Sean!

You have been pretty silent lately... curious to know if you have any feedback for the collectors...

Surely, collector comments have been all over the map. Therefore, you probably have to take most of them in stride as the real sales volume versus projections probably is a better indicator overall.

However, there has been some consistency with a pair of criticisms - and taking out the unnecessary aggressive tone expressed by some collectors - that I would agree with.. but there is one that stands out, specifically the Mustang casting.

What is your take on this specific one?

How about other comments that may have struck a cord with M2?

Love to hear your thoughts on this... and by the way, you can reciprocate with frankness since most of us collectors have been doing so freely as well.

Sean....If your listening....Where are the PONTIAC'S?????

Thanks for bringing this up Sheldon. Sean has been quiet on here for quite a while...

Hey Fellas,

I have been super busy with multiple projects at work including a brand new line in the works. I don't always have the time to answer questions. We are a very small company and have many task and this doesn't leave for a lot of spare time. At home, sometimes the last thing I want to do is think about work, but yet it's 11 pm on a Friday night as I am posting.

The comments are all part of the job. I learned early on at Muscle Machines, you simply can't please everyone. I guess it's a lot like watching sports, you question the coach or managers decision on a certain play.

And now onto the Mustang. It's really quit simple, take a ruler and measure the majority of our cars. The majority of the cars are going to have a length of 3.25". This was set in motion before I started with Castline, I came to the party about 30 days too late. Now this being my job I have certain parameters and guidelines to work with in.

Don't worry Pontiaccreast, a new Pontiac is coming very soon. Heck, we have not even done a Buick yet. The majority of the cars where picked before I got to Castline, doh! Please remember we have only been producing cars for a year now and we still have a long way to go.

I hope this answers your questions Sheldon, thanks,
Sean

And now onto the Mustang. It's really quit simple, take a ruler and measure the majority of our cars. The majority of the cars are going to have a length of 3.25". This was set in motion before I started with Castline, I came to the party about 30 days too late. Now this being my job I have certain parameters and guidelines to work with in.


Very interesting. What drives this need for common length? Is this driven by tooling constraints, common packaging, something else?

Sean - thank you for confirming that these cars are built to size, not to scale.

Now shouldn't Castline stop claiming that these are 1/64 scale models? They are often (most obviously the Mustang) not that scale.

As a courtesy to the collector the company could indicate the correct scale of the toy on the baseplate - as do Tomica and Matchbox. Or the company could build the models to a constant scale - as do the quality manufacturers like Minichamps, Spark, Kyosho, Auto Art and Ixo. But it is deceptive to customers for Castline to claim its product is built to the scale of 1/64. I suggest stating correct scale or building to constant scale.

- ranchero -

JL and MB are the same way, fitting all their cars into a general size. What seems different is that they started with a smaller car to look nice at that size. Their larger cars are thus forced to be made smaller. M2 did the opposite, starting with large cars as the norm. So for M2 the smaller cars will look too big if the Mustang is to be an indicator.

Having everything be in the same scale would be nice but in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot in my collection. Besides the above mentioned JL and MB size differences I also have larger Norev, Siku, Majorette, Jada, and etc pieces so my collection will never be truly one scale.

I personally don't see the big deal regarding accuracy in scale or not.
Obviously, there are limitations in what companies can do with the packaging restraints.

Maybe companies should simply eliminate using any type of scale reference and go with a 1:64ish for those that feel the need to pull out their slide rules & micrometers and cry foul.

People have said that the Foose cars didn't move from the pegs because of their odd in between scales. Or they didn't fit into their current collections because they were larger. (I wish I could dig up a reference for you but I did see this somewhere else on the boards)

If we look at Jadas cars, MANY are out of proportion. The COE omes to mind with the quickness.
All the diecast companies have faced inaccurate scales in more than a few of the models if you seriously think about it. The Greenlight cars have great details also BUT collectors complained about their tires being too large and hence GL addressed the issue. I have seen a lot of models that are almost characteristic (if that makes sense?) because of their package size limitations. I usually will pass on a car if it's too off in it's details that it doesn't come close to it's 1:1 version.

It's easy for us collectors to sit back and complain about the scales not being exact, or we want to see this car and that car, but like Sean mentioned; "You simply can't please everyone."

