Ron Hamilton Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Friday, I was able to install the DMouldworks '69 Mustang corrected front end on the model, and it came out pretty good. I am going to start a thread on this one under its own heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefropas Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Can't wait to see it. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunaticFord Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 If you have an original AMT 69 Mustang, and you don't like the chassis, us the new 67. Same wheelbase, same exhaust. It fits wonderfully. I'm working on a fleet, as we speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 The AMT '69 annual body was not reworked into the '70. It was more likely reworked into the "longnose" '69 funny car body, which uses the same trim pieces. The AMT '70 was all new at the time. After the '70 annual, the body was reused in the Mach Won funny car, the chassis and engine recycled into the '71-'73 annuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The AMT '69 annual body was not reworked into the '70. It was more likely reworked into the "longnose" '69 funny car body, which uses the same trim pieces. The AMT '70 was all new at the time. After the '70 annual, the body was reused in the Mach Won funny car, the chassis and engine recycled into the '71-'73 annuals.Probably true. I have both kits;69 and 70. Doesn't seem like too many common parts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Probably true. I have both kits;69 and 70. Doesn't seem like too many common parts Probably true? I've learned that if Mark says it, you can take it to the bank. I thought Tim Boyd and I had a handle on the old kits, but Mark is The Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC Norton Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I have just recently got a mib annual AMT 69 MACH 1 KIT NUMBER Y 905 .....I have always liked this kit better that any other 69 Mustang, even though the chassis pan is poor. built 3 of these, one from xmas 1968, two more from about 20 years back, and will jump into this one at some point too.......the Ace.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Probably true? I've learned that if Mark says it, you can take it to the bank. I thought Tim Boyd and I had a handle on the old kits, but Mark is The Man. Fully agreed on this comment about Mark! TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 Thanks for the clarification, Mark. Much appreciated ! mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReddogRacingLLC Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I know the thread is old, but I always hate starting new thread s on same subject. I am trying to build a couple of slot cars 1:24 scale. which kit would best fit my chassis. Wheel base is adjustable but usuaaly inthe 4.5; range width is bigger factor, I think, it is just under 3" to outside of the wheels. I have a ,unk manufacture, and it is too narrow, it looks like an open wheel. I want to go 69 and would like most of the wheels under the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReddogRacingLLC Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 maybe ge a better idea from the group pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 Just thought I'd show a couple of interesting parts found in the mpc/amt '69 kit... a rally pac and an a/c bezel. These are obviously left over from earlier incarnations of the mpc mustang as they are definitely not factory issue on the '69, just the '65/'66. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack rat Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Just thought I'd show a couple of interesting parts found in the mpc/amt '69 kit... a rally pac and an a/c bezel. mike Yup. Those parts have been there since 66. Nice accessories for the early AMT kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Knee knocker AC was not available on 69-70 Mustangs, actually I think AC was intergrated into dash either 67 or 68. Even base Mustangs with factory AC used dash vents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 Knee knocker AC was not available on 69-70 Mustangs, actually I think AC was intergrated into dash either 67 or 68. Even base Mustangs with factory AC used dash vents.Yeah, Ford started offering proper integrated A/C in the Mustang in '67. Those are leftover parts from the original MPC '66 annual...I've seen them in every MPC '69 kit I've had...don't recall if the '70 annual had them also. Pretty sure they were gone from the '71 kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 I'll have to look in my MPC/Ertl-AMT '69 Mustang Mach 1 for that old Ford under dash A/C unit. I'd like to use it in my Revell '65 Mustang 2+2. I never paid that much attention to notice that piece was in the '69 kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) A pic comparing the revel '69 Mach 1 body to the revised Boss 302 body... and a comparison of the original amt body to the revell '69 body.... The amt body has the reputation of being the best representation of balance and scale fidelity. An opportunity to get some measurements recently from a 1:1 