Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

AMT 69 Firebird Trans Am


2zwudz

Recommended Posts

No, it's awful. It was poorly converted from the fairly decent '68 Firebird and they left half the job undone. The whole basic shape of the sides is wrong, and this can't be easily fixed. 

But if you want a '69 Firebird, it's the only game in town, and the only one that has EVER been. Sadly. 

If you're just in the mood to build a 1st Gen Firebird, get the Revell '68, which is a darn fine kit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I'd go as far as Snake, but there are some inaccuracies.  I built a couple of them in the past.  They came out ok.  When I compare photos of the kit and the real car, the inaccuracies don't seem too bad to my modeling eyes.   I could probably live with it.   Would be cool to use the Revell kit for chassis and details I think.  here's a thread on correcting hte body.  

I'm not as familiar as Snake with the inaccuracies, so he may be right.  He is correct in that the Revell is a much better overall kit for a first gen Bird.  All really depends on how familiar you are with the real car and what you can live with in a kit build project.   I could probably live with it if I were to build it again.   If you rule out building a kit because of inaccuracies, you'll never get anything finished.  Even the high end diecast cars, i.e. Franklin and Danbury Mint make many mistakes in accuracy.  

build it nicely and post it up.  I'd like to see one completed using modern skills and detail materials.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, randyc said:

Not sure I'd go as far as Snake, but there are some inaccuracies.  I built a couple of them in the past.  They came out ok.  When I compare photos of the kit and the real car, the inaccuracies don't seem too bad to my modeling eyes.   I could probably live with it.   Would be cool to use the Revell kit for chassis and details I think.  here's a thread on correcting hte body.  

I'm not as familiar as Snake with the inaccuracies, so he may be right.  He is correct in that the Revell is a much better overall kit for a first gen Bird.  All really depends on how familiar you are with the real car and what you can live with in a kit build project.   I could probably live with it if I were to build it again.   If you rule out building a kit because of inaccuracies, you'll never get anything finished.  Even the high end diecast cars, i.e. Franklin and Danbury Mint make many mistakes in accuracy.  

build it nicely and post it up.  I'd like to see one completed using modern skills and detail materials.  

Yeah, that thread is EXCELLENT discussion of what's wrong with that body. Some discussion on HOW to fix it, but so far, no one has actually tried AFAIK.

About a month ago, I dug one of these out, determined to Snake-slap it together regardless of the inaccuracies just to get it on the shelf. After an evening of studying the body (and its weak panel lines, among other flaws), I put it back in the box. It would take just TOO much time and work to get even a marginally acceptable result. I got other stuff to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

So you didn't bother to read the linked threads, then? :rolleyes:

Now is no time to be bashful.

Second request:

Please describe how the 1968 Firebird mold was altered to become the 1969 Firebird and what went wrong.

Please describe it in this thread since you brought it up in this thread:

No, it's awful. It was poorly converted from the fairly decent '68 Firebird and they left half the job undone. The whole basic shape of the sides is wrong, and this can't be easily fixed.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Waynerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iamsuperdan said:

Wayne, if you read the threads that have been linked a couple of posts above, all the answers you seek are there. The threads go into great details about the differences and problems with the kit, and what needs to be done to make it accurate.

Why haven't all three topics discussing the same kit been merged into one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waynerd said:

 

Now is no time to be bashful.

Second request:

Please describe how the 1968 Firebird mold was altered to become the 1969 Firebird and what went wrong.

Please describe it in this thread since you brought it up in this thread:

No, it's awful. It was poorly converted from the fairly decent '68 Firebird and they left half the job undone. The whole basic shape of the sides is wrong, and this can't be easily fixed.

If you can't be bothered to read the linked threads, why should I bother typing it all out again for you? Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

But if you can look at that kit body and a photo of a real '69 Firebird and can't see the problems for yourself, then build it and be happy. It'll look good to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Snake45 said:

So you didn't bother to read the linked threads, then? :rolleyes:

 

3 hours ago, Waynerd said:

 

Now is no time to be bashful.