M2 has great potential and their hype leading up to their release was incredible. However, IMHO, their build quality during shipping and handling (Or whatever) needs addressing. Yes, their details are awesome but the cars are sold as complete. There is not "Some assembly required" listed anywhere on the package. I've passed on many cars because of floating parts in the package. I think this is a bigger concern than accuracy in scale. I guess with all the parts that comprise an M2 car, there exists a higher degree of potential for loose parts. Instead of brainstorming for new releases, Castline should focus on build quality PRIORITY.
Okay, I'm leaving the pulpit now.:)

Neither am I overly concerned with the absolute accuracy in scale, but rather I focus more on "interpretation" of scale... how the casting reflects relative to the real car.

However, I do think that some scale accuracy is appropriate, and if the car is somewhere in the range of a 60th to 66th scale does NOT bother me... having said this, the M2 Mustang is a bit too large and quite frankly, so large that it is somewhat unattractive and my least favorite in the M2 lineup.

I have been luck in terms of quality, I have every single casting (except the stretch rods) and so far only a single one had problems (ironically the red Mustang).

As always, thanks for popping in. Always fun to hear from an insider.
We understand if you're busy, 'cause I know you're hard at work on that new black '71 Imperial LeBaron 2dr. casting....*wink*.

- S. H. Ameless -

As always, thanks for popping in. Always fun to hear from an insider.
We understand if you're busy, 'cause I know you're hard at work on that new black '71 Imperial LeBaron 2dr. casting....*wink*.

- S. H. Ameless -

It's like your looking through my soul. Ha, ha!!!

Sean

If you like, I can guess what your first rock concert was, your oldest brothers first car, and the name of the little girl who you played house with in 2nd grade...I can also tell that you wanna put Texas long horns on the GL Imperial, but your boss won't let you.
Lemmee talk to your boss, and I'll get that straightened out for you. :)

Hey Fellas,

I have been super busy with multiple projects at work including a brand new line in the works. I don't always have the time to answer questions. We are a very small company and have many task and this doesn't leave for a lot of spare time. At home, sometimes the last thing I want to do is think about work, but yet it's 11 pm on a Friday night as I am posting.

The comments are all part of the job. I learned early on at Muscle Machines, you simply can't please everyone. I guess it's a lot like watching sports, you question the coach or managers decision on a certain play.

And now onto the Mustang. It's really quit simple, take a ruler and measure the majority of our cars. The majority of the cars are going to have a length of 3.25". This was set in motion before I started with Castline, I came to the party about 30 days too late. Now this being my job I have certain parameters and guidelines to work with in.

Don't worry Pontiaccreast, a new Pontiac is coming very soon. Heck, we have not even done a Buick yet. The majority of the cars where picked before I got to Castline, doh! Please remember we have only been producing cars for a year now and we still have a long way to go.

I hope this answers your questions Sheldon, thanks,
Sean Great! I hope it's a 60's Pontiac. A Buick from the 60's would also be cool!!!!

Guess I didn't check too closely. Just bought a 1954 Dodge and she's missing a headlight lens. Any spare parts is USA??

Sean

Since you guys have such a good eye for taking the "different path" like lights up on the Daytona...........How about a Suncoupe version of a Buick? You know the rare ASC (American Sunroof Company) McClaren version folding roofs they did on the Skylark's, GS's and Riv's. Molded in the "open" format would be wicked cool on something like a GS 455 1972 vintage.:rolleyes:

I guess I'm going to be the topic buzz kill on the issue of scale. I think it [B]is[B] a big deal. I expect medeocrity from certain makers as they are just spitting out toys for the rug rats. Premium products should command a tighter scrutiny. Sounds like Sean is making an effort to rein in the gross violations, to his credit. Really- how much more does it cost to establish a tooling to precise 1/64 opposed to a casual 1/64. I can't feature packaging being a primary obstacle with a minimum amount planning on possible product range. I understand the 3.5 rule came first. That doesn't mean it can't be changed.

I collect 1/64 and that's all I collect. I like the contrast to be legitimate when I park the Lotus 7 next to the SLR McLaren. That relativity is one of the reasons scale would be a theme for a collection.

Those that are indifferent to precision in scale representation, I'm glad you're happy and I'm not trying to change your mind. Is just seems to resound, here, that nobody cares until the 1/64 models get halfway to 1/43. My silence would imply my consent. Perhaps I'm the "last man standing" on this one. Otherwise- love the M2 line.

