Fixing a Bird (or There He Goes Again!)

[MrObsessive]

I wish Round2 would fix the vent window.

They are quite thin (as in almost non existent). Opening doors would be one of the working features agenda for this one, and I'd have to make new ones. There's no way I could salvage what little bit is there. That's one of the things I ruined when I tried this same conversion on the GTX convertible back in '96.  

[mredjr]

Not too thin they are a 1/16" wide in 1/24 scale is 1-1/2" wide plus they only have a post and that is it. Look at the detail on the Revell 68-69 Charger and compare that to the 68 Roadrunner.

[Robberbaron]

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Robberbaron

[Robberbaron]

 http://s82.photobucket.com/user/harrypri/media/rr_zps7hhnk49r.jpg.html

 Gotta admit I never realized there were proportional issues with these kits until seeing all the discussions on this forum for the last couple years.  Even with the discussions, I never saw decent comparison pics to illustrate the point, so I admit I dismissed a lot of the commentary.

With the comparisons to the Johan '69 and the 1:1 pics, I now FINALLY see what everyone has been talking about!  Great job as usual, Bill.  Harry's posting of the red 1:1 also clearly shows that the AMT's side marker lights are about 2-3 scale inches too far forward

[Ron Hamilton]

In my collection, I found a rather decrepit JoHan '69 Road Runner built-up body. It was painted and stripped, and the features are not very sharp. I am thinking about back dating it to a '68, since I have to do a lot of clean-up work to it.

[Hemifan]

I laid these two images on top of each other. They match up just about perfectly.

Now on this one, they do look a lot closer! Thanks Harry! There still seems, comparing the car photo to the model and then back again, as if the model could benefit from just a thin section (perhaps sliced from another AMT RR body) just behind the rear wheelwells, and extend the tail end of the model out just a bit. But then, that could very well also be due in part to distortions in the original car's photos. Either way, Bill's modifications do get you 98% of the way there, to fixing the AMT body. Ideal situation I'd suppose, would be to have a 1:1 in your driveway, or similar access to one, where measurements could be taken, divided by 25 and then see what you have in plastic.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Hemifan
credit to Harry

[Hemifan]

Thanks for the compliments all-----especially Harry and Jon!

Jon, the side that Harry showed is not quite done yet, as there are a few tweaks here and there that I'd like to do. No hurry for me right now as this is not going to be a WIP as of yet-----might be a while before it takes front and center on my work table. And yes as I mentioned, those fender eyebrows need to be defined a bit further. They are there, just not sharp enough to my liking. 

On the side that Harry showed, I have yet to fix the rear quarter crease line that runs from the trailing edge of the rear wheel well, to the tail of the body. It still looks too swept up to my eyes, and I think that's where I had stopped when I was reshaping this a couple years ago.

Hmmm.......I never gave a close look at Monogram's '69 Super Bee. I have a busted up built-up of this one and I'll have to take a good look!

Yeah, that Revell '67 Coronet is another one that bugs me to no end, about as much as this one. I would go about fixing it a whole 'nuther way though. I'd whack the roof (A pillars, cowl and all) and trunk off the "bent" Coronet body and put it on the '67 Charger's lower body. Kinda what I did with my '59 Impala when that desperately needed a roof job. As you mentioned, one could graft in the wheel wells from the Coronet. A lot of work, but when you're passionate about a certain car, I look at it as a labor of love.

Not to mention that the roof on both the Coronet and the GTX are not quite right to me as well. They're both waaaaay to flat in the rear, and don't have the subtle curves on the upper sides of the backlite per the 1:1.

I have a fix for that too, but it would be too much to go into this post here!

If it wasn't for my next WIP that I already have planned out, the RR would definitely be on the must do list. The next car on my agenda after I finish the BMW will require almost as much bodywork to make it right----maybe more so. Let's just say I hope I don't get "stung" by biting off more than I can chew!

