What's left in Revell's '68-'69 Charger series ?

[Greg Myers]

Have they covered everything ? I guess a '70 would make most sense, what else ?

The snow's coming. Wonder when the '70 Charger is ?

[Fabrux]

Both the Charger 500 and a 70 Charger would be most welcome. But, the Charger 500 would require a new body tooling which they probably won't do.

[freakshow12]

They could just revise the Daytona tooling. Same back window.

[wrecker388]

For any wanting a Charger 500, the grille from the old MPC kit fits the Daytona body like a glove.

[ianguilly]

I'd easily buy 10 70 charger kit. That's my favorite year, and mpc kits cost to much.

[freakshow12]

For any wanting a Charger 500, the grille from the old MPC kit fits the Daytona body like a glove.

That's a great bit of info right there! Now I must see

[Mike Chernecki]

For any wanting a Charger 500, the grille from the old MPC kit fits the Daytona body like a glove.

I have no luck finding this grille. I bought 5 of Charger 500 kits when AMT reissued them last (prior to Round2) and not one of them had the grille. Each had the standard charger grille.

[Brett Barrow]

99.9% sure Modelhaus makes a Charger 500 grille. Not sure if it's based on the MPC part or not (I would guess so)

[CJ1971]

Brought up the same question over in the "new kits/reviews " section, in the RC2 General Lee snap-kit thread....

Yes it'd be easier for Revell to re-tool the Daytona body to make a 70 charger... So I don't see why they haven't already... But... We are talking about Revell... Who took close to 5yrs to re-do ( 3rd attempt ) the 70 Cuda, not Aoshima or Fujimi...

Oh & I'd buy a tonne of the 70 Chargers if anyone decided to actually kit it up ??

Edited September 11, 2014 by CJ1971

[CJ1971]

I have no luck finding this grille. I bought 5 of Charger 500 kits when AMT reissued them last (prior to Round2) and not one of them had the grille. Each had the standard charger grille.

I've got that kit & mine definitely has the 500 grille. Also have the MPC version & it has it too ?

[unclescott58]

I'd like to see a '70 Charger R/T. That's my favorite of the 3 year, 1968 through 1970 styling cycle.

Scott

[Sport Suburban]

I have a project going of a 69 Charger 500 using Revell kits. Modelhaus does sell the MPC grill in resin.

I would love to see Revell use this tooling for 68/69 Coronet R/T or Super Bees. How about Roadrunners?

[ianguilly]

I would love to see Revell use this tooling for 68/69 Coronet R/T or Super Bees. How about Roadrunners?

Revell already has a 69 super bee and 1968-1970 roadrunners is covered by amt, and revell.

[Snake45]

Revell already has a 69 super bee and 1968-1970 roadrunners is covered by amt, and revell.

Revellogram '69 Superbee and '70 Road Runner/GTX are 1/24, and they look like a "big" 1/24 at that next to true 1/25 models.

AMT's '68-'69 Road Runner/GTX has nice chassis, guts, etc but the bodies were never as nice as the original JoHan annual kits of these cars. Definitely second rate by today's standards and due for a re-do.

Personally, I'd like to see a good 1/25 '68 Coronet/Superbee and a good 1/25 '69 Road Runner 440+6.

[Sport Suburban]

Revell already has a 69 super bee and 1968-1970 roadrunners is covered by amt, and revell.

Yes, This is true but if The model company's thought this way we would not have Revells awesome 69 Camaros, 32 Fords, and the tri 5 Chevys. AMT did it with the 70 Camaro Z28. When they had a vintage tool 70 Z28.

[freakshow12]

Could I see a picture of the charger 500 grille in the revell body please?

[tubbs]

Revellogram '69 Superbee and '70 Road Runner/GTX are 1/24, and they look like a "big" 1/24 at that next to true 1/25 models.

AMT's '68-'69 Road Runner/GTX has nice chassis, guts, etc but the bodies were never as nice as the original JoHan annual kits of these cars. Definitely second rate by today's standards and due for a re-do.

Personally, I'd like to see a good 1/25 '68 Coronet/Superbee and a good 1/25 '69 Road Runner 440+6.

X2

[Monty]

I'd be thrilled beyond belief if they came out with a '70 Charger R/T as it's always been my favorite. OTOH, I hope they'll make the reverse door scoops optional. I hate those things.

[Mark]

X2

Revellogram '69 Superbee and '70 Road Runner/GTX are 1/24, and they look like a "big" 1/24 at that next to true 1/25 models.