I guess I'm going to be the topic buzz kill on the issue of scale. I think it [B]is[B] a big deal. I expect medeocrity from certain makers as they are just spitting out toys for the rug rats. Premium products should command a tighter scrutiny. Sounds like Sean is making an effort to rein in the gross violations, to his credit. Really- how much more does it cost to establish a tooling to precise 1/64 opposed to a casual 1/64. I can't feature packaging being a primary obstacle with a minimum amount planning on possible product range. I understand the 3.5 rule came first. That doesn't mean it can't be changed.

I collect 1/64 and that's all I collect. I like the contrast to be legitimate when I park the Lotus 7 next to the SLR McLaren. That relativity is one of the reasons scale would be a theme for a collection.

Those that are indifferent to precision in scale representation, I'm glad you're happy and I'm not trying to change your mind. Is just seems to resound, here, that nobody cares until the 1/64 models get halfway to 1/43. My silence would imply my consent. Perhaps I'm the "last man standing" on this one. Otherwise- love the M2 line.


I agree. 1/64 scale should be just that, not just a suggestion. I always hate when Minis are bigger than Caddys, Chevelles are the same size as MGs, etc. I too expect more from the higher line companies.

So for the precision 1/64 collector. What do you collect? Kyosho, Auto Art? Who is making exactly 1/64 scale?

I completely agree on the 1/64 comments. I want my diecast to be accurate relative to each other, I like seeing a accurate cobra next to an accurate Torino and seeing the comparitive size difference.

I agree with all others who insist on accurate scale. I dislike M2 because of the blatant disregard for building scale models.

The long surviving quality lines make a concerted effort to produce to an exact scale. With this comes also, I think, a committment to quality that is not so obvious in other brands where constant scale, as a guiding principle, is ignored. M2 is also indifferent to quality control and fidelity in castings to original (though they do seem obsessed with little details).

Wiking and Herpa have always been produced in constant 1/87 scale and both make very high quality product. Siku cars are a constant 1/55 scale. Minichamps, Auto Art and Spark are constant 1/43. These are quality producers to which younger companies like M2, Greenlight, Hongwell, etc. should aspire.

It would help if M2 and others had the self discipline to make models to a constant scale.

But if they won't or can't make a constant scale, why do they have to mislead collectors? Why does M2 on its site claim to produce 1/64 models when only some models turn out to be 1/64 because they fit an arbitrary size determined by packaging? That is deceptive marketing. Neither the M2 Mustang or the Cadillac are 1/64 scale but they don't tell the consumer that.

If they are not concerned about conforming to scale, a courteous thing to do for consumers would be to mark on the baseplate of each model what scale has been used (like Matchbox does) and to not claim in marketing that they are selling 1/64 scale models.

If they are not concerned about conforming to scale, a courteous thing to do for consumers would be to mark on the baseplate of each model what scale has been used (like Matchbox does) and to not claim in marketing that they are selling 1/64 scale models.

What good does that do you? First you have to take the car out of the package to see the scale on the baseplate. So if the car is 1/57 such as the 996 Majorette Porsche does that mean you won't keep it? Tomica's have all sorts of scales listed. Are there Tomica collectors who only collect a specific scale?

I do wish the M2 Mustang was a bit smaller but really outside of what the packaging says did you really think the Mustang was a true 1/64 scale car when you saw it?

I think most serious collectors realize there is a scale difference between the various 3 inch cars. Stating a car is 1/64 is probably more of a marketing gimmick for the causal shopper than the serious collector. I think you guys are busting M2's chops unnecessarily.

Atencio - I can't believe you think that disclosure of the exact scale on a baseplate is a poor idea!

What good does it do? It advises a consumer that a specific model may not fit with the rest of a collection and/or that the maker does not care to built to a constant scale. And no, I do not want and would not buy an off scale model such as the Majorette Porsche you suggest. I mainly prefer 1/43; I do not want 1/39 or 1/45 or 1/50 to display adjacent to exact 1/43 scale models. I like exact 1/64 scale too and it seems that JL and GL have tried to build models to this scale much more consistently than M2 (or the old RC).

I believe that the scale of Tomica models is clearly indicated on the packaging box. As for Matchbox, one can see through the plastic bubble pack to read the scale.