Thanks for all your thoughts and unselfish sharing of your skills, Bill! I'm definitely appreciative of your pointing out the better roof on Revell's '60 Impala vs. their '59 -- until I read your posts I had never noticed! It's for that reason that Mr.Obsessive posts are always a must read for me.

I do think the Monogram '69 SuperBee could benefit from a similar modification, though I've done so only in a Photoshop hack job. Not exactly guaranteed results when it comes to digging into the actual plastic, but similar to the AMT Roadrunner fix, it's not a big financial pinch to hack away at a currently available '69 Super Bee. Just too bad it's 1/24 (I would prefer 1/25) but oh well.

Finally, I like your idea for the approach to the '67 coronet fix -- and I'm not sure if it would be all that much easier, but a nifty '67 Coronet ragtop could be made with a combo of '67 Coronet and '67 Charger kits as well! It would at least avoid the reshaping of the roof that would be needed, as you correctly point out.

Good luck with your next WIP -- I look forward to seeing what it will be!

[Hemifan]

In my collection, I found a rather decrepit JoHan '69 Road Runner built-up body. It was painted and stripped, and the features are not very sharp. I am thinking about back dating it to a '68, since I have to do a lot of clean-up work to it.

I have the exact same notion, Ron, one of my RR Johan bodies was brittle in nature, and missing both its vent windows. It might try to become a 68 RR or GTX, so long as I have to work on the body anyway. I wish mine would just turn out as nice as your models do!

[MrObsessive]

 It's for that reason that Mr.Obsessive posts are always a must read for me.

Now that is a real compliment! I appreciate that! 

I know there are some out there that are rolling their eyes at this (thus the way I worded the title), but for those of us that have certain cars etched into our minds, some of us out here in the lunatic fringe can't help but to fix something we know is incorrect. Especially if we have the skills to do so, why not?

I can remember as a kid when this car was new, and I can certainly remember the parking lots in high school (late '70's) were littered with these things. It seemed they were everywhere, and you couldn't go far without at least tripping over any '68-'70 B-body Mopar.

Another one that I'm definitely passionate about if you don't know already is AMT's '58 Plymouth. While it can be built as a nice shelf model, I can't get past the incorrect proportions on that one either, and I'm not talking about just the trim that needs straightened out. My Dad owned one of these when I was a wee one, so whenever I see one I think of him as he's been gone almost three years now. It reminds me of when he was much younger (in the mid 1960's) and he really liked this car. A '60 Valiant would eventually steal his heart, but it's the '58 that I have to sit down sometime and really make right for my collection.

I get that some don't care about making changes.........that's OK! This is only for my benefit and if it helps someone else who'd like to tackle something like this down the road------all the better!  

[Hemifan]

Compliment sincerely meant, Bill! I appreciate the energy and talent you put forth in trying to make the most accurate bodies possible. For me, going to that effort is a way to try and make a car kit just a little bit better than what comes out of the box, as a challenge to myself -- it's satisfying (never a grind to me) and for others, that may not be their approach to modeling at all. To each their own!

I know how you feel about the AMT '58 Plymouth, and I've spent some time noodling around with that one too. Taking note of your thread where you detail some of the things that would need to be done to it. One thing that disappointed me most about that particular kit, was the engine kind of being a mish-mosh of parts, sort of a "neither fish nor fowl" correct replica of the given Mopar engine. So I guess that'd need some work, too! But I still do think it offers a lot of potential for someone willing to undertake the corrections -- as I think the front and rear bumpers present pretty nicely? When you mentioned the transplant fix of swapping in the front part of the AMT '57 300 roof, I was pleased to hear it, as I love that kit and bought quite a few copies when it came out.

Take care Bill, and happy modeling!

[mikemopar70]

Really nice job converting those quarter panels!!

They look spot on now!

