '65 or '66 with an article about an "outlaw" AA/GS '33 Willys someone was building. They'd bent the hell out of two stock Willys frames and had had enough of it. They were building a new, SAFER rectangular tubing frame for the thing and NHRA legality be damned. I guess they either match raced it or ran it as an Altered until the frame rule was changed, whenever that was exactly.

As to FX, you're right as far as it goes. I think the FX (Factory Experimental) class started in '62 and it was just as you say. It was a legit class in '62 and '63 and into '64, and then people started grossly altering the wheelbase, setting the engine back and using injectors, blowers, nitro, etc. In '65 the racers took it even further and by '66 there was very little "factory" about the funny cars. Either 1965 or 66 was the last year NHRA even recognized an FX class with rules but my point was that many or most of those iconic and seminal funny cars of 1965 and '66 weren't "FX legal" even though the A/FX designation was often hung on them. They were built and campaigned as match racers, not NHRA-legal FXers in most cases. When they ran in NHRA competition, they had to run as Altereds or Competition Coupes or even /D (dragsters), depending on exactly what was involved. It was a VERY interesting and colorful period in drag racing, and one of my very favorites.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Snake45

[Greg Myers]

Boys, boys, boys, what pray tell does all this have to do with the question in my Original Post ? Didn't say nutin bout no race carz.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Greg Myers

[Ace-Garageguy]

Boys, boys, boys, what pray tell does all this have to do with the question in my Original Post ? Didn't say nutin bout no race carz.

Haz ta doo wit wat ta doo wit da leftover bitz frum da Trumpeter kit, if youse use da chassee under a Mushtang.

It kinda spun off the rails after I suggested in post 5 that the Trumpeter body could make a nice gasser on a simple rectangular tube frame, if you used the Trumpeter uniboby underparts for your Mustang.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

Boys, boys, boys, what pray tell does all this have to do with the question in my Original Post ? Didn't say nutin bout no race carz.

Now THAT one, if I'm not mistaken, was a rebodied Fiat altered (much like the Psycho fastback) and was never close to being FX legal.

[Mark]

The Trumpeter Falcons are a hot mess, don't waste your time or money. If you want a '64-'65 Falcon, start with the AMT altered wheelbase body. The rear wheel openings are moved forward, and there's a recessed area for the drag 'chute in the rear body panel, but changing that stuff beats dealing with Trumpeter's "reflection in a funhouse mirror" rendition of the Falcon body. If you want 100% stock, look for a resin body or a less-than-perfect promotional model.

That aside, the AMT new-tool '67 Mustang underbody is the way to go if you want more detail for the '66 coupe. A distant second would be the parts from the AMT/ex-MPC '69 Mustang fastback. Those parts originated with the MPC '66 Mustang fastback...chassis looks like the AMT '66 piece, but with separate exhaust and rear axle/spring unit.

The "stock chassis for Gas class" rule fell by the wayside around the time Ohio George's '67 Mustang appeared. Mike Mitchell ("world's fastest hippie") built a '33 Willys in 1966, with a fabricated frame. At first, NHRA stuck to the "stock frame" rule, but later backpedaled, seeing how fast those cars were getting. The first few times out, Mitchell's car was moved into Altered class, but the rule change came for '67.

The stock frames under some of those cars needed extensive rework for drag racing. Ever see a stock Anglia/Thames frame? (Don't look at the Revell kit; that one isn't accurate.) It's awfully puny. The Austin unit wasn't much better. I remember my older brother building a 1:1 Austin pickup; by comparison with domestic cars, its frame looked like it was made of heavy gauge sheetmetal, though several layers thick in places. A Sawzall made short work of it; the frame was intact but had a lot of scaly, scabby rust (the truck sat in a dirt floor building in Ontario for many years). Montgomery's Mustang had the Willys frame because he'd started construction on it prior to the rule change, but then again he used a Willys frame under the red '69 Mustang which was built after fabricated frames were allowed. He probably just liked them as a starting point.

[Snake45]

Great post, Mark.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Seriously, are the Trumpeter Falcons really that bad? This Ranchero underbody doesn't look as bad as I woulda thought from some of the comments...

[Mark]

For the $34 I paid for the hardtop, I expected a lot better. The general shapes are there, but everything is off. The inner rear wheel wells are way too deep (you can't get too big a tire on a Falcon), and that steering linkage looks like it was scaled down from Erector set parts. I've seen a couple of built ones that looked great, but that was more due to the builder's effort than the kit itself. I came to my opinion long before Moebius started spoiling us with kits we never expected to see, with way better execution to boot. Hang on to that Trumpeter chassis and compare it to the '65 Cyclone when it appears. Trumpeter seems to have gone about it the wrong way; the first kits had too many gimmicks (finicky photoetched hood hinges, too-thin separate panels, metal-clad plated parts). The Falcons ditched most of that stuff, but not enough effort went into getting the shapes right. And those came after the '63 Novas, which (aside from the too-tall convertible windshield) looked pretty darned good, gimmicks and all. I sold my Falcon and got my money back...when I started putting together a sale pile for NNL East earlier this year, it was probably the first thing I set aside.

[mk11]

For all the lamentations (mine included) about the trumpeter falcon body, it's not an incorrigible mess. As Mr Reckner (afx) proved with his '64 T/A build, some minor reshaping brought it into reasonable shape.

Strangely enough, it's a whole lot closer to it's subject's shape than a long awaited recent release is ...

 

mike

[afx]

On 11/2/2014 at 10:13 PM, Greg Myers said:

Thank you both, pretty much what I came up with, caveat included , what to do with the expensive Trumpeter left overs.

Happy to work out a deal for the leftovers if you go that direction.

Edited March 31, 2018 by afx

[fiatboy]

I have a '66 AMT Mustang chassis complete you can have.