tim boyd

There is a single tool that produces both versions of the kit (various gates are blocked off for one version or the other). Wheels/tires/chassis/suspension/frame/headlamps/tailamps and certain interior components are shared across both kits; the body, most of the interior, and engine are unique to each version. Both kit #'s ('29A Roadster and '30A Coupe) have been discontinued by Revell. TIM

Between the Revell '29A Roadster kit and the Replicas and Miniatures '30A Five Window Coupe body (which is in various details a nice variation vs. the Revell Coupe body), you can make your own '30A Coupe. I submitted an article to MCM on how to do this just about a year ago....here's what the result looks like (picture from October 2016 NNL Nats Cult Theme coverage) It's not a difficult conversion for most participants of this Forum. So if you see any '29 Roadster kits out there (and you want to build a '30 Coupe in the interim), my advice? Grab 'em. TIM

It's supposed to be a 394, although it could theoretically be any displacement that size or larger. The 394 was the last of the first generation Oldsmobile OHV V8's and the kit includes the cylinder heads/individual exhaust header layout that was a relatively late revision in the 15-year run of this engine (1949-1964); earlier versions of the engine had siamesed center exhaust ports and 3-downtube headers or exhaust manifolds, as opposed to the four-downtube headers in this kit. TIM

Jonathon's comment about getting free kits and having that influence a review in the hopes of continuing to get more free kits, is a legitimate area for further discussion. During the years I did my monthly Modeler's Corner column for Street Rodder (1978-1995), I was placed (at their determination) on comp kit lists by several of the model companies. When I ended that my editorship of that column in 1995, most of the companies dropped me from their comp list. Since then, probably 95% or more of my kit purchases have been with my own dollars. Thus, for the last twenty years, most of the articles I do are with kits I have paid for; today I generally purchase these at one of three businesses I frequent for such purchases - The Model Cave in Ypsilanti, MI, SpotlightHobbies.com,, and Nankin Hobbies in Farmington Hills, MI along with occasional purchases from other suppliers such as HobbyLink Japan or eBaycom and Amazon.com retailers. As an example, the articles I did on the Revell '30 Ford Coupe in the current and the upcoming April 2017 issues of one of the magazines, were purchased by me at Nankin Hobby and the Model Cave - not provided for free by Revell. On the other hand, the occasional "kit previews" I post at my Fotki site typically are provided at their discretion by the Model Companies at no cost to me, as the kits are not yet in the distribution channels. I have generally tried to disclose this fact in the texts that accompany my on-line previews, and perhaps need to be sure that I ALWAYS do that. (By the way, I never make any promises to the model companies that I will do an on-line review if they send me a kit. It is entirely my own determination, based in part on whether someone else has already posted an on-line review that covers the subject.) Finally, I no longer do one-page assembled kit reviews but at the time I did so, the kits I reviewed came from the magazine that published the reviews, not the model company itself. Again, while I cannot speak for others, model kits at no charge is a nice gesture by the companies. But personally I would NEVER compromise my own integrity by giving a model kit a better-than-I-think-deserved review. Having been involved in varying degrees in the industry itself since the mid 1970's, perhaps I understand better than most the challenges faced by the model companies in bringing products to market, and I am also a relentless cheerleader for the hobby itself, and so I may take a more positive attitude as a whole about the model kit industry and its products than other reviewers and participants in the hobby, but nothing is more valuable than the truth about kits as I, and indeed, all of us, see it. And I do think being more clear about the source of kits that are reviewed. whether it be in magazines, websites, club newsletters, or YoutTube videos, would be a plus for the hobby. TIM

I understand this is a widely held view about kit buildups and reviews in the magazines. As some of you know, I contribute "expanded kit reviews" for SA, and though I no longer currently do regular (e.g. one page) kit reviews there, I have done so in the past for that mag as well. While sometimes the Editor has mildly altered my text for what is in his judgment improved comprehension or page space issues, I don't EVER recall him editing out my negative comments or constructive criticism about the kits I review. If that ever did occur, I would never do another review there. Also, I have NEVER had a kit review omitted in the mag because of it being too negative (I saw the Editor's comments this week on the other board, but it has never happened to me personally.) I can't speak for MCM as I generally don't do straight buildups of new kits there, but I have done buildups of historic kits (such as the Surf Woody, the XR-6/Tub Double Kit, the Uncertain T), and again, I don't ever recall my negative comments being omitted in the final article. Of course, many others do kit reviews for magazines; I can't speak to their experiences, but the above are mine. Just wanted to convey my own personal experiences here.....TIM .

