tim boyd

Heh Alan..big thanks for that! Cheers....TB

Just a reminder that the newly reissued (for the first time since it was originally introduced in 1998) AMT 1968 El Camino Street Machine has fully 25% of its parts count unique to the street machine kit vs. the factory showroom stock version from the same basic tool. The kit includes unique engine induction components, realistically lowered front and rear ride height, mildly tubbed pickup bed and sidewalls, electric (instead of fan belt driven) radiator fans, and more. Now I'm not going to claim that the street machine engine parts and wheels/tires/brakes are fully 2025 state of the art (because they aren't!) but with a bit of kitbashing or aftermarket substitutions in those areas, this kit goes a fair way toward the pro-touring or (more accurately) restomod genres than most kit buyerswould expect. Especially considering it was originally introduced 27 years ago. Food for thought, anyway. TB PS - when I finally get around to it I will be posting pix of my recently completed build of this kit with the above suggested modifications...

AMEN, brother! TB

Thanks Justin....I'd be curious to hear an update after the kits go on sale at your store, if you get a chance or see any definitive reaction. Best...TIM

Hi Justin....just a little curious...wondering if any of your customers have had any reaction to the Round 2 reissue of the little-known street machine version of the AMT-Ert 1968 El Camino Street Machine kit? As I am sure you well know, it does not have a full Pro Touring suspension, but it does include modified suspension parts that deliver a realistic lowered ride height. And well some of the Street Machine parts are arguably out of date for today's taste (engine induction and valve covers, wheels and tires, etc.) it does have about 25% f the kit parts changes from the Replica Stock kit to be a more accurate street machine. Sort of "pro touring lite", I suppose. And thse outdated parts are easily swapped for more current alternatives. Fiurther, while the kit engineering is innovative and IMHO very well done, there are some final assembly issues and the knockout pins (aka ejector pins) are not at all well handled. But still, I think it is a bit of a sleeper kit that deserves a closer look by those who like models that tilt toward the 1/1 scale aftermarket trends. But that is just me....has anyone else noticed? Or am I off in the ether on this one? Always fun and insightful to hear your views on new kit releases! Best...TIM

Charles....yes and I still feel that way, too....thanks for your comments...TB

Thanks Scott...TB

Bob...yes,,,if my memory serves, it was based on the '25T Double Kit hot rod chassis parts....TB

Hi Jim....yes it did IIRC. It became a cover article in MCM a couple of years back (look in the upper right corner of the mag cover) and this was the finished project....thanks for asking! TIM

FWIW, I agree with Dave on this subject...TB

John is spot-on here. The E58 '74 360 was by far the best engine choice for any '74 Mopar, and easily among the best choices for any car that year (the Pontiac SD-455 and hi-po Camaro Z-28/Corvette 350 being the others). Mother Mopar did a great job bringing this performance-oriented engine to market for 1974 in spite of government and insurance industry plots (err...let's make that "actions" instead) to undermine any performance-oriented auto offerings those years. What Chrysler - and most of the enthusiast rags - horribly failed at was getting the message out to performance car buyers on this engine. At the time most media scoffed and called it nothing more than the C-body 360 wagon motor with a four barrel carb added, listing net hp ratings of somewhere between 180 and 200 hp, and thoroughly dissiing the effort. This was happening even as recently as 20 years ago in some very respected publications. I've got a whole file on this subject (and had written a detailed sidebar on it for my "Collecting Muscle Car Model Kits" book a few years ago which I had to drop because I was way over the contractual word count for the mag). Short story is the E58 was rated at 245 net hp (equivalent to 305-315hp under the 1971 and prior gross hp rating system), had nearly all the 340 gubbins inside except the cylinder head and forged crank (some sources even state it had the same cam and specs as the original 1968 340 automatic), and possessed low-mid-range torque a 340 could only dream about. (The NHRA soon refactored the recognized HP for racing classes at 270-280net hp). After I took delivery of my '74 E58 road runner, the son of the local Shell Station owner ordered his like mine, except he wanted to "upgrade" to the 400 4-barrel. I gave him all the reasons not to do so but he did so anyway. Big disappointment. All of the above applies only to the 1/1 engine discussion. As much as I'd love to see newly tooled '71-'74 B Body model kits, my business side suggests there are considerably more promising venues for Round 2's limited kit design budget at this point in time, even though I wish that wasn't the case. Best...TB

Jens....that is one beautiful piece of work...big congrats! TB

I built my first model kit in the summer of 1962 at age 8 and it was a Revell 1/25th scale Dodge Lancer GT. TB ______.

Interesting thread. Car engineers are faced with many competing priorities much the same as those characterized by Craig above. But on top of those they must contain many competing priorities from governmental legislation, and not just single governments but political entities across the world. Then add on NGOs like the insurance, safety and anti-petroleum lobbies and their agendas. Some of the resulting requirements are exceedingly poorly envisioned and driven by political considerations rather than what is truly best for the customer and the world. They often overlap and compete against each other and require sub-optimal results. So much of what people complain about automobiles today is the result of factors the automakers have little or no control over. Automotive engineering in particular is a series of tradeoffs. Ease of repair is almost always a consideration in design of autos but when placed up against the many other issues auto design must contain these days, it does not always end up at the top of the decision matrix. Just a comment from the sidelines from someone who worked in the regional (US) and later global automobile industry in sales and marketing and later on in design, with about half of my 35-year career in executive level assignments....TB

x2!!! Nice job too on the canopy vinyl roof converssion....TB