tim boyd
-
Posts
5,647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by tim boyd
-
-
8 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:
So, the Street Machine El Camino has some anticipation around it for its reissue but it hasn't hit my distributors just yet. That means I don't really have sales data to back up the anticipation. What I have heard from customers is that most of them want to rob parts from it rather than build it. It helps having a build of my own that has parts from the kit - my '67 Chevelle - that's drummed up interest particularly in the EFI supercharger setup. It tells me that if some enterprising kit company did a modified reissue of one of their muscle car kits that had a modern Procharger setup it'd sell quite swiftly.
Thanks Justin....I'd be curious to hear an update after the kits go on sale at your store, if you get a chance or see any definitive reaction. Best...TIM
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Justin Porter said:
I've had a little bit of criticism of the "Restomod" Novas over my counter that the engines and the wheels weren't exciting enough. It's also worth noting that while Revell's marketing tie-in with Chip Foose plus the California Wheels series of kits DID give us large diameter wheels with low profile tires, and even occasionally some disc brakes to go behind those wheels, the lowered suspension options were just unrealistically lower versions of the stock suspension. With the notable exceptions of the AMT Street Machine '57 Chevy and the complete from the ground up Foose F100, there haven't been kits that offer Pro Touring builders up to date suspensions in the same way that Pro Street builders have scores of "go-to" kits for parts donors.
Seeing Moebius court a more contemporary market is a good sign for the company regardless. They produce an excellent product, but they must be aware that an excellent product simply isn't enough to stay..relevant in the model kit marketplace if you're not seeking out a broader base of customers.Hi Justin....just a little curious...wondering if any of your customers have had any reaction to the Round 2 reissue of the little-known street machine version of the AMT-Ert 1968 El Camino Street Machine kit? As I am sure you well know, it does not have a full Pro Touring suspension, but it does include modified suspension parts that deliver a realistic lowered ride height. And well some of the Street Machine parts are arguably out of date for today's taste (engine induction and valve covers, wheels and tires, etc.) it does have about 25% f the kit parts changes from the Replica Stock kit to be a more accurate street machine. Sort of "pro touring lite", I suppose. And thse outdated parts are easily swapped for more current alternatives. Fiurther, while the kit engineering is innovative and IMHO very well done, there are some final assembly issues and the knockout pins (aka ejector pins) are not at all well handled.
But still, I think it is a bit of a sleeper kit that deserves a closer look by those who like models that tilt toward the 1/1 scale aftermarket trends. But that is just me....has anyone else noticed? Or am I off in the ether on this one?
Always fun and insightful to hear your views on new kit releases! Best...TIM
-
1
-
-
On 6/21/2025 at 7:12 AM, sidcharles said:
oft times this is a hard message to get across. some equate mere quantity with enjoyment.
some just want to "do a poppa-wheelie."
Charles....yes and I still feel that way, too....thanks for your comments...TB
-
On 6/21/2025 at 11:45 AM, catpack68 said:
Very nice work Tim!
Thanks Scott...TB
-
1
-
-
On 6/21/2025 at 10:54 AM, Ragtop Man said:
Totally grooving on this - and it would definitely be a Harb's Hobby Finalist for sure.
Getting closure on a long stalled project is one of the great feelings in the hobby.
To review, though: is this the original 25T chassis?
Love, love, love the idea of repurposing the early hemi for this, although I would keep a fire extinguisher handy for when a float sticks in one of those old Teapots.
Bob...yes,,,if my memory serves, it was based on the '25T Double Kit hot rod chassis parts....TB
-
On 6/20/2025 at 11:52 PM, OldNYJim said:
Bumping an old thread here, I know Tim…but did this article idea ever see the light of day?
Hi Jim....yes it did IIRC. It became a cover article in MCM a couple of years back (look in the upper right corner of the mag cover) and this was the finished project....thanks for asking! TIM
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Dave Darby said:
Ertl bought MPC in 1986, before either of those kits were tooled. The Olds was the last new tool sold under the MPC/Ertl label, which was discontinued in 1989. The engineering looks very similar to the 66 Nova, and other Ertl kits from around that era. I'm pretty sure both kit tool designs originated in Dyersville.
FWIW, I agree with Dave on this subject...TB
-
5 hours ago, 1972coronet said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! I can think of a few , but they're not being brought up for reissue or new issue.
BTW, a 360-powered 1974 Charger is better, IMO, than a choked-out 400 big block - all being equal.
