Daddyfink Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Wow, I love all the Boo Hoo from the stock guys and the ones that don't read all the posts and start making guesses to things that have already been cleared up. Buy it or don't, they will sell and you can just sit in the corner and pout. Next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Just think of the screams if they did the off-road version first? The Maroon Daytona would be a nice one to have too. Let's start a rumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Just think of the screams if they did the off-road version first? The Maroon Daytona would be a nice one to have too. Let's start a rumor. I don't know if we could handle the mass hanky wringing! It's not stock? OH NO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 The primer gray '70 from one of the later movies would be cool also, or the silver '68. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 But, it is kinda funny that they used a Plymouth Superbird nose on a charger! Stock guys are not going to like this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRollerLT1 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) From they way things may be going, its mind boggling that they would be doing a new tool 70' in F&F trim, yet they have the die cast or the plastic 68/9's to work from. But then, they did a new tool Snap-tite Crown Vic of the 1993 style yet Lindberg had one out for years and is still obtainable unlike the DC F&F 70', so it may not be as surprising as the first if they took this route again. I hope its more like the 68/9 kits in terms of detail and multi-piece parts, but there's a high chance it may be more Monogram-like with the 74 Torino and the 84 Cutlass (which is marked as a high end SE kit). Ether way, it has to be better than AMT's low-wattage effort, and if they say a stock version is planned, at least they're trying to listen to the replica stock and Mopar folks. Edited April 17, 2016 by RickRollerLT1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 This is the Revell Charger that was on the Revell display last weekend at the Milwaukee NNL..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRollerLT1 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 HMMMM... IDK if its me or the angle, but I see mild slab sidedness like the diecast 68 had. Maybe Ed or someone who supplied him the production specs got info mixed up and its a modified version of the diecast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubaja Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRollerLT1 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) WOW! TNX for the pre-production shots! I see screw holes and the slot for door handle, which I recall the 68 Bullitt die cast definitely having. Edited April 17, 2016 by RickRollerLT1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubaja Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Ed answered all of my questions. But he seemed like he didn't want to be there, and grumpy. Maybe just a long day. He did say that the fnf charger is a brand new tool. Not derrived from the diecast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubaja Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRollerLT1 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) I don't want everyone to think i'm pooing this kit, it still looks very nice and its a sell for me since I missed out on the earlier Diecast issue. I'm just boggled at the production choices they are making when they have tooling available, that's all. When it comes out, someone is bound to do a part-by-part comparo between the die casts and the 68/9 for any tooling similarities.Like I said, ether way it looks much, much better than AMT's effort from 2004. Their 70', the Yenko Camaro, and the Mitsu Lancer were the worst to come out of AMT's F&F run. The Camaro being MPC's coupe retool from the 80s with dat wonky roof. The 350Z was OK-ish barring the low roof and the totally wrong wheels. Mustang was closer to the real thing being it also had the flat hood and the stock seats, but the wheels are wrong and the engine is meh being it uses the mustang's tranny. The Eclipse had the wrong engine (I think) and was alright overall, but Revell's renditions in generic tuner branding were much better IMO. The Gold Supra from 2F2F was a lazy repaint/decal job of the orange car, and the 70' Monte just had donk-like wheels thrown into the lowrider kit. Edited April 17, 2016 by RickRollerLT1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Nice! We finally get some decent American Racing Daisy Wheels! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTalmage Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the chassis and even the interior pan is an almost direct carry-over from the existing 68-69 Charger... which I'm entirely ok with as I personally LOVE that chassis. The only thing that looks a little different to me, is where the front of the leaf springs mount.. right in that area.. and the front K member looks different... more open/realistic looking. Which is probably good. But I doubt this version will have pose-able steering, just eyeballing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the chassis and even the interior pan is an almost direct carry-over from the existing 68-69 Charger... which I'm entirely ok with as I personally LOVE that chassis. The only thing that looks a little different to me, is where the front of the leaf springs mount.. right in that area.. and the front K member looks different... more open/realistic looking. Which is probably good. But I doubt this version will have pose-able steering, just eyeballing it. ^Bingo. The torque boxes are now molded completely closed and the K-member up front is definitely different, so same master pattern/design specs, slightly different model...much like the '32 Fords and Rat Roaster IMHO. I'm sure that grill can be worked