Mark C.

Another thought for the grille is the one from the old ‘69 Charger 500 kit. The 1:1 Charger 500 used a ‘68 Coronet grille, but I don’t know how the fit would work out from the model kit side of things. You would still have to add the D O D G E lettering as well, I think.

I saw on your website that you will be offering ‘68 and ‘69 Beaumont conversions as well as Acadians of that era. Very pleased at that! I would be doubly pleased if you could offer full wheel covers to go along with them, but I’m happy to get whatever I can! I’ve long been a fan of these Canadian cars (having owned one many years ago, plus my dad worked for a Canadian Pontiac dealer in the 1960s and 70s), and couldn’t be happier that you are offering these!!

Excellent! Really appreciate these conversions. I've been wanting to build some Beaumonts and Acadians for years!

I have been looking at your website, and am thinking about getting some of your conversion kits as they look very good. I was just thinking about what to do with the old AMT '72 Chevelle with the awful looking egg crate grille. If your conversion that you made for the AMT '70 Chevelle (which Round 2 converted back from the AMT '72 that I have) would fit this kit, I'd get one for that. Otherwise, I'll do something else with it (short track car, probably) and buy a current AMT '70 to use with one of your conversion kits. I expect to put together an order one of these days.

Thank you! It would be cool to have a kit of one of those trucks for a stock twin six application. You could make it a tow vehicle for a twin six Bonneville racer! lol

I can picture that combo in a vintage Bonneville salt flats racer! Which GMC trucks would have come stock with the V12? I assume only the large heavy duty lines?

Yes, I was thinking about that possibility as well! I like doing mainstream cars, so might be a good starting point for a ‘71 or ‘72 Malibu.

Just a little surprised that we are still talking about this. I have to say that I just tune into the videos to see the contents of the kits, if I'm trying to decide whether to buy one or not. Like many models I see posted, there are always things I would do differently, but at least the builds give the viewer a heads-up as to how things go together, and we all know as modelers that to build a kit so that it looks great every time, we have to put more time into it than we'd care to admit. So, IMHO the service is just giving us a glimpse into kit contents and assembly, and doesn't have a goal of winning model contests with the results. Honestly, unless it's a person's full time job, I don't know how one would slap together so many kits, produce videos of them on a time deadline, and still have time for a real job, a family life, etc. When building a model is just a hobby, you can work on it as your free time allows, but if it takes a year to put one together, it's no problem because it's just for fun. Not to mention that we all go into building slumps from time to time, when the motivation is just not there, and the last thing you want to do is work on a model... that's where the time deadlines come into play IMHO. Also, we've all experienced times when certain models just seem to fight you, with no apparent rhyme or reason... the ones that people just put back in the box to deal with later (or subject to rapid disassembly, if you know what I mean...). I say cut the guy a break.

I'd be in for some Galaxies. Toss in some Bonnevilles from the period and I'd be doubly happy. Not that i'd turn down a '68 or '69 Impala while we're on the subject...

Thanks for this wonderfully detailed article. It clears up a number of mysteries for me, including the Hurtubise Chevelle being out there in both the ‘72 and ‘70 versions, and how that tied into the Super Stocker series. My head is still spinning when thinking about all of the tooling changes, back and forth, for both AMT and MPC versions. I have to say that one of my more memorable disappointments when buying a model was thinking I was buying an MPC ‘72 Chevelle as pictured on the box, only to find that mess of an incorrect egg crate grille that was done to the AMT tooling. Many thanks to Steve G. and co. for bringing back the MPC ‘72 and making sure that the abomination that was done to the AMT version remains an interesting footnote in history. I never did build that kit, but it might just end up as a short track stock car one if these days, with the grille and headlights removed!

Well that's most interesting, Tim. I never realized before that the Road Runner had fixed quarter windows only unless the power window option was ordered. It seems a little odd that they wouldn't have offered manual roll down quarter windows as an option (a buddy of mine once had a '73 Satellite Sebring with manual roll down quarter windows, so the parts were available). My Dad sold Plymouths during part of the 1970s, and had brought home a few '73/'74 Road Runners, but as a kid I paid attention to the cool stripes and hood scoop, etc, and don't recall whether the rear windows rolled down or not... I was only interested in performance stuff at the time anyhow (when he brought home the 1975 Road Runners I thought they would be even faster because they had 4 exhaust tip openings instead of only 2! lol). Perhaps you have already seen it, but the dealership data book includes info about the quarter windows, among other things of course: https://www.hamtramck-historical.com/dealerships/1974PlymouthDealershipDataBook-04.shtml

