2022 Round2 Releases

[Fabrux]

17 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

The bench seat from the 1978 2WD annual must still exist. I don't remember if the Sod Buster et al. has the console moulded-in with the interior bucket, or if it's separate?

I hesitate to mention the decent-but-incorrect SBC included (which is also in the late 70's/early 80's Monte Carlo annuals) in the MPC 1978-c.1982 C/K because, once again, picking fly poop from pepper.

The console is a seperate piece. The only other kit with the bench seat was the Hardcastle & McCormick GMC.

[DZ7581]

14 hours ago, SteveG said:

The bumper shown on the mockup is actually for a future '83-'84 version.  I was kind of waiting to see who be the first to spot it.  The correct turning lamp bumper is in the tooling now but needs to be modified to remove the GMC logo and wasn't ready yet.  In fact there are several versions planned to come after the Sod Buster run is over.  

-Steve

I hope a version with the 85-87 grill and a long box are being considered. 

[Plowboy]

2 hours ago, Fabrux said:

The console is a seperate piece. The only other kit with the bench seat was the Hardcastle & McCormick GMC.

Then Round2 needs to find the tooling for it and put it in this kit. I'm guessing they went back to the bucket seats for the "Fall Guy" version? 

One more suggestion for Round2 regarding this kit is please fill in the cut lines on the roof at least. Extra points for the hood also.

[Rob Hall]

2 hours ago, DZ7581 said:

I hope a version with the 85-87 grill and a long box are being considered. 

I do hope they do '83-84 and '85-87 Chevy versions.  The last Chevy version kitted was the '82, then they did the '83 and '84 GMC versions.

I'd love to see an '83-84 Chevy.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Rob Hall

[Luc Janssens]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:32 PM, GMP440 said:

Well, since you asked;  further kit requests:  67 Galaxie, 67 and 68 Bonneville, 69 Coronet, 67-69 Chevy c-10 kits.

I'm wondering if the '69 & '70 Mustang annuals from amt would be good material to replicate and improve.

Any Mustang specialists who can comment?

 

Cheers

 

Luc

[Rob Hall]

29 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

I'm wondering if the '69 & '70 Mustang annuals from amt would be good material to replicate and improve.

Any Mustang specialists who can comment?

 

Cheers

 

Luc

I'd love to see the original AMT '69 and '70 Mustangs resurrected, but they would probably have to be mostly new tooling--the original annuals got modified into funny cars, I think.   The MPC '69 which has been reissued many times has always felt underscale (and lacking in some details).  

I do like the modern-era Revell '69, esp. the latest Boss 302 version. I plan to kit bash it with the Revell Mach 1 to make an approximate replica of my Dad's '69 1:1.  

Edited May 24, 2022 by Rob Hall

[Luc Janssens]

25 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

I'd love to see the original AMT '69 and '70 Mustangs resurrected, but they would probably have to be mostly new tooling.  The MPC '69 which has been reissued many times has always felt underscale (and lacking in some details). 

That why IMHO a '70 could pilot a new series....

 

[Smoke Wagon]

Well as long as everyone’s giving suggestions for the squarebody tooling, here’s another. 

If you tool up an auxiliary fuel tank that fits on the driver’s side of the chassis plate as a separate piece, the builder would then have the option of one tank or dual saddle tanks. 

[Richard Bartrop]

On 5/21/2022 at 8:50 AM, keyser said:

Happy end to the jillions of Coronet threads.

But now it's been shown that the kitmakers are listening, and will respond, so if anything, expect the flood of kit requests to increase.

[Smoke Wagon]

5 hours ago, Plowboy said:

In MPC's defense, it was on the right side for the earlier Chevies.

GMCs too, naturally. I was watching a GMC promotional film from ‘77 the other day. The narrator/presenter claimed that the fuel tank being on the passenger side was to help counterbalance the weight of the driver. Although the optional second tank was on the driver’s side.

[Luc Janssens]

45 minutes ago, Smoke Wagon said:

Well as long as everyone’s giving suggestions for the squarebody tooling, here’s another. 

If you tool up an auxiliary fuel tank that fits on the driver’s side of the chassis plate as a separate piece, the builder would then have the option of one tank or dual saddle tanks. 

The more one changes the more expensive and complicated it gets, If I understand it correct this is an alternative version of an existing tool no reverse engineering.

To get the most out of this gen GM truck, one has to start from scratch, just like Moebius did with their Ford P/U's, and while I would welcome it, I assume that's not their game plan.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Luc Janssens

[Can-Con]

3 hours ago, Plowboy said:

Then Round2 needs to find the tooling for it and put it in this kit. I'm guessing they went back to the bucket seats for the "Fall Guy" version? 

One more suggestion for Round2 regarding this kit is please fill in the cut lines on the roof at least. Extra points for the hood also.