No, I did not believe the M2 Mustang to be 1/64 and I don't want it. I now believe none of the M2 models can be 1/64 - unless the specific piece is measured and the scale is computed by me; I don't trust M2 to tell the truth.

Failure to disclose the correct scale and claiming the scale to be 1/64 when it is not is simply deceptive marketing.

I collect scale model cars - not somewhat accurate representations that conform only to a size. M2 are really no different than movie "Cars" - toy vehicles. They are not scale model cars where all issues relate in scale to the whole line.

- ranchero -

I just don't think it really matters. I buy said Majorette Porsche 996. It looks 1/64'ish. I get home look at the baseplate and see that it is actually 1/57. OK, now what?

Do I go ahead and display it with only other 1/57 scale cars? Do I tuck the information away in my database? OK. I can accept those reasons I guess.

For myself, if all the diecast world used 1/64 than sure I would like M2's Mustang to be smaller and closer to scale. But as said all Siku's are 1/55 and all Kyosho's are 1/64. AutoArts look to be 1/64 while Norev seems to be 1/55'ish. Majorette, JL, Tomica, MB, and regular HW's are all over the place depending on the casting while Jada stuff seems to be on the larger size. Biante and 100% HW look to be 1/64 while Maisto stuff is anyones guess. GL looks like they try to keep some scale perspective except for massive wheels. And so on, and so on.............

You precision 1/64 collectors. You get home, pull your Majorette 996 Porsche out of the box. Nice satin silver finish. Doors that open and close crisply. You turn the car over and discover it says 1/57 on the bottom. So what do you do? Toss it in a drawer and vow never to buy another non 1/64 Majorette, Siku, or Norev again?

The M2 Mustang casting is big. I am not fond of the size but it is nevertheless a nice casting. My personal diecast range is no bigger than a Jada BTM car nor smaller than an Aurora Galaxie (if it is a larger size car) whatever scale that actually represents. The M2 Mustang fits in that Atencio scale range so it is a keeper.

. I like exact 1/64 scale too and it seems that JL and GL have tried to build models to this scale much more consistently than M2 (or the old RC).

- ranchero -

Lets be honest. I agree that GL tries, but JL? There is no way that they are close to keeping a 1/64 perspective. They are far more offending than M2. Stick a 65 Cobra next to a 70 Torino. JL has always been about average size not scale. As I said earlier it appears to me that M2 did basically the same thing as JL. Try to get a certain size. The difference being that M2 started with large cars as it's baseline size while JL started with a more intermediate car as its baseline.

I'd bet most of us would prefer all of our scale autos to look realistically to scale next to each other, myself included.
But if I see something otherwise well done and of subject matter appealing to me, it's going home with me.
Truth be told, true 1/64th looks big to me 'cause I was growed up on Lesneys and Aurora slot cars an junk.

I think that if all these companies conformed to a true 1/64 scale you would see either a wider price range or much smaller selection of castings or both,for instance if any of them made trucks true to scale to the cars they would be much larger than they are now and they sure wouldn't be selling for $5 or less.Just look at what the model R/R guys pay for true scale vehicles and it's all plastic.

So for the precision 1/64 collector. What do you collect? Kyosho, Auto Art? Who is making exactly 1/64 scale?

Primarily I collect Kyosho, and Shelby.....AND....M2. Have gone about as far as I can with OOP Ertl. Same with Revell "stock" pickups (yeah, all 3). Occasional 100 HW and JL. I would like to apply the calipers more often, when I can establish correct dims. I remember the Revell Silverado checked out with rims about 1 "scale" inch over in diameter, and body ran out to about a couple "scale" inches. That's pretty damn tight. Also gratifying to see something check out like that. You might point out that it scaled oversize and therefore isn't precise 1/64. So, how much is too much? All I ask is the effort be made to at least try to apply the 64 factor. I'm about as far from being qualified as a tool maker as anyone can get, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that if you could establish some core facts like length and width to frame a subject- you should be able to freehand the rest with visual reference and result a fairly precise miniature.