The '69 Town and Country was really equipped more like the lower-series Newport, but wore a front grille from the top of the line New Yorker series and the interior seats from the 300 that year. His 300 grille swap sounds very cool but it wasn't built that way at the factory... as you correctly note. It was one of the higher-priced Chrysler models that year, but it really looked great (as you noted) and seemed to hit a spot in the market that year. Sold around 21,000 units if memory serves me correctly And it looked best (IMHO) in that good ol' F8 Jade Green Metallic, too. Cheers.....TIM ,

Alan.....congrats on those terrific model boats! As you know, I've seen the Bel-Air based one, and raved about it before, but the other two are new to me. Great job on both of those, and thanks for fighting with the slow image transfers to get these images to us. Hope all is well, mate.....Cheers! TIM

This is a 1970 300 (check out the grille, which is the giveaway), and therefore the color is Chrysler Jade Green Metallic, Code F8, My Dad's 1969 Chrysler Town and Country wore this same color. TIM

I don't have a picture of a body I painted with this color, but I agree with Casey = the first image in this thread is a fairly accurate representation of the color that comes out of the can....mine having perhaps just a little more lime gold tint to it than this image portrays...TIM

Thanks Danno....much appreciated as well. Cheers.....TIM

Thanks Craig....I've ordered a few items from Best Model Cars but never made the connection. Much appreciated.....TIM

Emmanuel....that is one sharp Elky model....one that captures very well the potential of this kit. Really like the pictures with the garage and gas pump as well.....TIM

....builder of extremely well done muscle car era models, who also used to build for contract customers as well. Last contact I had with him was about 15 years ago, when he lived in Arizona. I need to reach him for a business-related purposed.....TIM

A discussion of this subject should probably also include the factory stock Henderson (as near as I can determine) four cylinder motorcyle that only came in the second release of the MPC '32 Chrysler Roadster (the release with the brown/white bisected background box art with the c. 1966 -style MPC box art and the car illustrated in brown).....TIM

Bill....in response to one of your earlier comments in this thread, when it gets down to it, I agree with you that on an Elky, a vinyl roof seems a bit over the top. Interestingly, when I did a Google Image Search on '68 Elky's a few days ago, I was surprised at the number of images that included a vinyl top. So you and I may be the exception rather than the rule on this one.....but then again, any results based on a Google Image search have to be viewed with a great deal of, well, I was gonna say skepticism, but let's just adjust that to "caution". Secondly, that is a really, really interesting approach using liquid glue or MEK to bring that "memory"back to the surface in lieu of a beautifully applied lacquer paint job inadvertently doing the same thing. Using a paint sealer like that from MCW Automotive Finishes has also worked for me, but I always hesitate to add another layer of paint, particularly when dealing with heavily engraved bodies of 1960's/70 restored stock kits. I'll definitely be giving this a try. Thanks....TIM

Steve, thanks for the follow-up here....yes I should have said "New and Improved" as that is the version that I use. Recently I read that the "New and Improved" sticker had been dropped from the packaging (though I don't recall having seen that at the stores myself), so it might appear in either form. TIM

Charlie.....the old, original BareMetal Foil is still available and I use it exclusively,as I experienced somewhat of the same issues you did with the Ultra-Bright product. TIM

Tim In response to Jonathan's questions: I have some questions for you before I go any further 1. Did you really send my comments to Round 2 and get a response directly about them?2. Exactly who at Round 2 did send my comments to?3. Exactly what was the response to your comments? To Jonathon and others following this thread: 1. Yes, I sent your comments to Round 2, and yes they responded to me with their reaction. 2 Who I sent the comments to is confidential. 3. I will not quote the response word for word as that is also confidential. But to summarize, your comments were forwarded by the recipient to several other people in the company who do product development for their information, along with a request to see if your suggestion on the decals could be incorporated in future kit releases. It also said that they disagree with your assessment of some of the parts locating tabs, and that they assembled several test shots and worked with the supplier to finesse those areas (this is pretty typical of all kit manufacturers, from my experience) prior to the kit's release. In my post I raised the issue about unjustified pro-Japanese product bias as I experienced it firsthand in my automotive career, and to my consternation I still see it surface from time to time on this and other model car related forums. No one manufacturer or country of origin has a lock on product development expertise, be it 1/1 automotive or 1/24th-25th scale model car kits. And just because one kit manufacturer has ultra-precise fit and finish does not automatically make them superior to another kit manufacturer who sweats the effort to include additional parts, and underbody realism that may not be seen in the final assembled model. It was not, and is not, my intent to discredit or undermine your experience as a model kit builder, and I apologize if that is the impression I gave you with my comments. But I will continue to challenge posts on this board and elsewhere that, in my judgement, continue to contribute to a perception that Japanese-designed model kits are always superior per se to those from domestic manufacturers. I understand that this is not a popular position to take on this board, but it is my belief and I stand by it As to the kit itself, I do not have any personal vested interest in it, other than to publicize the extent of the "full detail" component of the kit, and to encourage Round 2, if sales warrant it, to expand the approach to other 1/1 scale products such as the current and future generations of Mustangs. If that happens, it would address what both you and I (and many others) would like to see - more post 1980's kit subjects done with the detail that we as serious modeling hobbyists want to see. Meanwhile, I applaud and encourage the comments from all who have built the kit, including you and Ron, as it helps to bring a well-rounded view of the kit to the modeling community. This is not to suggest that one person's conclusions are more valid than another's. To the contrary, as Luc suggests above, it would be even better if others who have built the kit could share their experiences with us. Best Regards....TIM