John is spot-on here. The E58 '74 360 was by far the best engine choice for any '74 Mopar, and easily among the best choices for any car that year (the Pontiac SD-455 and hi-po Camaro Z-28/Corvette 350 being the others). Mother Mopar did a great job bringing this performance-oriented engine to market for 1974 in spite of government and insurance industry plots (err...let's make that "actions" instead) to undermine any performance-oriented auto offerings those years.
What Chrysler - and most of the enthusiast rags - horribly failed at was getting the message out to performance car buyers on this engine. At the time most media scoffed and called it nothing more than the C-body 360 wagon motor with a four barrel carb added, listing net hp ratings of somewhere between 180 and 200 hp, and thoroughly dissiing the effort. This was happening even as recently as 20 years ago in some very respected publications.
I've got a whole file on this subject (and had written a detailed sidebar on it for my "Collecting Muscle Car Model Kits" book a few years ago which I had to drop because I was way over the contractual word count for the mag). Short story is the E58 was rated at 245 net hp (equivalent to 305-315hp under the 1971 and prior gross hp rating system), had nearly all the 340 gubbins inside except the cylinder head and forged crank (some sources even state it had the same cam and specs as the original 1968 340 automatic), and possessed low-mid-range torque a 340 could only dream about. (The NHRA soon refactored the recognized HP for racing classes at 270-280net hp). After I took delivery of my '74 E58 road runner, the son of the local Shell Station owner ordered his like mine, except he wanted to "upgrade" to the 400 4-barrel. I gave him all the reasons not to do so but he did so anyway. Big disappointment.
All of the above applies only to the 1/1 engine discussion. As much as I'd love to see newly tooled '71-'74 B Body model kits, my business side suggests there are considerably more promising venues for Round 2's limited kit design budget at this point in time, even though I wish that wasn't the case.
Best...TB
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, JS23U said:
A littler teaser. This is a replica of my own 1:1 71 Super Bee. Or better what it must have looked like when rolling off the dealer's lot...
I used the MPC 72 Baker NASCAR body and combined it with the new tool AMT 71 Charger R/T. Most all of the parts fit quite well, with a little adjusting here and there.
I had to source or fabricate a few parts like taillights and bezels, hood insert, scratch side markers and the likes. The reason for taking the MPC body was the smooth doors. The R/T (and the 72 Rallye) have door gills. I didn't dare to fill them in and expect that they wouldn't shine through the paint after time. And the old MPC body still stands its ground when it comes to proportions.
Jens....that is one beautiful piece of work...big congrats! TB
-
I built my first model kit in the summer of 1962 at age 8 and it was a Revell 1/25th scale Dodge Lancer GT. TB ______.
-
Interesting thread.
Car engineers are faced with many competing priorities much the same as those characterized by Craig above.
But on top of those they must contain many competing priorities from governmental legislation, and not just single governments but political entities across the world. Then add on NGOs like the insurance, safety and anti-petroleum lobbies and their agendas. Some of the resulting requirements are exceedingly poorly envisioned and driven by political considerations rather than what is truly best for the customer and the world. They often overlap and compete against each other and require sub-optimal results. So much of what people complain about automobiles today is the result of factors the automakers have little or no control over.
Automotive engineering in particular is a series of tradeoffs. Ease of repair is almost always a consideration in design of autos but when placed up against the many other issues auto design must contain these days, it does not always end up at the top of the decision matrix.
Just a comment from the sidelines from someone who worked in the regional (US) and later global automobile industry in sales and marketing and later on in design, with about half of my 35-year career in executive level assignments....TB
-
3
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:
That’s gonna be nice!!! Definitely check back in with that one!!!
x2!!! Nice job too on the canopy vinyl roof converssion....TB
-
9 hours ago, 1972coronet said:
RE: Last Minute Change from R/T to Rallye , @tim boyd , et alia :
The R/T was actually shown on factory blueprints as late as 09/1971 ( !! ) Some decades back, I read an article in Mopar Action where its Tech Ed exhibited that same-as-1971-models hood treatment with the R/T front-and-centre. However, there was an accompanying note which read (to paraphrase) : " R/T Info Removed" .
Insofar as the Challenger ; that's the reason for the '72 Challenger Rallye's JS23 VIN prefix. It was indeed a separate model for '72 only ; it was relegated to an option package for '73 (and the JH23 VIN prefix).
I seem to recall that the Challenger was already slated to be dubbed Rallye while keeping the "JS" prefix. The Charger was a last minute change.
____________________ _____________________ _________________________
The dark blue paint colour you're referring to, @tim boyd, is _B9 Dark Blue Metallic, a Monaco/Polara (and Fury) colour only. On an A. B, or E body, it would be coded "999".
Thanks John....I have a pretty extensive library of Mopar Action back issues but do not recall reading the above....really helpful and really appreciate the update.
And yes, the color was B9. I have been slowly collecting info on the car from my late Dad's files....I did find the window sticker not too long ago and it did show 999 on the color position. Only a few days ago I found a packet of color negs and it appears to have a front 3/4 and rear 3/4 image of the car...need to find a place to print photos for me and my brothers.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, tim boyd said:
OK if you guys really want to get in the weeds on this....
1) The MPC '72 Charger Promo included a sheet with decals for both the Charger and Challenger Promos. And what did the decals show? How about 1972 "R/T" decals, not the actual "Rallye" graphics that came out on the real car. Thus presumably proving my long-held belief that the change from R/T to generic ho-hum "Rallye" series nomenclature for '72 was not only misguided (my view since the day they came out) but also a very last minute one.
2) The original 1/1 scale plan for the '71 Charger included several additional side graphics treatments that never made final production. These were shown in several of the car magazines in their "intro" articles for the 1971 automotive model year. One of those options also included a never-released stand-alone rear spoiler that was very reminiscent of the GTO Judge approach for 1969. Guess what, guys.....find an original, unmolested 1971 Charger annual kit and you will find that exact spoiler in the kit parts!
(I did an article on "might have been muscle cars" showing model kits that featured last minute cancellations of 1/1 scale muscle cars, including both of the above IIRC, and others such as the never-released Boss 429s in the 1970 AMT Torino and MPC Cyclone kits, the cancelled 1975 GTO in the MPC 1975 Ventura kit, and several others. I wrote it for Hemmings Muscle Machines but they showed no interest, so it finally appeared (in slightly revised form) in an issue of Scale Auto back in the day.)
Makes me want to revisit a kitbashing idea i've had for many years...a 1/25th scale 1972 Charger using the original 1972 "R/T" promo decals and a recreation of the planned but never released semi-hemi 400/440 engine block/heads program that was planned to replace both the B/RB and Hemi engines and was thought to be on track for the 1972 model year. What a cool model that would be????
TB
UPDATE - that "Might Have Been Musclecars" article referenced above, for those of you with Scale Auto back issue collections, appeared in the June 2016 issue.
The '71 Charger annual kit prototype spoiler is shown on page 26; the '72 Charger and Challenger R/T promo decal sheet is shown on page 27....
TB
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:
I really like hearing these "back in the day" stories about factory unicorns. By the time I came along, all that seemed to be left were 318 cars
Smile....kinda sad though too, isn't it? TB
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:
That could definitely be a way to go. The original MPC ‘71-‘74 Road Runners used a different chassis tool, but the 1:1 cars would have used the same stuff.
That approach would solve many problems: the wire front axle of the Charger, the poor appearance and molded in exhaust of the chassis in the Road Runner, and also, multiple bodies and interiors could be developed- for instance- ‘72 Charger Rallye, ‘74 Charger SE and Rallye, ‘71 Road Runner & GTX, ‘72 Road Runner…all using the same basic tool.
EDIT: Satellites used a 115” wheelbase those years, which Chargers used a 117” wb. This probably would not a huge problem if the kits were developed at the same time.
Not sure what specific cars are involved in the Edit statement, but for 1971-74 the Charger and Road Runner/Sebring 2-doors used the same wheelbase dimension, 115". The '71 to '74 Coronet 4-door sedan and wagon and Belvedere 4-soor sedan/wagon shared a longer wheelbase chassis, listed as 117" or 118" in a quick google search, although 117" seems more familiar without doing a deep dive into my reference archives...TB
-
1
-
-
Still more on this...in the spring of 1973 my Dad bought a new Coronet Crestwood wagon (the one with the wood decals) from Pointe Dodge on Mack Avenue in Detroit/Gross Pointe Michigan. It was a dealer demo and was loaded with some pretty unique stuff....400 Magnum with duals, Tuff steering wheel, dealer-applied red upper body pinstripes, and most surprisingly, the not-for B-Body dark blue midnight metallic that was a C-body color only that year. When he picked up the car, there was also a 1973 Charger SE on the lot painted the same color, with the optional white halo vinyl roof, which was a little-known '73 SE option for those like me who thought the standard three-window "louver" SE roof was beyond goofy, red pinstripes, 15x7 Rallyes and RWL Polyglas rubber, and a white with black console interior. It was back then, and ever since, the coolest 1973 Charger I have ever seen. Over the years (decades) I've been collecting parts to recreate that one in scale. If they ever rebooted the SuperCharger with the wheel wheels corrected, that might be the ticket to get underway.
