Faust Posted March 17, 2022 Share Posted March 17, 2022 A friend and reader messaged me a while ago and asked what had happened to my losers. I mean, everyone knows I love loser cars, but I had drifted a bit away of late. I had a good influx of WWII planes and especially those that float, and I’ve gotten into Brass Era stuff a lot more lately. To be honest, I’d not even noticed my “loser output” had fallen! I promised him that I’d redeem myself before spring, and I’m here today to do just that. Because, when you want to show you’re strong with the Losers, you can’t just show up with anything. You can’t just bring a ’79 Mustang to a Mustang II fight. No. You have to go WAY stronger. You have to go beyond loser, beyond econobox… you have to BECOME shameless badge engineering and parts-bin commonality. And what, dear friends, could exemplify this more than the 1978 MPC Chevy Sportback?? The Monza S was a Vega body with a Monza nose, and the kit is just a Vega Promo with a Monza nose. It’s genius, it’s cheekiness and it’s completely cheap and dirty, malaise-era corner-cutting at both 1:1 and 1:25 scales! So, go and check out one of my rarest kits, one of my most loser of loser cars, and remember, be glad they don’t make ‘em like this any more! https://adamrehorn.wordpress.com/mpc-1-25-1978-monza-s-chevy-sportback-oob/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 Oh, the humanity! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Faust Posted March 20, 2022 Author Share Posted March 20, 2022 Yeah... nothing says lovin' like another heapin' helpin' of Vega, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 How much rust are you going to depict? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnEB Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Notice MPC didn't call it a Vega. Perhaps the car had THAT BAD of a connotation even then. BTW...I had a new '74 Mustang II in college. It was a great car. Good handling, very good interior, economical (relatively speaking) and reliable. Only needed a brake job in 4 years. It's main problem was its name, people expected more performance than its 2300 (base engine) could give. It wasn't a Mach One, rather think of it as a sportier, better built, nicer small car. And no, it s not based on the Pinto. Entirely different platform and suspension. In contrast I got rid of my '79 Mustang Ghia with the 2.8 engine after three years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.