Casey

https://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/topic/142864-1978-subaru-brat-from-death-to-life-and-everything-in-between/

I think this was discussed here previously, but I want to say this was a Roger Harney project which took many years to finally reach production-- a decade plus, perhaps?: Midget race cars are incredibly niche, and as Chuck Most mentioned in the above-linked topic, the parts were too small for kitbashing with "normal" sized vehicles, so they didn't make great parts donors, either. Sometimes well-engineered and designed can still mean a sales dud.

I didn't want to post an active listing, but, they are available from a several sources, for various prices. I would wait until this combo kit is about to drop, post a Wanted ad here on the forum to let people know you're looking for one (or more), then wait.

The Pro Star-like wheels on the Road Block car are very nice, but they seemed to be a tiny bit undersized for 1/25 scale, going on memory, and the Pro Street tires also undersized to match. They were also released in 2000 as pre-painted Peanuts themed kits:

There was an entire series of Street Slammers. ?

The Ertl Blueprinter Service Trailer was available by itself: https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMT-Ertl-Service-Trailer-Plastic-Model-Kit-8054-9130-Blueprinter-Vintage-1-25-Sc-/264802624020?epid=1120184584&hash=item3da7776214%3Ag%3AOAYAAOSwGhVfFfqM&nma=true&si=yaicZ%2BBXT0wLimCZ2kxFsuAT0aI%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

AMT-1226 1/25 1958 Plymouth Street Fury Slammers (Snap)

4th quarter of 2020

Found a good straight-on side profile shot, and while I agree the '90s AMT body does have visible troughs where the upper quarter panel surface meets the top crease, it's a complex are with several curves meeting and blending in the same place. A straight-on side shot of the new full-bumper kit's body would be helpful for comparison, too, if anyone is so inclined...

MPC-938 1/16 1973 Dodge Charger Richard Petty Race Car Not sure if this will be a straight re-issue of the...reissue from 2012, MPC #767, but I recall Round2 hinted at this after the Street Charger was run in the One Run of Fun deal.

Yes, as I stated earlier, it sits too low in relation to the trim panel and bottom edge of the tail light buckets/trim. While it's hard to compare real 1:1 '69 Chevelle rear bumpers due to the fact that they may have been, well, bumped and tweaked over the years (which, looking online at images seems to be common, though not a major misalignment issue). That said, out of the dozen rear angle images of 1:1 '69 Chevelles I viewed online, I did not find any which had the excessive gap as found on the kit part. I think the presence of the side stripe makes it difficult to judge exactly where the rear quarter panel peak lies, and it seems to be a rather soft, not crisp, peak, too, so I think that is a factor, too. Again, from viewing a dozen images online, the quarter panel peak appears to terminate even with the horizontal divider which separates the upper and lower tail light bezels/lenses. They blue built model I posed earlier (I'm guessing Ron probably knows who built it?) has the white side stripe already applied, making comparisons with the 1:1 '69 Chevelle a challenge. I'll wait to see a member's built model sans side stripe to decide if the quarter panel peak is too high on the Revell body or not. We all know and realize there's a human element when designs, measurements, and specifications are transferred from a real car or blueprints to a computer, and the end result isn't always 100% accurate. While I don't see any gross errors on this '69 Chevelle like I saw on the Revell '90 Mustang LX notch (yeah, I SAID IT) kit's body, the gap between the rear bumper and the quarter panel caps, tail light bezels, and trim panel does seem too large to me. Fortunately, I think this can be remedied, IF all else is correct, by separating the bumper and the section above it, then mounting the bumper a bit higher. Here's the screenshot from Chris' review video, showing the gap I mentioned: Both a 1:1 '69 Chevelle and Malibu for comparison: I can hear Harry interjecting that you can't directly compare 1:1 vehicles with their scale counterparts, but we disagree on that one, so I'll continue. I will admit on both cars above, the rear bumper appears a bit misaligned, or it could be due to the higher viewing angle at which the photo was taken. Regardless if the slightly inconsistent gap present on both, the gap between the rear bumper's wrap-around ends and the bottom edge of the quarter panel caps is much smaller on the real cars than on the built up blue model used by Revell. I also think the tail light bezel-to-quarter panel end cap fit on the 1:1 is an incredibly tricky fit, and perhaps it's not even possible to pull off when things are reduced to 1:25 scale. I guess we'll see as more are built.

?

To be fair, it is labeled as a 1970-1/2 Camaro, so the low, one-piece rear spoiler is correct. The three-piece rear spoiler (C.O.P.O. 9796) was not available until after April 20, 1970 according to Michael Lamm's The Great Camaro book. I think there might be more merit to debating whether or not the front 'chin' spoiler is correct for a '70.5 Z/28.

George, you've been corrected more than once on this topic, and I distinctly recall Mark B setting the record straight. It was not Round2 which made a preliminary announcement, so please stop propagating that falsehood.

Please explain how a Small Block Chevy engine was magically transformed by Monogram engineers into a Chrysler Hemi...?‍♀️

No. The box art shows the Cragar S/S wheels will be included. Basically the same 3'n'1 kit as the last time, but maybe larger diameter low rider wheels and tires this time?: