mikos

You may still have to correct the curve in the upper drip rail above the door. In the pics of the real car above, it starts to slope down dramatically when you near the B-pillar of the window area.

This ”they” I’m referring to are the people that argue modified stockers/race drag cars sell better than the stock version when the subject is brought up about restoring the tools back to stock. I would like to see the old circle track/modified stockers from MPC/AMT…the ‘70 GTO, ‘72 Monte Carlo, ‘65 Olds 88, ‘66 Impala, etc, restored back to stock. Obviously, it would be much cheaper to clone an original non molested stock body tool and do it that way. However, hacking up the tooling back in the day was very short sighted. It doesn’t take much for a young builder to radius the wheel wells on a stock body. In fact, on a lot of the real cars that were modified for racing back then, the wheel well shapes remained basically intact with perhaps only the front wheel wells on some of them modified for racing. So, there was no solid reason for them to hack up the body tooling like that. It seems like they did it on purpose to make the tooling unusable for a possible later stock reissue. Even Round 2 has followed this trend somewhat by offering just the “lowrider” build option on the current (Mueller era) ‘70 Monte Carlo reissue. AFAIK, you can’t build it stock. Revell has never offered a stock build option on their popular ‘80’s “notchback” Cadillac. Though, even if they did, I probably would not have purchased it. There were too many problems with the (diecast sourced?) body. It was lowrider/donk or nothing for that one. The ‘77 Monte Carlo from Revell was configured as a “lowrider” from the beginning with its toy like adjustable suspension feature. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later that they finally offered stock wheels/tires to make building a stock version possible. Yes, Round 2 has been making some great kits like their newly tooled cloned Craftsman kits that they have been coming out with recently. I hope the trend continues. However, some here have criticized them for not offering super duper detailed versions of those models. All the detail in the world is not going to turn that mis-proportioned turd of a body into a work of art. That’s why I will take a well proportioned realistic body over a super detailed kit that has a cheap diecast looking body. As you mentioned, Moebius has been coming out with a lot of great kits as well. However, whenever a race or drag version subject is mentioned, people seem to go gaga over them. I guess I was never into those types of cars when it comes to building models. As long as they offer a stock version, I’m happy. However, this trend of offering the race version first and then offering a stock version at a later date concerns me. Why not just offer both versions at the same time, or better yet, offer both build options in a single release. The extra cost to provide that option should not be too prohibitive because many in this hobby have no problem springing for a simplified snap kit style 3D printed kit for much more.

Well, with how bad Revell screwed up the front windshield height on the new tool XKE, you may have a point about measuring off photographs for good results. lol! A little massaging on the upper window line on that ‘58 Plymouth would make it look a lot better.

I’m assuming the “Hot Wheels” ‘69 COPO Camaro will be the previous Yenko Camaro. They seem to be foisting that kit upon up every few years. I wish Round 2 would either fix the body tooling or just clone the original AMT body from an original kit. With Revell’s excellent ‘69 available, there’s no reason to buy that cribbed up version.

I think the best way is to measure the actual car. May have to go to a classic car show, or maybe call up a buddy that has one, but that’s probably the most accurate way IMO.

It looks too low due to the slope of the side windows like Bill mentioned. If you straighten that section out, may need to add/spice in a new drip rail section in that area, it would look closer to the real car. It’s correctable with a little work.

Johan got it done with WW1 era tooling technology and wire axles. Crisp engraving with a well proportioned body. Don’t forget the Gold Cup series which had detail that equaled even some of the best kits made today. I don’t know how those poly caps work, but the peg and stem method used by some makes the wheels tilt in with severe camber which looks unrealistic. I’ve been known to scrap them and use an aluminum rod and tube reengineering effort just to get the wheels to sit right. I’ll gladly sacrifice some suspension detail to get the model to sit right on the shelf without too much work Reviving the Johan name and cloning some of their kits would be great. Round 2 has proven you can enjoy strong sales, as you always like to remind us of, with old simple snap kit style cloned kits. They’re making money so why wouldn’t it be successful for Johan? You just have to get the right people together to make it happen. For me, I’m not interested in another variation of the MKIV Supra or some endless JDM Skyline variant. I want to see some of those old big Detroit icars again like those wonderful old Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Plymouths. I don’t think I’m older than dirt, but even when I was much younger, I still liked those old Johan kits and the subject matter they did. I do wish they were healthy enough (back in the day) to have done a ‘79-‘85 Eldorado variant and update their ‘77-‘79 Deville tool to the restyled “notchback” Cadillac for 1980. However, I know they were barely on life support at the time and the promo contracts (which would be the only way they would be done) were nearly all dried up.

I would love to see some of those old kits from Johan cloned again. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way.

That part snaps in from behind with a horizontal runner connecting (molded) with the two tail lights together. I’ve never seen a missing tail light assembly from a ‘75 Johan Cutlass unless it was an opened snap kit with missing parts. It’s kind of bewildering that they would choose this particular part to have done in 3d print.

Nice, but those are actually incorrect for the “‘75” Olds Cutlass.

It’s ironic you say that because many stock kits have been sacrificed to make the custom race versions. In many instances, the tooling was permanently hacked up making a stock version never possible again.

It seems no one likes to build stock model car kits anymore. Everything seems to be ProStock, Gasser, Street Machine, Lowrider, Circle Track, Dirt Track and Drag versions. That’s all they can come up with when making these “business case” decisions. The only problem is, when they make their money selling the non-stock kits, they just stop at that never offering a stock build version. In some ways, this is very short sighted. If they added the stock parts or tooled up new parts to make it stock, the kit would be complete. You can build it custom or stock. Of course, the knee jerk answer would be they can make more money on different versions of the kit than simply offering everything in one issue. However, in many cases, this never comes to fruition.