Luc....Round 2 tells me that they specifically worked with the supplier during the test shot phase to finesse the fit of part locating tabs/holes, and the like. I believe Jonathon when he said he encountered fit problems, yet Ron didn't have seem to have a major issue either. Strange.....as you suggest, we could benefit from more feedback from those that have built the kit. It reminds me of my experiences with a certain tool from a Round 2 competitor....I've built probably 12 models so far from the two kit variants, and I've been surprised at the variations in ejector pin marks, sink marks, parting lines, and the like in every kit that I open and build. Some samples approach near perfection, others end up needing work. There seems to be no specific pattern. I wonder something if similar could be at work that would explain the variation between the kits that Jonathon and Ron built? (Just so we are clear, to my understanding the kits I am referring to and built, came from a different manufacturing source than the one that Round 2 uses for molding their kits).....TIM

Ron....looks very sharp indeed. And thanks for sharing your experience......

Allen....I too would have preferred that the street machine engine accessories be in there, but for those that are not aware, there's more to the street machine version than just that supercharged (B&M? - I can't quite remember the aftermarket manufacturer it was patterned after although I have it somewhere in my notes....). The street machine version also included a revised pickup floor bed, and pickup box side panels with mini-tubs, not to mention the entirely different wheel and tire treatments and probably a few other tweaks that I can't recall right now. I presume the street machine engine parts were intertwined with the other street machine parts in the tool, making just the engine parts alone not feasible as an add for this kit release. Of course, Round 2 has added the entire trees from both versions of AMT-Ertl era kits in past releases ('60 Starliner, '62 T-Bird, '62 Catalina), so who knows what might be in store for the future. Several of the model magazine guys tell me that El Caminos and Rancheros do not generate much interest from readers,; whether that carries over to purchases of El Camino and Ranchero model kits I do not know. But I haven't had any success over the years in getting Revell to do a '70 Ranchero GT with the 429 Ram Air spinoff of their excellent '70 Torino Cobra/GT tool, and we still haven't seen a Ranchero spinoff from the '57 Ford Custom/Del Rio too, so that may tell us something If this is indeed the case, this AMT 68 Elky may end up being the last kit of its kind....which is kinda sad. Still, it's a really good kit in and of itself.... TIM

Chris, you are, of course, correct in that there were two issues of the basic '69 El Camino kit. The original issue (without the Derby car) was the "annual" kit version...I need to check my stash but I believe that is the same as the one you are referring to. I thought I made this clear in the Fotki post but I better go back and check! Thanks for the heads-up.....TIM

Some of you may recall AMT's original "Flying Wedge" derivative of their Tommy Ivo rear engine (actually, more correctly Mid-Engine) rail dragster, released back in December, 1972. Round 2 has just completed a reissue of this kit in their "Original Art Series" format. There are some surprises in this kit, including an all-new three piece body. During his review of the project with me last weekend, Round 2's John Grezcula also mentioned that there would be more versions (with additional body variations) in the future based on this redone kit tool. Check out this review for 28 images with captions for the whole story. Here's an excerpt shot from the review, showing the new body panels (in orange) vs the original kit configuration (in white)..... By the way, the kit should be available in stores within the next few weeks.....TIM

Jonathon and Bob - as I promised, Jon's comments have been forwarded to Round 2. While they obviously do not agree with some of your conclusions, they will take a serious look at adding the side marker lights and CHMSL decals, as you suggest, to future versions of this tool. And I bet they'll follow through with that, too And as Bob says, I think you will see some of the other suggestions migrate to future full detail kits (if they decide to go in this direction, which obviously, I hope they do). TIM

With all due respect, it is highly relevant. And my review was of the kit itself, not of the assembled model. Go back and re-read my review, here's the link. Also note that I said in the intro "as usual, I caution against making any definitive determinations until you've bought the kit and built it for yourself. I also can't comment on fit and assembly, although this is typically not an issue with current CAD-based model kit development." That's one of the reasons I am so interested in Jonathon's comments, as well as those of others who have actually built the kit. TIM TIM