AMT's '68-'69 Road Runner/GTX has nice chassis, guts, etc but the bodies were never as nice as the original JoHan annual kits of these cars. Definitely second rate by today's standards and due for a re-do.

Personally, I'd like to see a good 1/25 '68 Coronet/Superbee and a good 1/25 '69 Road Runner 440+6.

Seriously, does anyone think Revell would do any of those bodies better? Nearly everything they've done in the last few years has had some major screwup with the body: the wonky door frames on the '50 Olds, the lower body on the '69 Nova, the curved '72 Cutlass rear bumper, the wavy body crease and exaggerated wheel flares on the '70 Barracuda...

[gtx6970]

IMO, the most logical step would be a 1970 Charger. ,,but thats just one mans opinion. And we all know what thats worth

[freakshow12]

Seriously, does anyone think Revell would do any of those bodies better? Nearly everything they've done in the last few years has had some major screwup with the body: the wonky door frames on the '50 Olds, the lower body on the '69 Nova, the curved '72 Cutlass rear bumper, the wavy body crease and exaggerated wheel flares on the '70 Barracuda...

Ok seriously, we have beaten this stuff to death. Give it up. Have you built ANY of those kits or just complained about them? Go look at the 70 cuda specific thread under glass and tell us how terrible they are....

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93311&page=1

Edited September 12, 2014 by freakshow12

[niteowl7710]

I have on the several occasions (and I know this will shock people) that I've had the opportunity, suggested the "Make it into a '70 Charger" idea to the powers that be representing Revell. The AMT kit was an annual, so it doesn't even exist anymore, so there's no direct competition. I also never understood why there was no '67/'68 Camaro, and no '69 Firebird since while AMT obviously reissued their '68 recently, there was the potential for sales there as I'd much rather have a state of the art new (or based on the excellent existing tooling) kit than build another one of the AMT kits - and yes I have built both of those older AMT kits in the past during the AMT/Ertl days.

Take into consideration it took what 20 years to get a '57 Bel Air Convertible, and nearly 30 years later there was a "new" variation of the '69 Camaro tooling, I'd think this is a hurry up and wait proposition. It'll come along...eventually...

[J Morrison]

Ok seriously, we have beaten this stuff to death. Give it up. Have you built ANY of those kits or just complained about them? Go look at the 70 cuda specific thread under glass and tell us how terrible they are....

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93311&page=1

NO!!! How about YOU give it up?! I'm so tired of people beating down folks who don't share the unicorn & rainbow view of the hobby & products the model companies are releasing. What might be fine for you may not be good enough for someone else. That is NO reason to to slam that person! Neither person is wrong, neither is right. Just because you are willing to settle for sub-par quality doesn't mean everyone else has to or should be forced to.

Also you obviously don't know who you are addressing, asking if they build. Mark has built for the Clone The Past project for the International Model Car Builder's Museum, had his own aftermarket company and has probably forgotten more about modeling than you know. The man is a font of useful information about current & past model companies & products. He is quite knowledgeable and qualified to critique the model companies offerings.

[microwheel]

NO!!! How about YOU give it up?! I'm so tired of people beating down folks who don't share the unicorn & rainbow view of the hobby & products the model companies are releasing. What might be fine for you may not be good enough for someone else. That is NO reason to to slam that person! Neither person is wrong, neither is right. Just because you are willing to settle for sub-par quality doesn't mean everyone else has to or should be forced to.

Also you obviously don't know who you are addressing, asking if they build. Mark has built for the Clone The Past project for the International Model Car Builder's Museum, had his own aftermarket company and has probably forgotten more about modeling than you know. The man is a font of useful information about current & past model companies & products. He is quite knowledgeable and qualified to critique the model companies offerings.

Sorry if this is a little long winded read.

Well I don't know about unicorn and rainbow points of views. And I usually don't get into model car hobby politics. But to be honest, in most of the hobby message boards I've been on, and seen these kinds of conversations going on, it's usually the "this kit has a ton of issue crowds" that do most of the attacking when anyone with a different point of view objects to their opinions. I usually stay away from commenting on them. But knowing Fred as I do, I felt I had to give my two cents worth.