Another tidbit that’s kinda unrelated to Dusters, but on the topic of Chrysler 2-door philosophy is that the low line ‘71-‘74 B-bodies (Satellite/Charger) had fixed quarter glass, with no regulator to roll up/down, nor even a flip out feature. Seems odd, since outward appearance was exactly the same as the hardtop, except the window couldn’t move. I had a ‘74 Charger back in the 1980s like that, complete with slant six (yes, it was slow, but looked great!). Presumably this was completely a cost cutting measure, to allow them to advertise a lower sticker price, and I have no idea how many were made like this. However, the hardtop body style was living on borrowed time by then (with opera windows and such coming into style, plus the whole rollover safety issue that almost cancelled the convertible forever), so maybe folks weren’t all that concerned whether their windows rolled down or not (speculation of course). Then there was also the ‘73-‘74 Charger SE with the fixed quarter glass covered by a piece that made the quarter glass look like louvers (and combined with a vinyl roof)…

Wow! Thanks for that. I’m always fascinated by the behind-the-scenes stories from back in the day. I wasn’t aware of the curved glass issues for the doors, but now that I think of it, the Valiant/Dart glass was quite flat in comparison. I will have to keep an eye out for that issue of CA. I did look online and found a messageboard thread where some guy was trying to convert his Duster to roll-down quarter windows. I believe in the end there was a member that would have restricted the pathway for the glass to roll down, which probably relates to the tooling cost you mention (likely in relation to keeping common inner body construction with Valiant). The other issue he faced was that, being flip out glass, it was the exact size of the opening, and thus was too small to contain the attachment points for a regulator (which would normally be covered by the body skin). Most interesting tangent!

That very well may be true. I was thinking about it from a corporate design/engineering/product planning point of view, but you're right in that it just may have been physically impossible to do.

A rare beast indeed!

1968-1970 Coronet/Super Bee pillared coupe had flip out windows as well. It's been 30 years since I had my '60 Bel Air 2 door sedan, but I could have sworn the quarter windows rolled mostly down, but I can't say for sure now. If I am remembering this correctly, the later model crank window mechanisms I've seen also have the cable reel and beam, but the crank gear mechanism simply replaced the electric motor. I think the power window thing was based upon economy of scale, where most people preferred the option until it became cheaper for the manufacturer to just make power windows standard in everything.

Yet the “23” body style did have roll down quarter windows (Swinger/Scamp). My line of thinking was as follows: - ‘68-‘70 B bodies had the same roofline and doors with sashless window design for both 2-door sedan “21” and hardtop “23” bodies. Presumably a departure from the past for cost/production (and hence cost) reasons. - ‘67-‘69 A-bodies had the old-style separate roofs for sedans and hardtops (Dart), Plymouth had Barracuda for 2 hardtop models, plus a standard Valiant 2-door sedan. - For 1970, Plymouth A-body line initially had only a 4-door sedan, and Duster for its 2-door model. Barracuda was now more specialized as a sports type car (E-body). Dart continued with its 4-door sedan and Swinger, but no 2-door sedan. Dodge now had Challenger as well, on the same platform as Barracuda. I was wondering if Plymouth was planning to have both hardtop and “sedan” 2-doors in their A-body line, and thus may have designed Duster to be both, sharing the same roof, as had become corporate practice. - Meanwhile, there had developed a rivalry between Plymouth and Dodge within the corporation, with them wanting a version of Duster, which they received for 1971 (Demon - which helps explain why that car had differently shaped front and rear wheel arches with Dart fenders combined with Duster body). Plymouth got Scamp out of the deal (Swinger body with Duster/Valiant fenders). - By this line of thinking, I’m thinking that before the 1970s debuted, Plymouth knew they were getting Scamp, and thus decided to not offer Duster as a real hardtop for a 1-year only deal. This is only me speculating on what may have happened, given all the moving pieces within Chrysler at the time. - As a side note, this is also why Dart Swinger 340 was gone for 1971 (in USA), as Dodge decided to make Demon their budget performance car, and Swinger 340 would have been redundant (and competition for Demon 340). Or something like that.

Yes, and the “B-pillar” in this case is just a little chromed post that bolts to the body to support the flip out quarter glass. It makes me wonder if the original concept was for this to have a real hardtop configuration with roll down quarter glass, but was axed for some reason. The body was designed to support what is basically a pillarless side window opening, yet it was never actually made into a real hardtop…

Thanks guys, I appreciate the info! ?

Don’t forget the ‘70

I hadn’t heard about a trunk lid recall. Can you provide more info, or a link? Thanks!

On the other hand, the stock version is the one I want the most! A six cylinder under the hood would be nice, though I don’t have any expectations for one.

Ditto on that. I’ve been hoping for one of those for years.

These guys never cease to find new was to separate me from my money! ?

Awesome news! You will definitely be getting some orders from me! Any thoughts on printing out GTO dashes for the Beaumonts as part of a conversion kit? Would save having to buy an extra kit just for the dash. Also wondering if there is any way to do emblems for the bodysides.