As for that non-production color. I never learned the real story, other than that the dealer principle, Ken Meade, was very closely connected to Chrysler leadership at Mother Mopar and probably could get strings pulled, as by 1971 non-production coloros were pretty much a thing of the past for most OEMs. However, in the last few years, Mopar Collectors Guide ran an article on at least one more '71 B-Body that was factory painted in the same C-Body midnight blue metallic, so this may have been some type of factory sales staff spring promotion to get more dealer orders, although I have never seen any factory documentation to support that. TB l
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:
Nice! You could start with the AMT ‘71 Charger…side marker turn signals from Few Sprues Loose on eBay…I have been wondering how to do a Ball Stud engine for a long time though…maybe one of the 3D guys will do one eventually.
If you ever need one of those “proposed for ‘71” spoilers for the project, hit me up- I have a few of those. They came in the ‘71 and ‘72 annuals, as well as the Hawaiian Funny car. I always thought that spoiler was a missed opportunity.
Thanks Bill...I did not know it repeated in the '72 and Hawaiian kits....cool! Also did not know Few Sprues did the '72 market lights. His stuff is really sharp IMHO. TB
******
BTW for the rest of you, I recall that the never-released '71 Charger R/T and Super Bee graphics treatments and spoiler were shown in a late summer/early fall 1970 issue of Car Craft. The same images also appeared on one of the East Coast" "new for '71" one-off newsstand specials about the same time...TB
-
5 hours ago, pack rat said:
FWIW at least 10 years ago Round2 was well aware that the 66/67 Charger chassis originated in the '65 Coronet.
When they were working on the '67 Charger reissue they found that the exhaust system had been shortened at some point before being eliminated entirely for the Street Machine . Speculation at the time was that the modification was made to accommodate the '66 Charger headers. I sent them a pic of some measurements at the time as they were exploring options on the reissue.
de
Mike....thanks for weighing in on this. Always, always look forward to your insights on AMT/Ertl/MPC/Round 2 kit development! TIM
-
OK if you guys really want to get in the weeds on this....
1) The MPC '72 Charger Promo included a sheet with decals for both the Charger and Challenger Promos. And what did the decals show? How about 1972 "R/T" decals, not the actual "Rallye" graphics that came out on the real car. Thus presumably proving my long-held belief that the change from R/T to generic ho-hum "Rallye" series nomenclature for '72 was not only misguided (my view since the day they came out) but also a very last minute one.
2) The original 1/1 scale plan for the '71 Charger included several additional side graphics treatments that never made final production. These were shown in several of the car magazines in their "intro" articles for the 1971 automotive model year. One of those options also included a never-released stand-alone rear spoiler that was very reminiscent of the GTO Judge approach for 1969. Guess what, guys.....find an original, unmolested 1971 Charger annual kit and you will find that exact spoiler in the kit parts!
(I did an article on "might have been muscle cars" showing model kits that featured last minute cancellations of 1/1 scale muscle cars, including both of the above IIRC, and others such as the never-released Boss 429s in the 1970 AMT Torino and MPC Cyclone kits, the cancelled 1975 GTO in the MPC 1975 Ventura kit, and several others. I wrote it for Hemmings Muscle Machines but they showed no interest, so it finally appeared (in slightly revised form) in an issue of Scale Auto back in the day.)
Makes me want to revisit a kitbashing idea i've had for many years...a 1/25th scale 1972 Charger using the original 1972 "R/T" promo decals and a recreation of the planned but never released semi-hemi 400/440 engine block/heads program that was planned to replace both the B/RB and Hemi engines and was thought to be on track for the 1972 model year. What a cool model that would be????
TB
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, CapSat 6 said:
The Monaco chassis might have been the best C Body chassis in a kit to date. That ultimately ended up with the Magnum GT kit.
The AMT ‘65 Coronet gave its greasy bits to the ‘66 and ‘67 Chargers. Compare the gas tanks and engines, and you’ll see that they are very similar. The chassis ended up in the Charger tool and stayed there. It might be why we have never seen a revival of the old AMT Coronet, if they couldn’t find the chassis tool.