[carnut]

Thanks for showing the fixes, I have a few of the AMT 68 & 69's and I always suspected that there was something off. I do agree that the Johan 69 Roadrunner is more accurate. I think I will bookmark this so I can fix the AMT 68 & 69's that I have, hope you don't mind.

I'm was a bit curious about the comments with regards to the AMT 58 Plymouth that you also mentioned. Besides the side trim I thought that the side window shape looked a little funny towards the back as it slopes down and the fender tops.

I just did a search and did a quick read up on fixing a few of the issues there as well. Nice work. Of course my '58 will be a custom, the interior will adapt itself to that very well.

Keep up the good work.

Edited June 8, 2016 by carnut

[stevez]

PRETTY PLEASE MR MOEBIUS, re- do these 68-70 B body cars in the near future.

[MrObsessive]

Thanks for showing the fixes, I have a few of the AMT 68 & 69's and I always suspected that there was something off. I do agree that the Johan 69 Roadrunner is more accurate. I think I will bookmark this so I can fix the AMT 68 & 69's that I have, hope you don't mind.

I'm was a bit curious about the comments with regards to the AMT 58 Plymouth that you also mentioned. Besides the side trim I thought that the side window shape looked a little funny towards the back as it slopes down and the fender tops.

I just did a search and did a quick read up on fixing a few of the issues there as well. Nice work. Of course my '58 will be a custom, the interior will adapt itself to that very well.

Keep up the good work.

You're certainly welcome! IMO, a better idea than a bookmark would be to save this thread's pages on your hard disc. You can either right click on the page and do a "Save As" (if you're using Chrome), or go into the file menu in whatever browser you're using and save the pages as web page. Bookmarks are nice, but if the site ever decides to take a dump for whatever reason, the thread could be lost and not retrievable.

Yeah, that's one of many fixes in store for that '58 Plymouth if I ever get around to it. Roofline, rear fenders, side trim, trunk, and even the engine, although what I'd like to do is the very rare fuelie setup that came on those '58's. I've got some decent engine shots of the manifold and fuel injection hardware. What I don't have is any of the scripts that would be displayed on the car showing it was indeed fuel injected.

PRETTY PLEASE MR MOEBIUS, re- do these 68-70 B body cars in the near future.

If there's any I'd like for Moebius to definitely take a close look at, it would be the '68 Dodge Coronets! The tooling is long gone from MPC it seems, and I don't expect Moebius to do any Chargers or Road Runners as they've been kitted to death.

Johan's Road Runner models while pricey are still somewhat plentiful, and of course we have AMT's version as imperfect as it is. 

[1972coronet]

@ Obsessive Bill - That Bendix Electro-Jector setup is beyond rare ! There's exactly one car existing with that induction ; a 1958 DeSoto convertible ! Rambler ran the Bendix on some prototype 327 Nash engines , but decided against using the system .

For those of you whom aren't familiar with what is so special about the 1958 Electro-Jector : it was the first application of electronic fuel injection on an automobile . It was an epic failure , but it elicited enough interest that Bosch bought the design , and eventually turned it into their famous "__ -Jetronic" series .

[gtx6970]

I wasn't aware the Fuel Injection was avail on a lowly 58 Plymouth  Fury?

I thought it was only avail on the top of the line models from Desoto and Chrysler ????????.

Ps, I've seen ONE 58 Fuel injection car in person  ( the resto was in process at the time ) . I thought it was a Chrysler 300  But for the life of me cant remember for sure so it may have been a Desoto ( its been nearly 30 years since I've seen it )

 

EDIT,

just did some quick google work . The 58 Plymouth was avail with fuel injection but it was on a RB engine .

The only Hemi car with fuel injection in 1958 was the 300D

and I'm almost positive there was a fuel injected 300 in Louisville I looked at many years ago

http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19270

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by gtx6970

[carnut]

As soon as I can get my new computer up and running (real soon) I will do a copy paste into a word document or something like it.

thanks for the advice.

