AMT COT

[Chuck Most]

Even though the Chevy Impala Dale Jr. zips around the track is about as close to your grandma's Impala as Mississippi is to the Klingon homeworld, they still call 'em 'stock cars'. The newest totally un-stock stock car, the COT ("Car of Tomorrow", or since it's current now, "Car of Today"), is now available in kit form, thanks to the boys at Round 2.

Let me be quite clear on one thing first- this IS a snap kit. But I don't see parts count or skill level when I check out kits, I only consider what can be done with those (possibly limited in number, possibly simplified) parts.

In that respect, you get a pretty good curbside model of a modern NASCAR 'stocker'. The hood and trunk on this snap kit are separate pieces, but held in place with small tabs- if you were so inclined, I'm sure you could take this snap kit, easily open those panels, and slide a modernized '90's/'00's AMT-Ertl Cup chassis underneath this, and adapt the snapper's interior bits and cage to it. Then you'd just need to figure out how to replicate the new NASCAR spec GM V8 to cap it all off. Of course, this really only applies if you simply cannot wait for the full glue kit, or don't want to spend a bucketload of money on resin and decals. I suspect AMT will use this exact same body on the glue kits.

When I built this, I tried to approach it as I would have as I did at age 10- "Just blast this thing together and on to the next one! Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is on in an hour!"

Since it was a snap kit- I didn't encounter any significant assembly issues. I've spoken to a couple of local modelers who built the Dale Jr. version, and said the rollcage fit was a bit fussy- I can't confirm that, for me at least, the rollcage was a cakewalk. Some of the ejector pin divots had weird, spear-like plastic flash growing from them, but this was easily dealt with. The runners attaching the seat to the sprue did seem a bit thick, but nothing even a newbie modeler should have much trouble with. The only real problem I had was breaking two of the struts which support the chin spoiler- they're very delicate, and even after cleaning the flash (not much, but it doesn't take much on a part the size of a flea's waist) and 'chasing' the holes with a small drill bit, two broke while I tried to install them- I'll probably make up replacements from styrene rod later.

I really only have two gripes about the kit, and one may be my fault...

First, thought the factory applied paint is very nice, it was applied over a body which was not prepped- mold lines and flash stick out like a sore thumb on the 48's dark blue paint.

Second- and I'm not sure if this was a huge oversight in the kit's design or if I overlooked something in the instructions, but there's nothing to fasten the rear of the chassis to the body- pick up the car by the roof, and the rear of the chassis just flops out. The front is fastened with two screws, hidden by the chin spoiler.

I chose the #48 Jimmie Johnson Lowe's Impala for three reasons. First, the other guys all had the Dale Jr. Car. Two, his sponsor is Lowes, Round 2 is owned by Tom Lowe (not sure if there's a relation), and third, my brother H-A-T-E-S Jimmy Johnson, as I guess many other NASCAR fans do.

Assembly took about 45 minutes, not counting the half hour or so I spent looking for a screwdriver thin and long enough to fit into the tunnels to mount the front of the chassis. I still haven't decided to use the decals or stickers- I'll probably go with the decals, just because I know AMT's new sheets are nicely printed and lay down well, AND look way better than stickers ever could. I did no detailing or paint whatsoever on this one, what you see is what you get.

[Joe Handley]

Looks good Chuck!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Ay yo Chuck - the rear of the body will trap the chassis if you find the right points.

I think there are some pretty bold pins and bosses over the rear wheel wells; more important than that are the small detents and tabs molded behind the rear wheel arches inside the body shell.

If you press gently at the rear of the floorpan, you may snap it in. If it doesn't go in any too willingly, you might wanna take the front splitter back off and unscrew the chassis just to see those bits inside the rear quarters, and then put the chassis back in with those in mind - rear-first maybe, if it allows that.

[Dave]

Same problem here with the struts, most people I know who have built this kit have had that problem. Trying to come up with an easy fix for this but drawing blanks at the moment.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Woops, okay, I didn't quite remember it right - there are two small tabs behind the fender arches, and if you press the chassis straight down on 'em, you risk breaking them. But you may be able to spread the rear quarters enough to get the rear floorpan in past 'em, so that they trap the floorpan like they're supposed to:

The thing I realized about those front struts is that they have different mounts top and bottom. I think that if you get the round pins into the splitter first, the flat pins on top of each strut have a bit more wiggle room going into their slots in the front fascia. This shot's a bit blurry, but I think it gives you the basic idea:

[2002p51]

First of all, Chuck, what follows is on no way a criticism of you or your modeling skills. Thank you for building this and posting the information without any bias. I usually hesitate to be critical of things on boards like this because some always take it all wrong. The following criticism is aimed directly at AMT and no one else.

