AMT/Round-2 reissue of '67 Shelby GT-350

['70 Grande]

Has anyone got the reissue of the AMT/Round-2 1967 Shelby Mustang GT-350 on their workbench yet? (The retro box artwork looks fantastic)!

I'm wondering if this kit is a straight-reissue of the AMT/Ertl 1967 Shelby Mustang GT-350 of a few years ago. I know it will be issued in both White and Black styrene, but am wondering if everything else, including the decal sheet, is exactly the same as the original release.

[Brett Barrow]

Sorry, but all I have is a grainy cell-phone snap of the little illustration off the bottom of the box. But it might be enough to tell if it's just a straight reprint of decals from earlier releases. I doubt it is, most of the Round 2 repops have had expanded decal sheets...

I'll try to see if I can get a better version of the decal art sometime today.

[Casey]

It appears to be a straight reissue.

Are the newly tooled Goodyear Polyglas GT tires included in this version, Brett?

Edited September 14, 2018 by Casey

['70 Grande]

It'd be fantastic if the newly-tooled Goodyears were inside this reissue, but every description that I have read regarding the reissue for this kit still mentions the Firestones as the tires included...

[Brett Barrow]

I'm pretty sure they're the infamous "upside-down" Firestones from the 90's era of new tooling. I think they're what's always been in this kit. Good tire for red-lines or thin white walls. Not sure what the Shelby would have had from the factory. I know Shelby had a close relationship to Goodyear, but by 67 Shelbys were pretty much a Ford factory production, and Ford had long ties with Firestone...

Edit - the Shelbys used Goodyear Speedway 350 E70/15's. Only the "Goodyear " would have been RWL.

So they could have changed the printing on the new Goodyears and used those (if they fit the wheels)

Edited February 6, 2013 by Brett Barrow

[Chuck Most]

I'm pretty sure they're the infamous "upside down" Firestones from the 90's era of new tooling. I think they're what's always been in this kit.

That's what the 1994 copyrighted kit I have and the RC2-era 'AMT Muscle' issue both had, the latter actually came with two sets, for whatever reason!

Back to the upside down lettering- is that actually correct? I've heard guys say Firestone actuallly did make tires with upside down lettering like that, but I've never seen a 1:1 Firestone from that period lettered that way.

[Brett Barrow]

That's what the 1994 copyrighted kit I have and the RC2-era 'AMT Muscle' issue both had, the latter actually came with two sets, for whatever reason!

Back to the upside down lettering- is that actually correct? I've heard guys say Firestone actuallly did make tires with upside down lettering like that, but I've never seen a 1:1 Firestone from that period lettered that way.

I've heard that the red-lines were lettered that way. The tread's a little overdone, but proportionally I think they make a decent muscle-era tire.

[Chuck Most]

I've heard that the red-lines were lettered that way.

Looks like that is at least correct. (After reading this thread and seeing the upside down lettering come up, I got curious and did a little digging...)

I agree- I think they look great on a variety of muscle car subjects.

[Casey]

I just picked up this kit today, and after opening it and scanning the parts, one thing stood out to me-- the rearend halves. It looks very undersized to my eyes, like the parts are closer to 1/28 scale, or maybe smaller:

 

[Dave Darby]

2 hours ago, Casey said:

I just picked up this kit today, and after opening it and scanning the parts, one thing stood out to me-- the rearend halves. It looks very undersized to my eyes, like the parts are closer to 1/28 scale, or maybe smaller:

 

AMT 58 Edsel has the same problem, only worse.

[Force]

It even look smaller than an 8 inch rear end.

[Casey]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:40 PM, Force said:

It even look smaller than an 8 inch rear end.

Yes, it's really disappointing, and frankly, not even usable. 

After taking lots of close-ups pics of this recent reissues contents, it appears the mold has a fair amount of wear, as I noticed a few details aren't very crisply molded or have rough surfaces when they should be smooth. Maybe Ertl and RC2 put the mold to heavy use and it's already starting to show wear?  At any rate, the body shell looks very accurate to my eyes, and the 289 V8 engine and trans look to be well done, too, so there are some things worth using, even if only as a pars donor.

Pics of the contents can be viewed here: http://modelkitreviews.proboards.com/thread/902/amt-1967-shelby-350-mustang

[unclescott58]

The rear end doesn't bother me. I'm passing on it because it represents a GT350, rather than a GT500. I guess my diecast Revell '67 GT500, with Carrol Shelby figure, will continue to fill that need. 

[MrObsessive]

Now if we could just get Model Car Garage to release their PE set!

This is a nice kit as I've used it among other things as a donor. One thing that's bugged me about the body shell is the front end. '67 Shelby's had a somewhat long nose due to the fiberglass extensions for the headlight doors and grille, as well as a bit longer hood.

The kit's front end always seemed 'blunt' to me........almost as if it could stand to be extended another scale inch or so.

A cost cutting thing perhaps as it needed to share as much as possible with the then current '67 Mustang?

I dunno, but it never looked right to me and if I ever get around to building one, some plastic surgery on the nose is in order.

 

[Force]

11 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

The rear end doesn't bother me. I'm passing on it because it represents a GT350, rather than a GT500. I guess my diecast Revell '67 GT500, with Carrol Shelby figure, will continue to fill that need. 