Edited June 9, 2016 by carnut

[Mike Forrester]

Very nice work Bill. I am currently performing a similar rework of the AMT kit in order to add a '68 RR to my collection. I have been a '68/9 Road Runner fan since the early '70s, and man was I disappointed when I first laid eyes on AMT's horrible body proportions when the kit first hit the shelves. I have owned and built quite a few of the Jo-Han '69s, and I still have a healthy stash of unbuilts on my rack. That said, I have longed for a legit '68, and I'm setting out to make that happen as we speak. Thank you for the added inspiration!

Oh, and I have already built a kitbash of the Jo-Han body and trim fitted to the modded AMT interior and chassis. It was a lot of work, and I'm (mostly) happy with how it turned out. Still, I won't be happy until I conquer that horrendous AMT body!

Mike F. 

[Mike Forrester]

Oh, and Bill....note that the AMT 68's trunk lid/taillight panel doesn't have the proper peak on the rear. That's a whole 'nother task! Comparison pics of one of my unbuilt Jo-Hans and a recent AMT release...

Mike F. 

[MrObsessive]

Good spotting Mike! The trunk shouldn't be too hard to fix.......I would cut out the rearmost part of the trunk completely, "bend" that panel slightly, reattach it and then fill in the voids as necessary.

There's other things that I'll try to fix too when the time comes for me to fully immerse this as a WIP. The C pillar always seemed a bit too thin to me-------to my sight, this has more to do with the lack of defined window trim, and then reshaping subtlety the rearmost part of the roof. It's appears too blocky to me from a side profile.

I don't know why AMT let this misshapen mess get to market-----of course there's that '58 Plymouth which has never been right, yet they keep re-releasing it, warts and all.  

[62rebel]

I'd never paid that much attention to the shortcomings in the AMT kit, even though I had a couple of Johan versions at the time. Having had them pointed out, I wish I still had my original Johan kits. Bill certainly has an eye for inaccuracies! I bought two of the short track roadrunner kits in 1983 when I had a 1:1 roadrunner. Painted them both to match my car but didn't have a source for the Appliance wheels I was running. Lost that car and the models while I was overseas. Replaced the models when AMT brought their kit out, with the correct wheels that time.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I'm looooong overdue to chime in on how GREAT this work is, Bill!  BIG improvement.  It's just a pity that circumstances should make you feel constrained to pepper this fine thread with all those disclaimers. 

As I've mentioned before, there's an oft-repeated saying about what to do with 'em if they can't take a joke.  A grown-up audience requires no qualifying language for work like yours.

[Spex84]

I've been watching this thread, enjoying the correction of what, to me, are kind of nit-picky proportional details (because I'm unfamiliar with these cars, I don't "see" them as well as a true aficionado would). But that AMT body's lack of the peak in the trunk is a spectacular omission. Wow. How the heck did that get missed!

The results of your modifications speak for themselves. Well done so far!

[Mr mopar]

I never knew that about the 68' Roadrunner ,how AMT back then got away with such incorrectness on the back fenders

one will never know . we must thank Bill for his keen eye , looks like a big under taking but I'm sure I can do it . I'm really surprize

that no one has resin casted a correct body ,for this kit ! love my MOPAR'S !

[MrObsessive]

I never knew that about the 68' Roadrunner ,how AMT back then got away with such incorrectness on the back fenders

one will never know . we must thank Bill for his keen eye , looks like a big under taking but I'm sure I can do it . I'm really surprize

that no one has resin casted a correct body ,for this kit ! love my MOPAR'S !

Doug, probably because Johan's Road Runners while getting somewhat scarce, can still be found at relatively reasonable prices. AMT's take on this bugged me for years, and it's something I always wanted to tackle to see if it could be done. 

BTW, Revell's '67 Coronet suffers from the same malady. I have a fix in mind for that one too, but it'll be quite a while before I'll get time to take on that one.