Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Return of the 1/25 MPC '68 Coronet/Super Bee RT Convertible...


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, drodg said:

Wow this combined with Moebius'  announcement of the 65 Coronets this should be quite a model car year. 

I agree.  To add,  I will call this the year of the Coronet.  I think this year we will be shelling out more from our wallets than anticipated.

Edited by GMP440
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

I like everything about this, but I think some of us might fight you on that "MPC kits have a fun factor" bit. 😜😜

James, to expand a bit on what I mean on the fun factor.  The Ertl era AMT B-body Mopars while they build into nice kits for the most part contain one version with little options and pretty sparce decals sheets and the packaging for the most part was just plain boring.   In contrast many of the MPC annuals like the '68 Coronets have multiple build options with cool accessories and interesting decal sheets.  The proportions are generally considered good and with some basic modeling skills build into a nice model that look to me just as good on the shelf as today's modern kits.   Those are the fun factor that those Ertl era kits never had.  I'm sure there are many who will disagree and that's OK. 

-Steve

Edited by SteveG
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Platform-style interior with separate-and-unique rear section (convertible vs. hardtop) is GREAT news! I just hope that the correct brake master will be added (I'd gladly take it as a separate part!) before the tooling is finalised (I won't complain publicly if the '66 & earlier brake master remains...). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m worried about the wiper motor, horn, and fetzer valve. 
69 Tonneau cool too, spy stuff. Single version Ertl era stuff was a let down. Hemis saved it but not like old annuals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, SteveG said:

Here's some comments and details on the upcoming '68 Dodge Coronet kit.  

"...now features clear headlamp lenses." 

-Steve
Heh. Heh.

 

 

Edited by Jon Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SteveG said:

James, to expand a bit on what I mean on the fun factor.  The Ertl era AMT B-body Mopars while they build into nice kits for the most part contain one version with little options and pretty sparce decals sheets and the packaging for the most part was just plain boring.   In contrast many of the MPC annuals like the '68 Coronets have multiple build options with cool accessories and interesting decal sheets.  The proportions are generally considered good and with some basic modeling skills build into a nice model that look to me just as good on the shelf as today's modern kits.   Those are the fun factor that those Ertl era kits never had.  I'm sure there are many who will disagree and that's OK. 

-Steve

Alright within that sense I agree with you, the multiple options of the older kits is what makes kits of the era cool and desirable.  Some of those 70s and 80s kits with their lack of instructions AND mounting pins/holes though...whooweee.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wanted to see MPC or AMT put this kit back out for years in 68 i one of each the Vert and the Hard top  i will get 3 or 4 of each as they come out i hope they hit be for the end of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SteveG said:

Here's some comments and details on the upcoming '68 Dodge Coronet kit.  

While Ertl era AMT B-body Mopar kits are highly detailed and jammed packed with separate parts, they just don't have the fun factor the original MPC kits did in my opinion.  

The highlights include a revised grille to better match the 1:1 and now features clear headlamp lenses.  The stock hood has also been redesigned to better match the 1:1 and the underside cut lines have been eliminated along with the unrealistic separate hood hinges. 

The interior has been revised to a platform style, with specific back seats and side trim panels for each version.  Location tabs and slots have been added for easy assembly. 

The engine block axle holes have been eliminated, the accessories are no longer chrome plated and the power steering pump is more realistic. The distributor cap is now a separate part. 

While the chassis is still the simplified MPC annual style, the front metal axle is been eliminated and plastic stub axles have been added.  There are no longer any large gaps in the wheel housings and the exhaust is now separated from the rear axle. 

The body shells have numerous detail improvements to better match the 1:1 including additional panel lines. 

I will do my best to provide some additional photos showing the improvements but keep in mind that you're looking at a work in progress 3D mockup and not actual test shots.   

-Steve

 

Sounds like a lot of thought went into this project, and some very good choices were made!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteveG said:

James, to expand a bit on what I mean on the fun factor.  The Ertl era AMT B-body Mopars while they build into nice kits for the most part contain one version with little options and pretty sparce decals sheets and the packaging for the most part was just plain boring.   In contrast many of the MPC annuals like the '68 Coronets have multiple build options with cool accessories and interesting decal sheets.  The proportions are generally considered good and with some basic modeling skills build into a nice model that look to me just as good on the shelf as today's modern kits.   Those are the fun factor that those Ertl era kits never had.  I'm sure there are many who will disagree and that's OK. 

