2'n 1 kits good or bad?

[jbwelda]

whats not to like?

jb

[johnbuzzed]

It will never happen again by and large. Model maufacturers can sell more kits by offering them in diffrent versions versus selling them as 2 or 3 in 1 kits.

Yet, Revell is doing very well with the Deuce kits, and they seem to be offering parts options in the '29 Ford, too. I would imagine that their '69 Charger, with two engines and drag parts, will always be a good seller. We might not see the options in all kits, but I think it will be available more often as new kits are introduced.

[Brett Barrow]

As I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to see AMT take the Torq Thrusts out of the 62 Chevy, chrome them, and offer them in a parts pack with either the red lines or Goodyears (better yet, red line on one side, RWL on the other !). They're already on a small sprue with just a few other parts, should be easy to package them by themselves.

Also the restored Chrome reverse from the 37 Ford would be nice too, and they're already on their own sprue.

[Bob Ellis]

Here is what I see......

Back in the '60s, the 3 in 1 kits were sold in the millions.

Today 1 version kits are sold in the thousands.

It may not be economically feasible to relive the old days.

[Luc Janssens]

As I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to see AMT take the Torq Thrusts out of the 62 Chevy, chrome them, and offer them in a parts pack with either the red lines or Goodyears (better yet, red line on one side, RWL on the other !). They're already on a small sprue with just a few other parts, should be easy to package them by themselves.

Also the restored Chrome reverse from the 37 Ford would be nice too, and they're already on their own sprue.

Compared to their competitors Round-2 kits are expensive, certainly when one takes into account that most of them are re-runs, some resto mods and a few found treasures.

IMHO Round 2 should put some (already tooled) extra

parts in all of their kits, be it wheels, tires, or maybe even interesting parts that come from incomplete tooling as a bonus, that way one gets more value for your hard earned hobby dollar and hunger for more extra free parts, which can be fed by buying more extra kits, where in parts packs, your hobby dollar mostly goes to packaging and distribution costs.

The best helmsmen stand on shore!

Edited June 8, 2015 by Luc Janssens

[b-body fan]

Got an AMT 69 GTX kit. Came with 2 sets of wheels,a stock and a narrowed coil over set up, a 440 with a single quad and a 6 pack set up, and a Hemi with dual quad and cross ram intakes,plus several exhaust options, and wheel tubs. Love it. I build alot of mopars the extra parts are sweet.

Edited June 8, 2015 by b-body fan

[Drake69]

No brainer... extra parts = Gud...

[Art Anderson]

What almost everyone misses here, is that parts packs, if they are even a viable model product, virtually have to be their own tooling. Almost invariably, even the chrome parts trees are part of a much larger tool which is set up to produce all parts of a model kit that are to be molded all in the same color, type and grade of polystyrene.

To simply "remove" this or that part or parts from that kit chrome tree would add far more cost (and ultimately retail price!) than would ever be acceptable. Trouble is, as well, parts packs have seldom ever been particularly successful, save for say, Pegasus wheel & tire sets (also similar sets from other sources), which stem from the long-standing practice of Japanese model kit mfr's, who "farm out" those to smaller, independent "job shops" scattered throughout Shuzoka City (arguably the "Detroit" of Japanese model kit manufacturing).

While it's true that for us, most of us who read and participate in this and other online model car forums, subscribe and read the model magazines, we are the more serious, dedicated of all model car building enthusiasts--but we are but a tip of a much larger, and I suspect, much less-dedicated population of model car builders. That said, while we here tend to have the skills and abilities to adapt almost any model kit engine to practically any model car chassis ever injection-molded, I suspect that the vast, unseen and unheard from more casual builders see something of that sort as too far off the charts for their skils and/or tastes. That therein, would seem to be a very difficult nut to crack, and I suspect that most hobby wholesale houses and hobby shop owners surely are aware of it.

Art

[johnbuzzed]

Art, you may be right- but we are the same people who were building way back when, and started swapping parts between models way back. We had some support from a few magazines, parts packs, a few nationally-known contests and some well-known builders- but little else. If we could do it then, using less-sophisticated tools and techniques, as well as being far less experienced at building anything in scale, then modelers with any interest would surely be able to do it now with the existing support structure. If anything, our hobby and those who supply it tend to encourage modelers to push the envelope more than anyone did back when. I believe that the number of members in all of our hobby's many forums, Facebook pages, etc, is growing, and I doubt that the growing ranks consist of just us older guys. And I really don't think they're all building box-stock.

[Luc Janssens]

Art,

As you say, single parts will be difficult, but the past has leached us, that clusters of parts were often swapped back and forth different kits.

So it's doable, IMHO useable high demand parts, like wheels, engines, etc can be separated from existing complete, but also and maybe a better idea, from mothballed incomplete tooling (Round-2, much more then Revell), which then can be scrapped and recycled.

Then put in a mold base, so a number of parts sets can be shot in a single cycle, those parts then can be included in any number of kits, dictated by customer feedback, be it from die-hard modelers or novice builders.

I call this tool consolidation.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Luc Janssens

[gtx6970]

The more thats in the box,,the more I am willing to pay for it,,,,,, as opposed to a whole seperate kit where the only difference is decals or wheels / tires .

[1972coronet]

My all time favourite kit in so far as building options (not to mention the subject matter) is the AMT 1953 F100 (thank you , Round2, for reissuing this gem!).

I would like to see more 2-in-1 60s/70s dealership "tuner" subjects (Motion, Dana,Mr Norms,Tasca,Randall,, et al. ) which could also be built stock.

Furthermore, I wish that Revell,et al. , would offer two transmissions, two differentials, A/C and non A/C arrangements, etc..

[BubbaBrown]

Trans types, auto or stick , single or multiple carbs, bench or buckets would be a great start. I think alot of us build models of cars weve known or seen. This would help.

[69NovaYenko]

I would like to see more 2-in-1 60s/70s dealership "tuner" subjects (Motion, Dana,Mr Norms,Tasca,Randall,, et al. ) which could also be built stock.

Furthermore, I wish that Revell,et al. , would offer two transmissions, two differentials, A/C and non A/C arrangements, etc..

That`s a bitching idea. A series of kits featuring `60-`70 era Muscle Car Dealership (Randall Motors AMC/Dana Chevy /Mr Norms Dodge /Tasca Ford etc)prepped cars matter which could also be built as stock. Revell is kinda doing this with it Baldwin Motion and Don Yenko kits.

I have an AMT-ETRL kit of the `66 Ford Fairlane GT-GTA . It had a single big block Ford 390 engine, but you had two tranny build options. You could build the car with Fords 4 speed tranny (the linkage as a separate piece from the tranny) and have the Fairlane GT version or opt for the C-6 automatic and build the GTA version.

An A/C units would be nice as well as bench seat & buckets/console build options.

Edited June 10, 2015 by 69NovaYenko