A GT 500 is not that hard to do, take the FE 428 engine and side stripes from the AMT 68 Shelby GT 500 and you are done.

[unclescott58]

1 hour ago, Force said:

A GT 500 is not that hard to do, take the FE 428 engine and side stripes from the AMT 68 Shelby GT 500 and you are done.

The Revell diecast works just fine. Plus, when I build my '68, I'll need those parts to keep it a GT500. It should be noted, I'm really have no problems with AMT's '67 Shelby GT350. Other than it's a small block car rather than a big block car. Years ago, I build AMT's '67 Mustang GT based on the same kit. And was very happy with the results. Though I would have preferred the 390 in it, over the Hi-Perf 289. Again, nothing wrong with the Hi-Pref 289. I just like a 390 in a '67 Stang better. And in a post '66 Shelbys, the 428. And as noted, my Revell '67 Shelby GT500 looks just fine in my collection. Especially with ol' Shel leaning against the car. 

[Bob Ellis]

If you combine the AMT 68 Shelby GT500 withe the 67 amt Shelby, you can make Jim Morrison"s GT 500 Blue Lady . You need the 68 big block and Shelby wheels. Jim totalled it and was crush afterwards but lots of phots and video.

https://www.streetmusclemag.com/features/car-features/on-the-trail-of-the-blue-lady-jim-morrisons-lost-1967-shelby-gt500/

[youpey]

i bought it just the other day. the front and rear bumpers dont fit great.

It will need some love to get it right. That is as far as i got because i dont have any love left to give

Edited September 20, 2018 by youpey

[RancheroSteve]

Maybe the rearend is a little weak, but I'm still a big fan of this kit - it still has the best early SBF made to my eyes, plus very decent suspension and unibody details.

Then again, I've never built one out of the box - only used it as a parts source for various Falcon, Ranchero and Comet builds, as well as mastering parts for an even more accurate and even earlier (five bolt) SBF.  

[Casey]

56 minutes ago, RancheroSteve said:

Maybe the rearend is a little weak, but I'm still a big fan of this kit - it still has the best early SBF made to my eyes, plus very decent suspension and unibody details.

That was always my understanding, from reading comments and opinions here on the forum and elsewhere, but I never had the complete kit in my possession until recently.

I do agree the small block Ford V8 and 4-speed manual trans parts are worth seeking out as donor material (though the 351 SBF from the Revell Pro Street T-bird/Lincoln LSC kit si a bit better IMHO):

 

I also would concur with you opinion regarding the unibody floorpan/frame rails being a great donor for other similar Fords...:

 

...and the suspension bits, save for the rear end halves, are well done, too, and would be a good choice for upgrading another model.

The engine compartment was a bit disappointing for me, especially the molded in(!) washer fluid bag, and general generic-ness all around. It has a very early '80 Monogram look, which, isn't great-- lots of flat, featureless surfaces, and blocky shapes:

 

The front frame rails and crossmember suffer from that flat-on-one-side look, too, which while a necessary evil with regard to draft angle, still disappoints:

 

Someone who designed kits at MPC must've designed this kit, too, as the stippled look 'carpet' was never a good idea anywhere. 

To me, after looking all of the parts over thoroughly, and matching that with my expectations, I was still disappointed the kit wasn't better. I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of people who buy this kit and it's sibling '67 GT will be very pleased with it, so I wouldn't deride anyone for loving it, even though I can't.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Casey

[Robberbaron]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

 

 

 

Someone who designed kits at MPC must've designed this kit, too, as the stippled look 'carpet' was never a good idea anywhere. 

Ha!  Even before I read your comment, I had this EXACT same thought!  Shades of malaise-era '70s MPC classics.

Looks like the whole kit is an odd mix of '70s vs. '90s kit design.  I myself have never gotten one, since Shelbys don't interest me much.  I might get one of its Mustang GT siblings if I stumble across one sometime...

[MrObsessive]

While the '67 Mustang GT is not a bad kit, I ran across many inaccuracies when I was building mine a few years ago. I'm not sure whose car they used, but there were a number of details that were among the missing as far as a GT goes. I have a build sequence here for the one I did.

Edited September 21, 2018 by MrObsessive

[Robberbaron]

Bill, I remember that build well!  You did another excellent job of correcting this kits shortcomings.

I remember reading magazine reviews of this kit (back when it debuted in the '90s) describing many of the same faults that you corrected.  If I do get one of these, I think my plan would be to build it as a non-GT "mainstreamer". (if you can consider a V8 1967 Mustang fastback mainstream...)

[MrObsessive]

4 hours ago, RancheroSteve said:

Maybe the rearend is a little weak, but I'm still a big fan of this kit - it still has the best early SBF made to my eyes, plus very decent suspension and unibody details.

Then again, I've never built one out of the box - only used it as a parts source for various Falcon, Ranchero and Comet builds, as well as mastering parts for an even more accurate and even earlier (five bolt) SBF.  

If you did some tweaking, you could use the chassis under the '68-'70 AMC Javelin/AMX's as they are VERY similar if not exact as far as the floor pan. Even the front suspension is awfully close as the AMC's were using the trunion setup (through '69) and the Mustang of that era looked very close to that although Ford was using ball joints.