Khart, you're right, that window net looks exactly like a steel grate. And I would add that the tire lettering is all wrong and, it may be the camera angle, but the wing looks way over size.

For $20.00 per kit I sure would expect something more than a toy like snapper, more than a kit that needs a ton of work to just bring it up to average accuracy.

I can't believe how far NASCAR kits have sunk in the last ten years. They used to be the most detailed, most accurate kits on the market. On the one hand we now get superb kits like the current crop of Hemi darts, '40 Fords, and the like, and on the other hand, NASCAR subjects like this!

Thanks AMT, but I'm passing on this one. No sale!

[Chuck Most]

Khart, you're right, that window net looks exactly like a steel grate. And I would add that the tire lettering is all wrong and, it may be the camera angle, but the wing looks way over size.

For $20.00 per kit I sure would expect something more than a toy like snapper, more than a kit that needs a ton of work to just bring it up to average accuracy.

I can't believe how far NASCAR kits have sunk in the last ten years. They used to be the most detailed, most accurate kits on the market. On the one hand we now get superb kits like the current crop of Hemi darts, '40 Fords, and the like, and on the other hand, NASCAR subjects like this!

Yes- Ken and Drew- the window net does more closely resemble a storm drain grate- and theoretically it shouldn't even be there, as I don't see a driver behind the wheel! I thought of cutting it out, but that would have been against the 'approach it like the typical snap kit buyer' mindset- I really wanted to get a good idea how the thing went together, as AMT intended, and to that end, I wasn't too badly disappointed.

Drew... I KNEW I could depend on you to point out the tire lettering issue- long a pet peeve of mine as well on stock car models! Not sure about the wing- I think the 1:1 piece is pretty ungainly, maybe that's skewing my judgement.

Mark- hadn't heard of the glue kits being canceled- I was really hoping to see how Round 2's first full detail glue kit would be, even if I'm not a huge fan of the subject matter. (Yes, I admit, I long for the good old days when a stock car was, indeed, mostly stock!) with all the 'licencing' and 'lack of interest' revolving around modern NASCAR and kits of late, I'm actually a bit surprised the snap kits made it to the shelves.

Chuck (not me, the other one)-I kind of wonder if I inadvertently broke those tabs- I'll certainly be checking it out.

I've always kind of considered the 1980's Monogram stock cars to be the gold standard of the genre. Not TOTALLY perfect (sorry,NO kit is perfect), but very nicely detailed and executed. Then the Revell Dodge Intrepid came... then the last stock car kit I bought, AMT's Taurus, driven by Mark Martin before he turned traitor and went to Chevy, and still wearing the #6 and 'little blue pill' sponsorship. Detail wasn't bad- but the flash and warped parts, and brittle decals guaranteed it would never stray too far from its original box, at least for me. This one is pretty far from the old Monogram kits, but on the other hand, I'd rather build one of these than the AMT Taurus, even if the Taurus is better detailed. (But I'd rather build an old Monogram T-Bird than either of them!)

I do agree with Drew that NASCAR kits don't seem to get the same attention lavished on them as other subjects of late. A modern COT, done to the same level of almost-greatness we see with the current spate of new and revised tooling, shouldn't exactly be a slow seller, at least the way I see it.

But then again, I keep hoping Revell will reissue a '70 Mustang with a correct grille, or the Jeep J-10 Honcho, or the old Monogram Land Rover... so maybe I don't see things too clearly!

[Chuck Most]

Chuck I'm 21 years older than you are, started attending Nascar races in 1968, & even I don't remember when they were "mostly stock"!

Now granted, up until the mid-late 90's, they looked stock, but technically they haven't had much in common with the vehicles sold at your local dealer since the 70's, & even before then they were "cheated up" so much that they were even less likely to be stock. From Richard Petty using a full belly pan under his 68 Roadrunner for that year's Daytona 500 to the extra hidden fuel tanks Holman-Moody was famous for, there wasn't nothing stock about a stock car!!

Okay... more stock than what they run today, anyhow!

[2002p51]

Yes- Ken and Drew- the window net does more closely resemble a storm drain grate- and theoretically it shouldn't even be there, as I don't see a driver behind the wheel!

Drew... I KNEW I could depend on you to point out the tire lettering issue- long a pet peeve of mine as well on stock car models!

Ahhhhh Chuck, you are my hero!

[Chuck Most]

Ahhhhh Chuck, you are my hero!

Anybody hear that? It's the sound of my head swelling to about twice its normal size...

[Chuck Most]

Yep- look for them and there they are! Thanks, Chuck.