That bench seat is better off to stay lost Roger. It's about 6 scale inches narrower at the top of the seat back then the bottom. 

A completely new seat would be much better.

You might be able to tell from this pic what I mean. Notice how close the bottom of the seat is to the door panel compared to the top of the seat back?  That's how much narrower it is at the top.  Should be the same width from top to bottom.

[Plowboy]

I don't know Steve. Consider the alternative. 

 

[Can-Con]

27 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

I don't know Steve. Consider the alternative. 

 

Oh, I agree completely. Those are pretty bad also.

That's why I said a completely new seat would be much better. I don't think I've seen buckets like that in any truck, let alone the kits they come in.

[Smoke Wagon]

2 hours ago, Luc Janssens said:

The more one changes the more expensive and complicated it gets, If I understand it correct this is an alternative version of an existing tool no reverse engineering.

What? 

[Stef]

On 5/23/2022 at 3:50 PM, stavanzer said:

Here are the '68 Coronet Instructions:

https://modelkitreviews.proboards.com/thread/1243/mpc-68-dodge-coronet-convertible

IIRC, the engine, chassis, firewall, and radiator look an awful lot like my memory of the MPC 74 Super Charger. I haven't held a Super Charger in my hands since about 1986, so maybe my mind is playing tricks on me. Any chance they're the same? Any chance the Super Charger may eventually come back from the grave?

[CapSat 6]

43 minutes ago, Stef said:

IIRC, the engine, chassis, firewall, and radiator look an awful lot like my memory of the MPC 74 Super Charger. I haven't held a Super Charger in my hands since about 1986, so maybe my mind is playing tricks on me. Any chance they're the same? Any chance the Super Charger may eventually come back from the grave?

 

That’s exactly where the chassis and engine from the Coronets ended up. The ‘74 Charger’s body is a bit of a hot mess, though- as it went from ‘71-‘74 annual updates, to Richard Petty NASCAR body, and then back to stock. 

[Stef]

2 hours ago, CapSat 6 said:

That’s exactly where the chassis and engine from the Coronets ended up. The ‘74 Charger’s body is a bit of a hot mess, though- as it went from ‘71-‘74 annual updates, to Richard Petty NASCAR body, and then back to stock. 

Wow, @CapSat 6, that is amazing, thanks so much. Considering Round 2's stellar commitment to improving on the past, wouldn't be surprised if at some point they tool up a new 74 Charger body/interior, and pair 'em up with the 1999-vintage 71 Charger guts.

[niteowl7710]

9 hours ago, Stef said:

Wow, @CapSat 6, that is amazing, thanks so much. Considering Round 2's stellar commitment to improving on the past, wouldn't be surprised if at some point they tool up a new 74 Charger body/interior, and pair 'em up with the 1999-vintage 71 Charger guts.

The thing with the - Pair it up with xyz 90s kit guts - is at the point you're running two tools to produce one kit. That's expensive as two halves of each kit is going back into scrap styrene. It's part of the reason why these new Coronets are getting a new chassis BASED on, but not actually of the original. Running off thousands of Roadrunner parts (or thousands of '74 Charger parts for that matter) just for the chassis is inefficient. When you're creating a whole new tool to mimic and improve the original it's a better return on investment to just go ahead and make the chassis and suspension than have to run two tools to get one kit. I'll leave it up to the other thread on here over making a slightly updated version of the old chassis vs. an entire modern new chassis is a better decision as I see both sides of that argument. 

[tim boyd]

2 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

The thing with the - Pair it up with xyz 90s kit guts - is at the point you're running two tools to produce one kit. That's expensive as two halves of each kit is going back into scrap styrene. It's part of the reason why these new Coronets are getting a new chassis BASED on, but not actually of the original. Running off thousands of Roadrunner parts (or thousands of '74 Charger parts for that matter) just for the chassis is inefficient. When you're creating a whole new tool to mimic and improve the original it's a better return on investment to just go ahead and make the chassis and suspension than have to run two tools to get one kit. I'll leave it up to the other thread on here over making a slightly updated version of the old chassis vs. an entire modern new chassis is a better decision as I see both sides of that argument. 

To further build on James' analysis here, if the design brief had been to do an entirely new 1968 Coronet R/T kit engineered to current model car kit standards, the kit topic would have never made it out of the first Round 2 future kit projects review.    There would have not been sufficient sales volume of that particular kit subject to justify the time and expense of doing an all-new kit to 2022 kit design expectations.  Conversely, topics like the current Dodge Charger, and especially the new Bronco, offer much greater domestic and international market sales potential vs. the Coronet R/T and also enable expedited kit development time and expense (due to the availability of factory CAD data - at least in the case of the Bronco) thus justifying the decision to do all-new kit tooling.  Thus, by applying the appropriate approach to each kit topic, a profitable business case for each can be developed and approved.  

