the other Mike S.

I wonder if the Nissan was based on diecast tooling? It seems whenever they do a plastic kit based on diecast tooling (Revell '80's Caddy Coupe Deville), the proportions look odd.

I'm not a Mustang fan, but I bought several of the S550 Mustang kits. The '15 and '18 Build & Play versions and the older Snap-Tite convertible. I did that to have a couple of late model performance cars in my collection. With the 2016 Camaro, I bought the Fifty anniv. kit, two of them actually, the '16 and "1LE" snap kits, the prepainted red model kit and the blue promo edition. So, people are indeed buying multiple copies of these unless it's just me. lol! Updating the tooling to a ZL1 model or even the '19 update would've given more life to the tooling as I would have bought those as well. Having the tooling sit static with no updates almost guarantees grim future sales. The 5th gen was the same way. They stopped at the '13 ZL1 coupe and convertible and that was it. It would have been great if they continued on to the updated '14-'15 restyle including the Z28 model. The Challenger would be even less expensive since that car hasn't really changed all that much in 1:1 scale over the years. Updating it would create more interest with more kit sales if they did the Hellcat/Demon widebody variants. Since Revell is unlikely to update their Challenger tool for the time being due to their limted business plan right now, Round 2 could get the jump in updating their own Challenger tool to the lastest model. Unfortunately, it's becoming clear to me that even today, having automobile manufacturer support is critical to getting new tooling done. So, building strong relationships and profitable alliances with them is a good idea for long term investment. I do recall reading on here about the problem Revell had with GM when the C7 first came out. I'm sure that didn't help the hobby in general and was probably another nail in the coffin for future promo contracts. Of course, this all depends if the senario described earlier, short term gains with no future investment, is not true. However, I do think the model compamies do want to stay in business and continue expanding the market for the hobby. Well, I would at least hope so. If the model companies are unwilling to take chances on new tooling of old and new models, preferring to just take the easy road with reissue after reissue after reissue until the tooling wears out, their business plan is basically a dead end senario. I have enough '70 Chevelles to last me a lifetime with the Jack Reacher edition being the last version I bought. I have enough 6th gen Camaros unless they release a ZL1 model, but I'm not holding my breath. I also have enough C7's. The C8 would be a gotta have for me right now. Unfortunately, no business case exists for it according to many around here or on the Spotlight board. So, I guess I will have continue using my money picking up old annuals and promos from the 'bay (and other places) to round out my collection. If the model companies want my money, they need to start making investments in new kits which includes both old and new models. Just my $.03.

With all the doom and gloom being thrown around here concerning making a good business case for new tooling at Round 2, maybe they should close up shop after getting all the old reissues out and just make Chinese widgets or something. I mean, come on. Model companies are in the business of making models and creating a market for them. Creating a new tool won't bankrupt the company and it would get new builders/buyers into the market. Once you acquire most of the old tired reissues that you want, the desire to have models that were never done or perhaps destroyed during the original annualization/nascar/funny car period increases. It does for me. As for brand new tools of modern vehicles, I'm sure a new tool of a modern fullsized truck would be financially successful due to all the variations you make with it. Also, updating their older modern tools like the 2010 Challenger and the 2017 Camaro to reflect the top of line Hellcat/Demon and ZL1 models would be a no brainer. However, nothing has been update since 2010 and 2017 respectively. On a similar note, I do want to see Round 2 restore more old tooling like they have done with the upcoming Nova station wagon. However, you can only so far with that before the cost gets greater on old decrepit tooling that needs a ton of investment, like having to create an all new body, to reach production. New modern tooling will have to be considered at some point as well. Before Revell was restructured (or whatever you want to call it), they were coming out with some great releases, both old and new. The '83 Hurst Olds, old and new version F-150 Raptor, Starsky and Hutch Torino, '68 Chevelle, '15 and '18 Mustang and others. Revell seemed to be on a winning streak. They were making investments in both old and new kit tooling. So, I guess the so-called "business case" to make new stuff was there for them. I think Round 2 should follow a similar approach

Yes, they were unique cars. There was a planned T-top for that model as well that was pretty slick with the tops sliding over themselves inside the center bar, but only a few prototypes were made before it was cancelled. Back in the late '70's, a neighbor (who lived near my grandmother) had one those XS's and I remember staring at it everytime we'd drive by. I wanted Johan to continue the Eldorado into '77-'78 so we could have the Biarritz model with that puffy top and the full length vertical tail lights that began in '77. Unfortunately, Johan was basically on life support back then so we were lucky to even have the '77 Coupe Deville. Imagine if they were still strong and Cadillac still wanted the promo contract. We could've had a proper "notchback" '80 Deville and perhaps an '79 E-body Eldorado. The '79-'85 Eldorado is my holy grail even to this day. lol!