Fortunately, the body is thin enough to spread in order to engage the tabs molded into the body to the chassis plate.

Of course, I could have skipped this if I'd simply read the flippin' destruction sheet in the first place-

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, you remember one of Murhpy's Laws of Engineering:

"When all else fails, read the instructions."

[59 Impala]

AAAAAHHHH, the old look at the destruction sheet after it's built trick. Yeah. Dan

[Chuck Most]

AAAAAHHHH, the old look at the destruction sheet after it's built trick. Yeah. Dan

Yep, that would be my coup de grâce for most of my 'out of box' modeling adventures!

[Greg Myers]

Funny how close that rear suspension is to a sixties Chevy pick up.

[Chuck Most]

Funny how close that rear suspension is to a sixties Chevy pick up.

I've heard the modern stock car suspension setup refered to as 'truck arm', I'm not sure if actual GM truck parts were used but the resemblence is uncanny!

[Chuck Most]

Update- the decals are kind of brittle, alarmingly so compared to the other Round 2 sheets I've used, but seem to lay down well with solvents. The stickers? Forget it...

[horsepower]

I've heard the modern stock car suspension setup refered to as 'truck arm', I'm not sure if actual GM truck parts were used but the resemblence is uncanny!

Originally, they were truck arms, but the ones they use now are fabbed up from rectangular tubing that is cut lengthwise, & welded back together with the pieces forming an I-beam instead of a rectangle, & they don't use a bushing in front, most have a solid mono ball type deal on an eccentric so that arm lengths & angles can be easily adjusted.

[old-hermit]

First, good job on a box stock snap kit Chuck. Second, Even though "stock cars" haven't been stock since the 60's I think the fan base would be a lot better if the teams had to buy a new car from the dealer and modify it to race like they used to. That's where a LOT of the innovations we see in cars came from. Just my 2 cents.

[Greg Myers]

Winston, I agree, but I wonder what new cars would work? How many manufactures actually sell a rear wheel drive platform?

[Chuck Most]

Winston, I agree, but I wonder what new cars would work? How many manufactures actually sell a rear wheel drive platform?

Make it like the old Trans-Am series- Ford has the Mustang, Chrysler-Fiat-Whathaveyou has the Dodge Challenger, Gov't Motors has the Chevy Camaro... all three of those cars competed against one another in that series, why can't it happen again today? You know what? I'd even let Hyundai's Genesis Coupe and Nissan 370Z in on the act if their manufacturers thought they had the stones to win. THAT would be compelling racing!

[roadhawg]

I'm gonna chime in on this one......If I was in charge, I wouldn't really have a problem with the whole rear wheel drive full chassis thing, HOWEVER.....the wheelbase would have to be stock, the body would have to fit STOCK templates, and the engine would HAVE to be whatever is available in that particular body style. The engine could be modified, but MUST run factory fuel injection and the factory OBD II computer, with an approved chip.

I lost interest in Nascar 10 years ago when it started getting sissy, but I kinda like the looks of this model. I might have to pick one up.

[old-hermit]

I wonder what new cars would work? How many manufactures actually sell a rear wheel drive platform?

Why would it have to be rear wheel drive ? Any new full size sedan, no matter what make.

Maybe the dealers would get back into it if they didn't have to spend several million dollars on one car.

Like the old saying said, "Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday".

... the wheelbase would have to be stock, the body would have to fit STOCK templates, and the engine would HAVE to be whatever is available in that particular body style. The engine could be modified, but MUST run factory fuel injection and the factory OBD II computer, with an approved chip.

Exactly, a true STOCK car.

[MikeMc]

After seeing this view....there is a bit of goodness there...for starters :lol:

If you need "stock" cars....Aussie V8 series.....fast stock cars!!

Edited November 16, 2010 by MikeMc

[Danno]

Chuck I'm 21 years older than you are, started attending Nascar races in 1968, & even I don't remember when they were "mostly stock"!

Now granted, up until the mid-late 90's, they looked stock, but technically they haven't had much in common with the vehicles sold at your local dealer since the 70's, & even before then they were "cheated up" so much that they were even less likely to be stock. From Richard Petty using a full belly pan under his 68 Roadrunner for that year's Daytona 500 to the extra hidden fuel tanks Holman-Moody was famous for, there wasn't nothing stock about a stock car!!

Aw, c'mon! Obviously you've forgotten Smokey Yunick who fielded a '66 Chevelle right off the showroom floor ... after he washed it in hot water and put it in the dryer on the 'high heat' setting. There was never a more "stock" stocker than Smokey's "little" Chevelle!!!!