Bottom line - the "cloning plus minor improvements" approach Round 2 is taking with the Coronet R/T is enabling a market offering that would have not been available at all if subject to the typical way kits are developed. 

I understand and to a degree sympathize with the concerned sentiments expressed in these several threads about the approach taken with the Coronet R/T, but I also hasten to remind everyone that (sorry, here it goes again) the world of kit development and sales is a business above all else, and as such it depends on successful and profitable sales of new kits to operate and to continue to bring additional new kits to market.   Personally, I'm very happy with the Coronet R/T kit and the additional variants that will come later, and like many of you I plan to be in line to buy the first ones off the ship from overseas. 

As always, to each his own...TB  

Edited May 25, 2022 by tim boyd

[slusher]

17 hours ago, Plowboy said:

I don't know Steve. Consider the alternative. 

 

I don’t know why thy put so many bucket seats in trucks when 80 % had bench seats…

[fairlane1320]

Anyone heard an ETA for the AMT 65-66 Mustang kits?

 

[SteveG]

14 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

To further build on James' analysis here, if the design brief had been to do an entirely new kit engineered to current model car kit standards, the kit topic would have never made it out of the first Round 2 future kit projects review.    There would have not been sufficient sales volume of that particular kit subject to justify the time and expense of doing an all-new kit.  Conversely, topics like the current Dodge Charger, and especially the new Bronco, offer much greater domestic and international market sales potential vs. the Coronet R/T and also enable expedited kit development time and expense (due to the availability of factory CAD data - at least in the case of the Bronco).  Thus, by applying the appropriate approach to each kit topic, a profitable business case for each can be developed and approved.  

Bottom line - the approach Round 2 is taking with the Coronet R/T is enabling a market offering that would have not been available at all if subject to the typical way kits are developed. 

I understand and to a degree sympathize with the concerned sentiments expressed in these several threads, but I also hasten to remind everyone that (sorry, here it goes again) the world of kit development and sales is a business above all else, and as such it depends on successful and profitable sales of new kits to operate and to continue to bring additional new kits to market. 

TB  

Thank you Tim, you are exactly right.  I couldn't have explained it any better.  I can confirm that we would not be getting an all new modern Dodge Charger if it wasn't for the factory CAD data files, It's just that simple.   To bring a all new vintage subject to market without CAD data these days is tremendous undertaking.  Even with the data every singe part has to be converted to a injectable shape that can be assembled without any fasteners.  it's an art in it's self. 

If somehow we had found the old original Coronet RT tooling, restored it and ran it warts and all we'd be heroes.  Yet reverse engineering and the improving the exact same item is inexcusable in some eyes because we didn't go far enough.  I guess time and sales the numbers will tell us if we made the right call and help us decide if we ever do it again.

-Steve     

[stavanzer]

Amen, Tim B!

The new "Uber-Kits" just lose me anymore. Great for the Guys who like 'em, but sheer torture to everybody else. And, to judge from most comments on this and the other Forum, Most builders while they admire and even envy, the Uber-Builders, do not really want to put in the time and effort to achieve that level of mastery. 

And there is one Datum point we never really get to see. How many of these Super-Detail Kits, ever get finished. Even the Airplane and Armour guys who regularly see 350-900 piece kits, seem to build fewer of them.......

It seems Atlantis and Round2/AMT/MPC/ect. have found a profitable niche, and are busy mining it. And Finding and exploiting that niche is the whole point of these companies, at the end of the week.

Coke License? Fine! Ed Roth Sponsorship? Fine! Re-Tooled older kit? Fine! Brand new 2021 Ford? Fine.

Extortion? Bad! Theft" Bad! 

Poor Kit Choice? Meh.. Bad Quality Control? Not so Good.....

So, on the spectrum of choices that are being made, I am overjoyed with what is being done, on the whole.

Do I have my peeves about Round2's kits in some cases? Yes!!

1. Three in one kits with only 4 tires?

2. Omitted optional parts that I think should have been in the kit?

3. Tiny Decal sheets? (not so much any more)

4. A general feeling of just having "Phoned-In" the kit, with poor choices (Well, what I think were poor choices), on options, blocked off parts, tires, and general processing? Heck Yeah....

But, that does not reflect the last few months product from Round2. Changes have been and, are continuing. Things are looking much better, and even kits with no real change in contents ('76 Chevy Caprice) are coming out with better boxing and decals.

So I, for one, am very pleased!

[Stef]

4 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

The thing with the - Pair it up with xyz 90s kit guts - is at the point you're running two tools to produce one kit. That's expensive... 

Right you are, @niteowl7710, very expensive indeed; I hadn't thought that through. I'm very happy with so much of what Round 2 is putting out, and I'm happy to support their efforts. I'd take a case of 74 Chargers, no matter what chassis they'd throw under 'em. It's good for business, good for normies, and good for hardcore perfectionists who can finally transform their dreams into reality.