Robberbaron

Literally just came home from my LHS with one of these kits, haven't even got the cellophane off yet. Thanks for the heads up, Dave. Very minor issue IMHO - should only take a minute to open those little guys up. FWIW, as he was ringing me up, the owner of my LHS commented about how many of these kits he's already sold.

Thanks for the update, Dave! This one's definitely on my future purchase list.

Not sure if I understand your post. The box contents that Junkman posted are the AMT Street Machine kit, right down to the CB radio ? (and wipers) The picture of the purple car on that box is also the AMT Street Machine kit, looking pretty much built out of the box. The red box art car that he posted is also an AMT, but incorrectly showing factory style wheels/tires and a stock-style flat hood (the hood is included with the hole molded closed, but once you build the engine with the tunnel ram, you must open up the scored hole from underneath). I guess the red box art car doesn't appear to have wipers, but that's the least of the problems in that picture...

Gotta agree with Steve on this, putting oneself in Round 2's position, you need to honestly ask whether revising this tool back to a Ventura would generate more sales (and therefore more revenue) than leaving it as-is, as a Nova. IMHO, the answer is no. And think about all the sales of a Ventura kit that would be required to even reach the break even point to cover the extensive tooling work to convert the body back, recreate the wheels, etc. Even among the hardcore "lunatic fringe" of the hobby (i.e. online forums such as this), I believe the majority of potential buyers would prefer the Nova. Among the other 90 - 95% of the general "casual" model buying public, there's no question the Nova would sell better. Like it or not, the X-body Venturas are mostly forgotten by the general public nowadays, whereas the Nova is still well remembered. Lots of sales are generated by nostalgia, whether the kit buyer formerly owned a 1:1 themselves, or it was parents, neighbors, friends, etc. If you're old enough, you probably knew at least one person who owned a Nova, and that's a big factor in sales for these older kits. For me, part of the charm of those 75/76/77 Ventura kits is the surprise that they made them at all, but once it got turned into Nova, I think there's no going back. Keep in mind that Round 2 is a business that needs to make money. In short order, they wouldn't be around to reissue anything if they started spending more money on tooling changes than they can recoup in sales.

I will say that I seem to recall not having too many problems assembling my "Matchbox" version when I was about 15. Seem to recall there maybe wasn't a good way to positively locate the tail panel, but no major challenges that I recall. I was happy with it at the time, but about 5 years later I decided to disassemble it because I was never happy with my original Testors red paint job, plus I never cared for the hood scoop that was included. After stripping the paint and laying down a new paint job, as I began detailing it, I started noticing the proportional issues I hadn't seen when I was younger. Apparently I developed a more critical eye in those 5 years. Nevertheless, it is a buildable kit with a fairly low parts count, so if nothing else you could probably knock it out fairly quickly as a slump buster.

