Robberbaron

I'm intrigued by the 2 different versions they're showing. The round-eyed version is a 74-75 model year based on the rear bumper/taillight panel shape. The four-eyed version is 76-77 model year, with a different rear bumper and taillight panel shape. Only way I see for them to share a common body would be to have separate quarter panel end pieces for each version. Looks like the 74-75 rear bumper should have some height taken out from the lower section. They were chunky, but not to the degree shown in their rendering. Hopefully they realize that they need to create separate front bumpers, too (if they want to make more of an attempt at accuracy than the Olds kit). The bumper shown on both rendering versions has the 76-77 parking light covers. 74-75 model years had the parking lights next to the headlights in the fender extensions, no openings in the bumper beneath the headlights that would require these covers. Note also that the 74-75 front bumper wraps around the side and extends back further than the 76-77 style. As currently shown in their renderings, the bumper more closely resembles the 74-75 shape, but with the 76-77 parking light covers.

As can be Sen in the picture of the 1:1 above, there should be a subtle curvature to the B-pillar, not arrow straight as currently shown in their rendering. Trailing edge of the quarter window also follows this curvature, and yes, the quarter window does need to be a bit wider.

If any individuals involved in these "arguments" are interested in facts, said arguments can be easily settled. Show me a single photographic example of one of these NASCAR Cutlasses running this type of rear bumper. It's not correct for the 76-77 body style. It more closely resembles the 74-75 type bumper, but it's not correct for that either. Even if it was a correct 74-75 bumper, it's not correct on the 76-77 body, and NASCAR would not have allowed it. Facts are stubborn things. If none of this bothers you, that's fine. Honestly, buy and enjoy. But let's be realistic about the flaws that are a matter of fact. Another fact is that they've lost a sale to me by failing to make their model actually LOOK like the car it's intended to represent. I expect they will also lose a LOT of other sales by releasing this kit, as their debut product no less, with some glaring errors. Last I checked, that's not too good for cash flow.

Stopped at my HL the other night. Really didn't expect mine to have much marked down, boy was I wrong! Got all of the following for $7.49 each: AMT '57 Ford, '64 Dodge, Revell '48 Ford, '64 Thunderbolt. Got 2 of the '69 Yenko Vettes: $6.74 each! Also had both Torinos for $7.49, but I have several already, so I had to pass.

Nope, not close. And it's neither fish nor fowl. Ends are 74-75 style, but there's no license plate opening, as on a 76-77. There was never such a bumper on 1:1 Cutlasses. They obviously copied the (incorrect) rear bumper from a resin kit. Not sure where you're going with your comment about the 77 Chevrolet. I'm guessing you're referring to the 77 Monte Carlo body style? Issue #1 is that it has no resemblance to a Monte rear bumper (at least to anyone familiar with these cars). Issue #2: even if it did look like a Monte bumper, who cares? This is an Oldsmobile, which had totally different bumpers (and sheet metal, for that matter).

Gotta wonder what happened to the body for the MPC 1970 Impala? From what I understand, the chassis and drivetrain were repurposed for the 1971-1976 annuals, but I wonder if the tooling for the body and interior are still in Round 2's possession? As is, it's not really of much interest, since we still have the very nice AMT 1970 kit. However, it wouldn't take much to backdate the tooling to 1969. Heck, according to the instructions, MPC kept the interior buckets and console intact from the '69 annual. Imagine combining the MPC interior tub and backdated '69 body with the chassis/drivetrain of the AMT 1970 kit! (ala the recreated 1970 Super Bee) Who knows how everything would match up between the 2 kits, but theoretically it should be possible. I know, probably a pipe dream, even if the MPC remnants do still exist...

The '85 442 and the '70 Charger came and went within a week or two at my local HL (they're always slow compared to other HL's as far as getting new releases). When I stopped in last week, now the '68 Charger space is empty: get 'em while you can!

Anything I plan to build, I open ASAP to confirm that everything is intact & undamaged. Perfect example is the AMT 1970 Baldwin-Motion Camaro I got the other day. Looked everything over, and noticed one of the front bumperettes was missing from the chrome tree. If I waited to open it till I was ready to build it (what: 5, 10 years from now?), I'd be out of luck.

