Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

AMT '68 Road Runner/GTX--What Was the Story?


Snake45

Recommended Posts

I'd be interested in a correct grille too. I have that kit, and until I saw this thread I hadn't paid much attention to the grille. Now that I've taken a closer look at the kit and focused on the grille, I can't unsee it.

Along with fixing the much needed bodywork that I can't un-notice (like I did with the coupe), I'd like to at least have a correct grille to go along with corrected bodywork if I ever decide to dive in and build it. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I had to add my thoughts on the amt 69 GTX, 68 road runner kits. The main problem I see with these kits is that the wheelbase is wrong. The 68 trunk tail panel should have a vertical peak in the center. The side marker lights are recessed but should be flush. Amt obviously used their 70 dodge chassis 117 inch, instead of a Plymouth 116 inch wheelbase. The real 68 road runners were one inch shorter on wheelbase than dodge cars and was 65 pounds lighter than a dodge. It is much easier to backdate a 69 Johan GTX or road runner to 68 by removing the tail light housings and trunk tail panel from the amt body and redo the side markers flush. The trunk tail panel has to be bent vertically in the center with a scribed line on the backside. The amt guys, should have shortened the dodge chassis but they added another scale inch to the end of the quarter panel but when they did that they omitted the vertical peak in the trunk tail panel and the peaked rear bumper, to keep the overall body length measurement within spec. I have back dated a 69 Johan road runner to 68 road runner using amt’s 68 parts, hood, grill, interior( that has to be narrowed 1/8th inch). I just joined the forum and would post pics of my conversion if I knew how. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad amt released these kits if only for the body parts to use on the Johan body for a 68 conversion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm........interesting observation on the AMT body Jerry! Years ago, I knew there was something quite "off" about the AMT body, but in the early '90's couldn't quite put my finger on it. Now having all these modeling years behind me, I can spot the problems in an instant, for good or for bad. When I did my correction on the AMT '68 Road Runner, I tried to go with what "looks right" than going for absolute correctness in the wheelbase. With the Johan kits getting harder to find with each passing year, this could be an alternative for someone that wants to take the time (and the skill) without paying those crazy prices I see at times, and may not want to deal with a glue bomb.

The incorrect trunk and bumper was pointed out in my thread.............that's something that'll certainly get fixed if/when I decide to turn it into a full fledged project.

Thanks again for the perspective! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read something several years ago about the wheel base difference between the Dodge and the Plymouth. I believe it stated that there really isn't a difference, Chrysler just fibbed so Dodge buyers would think they're getting a bigger car than the cheaper but mostly identical Plymouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well look up the  specs. It list Plymouth "B" body 116 inch, Dodge "B" body 117 inch wheelbase. Same on Cuda and Challengers had the longer wheelbase. The one inch difference  between a road runner and a super bee is sixty-five  pounds. I suspect that AMT used the 70  Coronet chassis for the 68 road runner and 69 GTX. MPC made the Dodge promos  and Johan made the Plymouth promos. Compare a 70 Coronet promo or the kit, with a 70 johan GTX  promo and the Plymouth  is a shorter wheelbase. The AMT  chassis is too long for a Johan body. Same thing on the Cuda and Challenger. The Plymouth  line was always  lighter  than the Dodge, that's  why the racers majority preferred  the Plymouth. I've measured the AMT  body and when they added that inch in wheelbase and top, they added another scale inch at the end of the quarter panel. They tried to make it look right but couldn't. Another thing  they got wrong was the flat tail panel on the trunk. That tail panel is supposed  to have a vertical peak  in the center and the rear bumper peaks in the center to match the tail panel peak. The Dodges had a flat tail panel and bumper. Now I am glad to have the  68 road runner  but only cause it has most of the body parts that can make a Johan 69 road runner into a 68. One more thing is that the radio is wrong on the AMT. All road runners, GTX's, had thumb wheels and not knobs. The side marker lights  are not recessed into the body on a 68 they are flush mounted on the body.  I don't  claim to know it all but I bought a white 69 road  runner and that was stolen and burned in 1976. Loved that car. The 68 road runner  426 was the fastest production car in Chrysler's lineup running 13.55 quarter mile times, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missing Link has some super cool 3D printed red resin 68 Belvedere, road runner tail light lenses that I will be using. They look better than the kit pieces and cancel out having to paint the red, just paint the black around the backup lense and the white for the backup light. Check out Missing Link Resin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peavus said:

Well look up the  specs. It list Plymouth "B" body 116 inch, Dodge "B" body 117 inch wheelbase. Same on Cuda and Challengers had the longer wheelbase. The one inch difference  between a road runner and a super bee is sixty-five  pounds. I suspect that AMT used the 70  Coronet chassis for the 68 road runner and 69 GTX. MPC made the Dodge promos  and Johan made the Plymouth promos. Compare a 70 Coronet promo or the kit, with a 70 johan GTX  promo and the Plymouth  is a shorter wheelbase. The AMT  chassis is too long for a Johan body. Same thing on the Cuda and Challenger. The Plymouth  line was always  lighter  than the Dodge, that's  why the racers majority preferred  the Plymouth. I've measured the AMT  body and when they added that inch in wheelbase and top, they added another scale inch at the end of the quarter panel. They tried to make it look right but couldn't. Another thing  they got wrong was the flat tail panel on the trunk. That tail panel is supposed  to have a vertical peak  in the center and the rear bumper peaks in the center to match the tail panel peak. The Dodges had a flat tail panel and bumper. Now I am glad to have the  68 road runner  but only cause it has most of the body parts that can make a Johan 69 road runner into a 68. One more thing is that the radio is wrong on the AMT. All road runners, GTX's, had thumb wheels and not knobs. The side marker lights  are not recessed into the body on a 68 they are flush mounted on the body.  I don't  claim to know it all but I bought a white 69 road  runner and that was stolen and burned in 1976. Loved that car. The 68 road runner  426 was the fastest production car in Chrysler's lineup running 13.55 quarter mile times, period.

You are close regarding the chassis. However the 70 Coronet was an already existing MPC tool. The chassis under the Road Runner was a newer tool that originated with the Road Runner/GTX duo. The compromise was likely to make it work under both bodies. Down the road, when Ertl decided to reissue the 70 Coronet, they discovered the original chassis insert was being used for something else. (Probably the DOH Charger). So they just slipped in the Road Runner/GTX chassis/running gear for a more modern undercarriage. (And it was probably easier for them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easier for them to shorten the wheelbase than screw up the body. I can only think it was a cost saving thing. I bought too many of those kits and only needed the 68 for parts. Made the mistake buying those amt kits before looking at one. Some bean counter at amt convinced someone there to just use a Coronet chassis. I looked at my mpc 68 coronet r/t, mpc 69 r/t,  mpc 68 Charger and they all have the same chassis as the mpc 70 coronet r/t. The back of the chassis is flat to fit a flat rear bumper. Look at a Johan 69 Plymouth and the back of the chassis has a peak in the center for the peaked bumper. Now a 70 Johan rr has a straight chassis at the back just like a dodge and the trunk and bumper are not peaked. But the 70 johan still has a one inch shorter wheelbase versus a dodge. Not worth the trouble trying to fix the incorrect amt body. The 69 Johan body is accurate and the easiest one to back date to a 68. I just happened to have a spare 69 body to make a 68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...