The version you bought, as well as the previous release that you show with the red car on the box art, were both released when AMT was owned by RC2 i.e. Racing Champions (not to be confused with current owner Round2, sometimes abbreviated to R2, confusing, eh?) RC2 got big selling NASCAR diecasts when NASCAR popularity exploded in the '90s. With money coming out of their keisters, they got the bright idea to purchase AMT/Ertl, primarily to get the diecast side of the business. The AMT model kit division came along for the ride. Others on this board can provide more specific details, but they basically did their best to destroy the AMT brand through total incompetence, before the RC2 corporation went bankrupt. It was common for RC2 to issue kits with box art models that did not match the box contents. The red box art car is a perfect example, seeming to indicate that you can build a factory stock Nova, complete with the 6-hole rally wheels, when of course the contents are the same as what you posted. Kind of a mystery where the box art model even came from. Since this was basically fraud, and there were enough complaints from unhappy buyers, they revised the box art to show the purple version that you bought. As far as the kit itself, AMT originally did both factory stock annual versions for 1975, 1976, and 1977, and also offered pro stock versions. Back when Lesney briefly owned AMT, they first reissued the pro stock version in their "Street Machines" series, co-branded as AMT/Matchbox. They included the shorty tailpipes/mufflers to add on to the headers, since the idea was to depict a street legal car. Also the reason they replaced the slicks from the pro stock version with those awful Goodyear Rally GT rear tires, which are closer to snow tires than anything else, and not nearly large enough to fill the tubbed rear wheel wells. Since 1976 and 1977 Novas pretty much looked the same externally, calling the kit a 1976 vs. 1977 is basically arbitrary. Decals you show are faithful duplicates of the awful originals in the late '70s/early '80s "Matchbox" version. Engine is supposed to be a big block Chevy, but it's quite undersized (more like a SBC). Hood is molded closed, but if you want to use the supplied tunnel-rammed engine, you'll need to cut out the scored hole from underneath. Biggest problem with this kit is the body. The roof profile is all wrong, and would be very difficult to correct. Basically the roof is too flat, and transitions too sharply to the rear window. The roofs on the 1:1 cars actually arc smoothly into the rear window area, without any real "kink". The mis-shapen roof profile in the kit also causes the quarter windows to be shaped wrong as well. Compare a side view profile of the kit body to a picture of a 1:1, and it will be painfully obvious how "off" the body is. The MPC Nova kits have a much more accurate body shape. The rear bumper also mounts too low and sticks out too far when assembled out of the box, but this would probably be easy to adjust to improve the appearance. Plusses? The front bumper/grill assembly looks pretty accurate to my eye. Might be a good donor to backdate an MPC 1979 Nova (square headlights) to an earlier model year, though I've never tried it to see how it fits. I seem to recall the seats seemed to be pretty good representations of the buckets that the 1:1 late '70s Novas used. Kit has separate interior side panels, which is quite unusual for a '70s era kit. Wheels seem like decent representations of Cragar Supertricks, which seemed to be one of the most common wheels used in pro stock in the mid-70s. I'm not familiar enough to know myself, but some people claim that this kit has the best representation of a Lenco trans.

I always heard about the Volares/Aspens being super unreliable and rust buckets, but there were still an awful lot on the road even in the '90s, often as hand-me-down cars for younger drivers. One guy in my class "inherited" a mint green metallic Volare wagon from his parents. You can imagine how thrilled he was to drive that to school everyday, but it seemed dead reliable. When I was in college, one of my co-worker's daily drivers was an '80 Aspen 4-door, pale yellow, slant 6, that he bought from his grampa when he had to quit driving. Aside from a busted torsion bar, he never had a lick of trouble with that car. It was considered so "lame" that he actually wanted it to die, but it just wouldn't. Seems like many of the other smog-era cars were similar: the ones that made it past the first 10 years seemed to have most of their bugs fixed by that point, and were then capable of going the long haul. Also for all the talk of rust on Volares/Aspens, I don't recall any significant rust on either of those cars. At least those two definitely weren't rust-buckets.

OK, guess the Ventura version is gone for good - thanks for confirming guys. My Squad Rod Nova is packed away in my storage area, so I haven't looked at it in years. Must not have looked too close, since I never noticed that Pontiac engine! Guess it's not too much of a surprise - MPC always seemed pretty good about getting the body changes correct on their annuals, but lots of the dirty bits and interior details didn't get updated consistently. Good example is the El Camino kits - the 1:1 versions got a new dash in 1981, same as the new Monte Carlos, but the MPC kits kept the old 78 - 80 style dash. Ertl finally corrected the dash when they retooled the kit into the El Camino SS and issued it as an AMT. As for the Pontiac engine for the Venturas, I'm guessing the same thing as Mark - stillborn GTO. I think it was even shown on the '75 box art. Funny how GM was playing musical engines during this time. Back in the early '90s our new HS guidance counselor came from California, and he happened to have a like-new late '70s Buick Skylark coupe (think it was a '77) that he brought with him. I recall asking him if it had a Buick 350, and he said it was actually a small block Chevy. To him it was just a California used car, but it was in amazing condition compared to any of those cars that were still on the road in the Chicago area. All of us kids begged him not to drive it in the winter, but he did it anyway. Within 3 years the thing was rusting into oblivion...