I'd like to see a proper '73-'87 Chevy/GMC standard bed truck. Having to butcher two (The Fall Guy) based short bed PU's to make one truck gets a little old after awhile. They would only have to tool up a new longer bed, longer 2wd chassis and some new grills to reflect the different years/models of that era.

Too bad Johan didn't continue the Toronado, with updates, through '78. We could've had the Brougham "XS" version with that cool wrap around rear window. IIRC, they were one of the longest Oldsmobiles produced at the time (circa 1978) at 227.5" long.

Don't forget the simplistic and totally incorrect engine compartment. Ugh! If the new Bond Mustang has those wheel covers and whitewall tires, it'd be worth buying just for those items IMO.

The more I stare at those pics, the more I think the full front bumper looks better on those Baldwin Motion cars. Maybe R2 will do a full front bumper BM kit someday.

It's not a question about things being perfect, but faithfully reproducing the shape in scale accurately. Revell seems to have a problem with wheel well shape, particularly the rear wheel well shape on the old GM muscle cars. With the technology available today, this shouldn't be happening. This notion that we need accept whatever they throw at us is ridiculous. If the body is not accurate or close to it, I'm not buying it. I don't care how accurate or detailed the parts count is. The body shape is most important thing IMO and you have to do that almost perfect or as close to perfect as you can. Their newer stuff was pretty much spot on, but the older new tools had problems. Is it the factory blueprints that make all the difference? If not having the factory blueprints for the older stuff is a problem, wouldn't 3D scanning make up for it? If so, why are they not using 3D scanning exclusively for the older new tools to ensure the most accurate body and wheel well shapes?

The rear bumper gap doesn't bother me as much as the way too square rear wheel opening on the body. For some reason, Revell just can't get these shapes right. The same thing on their previous new tool Nova kit. The rear wheel well shape is too square on that one too. If we go back several years, the '77 Monte Carlo had this same problem. When it comes to accurately rendering the slight tear drop shape of the rear wheel wells on these old GM cars, they seem to drop the ball.

You can always opt to leave the front chin spoiler in the parts box since many did not come with them back in the day. Almost every (over) restored example I see today seems to have one though. lol! Offering only the early style short rear spoiler, you're basically stuck making a very early '70.5 unless you pirate the tall version from the BM kit or get a resin copy. When the tall 3-piece spoiler eventually became an option, it actually became more popular than the low version and they eventually phased it out at the start of the '71MY. I just feel the full bumper front end looks better with the tall rear spoiler. And, since the full bumper and RS style front end lasted into '73 with minimal changes, the tall rear spoiler offers a more average representation of these cars. Whenever I saw an early 2nd generation F-body Camaro Z28 back in the day, they always had the tall rear spoiler.

Another great Charger kit is the current "City Slicker" '69 Charger that was formally the new tool Dukes of Hazzard snap kit from a few years ago. I have the Dukes version and I think this is a great kit. Much better than the old worn out MPC version and when assembled, it looks just like a promo. I hope R2 does more versions of this great kit.

I don't see the reason for only offering the short rear spoiler. It's not like it would increase the cost of the kit since they suprisingly include both full clear and tinted interior glass options in the new Knight Rider kit. Including the tall rear spoiler would increase build options to theoretically make any '70.5-'73 Camaro except for the high bucket seats and Vega steering wheel on the later models. Most Camaro fans who would build this model would probably have those items in their part boxes anyway. All that trouble to make full bumper kit out of the split bumper tooling and they can't find the justification in tooling up a new tall rear spoiler. I love Round 2 and I plan to buy several of these kits, but I wish they included the tall rear spoiler. I hate to buy a separate kit (Baldwin Motion) just to pirate one single part out of it.

I agree. Also, don't forget the promo style Revell "Snap Fit" '69 Camaro Z28/SS and the harder to find Revell "Hot Wheels" '69 Camaro Z28/RS. The latter didn't include stock wheels, but that is easily remedied. I think they were originally to be offered as promos from Chevrolet, but the GM bailout screwed things up or something.