Really wish they'd left the '69 side markers on the body, since I believe they're inset a bit. Don't see any practical way to recreate that without a ton of work now, but filling them in and creating the '68 side markers seemed more doable. Glad I got one of the '69s before they did this change. I'm guessing they must have been getting a fair number of complaints about this issue from buyers of the '68 kits - so they split the baby and now it's not really accurate for either version (if you don't consider the decal solution accurate) Still great kits overall, though.

Outstanding work, as always!

Same thing happened with the '80s Cutlass kits. Before the Revell kits were released, several self-proclaimed experts on this board declared that there was not enough interest, it would never happen, no manufacturer would ever dare to release it, yadda yadda yadda. When the '83 and then the '85 kits miraculously materialized, low and behold they seemed to sell like hotcakes, to the point that in my area the '85 kits seemed to come and go pretty quickly in my local retailers before the whole Hobbico implosion happened.

Too bad, but I'm not surprised. I would have ponied up if it had a clean set of Hurst mags in it, but I've got umpteen sets of Torque Thrusts already.

Glad to see it turned out so nicely. Paint sure looks nice in the pics.

Another well thought out build, as usual! I like it!

Very well done! I don't think I've ever seen anyone create a '69 Impala with the Sport Coupe roofline. I also like the Caprice hidden headlights, which are a popular upgrade with owners of 1:1 '68 and '69 Impalas. (Why GM didn't offer it as a factory option with the SS package is beyond me)

Amazing! Truly looks like a 1:1 in most of the pictures!

Great work! Never would guess you had started with such a mess.

Trust me, a 4" scale difference in wheelbase would be noticeable to anyone familiar with these cars. Now theoretically if they split the difference and did a scale 114" chassis, they could fudge the Cutlass body 2" longer and the Monte body 2" shorter, and probably get away with it. This is all academic, though. We won't know anything until someone has one of these Cutlass kits in their hands.

I'm sure no expert in NASCAR, but I thought that back in the '70s they had to use the factory stock wheelbase for the specific body styles they were using? Didn't think they started screwing around with wheelbase, etc. until they allowed the shorter wheelbase cars in the '80s, but I'm sure someone here can confirm...

Apparently not. This is what you get when you copy others work. I hoped for the best when I heard about this new company, and the subject matter. But apparently the people involved weren't interested in worrying about details, which is kind of a problem in this business. Just as amazing, they apparently didn't even seek input/review from anyone outside the company. This doesn't bode well for the future of this company. You simply can't expect to charge a premium price for your product when it has glaring inaccuracies that could have been easily avoided if someone involved had been paying attention. They are indicating that their next subject will be a '77 Monte Carlo. Wonder if they realize that the Montes had a 116" wheelbase vs. the 112" on the Cutlass, so they would need a different chassis to be accurate. Something tells me they don't know, and/or don't care.

Nice job, mission accomplished! That gold looks like something Aunt Mable would have bought.

Oh, almost missed the Caprice taillights, too!

Looks good! Let me also give you props for painting your front pan body color, which I almost never see on '66 full-size Chevys. It's pretty obvious the stylists intended it to be body color, but I'm sure the bean counters were instrumental in having the factories painting them all silver (argent?) instead.

Yup, same here. They briefly had the 1985 Olds 442/FE3X and the factory stock 1970 Charger, now no more. Same for my LHS. Luckily I got one of each. Wanted to get more, but not sure if that's going to happen now.

I'm definitely not planning to buy kits just to speculate, but there are several Revell kits that I always said I'd eventually like to get one. I figure that time is now, since there's no telling what the future holds. I don't think Revell kits will be unavailable, but the new owners may not be offering as wide of a selection as the previous Hobbico-owned Revell, or reissuing kits as often. And of course, who knows how the new owners will be pricing things and setting up US distribution? (Tim Boyd's recent post is reason for concern) But let's be realistic: one thing we can all be certain of: Revell kit retail prices aren't going to get cheaper than where they're at now, so why not try to buy up now while the opportunity is available? Just the other day I got a couple extras of the vintage Revell '29 A Rat Rod (Monogram-branded)pickup,since its a treasure trove of vintage rod parts. Also want to get one or two more of the '32 5-window kits for parts as well, if I can still find some for cheap.