I've never heard that before - you sure about that Steve? The reason I ask is that MPC also released a 1977 Nova kit in addition to the 1977 Ventura annual, so if they did modify the tool, they did the conversion quite quickly. I realize there is some precedence for MPC modifying tooling to release two different versions in the same model year, because I believe they released both GTX and Roadrunner versions of the 1971 (?) annuals. But this would have been much more work than just changing some trim and badges. Front bumper, nose, grille, hood would be different, along with trim and badges, plus new wheels. I would think the interior upholstery pattern and steering wheel would be totally different, too. Not sure if the dash was different. Also not sure if the Ventura kits had a Pontiac V8 or an SBC already, since I believe that by that time the 1:1 cars could be equipped with the Chevy engines, depending on how and where it was ordered. I have a Squad Rod version of the Nova, but I've never been able to get one of the Venturas to compare them. I didn't even know until about 10 years ago that they were produced. Nowadays they are somewhat forgotten cars, so I got a kick out of the fact that they made them as annuals for three years. I just assumed that MPC stopped after 1977 because they weren't selling well.

Stopped by the LHS after work, walked out with a Moebius '65 Satellite impulse buy (hadn't originally planned on getting one of those). Also recently got the Starsky & Hutch Torino & Lindbergh '66 Chevelle at Hobby Lobby.

I think Sledsel was just saying that the '78 annual tooling was modified by MPC to become the '79. Same explanation that Rob Hall gave. The basic body shell remained the same throughout the Pinto's production, so MPC didn't need to tool up new bodies every time there was a slight change in the grill, bumpers, or even the fenders and hood. They were able to modify the basic tool for each model year revision. This is the same reason why the MPC Trans Am was recently reissued as a 1979. It's what remains of the 2nd generation Firebird annual kits. It started out as a 1970 Formula 400, then was modified as necessary every year until it was issued as an '81 Trans Am. The basic body is the same as a '79, so that's the earliest version they can reissue without extensively modifying the tooling to backdate it to earlier styling.

I realize that the title of this thread is regarding AMT and MPC releases, but since we've had all this talk about Round 2 Corp., figured I'd also mention that the Lindberg '67 442 and '37 Ford Custom Convertible (ex-Testors) are also getting rereleased according to the Stevens listings.

Nice to see the Pinto & Volare Roadrunner upcoming - good street machine material there. Seems to be a good indication that some of the previous smog-era '70s releases like the AMT Gremlins and MPC Pacer have sold decent enough to continue releasing other similar subject matter. Hoping pretty soon they might get around to reissuing the MPC '79 Nova, which is MUCH more accurately proportioned than the AMT '76 Nova Street Machine that has been reissued several times. Would also be nice to eventually see the MPC '77 Ventura, which I believe has never been reissued, and maybe even the "Bear Bait" Chevette!

When I first saw the issues with the '67 Camaro grille and the back end, I stated this same opinion. I expected that sales would initially be good, because the general buying public either doesn't know or doesn't care about the accuracy issues. Even among the hardcore model enthusiasts that populate this forum and others, many bought this kit, even knowing about those issues. However, by not correcting those problems, Revell forfeited a good chunk of sales to potential buyers that ended up taking a pass on that kit (such as myself). Just as important, even for the buyers that did buy one of the '67 Camaro kits, how many of them bought additional kits after that first one? One of the charms of the '69 Camaro kits are that they pretty much fall together, and when completed, they do a pretty good job of looking like the 1:1 when they're sitting on the shelf. You just can't say that about the '67 without putting in some major effort to address the grille and back end proportions. After I built my first '69 Camaro kit, I went and got 2 more. I suspect that isn't happening with the '67 kit. I think for most buyers it's a "one and done", quite likely due to the fact that it just doesn't look right when it's built box stock. There was (is?) potential for at least as many variations of the '67 tooling as there have been for the '69, when you consider that the '67 body shell is clearly designed to also be used for '68 variations. In addition to small block and big block SS versions of each year, there are also Z/28s for each year, plus all the possible drag variations (Grumpy's Toy, etc). IMHO, Hobbico shot themselves in the foot by not making the effort to get the basics correct on the '67 Camaro. I suspect that the core team at Revell probably wanted to get things right, but weren't allowed by corporate to do any more tooling changes. Now for the Cuda and the Nova, for whatever reason I was able to look past those issues and purchased those. However, the Mustang LX fell into the same category as the '67 Camaro for me: all set to buy multiples until I saw the proportions...

Good eyes, Jim! The 5-lug wheels jumped right out at me, but I don't know how I missed that incorrect bumper.

When I started to go junkyard scrounging with my older brother in the early '90s, you didn't see too many of these B-bodies as daily drivers anymore. By that time, all the ones in the Chicago area that were getting junked pretty much all had their leaf springs punching through the trunk floor, something we also saw whenever the occasional Challenger still showed up in the yards back then, too. Too bad so many great cars were lost to the tin worm...

My thoughts exactly. Pretty strange that they didn't mold it separate, considering the level of detail for the rest of the kit (even to the point of having the frame separate from the floorplan).

Casey's pics show one of the other notable things about this kit - the engine is backed up by a TH400 transmission. Those are pretty few and far between in the 1/25th world. It would be nicer if the pan wasn't split down the center with the rest of the case , but nothing a little pre-assembly and filling/sanding can't take care of. If you're looking to swap a BBC/auto drivetrain into a Chevelle, Camaro, Nova, etc., this might be your best candidate.

Sweet!!! They also included the "standard" Cutlass Supreme hood - didn't expect that! Looks like they basically combined some of the unique parts from the previous "Revell Muscle" Cutlass Supreme (standard hood and uptop) with the original H/O kit, plus gave us the correct 442 grille. About the only thing missing is the custom wheels/tires from the Cutlass Supreme kit, but I didn't expect those anyway. With the 2 hoods, that really makes this a 3 in 1 kit. You can build it as a 442, the Hurst/Olds, or as a "standard" Cutlass Supreme. Definitely need to get several of these now, similar to when they reissued the '70 Torino with the corrected body. Note to Revell: THIS is the effective way to separate me from my money!

Wow! Kudos to Revell for making this addition - they SHOULD make the inclusion of the correct 442 grille very prominent on the box somewhere. That's going to be a big selling point, since this is the first release that will finally allow a correct 442 build. We just recently had a discussion about this issue on the original thread from when this kit was first released. Speaking of which, we have 3 different active threads on this kit right now. Would be nice to get them combined into one by the moderators...

Dave, appreciate you leveling with us on this - most guys in your position would say nothing, and chuckle to themselves as this thread ran on for umpteen pages. For the record, I'm anxious for news on that '59 Dodge...

On the subject of a 1970 variation of this tooling, I've always been a bit surprised that they chose to do a '72 H/O convertible instead of a 1970 442 W-30 hardtop. Since the '70 W-30 is generally considered the apex Olds muscle car, it seems like that would have even more sales potential. Who knows what the current plans are, but I'd wager that a 1970 version was planned back when this kit was originally developed. The W-27 rear end that's included wasn't even available anymore by 1972. The fact that it wasn't even mentioned in the instructions (at least in the first release) would seem to indicate that it was actually intended for a future release, logically a 1970 version. If Revell would release a 1970 442 W-30 hardtop (Cutlass S body style) variation, as long as they would assure that the bumpers and hood would interchange onto the convertible body, that would open up additional future variations. Along with a proper '71-'72 442 grille and '71 taillights, they'd have the ability to release hardtop or convertible versions for '70, '71, or '72.

Good point Steve - if they would tool up a correct '72 442 grille, I believe the ONLY other change required to create a '71 442 version would be the taillights. For all the talk we hear about needing to create multiple versions from a basic tool, it doesn't get much easier than that.

Missed this one when I was out of the hobby for a few years. Looking forward to getting it.

Thanks Steve. Those definitely look much better than the ones in the AMT '70 Vette. Think I'll need to get one of those '75s...