-Steve

I'm going to push back on this just a bit. I cruise a lot of the modeling sub-Reddits and see so much frustration from newer model builders who don't know that some of the kits you guys are putting out vary in age considerably. I've seen several folks swear off AMT kits entirely after getting the tin box Daytona for Christmas and it being, well... what it is. This was a chance to put the AMT name on a new tooling that could have been great but it's just copying 50 year old design philosophy. It didn't have to be groundbreaking, even on par with the late 90s and early 2000s kits would have been exceptional. It just seems like a missed opportunity to make something the best it could be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Classicgas said:

Chassis in pictures at beginning of thread look like the amt 68-69 gtx/roadrunner.

Yeah, it does. However,

3 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

While the chassis is still the simplified MPC annual style, the front metal axle is been eliminated and plastic stub axles have been added.  There are no longer any large gaps in the wheel housings and the exhaust is now separated from the rear axle. 

if is, indeed, the simplified chassis, I'll use the Revell '68 Charger chassis as Steve Guthmiller did. I used the Charger chassis under the Johan Police Pursuit '68 Plymouth. A definite improvement over the one piece kit supplied slab o'styrene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SfanGoch said:

Yeah, it does. However,

if is, indeed, the simplified chassis, I'll use the Revell '68 Charger chassis as Steve Guthmiller did. I used the Charger chassis under the Johan Police Pursuit '68 Plymouth. A definite improvement over the one piece kit supplied slab o'styrene.

I’m sure that the AMT ‘68 Roadrunner chassis would work as well.

Might even fit better than the Revell Charger chassis.

I’m just happy to see that they improved the interior, and revisited the body, hood and grille.

Seems to me that even with the old chassis, it’s going to be a pretty nice kit.

As long as they kept the overall MPC body proportions, It will be miles above the AMT ‘68/‘69 Roadrunner/GTX kits.

I’m sure that AMT sold a boatload of them.

This is a no-brainer.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple '68 Coronets on the redo workbench, complete with '69 GTX chassis to go in them. It doesn't seem to be a terribly complicated kit-bash, but I haven't been able to work on them in quite a while, so I might not remember correctly! LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not whether or not it's an easy kit bash to replace the chassis with something more detailed. The point is that in 2022 there is no excuse for purposefully engineering a kit to be worse than an existing product. 

Aoshima and Fujimi have both had KPGC110 "Ken & Mary" Skyline GTR's in their catalog since the early 80's. That didn't stop Hasegawa from evaluating their competition and delivering a superior product with completely modern tooling when they chose to tool a brand new KPGC110. Likewise compare how Aoshima raised the bar on Lamborghini Countachs in terms of fit, options, and buildability even with the mighty Fujimi Enthusiast series kits still being available AND the continued popularity of Tamiya's admittedly archaic kit. 

Frustratingly, the Bronco and Charger kits PROVE that Round 2 is wholly capable of producing relatively modern kits. They are deliberately underserving builders of American classic cars because they are cruelly aware of just what dreck they can foist on a customer base that will gleefully defend AMT regardless of how many times the company slaps them across the face with their indifference.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GMP440 said:

I agree.  To add,  I will call this the year of the Coronet.  I think this year we will be shelling out more from our wallets than anticipated.

I know!  You are so correct

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

The point is not whether or not it's an easy kit bash to replace the chassis with something more detailed. The point is that in 2022 there is no excuse for purposefully engineering a kit to be worse than an existing product. 

Aoshima and Fujimi have both had KPGC110 "Ken & Mary" Skyline GTR's in their catalog since the early 80's. That didn't stop Hasegawa from evaluating their competition and delivering a superior product with completely modern tooling when they chose to tool a brand new KPGC110. Likewise compare how Aoshima raised the bar on Lamborghini Countachs in terms of fit, options, and buildability even with the mighty Fujimi Enthusiast series kits still being available AND the continued popularity of Tamiya's admittedly archaic kit. 

Frustratingly, the Bronco and Charger kits PROVE that Round 2 is wholly capable of producing relatively modern kits. They are deliberately underserving builders of American classic cars because they are cruelly aware of just what dreck they can foist on a customer base that will gleefully defend AMT regardless of how many times the company slaps them across the face with their indifference.

If I had a nickel for every time I read this sort of "I hate AMT" rant on Facebook and the forums, I could retire in comfort tomorrow.

 

And I'll answer it with the same thing that I, and thousands of others, have said a million times.

Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

When Tamiya, Hasegawa or Aoshima produces a '68 Dodge Coronet, then we can make that comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect delivery time for my retirement.

I’m a AMT-fanboy, the thing is AMT is not only kits, it’s culture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

If I had a nickel for every time I read this sort of "I hate AMT" rant on Facebook and the forums, I could retire in comfort tomorrow.

 

And I'll answer it with the same thing that I, and thousands of others, have said a million times.

Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

When Tamiya, Hasegawa or Aoshima produces a '68 Dodge Coronet, then we can make that comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

I'm not comparing the companies in terms of tooling approach OR in terms of kit quality. The comparison is business practice. None of the above take a deliberate step backward to "revive kit design how it used to be" especially when in direct competition with each other and with themselves. AMT has done good Chrysler B-bodies. They've done GREAT ones even. Granted, it's a '71, but the AMT '71 Dodge Charger is astonishingly good and still has probably the best interior detail of any generation of Dodge Charger kit. From their own description, their intent is a kit with similar chassis detail to the AMT 1969 Chevelle kit. That's ludicrously archaic and the concept of passing the buck onto the builder with "Don't worry, they produced a kit 30 years ago with a better chassis" is an admission that THEY CAN DO BETTER. 

I'm not holding AMT to a Tamiya or a Hasegawa or an Aoshima standard. I'm holding them to an AMT standard.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

Granted, it's a '71, but the AMT '71 Dodge Charger is astonishingly good and still has probably the best interior detail of any generation of Dodge Charger kit.

The biggest flaw with the AMT 1971 Charger interior is the bench seat -- not available with the R/T. However, the rest of the interior is leaps and bounds above any 1971-1974 Charger that came before it. It's a great source for kit-bashing (I've got a few around for the steering column alone for the MPC 1977-1978 Monaco).

I'm standing by a wait-and-see perspective regarding the (awesome and long awaited) '68 Coronet R/T. At a minimum , it'll be better than the original.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, my flame suit is on. 😄

I think Round 2 has been ramping things up slowly - first, by adding new variations to older kits (as in their '70 Camaro full bumper conversion), and second, by cloning old tooling (as in the Cutlass and Nova Wagon). 

The '68 Coronet project might represent their "Phase 3"- cloning old tooling while making engineering and accuracy improvements. 

From Steve's comments so far, it seems that while the basic design of this kit will lie somewhat in it's 1967 roots (much like the '65 Cutlass and Nova Wagon projects), some engineering improvements will be made: separate exhaust/ rear axle, no "hole in block" for the engine, semi-platform interior, fewer gaps in chassis, improved appearance and accuracy of the body, engine and trim. It really seems like they're taking a thoughtful approach to it- making improvements where they really show and count. To knock this approach as "old technology" might be premature and/or inaccurate.  

I would imagine that cost might also come into this- it MIGHT be less costly to clone and re-engineer a subject where at least the body is known to be mostly accurate, rather than measure, scan, and engineer an all-new, full detail kit from the ground up. I'm no industry insider, so I don't know for sure - that's just my guess. They might be working towards a sweet spot between "old school" and "new school" parts content and detail, which I think can be found.  

Personally, I'm very happy to see that the body is going to be virtually guaranteed to be reasonably accurate- the shapes & trim are mostly right on the old MPC '68 Coronet- no need for radical body work on those. An utterly replaceable, old school chassis is a small price to pay for a good body in my book.  

I have been burned the other way, pretty badly- how many times have we gotten "state of the art" kits with awful bodies? Sorry-not sorry- I will go there...a "state of the art" kit should have a body that looks like the subject. I have gone there on this microtopic before here, and I will continue to do so...if the approach Round 2 is taking with this will avoid us getting yet another wanted subject with a nasty body, then I'm all in. 

I'm optimistically "wait and see" on this. At the very worst, I'll get some nice bodies out of these kits.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

I'm not comparing the companies in terms of tooling approach OR in terms of kit quality. The comparison is business practice. None of the above take a deliberate step backward to "revive kit design how it used to be" especially when in direct competition with each other and with themselves. AMT has done good Chrysler B-bodies. They've done GREAT ones even. Granted, it's a '71, but the AMT '71 Dodge Charger is astonishingly good and still has probably the best interior detail of any generation of Dodge Charger kit. From their own description, their intent is a kit with similar chassis detail to the AMT 1969 Chevelle kit. That's ludicrously archaic and the concept of passing the buck onto the builder with "Don't worry, they produced a kit 30 years ago with a better chassis" is an admission that THEY CAN DO BETTER. 

I'm not holding AMT to a Tamiya or a Hasegawa or an Aoshima standard. I'm holding them to an AMT standard.

Yes, honestly this is the most baffling option they could have chosen. If they had decided to make a new body and interior panels and put it on the Roadrunner chassis and retooled some of the Coronet stock and custom parts I would have said that's a smart use of existing tooling and getting the most out of new tooling dollars. But if you're going to start completely from scratch why intentionally recreate something outdated? They could still have included the retooled custom parts for the "nostalgic fun factor" but make the bones a good kit. This tool will live in their inventory long after they people who remember the annual kit are gone, make something that will stand on its own merit without the rose tinted glasses of childhood nostalgia. This just feels like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and I say this as someone who will probably buy both of them... and put some other chassis under them.

Edited by Fat Brian
  • Like 1
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.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...