I don’t know about the Fairlane, but the rest would have to be “cloned” because the original issues were either altered into the next model year (‘69 Bonneville) and (‘69 Grand Prix) or hacked up (‘65 Olds 88 modified stock racer) or both….custom Sweat Hogs Dream Machine (‘72 Grand Prix). I don’t see the ‘69 Bonneville ever coming back, but the ‘69-‘72 Grand Prix has a good business case. I think the body tool on the Sweat Hogs Dream Machine is probably too far gone if the tooling still exists. However, Round 2 has proven they can clone old kits so I’m sure they can do it. The ‘72 Grand Prix would be the most logical choice if they decided to bring it back. And, I hope they do.

The MPC ‘69 Camaro was the result of too many rounds of modifying the tooling for funny car/circle track race car issues. The Monogram ‘69 Camaro was just bad from the start. I think it was originally intended to be a simple processed plastic toy for kids and they decided to make a model kit out of it. Actually, I feel bad for the hired builder who had to assemble and detail the model kit for the box art photo.

They can be simple, but put together they just looked very good. The more chassis detail you have, the more fiddly the kit is to build. The recent 3D printed kits found on ‘Bay are similar in detail and quality to the old Johan kits and they seem to be quite popular by offering subjects/models not offered by anyone else. That was the niche of Johan. They offered subjects/models no one else offered. I would love to see some Johan kits cloned and reissued again in plastic. Do it in a limited run.

I’d hate to lose the ‘68/‘69, but I’d love to see a ‘70 based on this tool. Or, maybe just do a new body with the same chassis and interior bucket. Of course, a new dash and seats would have to be done as well. However, I think the ‘70 would be worth it and sell quite well.

We’ve been hearing about this Powell PU for a long time now. When the prototype was stolen from Okey at the show(?), it seems things ground to a halt. Now, all of a sudden these print ads come out making us hopeful that things are now humming along to eventually have it done. Sorry, but I’m not buying it. People want to bring the Johan name back to life with expensive ultra small runs of resin copies only available on Facebook. I think I’ll pass. If you want my attention, scan some of the old kits that are still around like what Round2 has done from their archives and develop tooling to reproduce it in styrene. Of course, the ever present naysayers will say it can’t be done or there is no “business case” or whatever they can argue to make it seem insurmountable. However, me thinks there a certain element out there that never wants Johan to return. Heaven forbid if they actually gathered the resources to scan a mid ‘60’s Cadillac (or pick your favorite) and reissue it again. I think the universe would collapse then.

Isn’t that kit the old Magnum P.I. Island Hoppers van?

Let’s hope they do a stock Z28 if they can find/tool up the correct hood. I know the Super Z was the annual for 1980 and that included stock and custom parts. However, that was the first year for the “air induction” style hood. The Night Prowler was based on the ‘78-‘79 annual which had different fender vents and front grill insert. I don't see them doing that version unless they backdate the fender vents (highly unlikely) and find the ‘78-‘79 grill insert. The Thunder Z came with custom parts that covered the fender vents and the ‘78-‘79 style hood scoop. So, that one could be reissued again if they can find the specific Thunder Z custom parts for it.

I don’t think it’s as fine and dandy as you’re suggesting. They made the wheel wells flatter like the real car which is great, even better than the old MPC kit. However, in doing that, they screwed up the upper drip rail curve of the side windows when they filled in the T-tops. Why couldn’t they have given us both? An accurate wheel well shape and correct side windows with a roof that doesn’t sag? If they did that, that would be “kudos” to them. Also, getting the shape of that upper side window drip rail correct can be very challenging. It’s not as simple of a fix as it may look.

Correct. The only car (G-body) that had larger wheels was the GNX. Those had 16” wheels with P245/50VR16 Goodyear Eagle “gatorbacks”.

Some issues with the top windshield header of the roofline profile on the WOF Chevelle. It reminds me of a residual diecast side effect with inside mounting interior glass. Otherwise, it was a very good looking replica of that model. For some reason, I keep thinking the WOF line of kits from Revell were failed promos after GM cancelled them. When the promo contract collapsed, they created the WOF line and offered them as simplified easy to build snap kits. Don’t know if I remember reading that somewhere or not.

Not bad…the top (side windows and windshield) seem to be a little “chopped” compared to the real car. The Revell ‘63 snap kits, both coupe and convertible, were very well done. They didn’t have much detail, but Revell nailed the proportions right. For me, I would take a well proportioned body on a kit that is simplified rather than something with super detail that doesn’t look quite right when built.

The real question is will bringing back the tooling and equipment back to the states and having U.S. labor working at a U.S. factory making the product be as profitable for the company. That answer would probably be a big no. The supply chains from China have been fully matured and the factories over there are in full production with cheap labor. Like the tariffs many think will encourage more production in the U.S., that ship has sailed 45 years ago. We’re are a service based economy now. And, I’m afraid that if we get too belligerent with China, they could hold the tooling hostage or do some other retaliatory response and make it difficult, if not impossible, to take the tooling out of the country and have it produced somewhere else. Edited.

Unless it was a test shot, which I find highly unlikely even at $25 that “some guy” was selling at the Dearborn show over 45 years ago, they only came in Candy Apple Red. Nice try though.