"TOY" cars indeed. Maybe they're right.

[Greg Myers]

I'm getting into the Monogram "Plum Crazy" Funny Car and just now passing my model room I glanced in to see the box art of said kit and began wondering that it really wasn't very accurate but more "toy" like. Then I started thinking about other kits that are more "toy" like than replicas. Monogram had a series of Vegas and Pintos and I'm sure there were others. A lot of the "Show" rods seem to fall into this category just by their nature. Can you think of any others?

Now don't get me wrong, these can be very entertaining and fun and maybe even built into something realistic.

[Scale-Master]

How about the Deal's Wheel's line? Zingers, Snap Draggon's...

[Dr. Cranky]

I agree with Dave. After a while you begin to take it seriously in that it becomes a much-need, much looked-forward to routine.

Like Doctor Cranky's doctor likes to say: it's good for the nerves! LOL.

[Chuck Most]

I don't get why the 'toy' issue is so thorny for some. I consider my 1:1 '67 Plymouth Fury a toy, so why not my models.

But anyway- toy-like models? I've got a few

Lindberg '48 Lincoln- I won't get into what an epic fail that kit is in terms of detail and accuracy. But when built up box stock, doesn't it kinda remind you of an old pressed steel toy?

Revell '56 Ford F-100- Looks like the cab blew a bubble, and those rear fenders are just awful. I used to have a Nylint F-100 diecast toy that had better body proportions. Heck, as a kid I had a plastic Tootsietoy '56 F-100 that looked more like the real deal than that kit.

Ertl Scout II- it's that grille. Other than that the body looks pretty good, but that incorrectly-rounded-on-top, all-chrome grille just rings toy-like to me. I've actually seen 'toy' Scout IIs with better-looking grilles (dig out a Johnny Lightning Scout II and compare it to the kit and you'll see what I mean).

Revell AAR 'Cuda- Another kit that just reeks of fail, even though it was introduced in a time when the manufacturer should have known better. Again, the typical Hot Wheel or Matchbox Barracuda has better body proportions. The Revell AAR kind of reminds me of one of those cheap RC or friction drive toy cars you see at dollar stores- looks enough like a real car to be recognizable, but it's proportions have been tweaked a bit to make it look 'cool' to kids.

Not to say a good looking, accurate model can't be built using from any of these kits (well, that first one might be a stretch unless you're Jeff Sauber), but they're the ones that immediately stick out in my mind.

[Chuck Most]

For me, if it's pre-painted and pre-built it's a toy.

One of the reasons I consider my real Plymouth a toy. The Chrysler guys built and painted it.

[Greg Myers]

How about the Deal's Wheel's line? Zingers, Snap Draggon's...

These would certainly be caricatures. I would put them in a different category., legitimate in their own right, just as the show cars would be. What I'm thinking about are the kits that just fall short in their design or presentation.

[Junkman]

Need I say Palmer?

[Greg Myers]

Need I say Palmer?

I would say those were just poorly executed.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Greg Myers

[MikeMc]

I thought you meant cars... ..not model cars.

So I thought of this one... ....1:1 in traffic today....IT IS A TOY!!

[Greg Myers]

I consider all of the Tom Daniels/Monogram collaborations to be toys.

Pretty much what I was getting at.Just wondered if any one thought there were others?

Edited October 18, 2011 by Greg Myers

[Chuck Most]

Wasn't the 'Badman' '55 Chevy axle car a Tom Daniel design as well?

[Greg Myers]

Wasn't the 'Badman' '55 Chevy axle car a Tom Daniel design as well?

Yes it was and measure out those headers. Works out to 4+ inch diameter primary tubes.

[Chuck Most]

I'll take your word for it. Haven't poked around in a Badman kit in years. Still, it was pretty realistic compared to, say, the Dragon Wagon or the Horn Toad! (By the way, I wouldn't mind seeing the Horn Toad reissued...)

[Greg Myers]

I've built my share. The die cast Badman II is a great "slump" breaker.

[scalenut]

any of the AMT "Lil" series are toy-like

[Jantrix]

Plus it comes with a small block instead of of the 396 it supposedly has.

Chevy did make a 396 stroker small block. Google it.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jantrix

[Erik Smith]

So I thought of this one... ....1:1 in traffic today....IT IS A TOY!!

I actually like this Full size toy.

[Chuck Most]

Remember those fake wind-up keys they sold in JC Whitney catalogs? If ever a car were MADE to sport one of those...

[Chuck Most]

Well c'mon... that car was just meant for a fake wind up key!

[Maindrian Pace]

Was the Quicksilver a Daniel creation? I built it as a kid and really liked it. Fit together well, and I think it even came with a piece of yellow fuzz paper for carpeting.

-MJS

[Junkman]

Was the Quicksilver a Daniel creation? I built it as a kid and really liked it. Fit together well, and I think it even came with a piece of yellow fuzz paper for carpeting.

-MJS

It's difficult to tell. Mr. Daniel designed various variations of the '60 Chevy Sedan Delivery theme, like the Bad News, Bad News II, Bad Actor, etc. Whether he actually designed the Quicksilver too, or whether Monogram milked the mold after the collaboration with Mr. Daniel ended I don't know.

The California Vette was modelled after Mr. Daniel's real customized Corvette and is arguably the only model of a Monogram/Daniel design that actually existed as a real car at the time. Mr. Daniel still owns this car and there were efforts a few years back to restore it, but I have no idea what became of these plans.

Several of the Monogram/Daniel designs were used to build real show rods by various car builders over the years. How is this for reverse engineering?

[Junkman]

I just had a look at Mr. Daniel's website and there is a list of all the cars he designed for Monogram:

http://www.tomdaniel.com/85_kits/frm_85kits.html

The Quicksilver is listed, so it is actually the one that triggered all the spin-offs.

[Modelmartin]

A lot of the responses here indicate that the original post was misunderstood. He wasn't asking about bad kits. That's too easy and obvious. He was asking about kits like those awful early mid 80s AMT Nascar cars. They looked like actual kid's toys. In the late 60s AMT also put out a moving semi truck and trailer which were obviously toys that were molded in styrene and thrown unassembled in the box. Some of the Revell snap kits from the 90s were almost in that category but the shapes were nicer.

[Lunajammer]

I

Now don't get me wrong, these can be very entertaining and fun and maybe even built into something realistic.

I've always thought this is a particularly handsome custom. Forget comparing it to a Pinto. Kits like these look so little like the real thing I look at them as stand alone customs. The point was driven home more at the NNL North when someone on the primer table was converting a pathetic Palmer Corvette into a custom and it was brilliant. Rather than trying to salvage the Corvette look, he was discarding the recognizable accuracies and embracing the inaccuracies for a totally different looking custom with half the work already done. Toy or radical custom I guess depends on what you do with it.

[Greg Myers]

A lot of the responses here indicate that the original post was misunderstood. He wasn't asking about bad kits. That's too easy and obvious. He was asking about kits like those awful early mid 80s AMT Nascar cars. They looked like actual kid's toys. In the late 60s AMT also put out a moving semi truck and trailer which were obviously toys that were molded in styrene and thrown unassembled in the box. Some of the Revell snap kits from the 90s were almost in that category but the shapes were nicer.

That's pretty much it. Thanks Martin. Sometimes these threads just take off in a different direction.