The ‘68 Coronet got a new chassis tool that year- it went under the ‘69, then the ‘70 Super Bee, and then the chassis and drivetrain went right under the ‘71 Charger tool. It stayed with the ‘74 Charger tool. When they found the ‘70 Super Bee body and interior, perhaps they thought it was missing, but really, it was with the ‘74. It might still be with the ‘74 Charger if they still have it.
Pics are better than words. Here is a mint, original MPC ‘68 Coronet annual chassis (in white) compared to a used ‘72 Charger chassis (painted black and red). I’m sure the ‘74 is the same as the ‘72 except that screw holes have been blocked. It looks like they extended the front pan area, cut down the rear pan area, and took some length out of the wheelbase (correctly) when it went to the Charger in ‘71.
EDIT: Now that I REALLY look at these pics, it looks like the Coronet chassis is also a smidge wider. They still seem to have a lot of the same markings and details though. Either MPC modified the chassis tool, or cloned it heavily. It does seem like a lot of their kits reused certain design elements (wheels, engines, chassis), so maybe they somehow copied it and modified it to suit.
Bill....thanks for doing the deep dive on this. Fascinating to see the images side by side.
And yes, the MPC Dodge C-Body chassis is by way far the best rendition of a Mopar C-Body in any 1/25th kit I know of.
Best...TB
-
1
-
-
Thanks, Bill, for digging deep on this one. Your photos clearly show the issue I raised regarding the lack of 1/1 style body engraving around the wheel lip moldings, and lack of wheel lip moldings themselves, on the SuperCharger reissue. That was back in the day, and still is today, a "no go" for me, but perhaps of much lesser concern to most of the kit buying public.
The news on the vents on the hoods is new to me. A similar evolution of hood vents on the '71-'74 Plymouth RoadRunner/Sebring resulted in the eventual complete elimination of the hood vents on the '74 RR, which I suppose was the primary reason the "Astro/Strato (or whatever it was called) Upper Ventilation" option on my 1/1 factory ordered'74 RR only ever blew hot (i.e.underhood) air and was essentially worthless. Which then leads me to wonder if by '74 the 1/1 Charger hoods also completely eliminated the vents as well. (MPC did not update their '73 RR tool for the '74 model year).
Anyway, big thanks for all your research on this...TIM
-
3
-
-
Interesting conversations....
The original 1968 Coronet annual kit chassis did not come from the MPC 1965/66 Dodge C-body (Monaco/Monaco 500/Custom 880/Polara 500/Magnum II) tool, but it has been widely accepted that it was reused from the 1966/67 Charger annual kit tool, which itself was sourced from the "AMT" (but really designed and tooled by MPC) 1965 Coronet 500 annual kit. Maybe I (or someone else) need to dig out the above kits and do an updated comparison?
I was also under the impression (but not clear understanding) that the MPC 1971 Charger annual kit had a fresh underbody tooling. More detective work needed?
Finally, I am in the camp that says I doubt Round 2 will try another project adapting or cloning original annual kit body tooling to 1990s/early 2000s AMT/Ertl underbody content. Just like the 1/1 scale automotive world, sounds plausible on the surface but so many unknown/unexpected issues to actually deliver. Cool and creative idea, though, I must admit.
TB
-
3
-
-
I have expressed to Round 2 my support for a reissue of both the Don Nicholson and (especially) the Gapp and Roush Pinto Pro Stock kits for at least 10 years now. especially since those two kits are by far (in my judgement) the most accurate of all the MPC pro-stock kits. Round 2 is very aware of the interest in reissuing their Pro Stock kits, and has been so for quite some time, but in this particular case doing so would apparently be far more difficult than it sounds on the surface and is probably not a viable option.
As for the factory stock versions of the '73 and '74 Charger, I'd love to see that, however IIRC the 1980s modified reissue did not have an accurate rendition of the 1/1 surface/trim around the wheel openings (perhaps a remnant of the prior Petty Nascar kit?) and would not in my opinion satisfy the expectations of today's modeling community. I don't know the status of that tooling, nor if it would be possible to modify that tooling back to the original factory configuration, but I am guessing (no insider info here. mind you) that there are probably higher priority/much more viable projects on Round 2's current possibilities iist....TB
-
2
-
Coming Soon from Atomic City's JoHan line of new kits
in Car Kit News & Reviews
Posted
AMEN, brother! TB