with until the stock version comes out, which, based on past history ('67 Camaro grille/surround), may be a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Instead of pointless speculation, just wait until it gets closer to release date...I'm sure there will be photos posted of the kit contents then... Yeah, then we can get an accurate count on the distributor towers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTalmage Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 ^Bingo. The torque boxes are now molded completely closed and the K-member up front is definitely different, so same master pattern/design specs, slightly different model...much like the '32 Fords and Rat Roaster IMHO. I'm sure that grill can be worked with until the stock version comes out, which, based on past history ('67 Camaro grille/surround), may be a moot point. I wonder if this was a change for the 70 models... the way the torque boxes were molded... or a cost saving measure? I don't know enough about the Charger chassis' to know why the change would have been made. But I'm interested in having the k member in my hand, and to see how much it lowers the front of the car and puts the wheels in the right spot (which was some complaints about the old chassis IIRC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtx6970 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 I wonder if this was a change for the 70 models... the way the torque boxes were molded... or a cost saving measure? I don't know enough about the Charger chassis' to know why the change would have been made. But I'm interested in having the k member in my hand, and to see how much it lowers the front of the car and puts the wheels in the right spot (which was some complaints about the old chassis IIRC) enclosed torque boxes are part of the Hemi suspension...also found on some big block cars. As far as the front K member.....the only difference is The sway bar design was different between 69 and older versus 1970 and later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFMgarage Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Based on the pics posted above, I think they could've done a lot better job with the front grill (adding headlights and mesh like the real car), the wheels are horrible, seats are too, and Dom definitely had a full rollcage in that car, not just a rear bar.That being said, if the engine is just remotely close to the 1:1 engine, I'll buy it, wire and plumb it, and put it on display in my diorama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTony8 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Hmmmm-a complete new tool for a model of a car for which at least 50% of the tooling already exists.This is sort of thinking that gave us three separate chassis pans for the '67 & '69 Camaros and the '68 Firebird(essentially the same car underneath).To my inexperienced in tooling brain this would seem to be a needless duplication of effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Janssens Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) Hmmmm-a complete new tool for a model of a car for which at least 50% of the tooling already exists.This is sort of thinking that gave us three separate chassis pans for the '67 & '69 Camaros and the '68 Firebird(essentially the same car underneath).To my inexperienced in tooling brain this would seem to be a needless duplication of effort.Depends....From a design point it only makes sense when tooling up a '67, '68, '69 Camaro and Firebird together, Manufacturers apply the MO now, because they have to spread the investment costs and risks, over much smaller runs, runs which maybe were considered flops back in the day of Wallyworld.Also what is announced as all new tooling, still can be based on past tooling, models, drawings, 3d files, recycling everything except the hardware.Personally I don't like fiddling with existing tooling like Mpc was known for in the past , removing insert to re-arrange them in another tool and sometimes re-engraving welding etc.... too much down time, delaying production, whenever a swap has to be made between model, x, y, z, and also that's when things start to go wrong production wise, wrong inserts, forgotten inserts, wrong parts blocked off...IMHO the best way to design a kit as it were a cluster of parts packs (instead of one big chunk of heavy forklift needing tooling), grouping chassis parts together in one small tool, engine in another, interior in yet again another, and so forth and so on, also easier for production, again IMHO!SKU XXX = tooling a+b+c+d+e+f, SKU XXY= tooling a+g+c+h+I, SKU XXZ=........ Edited April 18, 2016 by Luc Janssens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 enclosed torque boxes are part of the Hemi suspension...also found on some big block cars. As far as the front K member.....the only difference is The sway bar design was different between 69 and older versus 1970 and laterI believe the closed torque boxes on non Hemi cars were part of either the Super Track Pack and/or the 440 Six Pack, 4 speed cars, which also had the Dana 60 rear axle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtx6970 Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) I believe the closed torque boxes on non Hemi cars were part of either the Super Track Pack and/or the 440 Six Pack, 4 speed cars, which also had the Dana 60 rear axle.They are part of the Hemi car pkg. Including auto cars, which would have the 8-3/4 rear axle ( plus some additional welded in bracing and gussets ) But its well documented that a lot of cars ( even 340 cars ) have been found with them.They were supposed to be on all convertibles . Edited April 18, 2016 by gtx6970 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Hopefully they will revise the grille before release..seems to be missing the texture..or the pic is low-res and I can't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.