I suppose some are falling out of their chair, that I would actually use a micrometer to measure these. I can understand that and I'm not here to take those to task. I can't afford the therapy and wouldn't go if I could because I don't think there is a problem with my outlook......not completely unlike those who are comfortable with the scale deviations. I'm just one part of the mix that, hopefully, makes the whole thing work. Does anything make me happy? Heck yea. I can fix things like ride height, adjust the track, glue the motor back in or reattach the loose bumper. For a large part the M2's are beautiful cars with great features, and I'll be honest with you- I can't actually tell you which, or even if, any of the cars (besides the Mustang) are off scale or by how much (a few efforts to research dims data on a couple produced no results). So, why am I flaming M2 on an issue that I haven't substantiated beyond 1 obvious casting. My intention, again, is to reaffirm that accuracy of scale is important to some of us and those of a more forgiving nature are not likely to have a problem with a scale discipline. It is NOT my intention to brutalize Sean for confessions of how things worked before he got there and I encourage others to consider that. His interaction on this board demonstrates the company's interest in what we have to say. He knows there are deficiencies and I get the impression they will be addressed. As critical as I might be on scale accuracy, I can also appreciate there are others that feel even more strongly about it.

My prescription- make them to scale, get the tires and wheels right, don't make me have to fill and sand and paint. Throw in some good detail, like M2 is doing, and you won't hear a peep out of me except for word-of-mouth enthusiasm.

....Thanks for asking, Atencio.....and Sheldon for the interesting thread.....and those who offered their insights on the topic.....and of course Sean for putting up with my rant.

wow, I guess you are indeed a true 1/64 collector. I can't really argue with that. How close do you find GL to that magic number? Likewise, were the 50's M2 cars close?

How close do you find GL to that magic number? Likewise, were the 50's M2 cars close?

Couple of GL examples on criteria of width, length and wheel base.

The 71 Charger R/T is 1/2 scale inch too narrow, 3/4 scale inch too long, wheelbase is between 5/16 and 3/8 scale inches too long.

The 71 Hemi Cuda is between 1/64 and 1/32 scale inch too wide, about 17/64 scale inch too short, wb is 2 & 3/4 inch too long.

Sounds a little rediculous to be expressing "discrepancies" in fractional scale inches, but these are the facts as I'm able to determine them (based on what dimensions I could find on the subjects and where the needle stopped on my vernier). This is how the numbers crunched. I could have simply said the scale checks good and the cars ARE correct in size, but I wanted you get a feel for how they presented.

I believe the rally wheels on these two are supposed to be 15's and I'm coming up with 16". Tire widths are at 15". That's a fat tire.

I haven't done the 07 Mustang GT or the 72 442, but it seems from what's been sampled, these cars are on the mark and I get the impression that GL code of conduct is to make 1/64 cars.

I can't find specific dimensions on the 50's era stuff that M2 has put out. If anyone can provide the info or direct me to the source, I would be delighted to share the results. The Starfire is the only one I don't have.

Thanks for asking

164hack,
thank you for posting up that info. I am a big fan of accurate scale, and also a big fan of GL. It's really good to know that they are so accurate! :thumbsup:

164hack: You stated: "I can't find specific dimensions on the 50's era stuff that M2 has put out. If anyone can provide the info or direct me to the source, I would be delighted to share the results. The Starfire is the only one I don't have."

My source for dimensions of 1:1 scale vehicles is the excellent series of "Standard Catalogs" from Krause Publications. All of the following are from the "Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975". I recommend the Krause series of books.

I have checked the M2 '49 Mercury and it is quite accurate in wheelbase and length at 1/64 scale.

Here are the dimensions in inches, of wheelbase and length, for the 1:1 scale "50's" cars M2 has modeled:

'59 Cadillac 62 coupe: 130 / 225
'54 Chevrolet two door hardtop: 115 / 196 & 7/16
'57 Chevrolet two door hardtop: 115 / 200
'55 DeSoto Fireflite two door hardtop: 126 / 217.9
'57 DeSoto Adventurer two door hardtop: 126 / 221
'54 Dodge Coronet two door hardtop: 114 / 196
'55 Dodge Royal Lancer two door hardtop: 120 / 212.1
'51 Ford Crestliner: 114 / 196.6
'53 Ford Crestline Victoria: 115 / 197.8
'57 Ford Fairlane two door hardtop: 118 / 207.7
'49 Mercury club coupe: 118 / 206.8
'54 Mercury Sun Valley: 118 / 206.2
'50 Oldsmobile two door club sedan: 119.5 / 202
'53 Oldsmobile 98 two door hardtop: 124 / 215
'58 Plymouth Belvedere two door hardtop: 118 / 204.6 (Fury is 206)
'55 Pontiac Star Chief two door hardtop: 124 / 210.2

Did M2 build models of the above cars to 1/64 scale?