revealed a few points of interest. Revell's body looks vaguely off for a reason; the side 'panels' and door height are each about 1" taller than the prototypes, the rear wheel openings are too big and the quarter windows can stand a slight reshaping. They did, however, capture the correct rocker height below the doors whereas the amt rendition is too skinny. The side window height on both is about an inch short. Having gotten the lower rear quarters and rear wheel openings correct, the real surprise on the amt body is that the rear quarters themselves are at least two inches too short! Revell got them the right length. Other minor weaknesses on the amt '69, like the windshield height, chassis and interior detail and small tail lights, are there as well, but the nicely sculpted front fenders and headlight area bring the whole package together as the most appealing. The revised front headlight area on revell's just released Boss 302 is a noticeable improvement over the Mach 1's treatment but it is obvious that without some finessing of the fender itself, the ghost of the misshapen 35 year old 1/10 master will continue to lurk. mike Edited January 15, 2019 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hamilton Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 I have yet to get my 69 Boss 302, but I have a DMould 69 conversion kit on a Mach1, which looks pretty good. I also have a 70 AMT Blue Crescent to fix up, which I do not consider to be better than my Revell 70. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I have the 1970 Blue Cresants too. The chassis fit is not that great. Bought it new in 1970 and never finished it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Darby Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 On 1/7/2019 at 12:15 AM, mk11 said: The revised front headlight area on revell's just released Boss 302 is a noticeable improvement over the Mach 1's treatment but it is obvious that without some finessing of the fender itself, the ghost of the misshapen 35 year old 1/10 master will continue to lurk. mike My thoughts exactly. They should have fixed the fenders too. But, in light of the rarity of the AMT kit, the much improved Revell offering is and will likely continue to be the only game in town. At least the new design is more tolerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 hours ago, Dave Darby said: My thoughts exactly. They should have fixed the fenders too. But, in light of the rarity of the AMT kit, the much improved Revell offering is and will likely continue to be the only game in town. At least the new design is more tolerable. To channel the once-great David Letterman, "Once again, you have crystalized my thoughts perfectly." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted January 12, 2019 Author Share Posted January 12, 2019 (edited) Long past time for Kevin to refresh his resin '69 … and maybe a notchback as well mike Edited January 12, 2019 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 I'll bet the story behind the molding process for the AMT '69 and '70 bodies is an interesting one... A closer look at both bodies is makin' me wonder if they didn't find a way to juggle certain elements of the body mold between the Mach 1, long-nose f/c and the '70 after all. There are similar parting lines, dimensions etc, plus the sharing of the f/c chrome shot and also the recycling of the '69 front valance in the Mach Won f/c kit (because the stock '70 retooled chassis had the front valance built in). Now, with three kits using the same '70 body - Blue Crescent and two Mach Won f/c issues, red box and blue box, taking the life of the mold into maybe the mid-seventies... is there even a glimmer of hope that the body cavity molds still survive somewhere or were they victims of a scrap drive ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Darby Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 On 2/14/2019 at 6:32 PM, mk11 said: I'll bet the story behind the molding process for the AMT '69 and '70 bodies is an interesting one... A closer look at both bodies is makin' me wonder if they didn't find a way to juggle certain elements of the body mold between the Mach 1, long-nose f/c and the '70 after all. There are similar parting lines, dimensions etc, plus the sharing of the f/c chrome shot and also the recycling of the '69 front valance in the Mach Won f/c kit (because the stock '70 retooled chassis had the front valance built in). Now, with three kits using the same '70 body - Blue Crescent and two Mach Won f/c issues, red box and blue box, taking the life of the mold into maybe the mid-seventies... is there even a glimmer of hope that the body cavity molds still survive somewhere or were they victims of a scrap drive ? That's a very good question. I just know that looking at that box art makes me want one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 On 3/16/2015 at 5:59 PM, vamach1 said: Palmer made a 70 Boss 302 but wasn't that a close knock off of the MPC kit? I have an unbuilt Palmer Mustang. It looks like they copied the AMT 1969 Mustang as a basis. It has a promo style chassis and some othe attributes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.