Second request:

Please describe how the 1968 Firebird mold was altered to become the 1969 Firebird and what went wrong.

Please describe it in this thread since you brought it up in this thread:

No, it's awful. It was poorly converted from the fairly decent '68 Firebird and they left half the job undone. The whole basic shape of the sides is wrong, and this can't be easily fixed.

 

 

 

 

Image result for really gif"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not asking how to correct/fix the '69. He is asking how the factory mold was changed from fairly accurate '68 to create the '69. I think he feels they are two completely separate molds and one was not modified to create the other. Anyone have any history to confirm that the '68 was modified to create the '69?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Xingu said:

He is not asking how to correct/fix the '69. He is asking how the factory mold was changed from fairly accurate '68 to create the '69. I think he feels they are two completely separate molds and one was not modified to create the other. Anyone have any history to confirm that the '68 was modified to create the '69?

While I've no evidence , anecdotal or otherwise , I can only imagine that if MPC created a new-body-tool for the 1969 GM F-bodies , that their 1968 predecessors would've been reissued countless times --modified or stock-- from about 1969-2020 .

The "actual" 1969 F-bodies underwent a radial restylling as compared to their 1967-1968 counterparts , mostly the more "sculpted" sides (and squared wheel well openings) . With this in mind , one can only imagine that MPC effectively "butchered" the bodyside tooling inserts to represent the 1969 models' radical cosmetic changes...

...and failed at their attempts .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can only assume the '68 tooling was modified to make the '69...that was the standard industry approach back then....true with many kit subjects, that's why there are so many '69 reissues of various AMT or MPC subjects and not '67 or '68 reissues... 

Edited by Rob Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, I pulled this kit out of the stash to check it out. I'll admit that the only reason I bought it was for the engine and Ralley wheels. Not a '69 Firebird fan. The inaccuracies on the body are pretty evident. To me, the biggest offender is the side glass opening. The tail light panel also doesn’t look quite right at first glance. But, that area would need to be studied closer to determine one way or the other.

I have serious doubts about it being converted from a '68. The inside of the body on mine shows no evidence of being changed. No weld marks. Nothing. It's smooth everywhere. Bodywise, the only thing the '68 and '69 share is the roof. But, there's also no way to prove it one way or the other.

It would make about as much sense to take the '68 Impala and turn it into a '69. '69 to a '70? Sure. We've never seen the '68 reissued. But, I doubt it's because it was turned into a '69. I think they just got it wrong. Something that still happens today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Motor City said:

From reading these posts, I guess only the original MPC '69 Trans Am kit is worth buying?

The original kit was NOT a Trans Am. The TA parts were added later. The original was a Firebird 400, with extra OHC6 engine. 

And it is the same basic kit reissued many times over the years (under both MPC and AMT labels) and commonly available today. It's bad. It's always been bad. And unless they fix it (which I don't see happening), it'll always BE bad.

The only thing of special interest in the original, first issue kit is that the hood was clear, which was kinda cool, but not really of that much actual use.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's a pic that shows right vs wrong. 

On the left is the MPC '69 Camaro, which was poorly and incorrectly converted from their rather nice '68 in exactly the same way they poorly and incorrectly converted their '69 Firebird from their rather nice '68. On the right is the Revell '69 Camaro, which is just about universally regarded as having a nearly perfect body shape. 

See the difference in the crease lines on the side of the body? That's where they were in '67 and '68 (on the MPC body); GM moved them up a couple inches for 1969 and MPC did not. The Revell body has these lines in the right place, where they should be. 

The MPC (now AMT) '69 Firebird has the same problem. But there's no '69 Firebird kit where these lines are in the right place. 

MPC69Camaro69.jpg.dd3c0569e12514df828fedec45b9465f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, monza77 said:

I used to have a MPC kit called the Superteen  Firebird. I believe it was a modified 68 convertible. Was that a separate tool or was it a modification of an existing  tool.Image result for super teen 1968 firebird

Dunno, have never seen it, but with a completely different roof, it could well have been a new tool. If so, I wonder if it's still around? I'd buy and build one. 

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...