Thanks for the info, ranchero!!

Had the '53 Crestline Vic handy, and it's pretty close. Comes in at 1/61 scale.

If you look at the car- the front headlight lens diameter. That's about how much shorter the car should be. The actual lenght on mine checks at 3.256" if you want to check my math. Measured at centerlilne.

Mine is the black with cream roof. Beautiful beautiful car and one of my favorites. You know, though it's technically off on scale I wouldn't describe this variance as strongly significant (but I do like knowing).

Thanks again for the assist. Internet has been useless to me in trying to find these numbers. I very much appreciate your taking to time and effort.

As I get the chance to run down the others, I will keep you apprised.

Also, it occured to me that I called the Star Cheif a Starfire. Jeez, that's worse than making cars the wrong size.

Also, it occured to me that I called the Star Cheif a Starfire. Jeez, that's worse than making cars the wrong size.

:lol: ok.. is the wrong spelling worse than the wrong size? I had to call ya on that one Hack. :wave:
ya know, I wish that you were right the first time and there really IS a Starfire in 1/64th ..

You sound insane 164hack. I just have this vision of you in the basement with a small lamp on and calipers in your hands while laughing with that laugh that all evil scientists have. ;)

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p122/ir8vermin/mad_scientist.jpg

Partial list of findings

57 Ford Fairlane
1/63

51 Ford Crestliner
1/60

58 Plymouth Belvedere
1/62

53 Olds 98
1/66

57 Chev Bel Air
1/59
Now this one is where things seem to start becoming readily perceptable. It looked big to me and I was sure it was going to check large. It's 15 scale inches too long, nearly a quarter inch actual.

59 Dodge Royal Lancer
1/63

54 Merc Sun Valley
1/63

59 Desoto Adventurer
1/66

Yea, all over the place. Though they can be described as generally "safe" for the most part, M2's sizing parameters do get them in trouble on certain subjects.

When it becomes obvious that a size specification compromises your product's integrity, a decision needs to be made. While I conceed that you can't please everybody on everything, scale shouldn't be part of that discussion. I sense this isn't so much a problem as it is a position of somebody at M2. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea in the begining.

I have checked the M2 '49 Mercury and it is quite accurate in wheelbase and length at 1/64 scale.
Thanks for the info.
It's funny how these two measurements check out, yet it seems little regard was given to proportional correctness.
I know I sound like a broken record, but does't this car look off to you guys?

- Day Vid -

Thanks for the info.
It's funny how these two measurements check out, yet it seems little regard was given to proportional correctness.
I know I sound like a broken record, but does't this car look off to you guys?

- Day Vid -

Lummoxation:

You are certainly on base with that statement . The 49 Merc IS "special" looking , as well as the 54 Dodge ..

Just cuz the overall length and wheelbase measures close to correct , by no means can it be considered accurate to scale. There's way more measuring to be done to claim it worthy of perfection .. 1/64Hack, youv'e supplied us with GREAT info , so don't take that wrong...
It's like saying Marty Feldman's head is normal because it's the average diameter and the spacing between the eyes are correct..:freak:

Ha! Good analogy!

I'm looking at my 49 Merc. I'm not quite getting that proportional distress. Keep in mind that I'm not strongly versed in these 50's era cars, I just like 'em. Good side views are hard to find on this one, but I did come up with this.....

http://www.oldride.com/imgitem/25067033029600_tmp_org.jpg

.......and the silhouette seems pretty close. The M2 may be a little long in the nose?? Is there something you've put your finger on or is it just a sense that something is off? No campaign, here, to run down the products. The only thing I've got a beef with is the wandering scale. Otherwise I'm very happy with how they're doing things, but I am interested in you guys' observations. On mine, where the front fender line flows back to the middle of the front door, where it makes that "chink" down to the side trim, isn't quite as pronounced as it should be........

Nothing taken wrong Steves164. Anyway I'm not that fragile. But it is scary that you mentioned Marty because people mistake me for him a lot.

Hack, it's been a while since I've seen a pic of the M2 Merc, but I do remember the distance between the rear of the front door and the rear wheel opening being way to short. Maybe the whole qtr. is too short, I can't quite remember.