tim boyd

Bill - got them and agree. Thanks for taking the time to add your insight to the discussion and Best Regards....TIM

Art...good point about closing one eye when comparing actual shapes vs. pictures of same. You just reminded me of a technique sometimes used in the 1/1 scale automotive design studios when comparing designs - which is to look at the designs upside down or rotated 90 degrees. The eyes pick up differences that are unseen in more familiar views. Hmmm...maybe I should do that exercise in this case and see what pops up. TIM

Lee....thanks and I agree with you. The most important point here is that to do an entirely valid photo comparison, as several of you pointed out above, you need the same camera, the same lense and lense setting, and the same camera angle for both the 1/1/ and the 1/25th scale 'cudas. The above photo comparisons lack this continuity and therefore are interesting, but do not provide the basis to draw a definitive conclusion. If and when someone does this exact camera/lense/angle comparison, the most likely conclusion will be that none of the models - the MPC, JoHan, or Revell - are 100% correct replicas of the 1/1 car, but all of them are reasonably close. Yes, the Revell body has some errors - most (but not all) of which have been pointed out in this thread of posts. But for most of us, when any of these three scale 'cudas are done and setting on the shelf, they say "'70 'cuda" when you look and handle them. (Well, the JoHan says '71, but you get my point). Just weighing in here, "representing the opposition"... Cheers....TIM

...possibly the best one yet; great features from the old Car Craft archives back when it was THE source for cool drag racing news, stories, and car features, plus some more recently composed retrospectives about the era, including the Bill Bagshow Pro Stocks, a reprint of the two part "Surfers" Rail Dragster expose from a few years back, and even a cool article on that 289 Cobra powered '65 Galaxie 500 C/FX you keep seeing pictures of.... TIM

"Just picked the newly re-issued AMT RR kit up last nite. This kit appears to be basically a repackage of the "Millennium" kit with a few minor changes. First, the re-issue has a an interesting set of tires. One side has raised white letters with "Goodyear Polyglass GT L60-15" script and the reverse side though non-scripted has a single Red-line stripe. The Millennium kit tires are identically scripted but are NOT white lettered nor Red-line striped on the reverse side. The kit has the same Hemi power-plant with stock exhaust as before. The intake manifold options of dual in-line crabs or cross-ram intake with Hemi styled air cleaner remain the same. However, the custom build options of dual velocity stacks or dual custom air cleaners are no longer included like the Millennium kit. Also, like the earlier AMT release the body does not have molded in "Road Runner" badges/scripts. And, like the prior AMT offering it does not include any decals." ************** Not to offend anyone, but there are several errors in this post. As Raymond noted, the new reissue does have the RoadRunner decals. It also has the dual velocity stacks and custom air cleaners. And the "RoadRunner" badge is re-engraved in the rear trunk lid. For more details and photos, click on the link to my earlier post #

I've been really surprised that there's been relatively little discussion on the just-reissued Round 2 version of the AMT-Ertl '68 Road Runner kit. Accordingly, I've prepared a kit review and commentary at the attached thread, including a comparison with box art of the original AMT 1968 Annual Kits, and a comparo with the original JoHan 1969 RoadRunner annual kit body. Details at the link, and remember to click on each individual picture to see the associated text/commentary. http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/refreshed-amt-round/refreshed-amt-round/ Thanks for looking....TIM (Post revised slightly at 1:30pm EST 12 January)

Brett is correct on this. Personally, I didn't remember this to be the case. But when I started going through my stockpiled research material in anticipation of receiving my preview sample from Revell, I quickly found that the standard Shaker Hood for '70 Hemi 'cudas is one fact that they all (!) agreed on. TB

Here...http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/new-revell-slingste/new-revell-slingste-1/ is a detailed look at the contents and merchandising approach of Revell's new Slingster dragster....also included is selected comparisons with the original Sizzler kits from 1961 and 1967. Thanks for looking...TIM

J.B., gotta agree with you completely on this one. The AMT Mooneyes is clearly superior, particularly in the exhaust headers rendition. Nice builds btw! TIM

Bernard....cool recap. FWIW, the 392 Hemi is rebopped in the Revell Miss Deal kit. It's identical as far as I can tell, except for the different exhaust headers, and the point that all the pieces are chromed in the Parts Pack version, vs. only those you'd actually want chromed in the Miss Deal kit. I agree that the 327 Chevy Parts Pack is the hardest to find. Also, I haven't read the entire thread so apologies in advance if I'm repeating something already said but many of Revell's full model kits of the early 60's contained engines that were designed in the same manner as their Parts Pack engines. I'm particularly fond of the Cadillac in the Outlaw kit (which is similar to the Parts Pack Cad but has different building options including the intake manifold/carb setup), the blown Olds in the Beatnik Bandit (some really cool parts on that one), and even the 409 Chevy optional engine in the original Revell '55 Chevy kit. In any case, like others have said here, these Revell Parts Packs are cool engines, with excellent period-correct speed accessories, that are generally a fun and authentic build. TIM

That's a cool story...thanks for the link...TIM

Bruno....just got a chance to look at my completed builds, and just as you said (and you show above), there it is. I don't recall this being in 1/1 scale factory stock 'cudas....does anyone else remember this to be the case? Otherwise, I can't think of any reason why this hole would be there....unless.....could it be intended as a mounting point for a component on some future version of the kit. Like maybe an Accel ignition spark module or Cool Can that you would see in a future Pro Stock or Super Stock version of the tool. Or some part related to a road racing version of some kind???? Anyway, belated kudos to you for pointing this out. TIM PS - that's a very sharp looking 'cuda build you have there....TB