I'd love to see the Camaro Z28 Snapfit reissued again. I have the original release and it builds into a fairly nice replica except for the stupid "Cheverra" style wheel spats in back of each wheel well. Both kits share the same tooling. When R2 reissued the Cheverra again, I was hoping they would have included the stock rear deck lid/spoiler from the Z28 kit. Unfortunately, they did not.

With the prices I've been seeing on fleabay for the most recent reissue of the Caprice, they should reissue it again. I'd like to get a couple more. If what they say about the Supernatural '67 Impala 4 dr being true (the 2 dr fastback mold was not "destroyed" when they did the 4 dr sedan), I'd like to see R2 do a 4 door sedan version off the '76 Caprice.

Or, even farther into the future where we can experience a full on "virtual reality" of building a holy grail vintage old kit just like it was real. Heck, we might even be able to take a old memory kernel we had of building a kit in the past, back when we were kids, and extending it to a full on reality happening right now experience. Of course, we could all just be brains sitting in a fluid filled jar in some high tech facility experiencing "virtual" reality. lol!

It needs more than that. The rear C pillar needs to be contoured a little rounder or softer too. Of course, this flaw is a result of the kit being based on the slightly more upright and formal LTD promo body.

I'm the exact same way. I'll take a well-proportioned body that is curbside over a fully detailed badly rendered kit any day. That was the beauty of Johan and the early AMT craftsman kits. Of course, having access to the official blueprints from the auto manufacturers for the promo version, of which many of these models were based upon, probably didn't hurt either.

The one thing I really appreciate these days is R2 molding their kits in white styrene. Those off white, tan, brown and greasy gray colors they were doing back then were just plain nasty.

The '64 F-85 Cutlass convertible is great news. If it has the promo style chassis with metal axles, that's even better. Like what was mentioned here, those old simplified Craftsman style kits always look great on the shelf. I'd like to see R2 reissue the stock AMT '80-'81 Camaro Z28 Snap Kit as a follow up to the Cheverra. It's unfortuntate that the only thing preventing a stock early '80's Z28 with the Cheverra is the non-stock separate trunk lid panel with custom whale tail rear spoiler. Both kits actually shared the same tooling except for this particular part. In fact, the stock AMT Z28 snap kit had the "Cheverra" style whale tail decklid with spoiler attached as an option on the parts tree. Of course, if they can find the original MPC tooling from the last the '84-'85 issue of the "ProStreet" Camaro, that would be great too. The only concern would be the stock "air induction" hood from the original '80-'81 annual. The later "Pro Street" reissue had the '78-'79 style hood for some reason. That makes me think they either lost the tooling insert for or they just didn't include it for some reason. I'm thinking the former is the reason. However, it shouldn't be that hard to retool a stock '80-'81 air induction hood to make it work IMO.

I'd love to see the Mark IV from Frank Cannon kitted. I used to watch that show as a kid just to look at that beautiful car driving around in '70's era LA. The Rockford Files was the same, but the Jim Rockford character, top notch story writing and car chase sequences made it one of my favorite shows at the time. The '77-'78 Firebird he drove later in the series wouldn't be that difficiult to build from the recent R2 '77 Firebird T/A reissue. One thing I do wish was that he was able to drive the restyled '79 Firebird in the series. Since the series continued through 1979 and into early '80, he could have been given one to drive in the series. The popular story was that he didn't like the update Pontiac did for '79 so he kept driving the '77-'78 style for the remainder of the series.. However, I don't know if that was actually true or not. I have a hunch it was more of a decision made by the producers since the show was rapidly getting more and more expensive to shoot as the years went by. Also, the editing between the early '74-'76 and '77-'78 Firebirds were already being clumsily edited back and forth to save in shooting new chase scenes. Having the '79 Firebird in the mix would have made the situation even worse since those cars were again different in the front and rear.

The full front bumper looks better with the tall rear spoiler IMO. Include the high back buckets and you can make any late '70 to '73 Z28. I know the high back bucket seats would be too much to ask for, but they should've at least included the tall rear spoiler as an option. Cannibalizing it from a Baldwin Motion kit makes that kit unusable except for spare parts. All BM cars had the tall rear spoiler option, I believe.

Yeah, I know and I wish it wasn't that way.

The angle of the pics above are slightly different though. On the real car, the pic is taken from more of a top angle, more roof is shown, while the model kit and diecast pics are taken from an angle down low at chassis or ground level. This will change how the belt line dips to the viewer. What we need are pics taken from exactly the same side angle height to know for sure. If the lower window sill line is still slightly more dipped than the real car, that could be an artifact from the 2dr fastback tool that the sedan revision was based upon.