Now I don't know most of you here, and I don't know this guy Mark, It sounds like he's a good modeler. As for touting credentials, be it his or anyone's, believe me when I say, there are a lot of us older modelers out there that have been doing this for decades and a lot of us that have first had dealings with the model industry. You don't hear from some of us, very much, because we spend our time on the work bench doing what we love, instead of reviewing and posting about kits. I myself, did test shot builds for a few companies back in the 70's and 80's and did my share of commissioned projects for a few state and national museums in my day, and not just auto theme related either. I also got to know Boyd Coddington (god rest his soul) personally. Boyd had a love of the model car scene, and even judged a few contests. He came here often to the one in Saint Ignace, Michigan when that hobby show was going strong. I got away from the hobby, in the mid 90's, for quite a few years for personal reasons, and when I recently came back, I found myself impressed with how much better most of the model companies have improved their kit offerings. Sure there are issues with most kits produced, But if you think that today's kit offerings have issues, well take a step back in time to when I got into the hobby, I can tell you plenty of horror stories about loads of flash and visible push pins on almost every part in a kit, or incorrect body proportions, or the lack of detail in almost all kits. But us modelers back then didn't do alot of complaining, because we were just happy that the model companies were at least trying to give us the subjects we asked for.

Could they have worked harder to get every kit right? Yes they could. World the modelers of my day liked that? Yes we would have. So why didn't we complain. Well some did, but most of us just went about doing what we do, and corrected the problems during the build. There is always going to be someone who can pick any new kit release apart and find something wrong with it. I say there is nothing wrong with helping out other builders of a kit by letting them know what they should look for or might need to correct to make a replica stock build look correct, but to just pick a kit apart for the sake of finding something to complain about gets old to some of us.

Now as I said, I've been around this hobby a long time, and I also worked for Chrysler for a number of years, and I have seen a lot of Kit companies get things wrong with scale or incorrect body lines, or just plan mix and matching years. But I have also seen these same kits offer detail that they sure didn't offer when i started in this hobby. And also when I started there wasn't much, if any, aftermarket industry, so we had to do alot of scratch building our own stuff, just to get some of the detail that is common in alot of kit releases these days.

I, like most of you, would love to see the model companies offer perfect kits. But I'll take what they are doing with kits, these days, over what was offered when I first started out, anytime. I can correct most issues I find, because most of them aren't hard corrections to make, such as lightly sanding down the over flared wheel wells of the new Cuda kit or straitening out a slight wave in the body line. Even warming up and straightening out a bumper in a kit that should have been straight to begin with. So as far as I'm concerned, today's kit releases are a far cry from sub-par compared to what was around when I started out modeling. How would those of you who complain about today's kits, like to go back to working with molded on chassis detail on every new release, or even screwing the chassis on with big metal screws, or metal front axles that run through a oil pan. You've seen some of these kits in the re-releases of Round2's Kits. But that was the standard back then for almost all kits. And don't get my started on Johan back in those days, they farmed alot of their production out to local injection mold companies here in Michigan and those companies didn't care less about flash. I know, I worked for one in Grand Rapids, Michigan at the time. A lot of flash and warpage happened because the injection mold machine was either too hot or had debris between the mold plates that the operator was to lazy to clean off. I've even seen them package bodies in kits, where, only part of the body got molded. Which happened if the injection mold machine was too cold or was running low on plastic. Quality control was not very common in those days.

Some of you who complain about kit issues, make good points, if it helps a fellow modeler know what to correct. But be helpful and explain the means to them to do the correction. But don't just pick a kit apart, this discourages other less knowledgeable modelers from trying a otherwise good kit. And for those of you who get tired of people pointing out the flaws in kits, just remember, they help you find what you may need to fix or correct, if they explain it that way. Good sales from a model kit producer is what brings us new subjects. If people wont buy them, the companies wont make them. And it new subjects helps bring in new modelers. And we need this because our hobby has shrunk enough over the past twenty years. Yes the model companies could do more to correct kit issues before they release them, but if they don't or wont, it isn't the end of the world, most of those things can be corrected with a little modeling patience on the hobbyists work bench in my opinion.

I would like to see a little more balance in people's personal reviews of a kits. Giving equal time to what is good and bad about a kit. This give those reading it the balanced info to make a more informed decision when it comes to buying a kit. And what they may need to do to correct the issues and build the kit. I feel that would do more to help a fellow modeler than to just point out all the flaws in a kit and then state that a fellow modeler should stay away from buying and building a kit.

[Greg Myers]

A good case for requiring a "Complete" personal profile. Too many shadow posters, you hardly get a real name.