From what I recall, BFG Radial T/A's started coming on the market around 1974/75 or so. They were top end, big buck items and a source of real prestige for those who could afford them. OEM availability came a number of years later though I have to admit, I can't recall on what cars or trucks. In any case, they were never available from the factory as OEM equipment on the E-Body Mopars. I won a set as a prize when I finished 2nd in the Nation in the 1976 MPC Customizing Championship: I could have never afforded them on a part-time college student budget...they were terrific tires and a real step up from the factory Goodyear Polyglas tires....TIM

I don't recall seeing that hole on either of my completed builds. I'll try to check on them later this evening and see if I see them. TB

I had no issues with the door mirrors on two separate builds. The contact area with the body is sufficient for holding them in place if the glue makes good contact on unpainted mating surfaces. One of my builds was subsequently shipped out of state and returned for photography and came back all in one piece. Pinning the mirror is always a plus but in this case I would consider it optional instead of mandatory. Hope that helps...TIM

John....I don't know which car or cars Revell used to create their kit. What I meant by that statement is that during the period when I (and several others) were recommending this as a future kit subject, I sent them copies of several articles in the Mopar mags on '70 'cudas that were restored correctly and equipped with the right factory options that I wanted to see Revell include in the kit. This was between 2008 and 2010 and my reference materials from that period seem to have gone temporarily missing, but if I recall correctly, one or several of these examples were Mopar Action Magazine "Reference Restorations" (I assume you would be very familiar with that mag and how they use that term). There may have been one from Musclecar Review as well. Let me know if I missed the intent of your question, or if I can add any further insight... Best regards...TIM

Guys...everyone is entitled to their judgment on this and any other kit that is produced for us. But I dare any of you to actually build this kit and then still conclude that Revell "does not seem to care about the products they are releasing". Is it 100% correct? No, and many of you (along with myself, in my earlier QuickBuild and Kit Review assessments) have pointed out some of its shortcomings. Is a seven-point distributor an embarrassing error? Yes. But it's hardly something to worry about within the context of an overall kit like this one, and it is easily fixed via a whole number of build alternatives. Is a folded decal sheet an evidence of poor quality control? Well, if you actually build the kit (my decal sheets looked folded just like those above) you'll find the decals to be one of the many high points of this kit, and the folding has absolutely zero affect on the appearance or usability of the decals. One of the chrome sheets on my kits had a blotch, but it was right on the part of the Rallye Wheel that you paint argent silver for the correct appearance. So that had zero impact, at least for me on that particular kit. Still, this is a worrying concern. But the only flash I saw was on the base chassis/floor pan and it took about two minutes to clean up. My point here is simply that, if you actually build and complete the kit, you will find errors, but you will also probably find that there are many points of evidence that suggest (at least they did to me) that Revell cared a great deal about this kit. Sorry, maybe I'm just too close to the manufacturing/marketing side of this hobby to remain objective on this subject, but like everyone else here, I am also entitled to my point of view. And that is that 1) any detailed critique of a kit like this carries a lot more credibility if it is based on actually building the kit, and 2) from what I know about the model car industry, virtually all the model company staffs do care about their products, and they generally try to do the best job that they can within the many business constraints they face. TIM

Art or Dave need to provide a more definitive answer...but with Test Shots like Art is working with here, the tool is typically run with all the "gates" open for the parts for both the initial and (pre-engineered) future versions of the kit. More likely here is that there will eventually be four releases of the kit, each version including the grille that is appropriate to the model year represented by that individual kit. (To that point, I think this thread or others like it suggest that there will eventually be at least two Moebius kits and a third under the Model King label.) Still...that is an impressive picture, to be sure! TIM l

Carl...given the choice between those two options, I expect that nearly 100% of modelers would agree with you. Unfortunately, an additional set of four ires (and the further adaptation of the wheels to adapt to the wider tires) would, I expect, be a much more expensive proposition than dropping the fold-up miniature boxes. Plus I just checked my kit...and there is no miniature fold-up this time. Oh well.... TB

Chris...that is a way sharp conversion to replica stock....way to go! TIM

Deciding what to include (and exclude) in a product is one of the most difficult issues a kitmaker faces....it's essentially a series of tradeoffs. Do you add the extra tires and offset the extra cost by not updating/restoring the tool....or do you add the extra tires and raise the price....or do you do what Round 2 did...and restore the kit to its original status and rely on kitbashers to do the tire upgrade for the NASCAR version? Tough calls, all. TB

Just confirming that Joe is correct in both these statements (as referenced in my accompanying photo captions/text for photos #10 and #15 at the link above ). My '65 annual kit original is missing the instructions, but the only tires in the kit are the stock narrow whitewalls and drag slicks...the new reissue has the same except that the drag slicks are Tampo Printed pie-crusts....I don't recall that AMT had any kits using NASCAR type tires until the wide ovals that came along in '68 or '69...kitbashers back in the day used the "Darlington" tires (IIRC) from the AMT Tires Parts Pack for slot car racers...TIM

James,....looking super-sharp so far! TIM

I just checked my Little Red Express Truck kits (one the original MPC release, the second an AMT-Ertl reissue from the 90's) and they have the original big block Mopar Wedge V8 engines that have been in most (all?) of the MPC Dodge D100 pickup kit derivatives since it the tool was developed in 1972. Is there a version of this kit that has the 360 V8 (among other items, with the distributor in the typical SBC location rather than to the passenger side of the water pump as in all Big Block Mopars)? And FWIW, I strongly agree with your take on the MPC "Six Pack" 340 Duster engine. Not sure that I agree with some who think it is underscaled, though. Thanks! TIM