Roadrunner Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 As the title suggests, I'd like to know which '67 Charger is recommended as being the better of the two; more accurate, better detailed, and like that.
MrObsessive Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Definitely the Revell kit IMO. To my eyes a more accurate shape, better chassis detail, and has an excellent Hemi to boot! Can't go wrong with this one!
thatz4u Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Revell gets my vote, instruction on their website, check Drastic Plastic for the MPC, they may have the instructions
shoopdog Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 I just built the Revell Muscle 67 Charger and found it to be very detailed. Can't speak for the MPC kit but sure like their box art.I too would have to say definitely the Revell kit just for the sake of past experiences with MPC kits.
Xingu Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 The Revell kit has good interior and exterior detail. Chassis is also well detailed.
gtx6970 Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Does the MPC version still have sink marks in the body like the past issues ?
Ron Hamilton Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Definitely the Revell kit. See for yourself. I built this one when the kit originally came out. The only things I added was the Satco Blue Lines, and of course Paint and Bare Metal Foil.
Roadrunner Posted June 18, 2016 Author Posted June 18, 2016 Looks like the Revell kit is is then. I've started half seriously "collecting" the Revell Muscle boxings anyway, and the kit can still be found for a pretty good price, so that's the route I''ll take. Thanks very much for the replies, fellas. I rely heavily on you guys for solid information and opinions.Ron, are you sure that's not a real car? It looks great.
Roadrunner Posted June 19, 2016 Author Posted June 19, 2016 You can also get the Foose version, it's a 2n1.OK, good to know, though for the moment I'll be concentrating on the Revell Muscle series specifically.
Sport Suburban Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 Yes, Revell kit all the way. It is more recent tooling and the MPC kit dates back to the original 1966 annual and is not bad for its time period. You could take the MPC kit and kit bash the AMT 71 Charger chassis and engine comp and build a real nice one on par with the Revell kit. But now you have two or three kits to buy if you don't have them already.I have both kits and plan to build one MPC 67 as a 66 Charger useing a Modelhaus conversion kit (interior and 66 caps along with 66 dated bumpers). But I like some of the simplicity of the old annuals.
Luc Janssens Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 The body of the Mpc kit is marred by pesky sink marks, on the "end caps" front and rear.Don't have the latest reissue (only the molded in black street machine) I think Round-2 can avoid that in future releases, by opening up the panels, on which you'd have to glue the tail-lamp housing, as well as the front grille, leaving only a small ridge or so, to have some locator and glue surface.Just my humble opinion.
Snake45 Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 The old MPC has a pretty accurate body and is a fun nostalgia build, if you get one without body sink marks.The Revell kit is better in just about every way.
unclescott58 Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 Has anybody built both, and can post pictures of the MPC and Revell Chargers together? That would be interesting to see.
Roadrunner Posted June 19, 2016 Author Posted June 19, 2016 Once again, thanks, fellas, your inputs are invaluable to me.
1972coronet Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 I've built the Revell "brother" to their '67 Charger , the '67 GTX ; I can only speak to that kit and its contents . While there are lots of excellent features , there are a few easily-fixable weak points :- Incorrect rear axle . The kit has a Hemi / 4-speed with 8.75" rear ; that is incorrect . It should either have a Torqueflite / 8.75" or 4-speed / Dana 60 (the Dana could be had with the Torqueflite , too ).- 4-paddle direct-drive fan . Again , incorrect for a Street Hemi ; only the Super Stock version had the smaller fan . Should have a 7-paddle clutch fan .Other than those two "flubb-ups" , it's a great kit . Not sure if the Charger has the same options as the GTX ( headers , Super Stock air cleaner , hood scoop , Keystone wheels [ though I have seen the Chager with Cragar S/S ] , vintage 7" slicks , etc. ) , or if that's even of interest to you .
MrObsessive Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 - Incorrect rear axle . The kit has a Hemi / 4-speed with 8.75" rear ; that is incorrect . It should either have a Torqueflite / 8.75" or 4-speed / Dana 60 (the Dana could be had with the Torqueflite , too ). Interesting about the rear end in that kit John. Which kit would have the proper diff in it to suit the Hemi? I have both the '67 Charger and GTX, and never gave that a second look. The GTX has some body issues that bug me-----if I ever get around to building it, that would be chief among my corrections. Curious about the rear diff though............
1972coronet Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Interesting about the rear end in that kit John. Which kit would have the proper diff in it to suit the Hemi? I have both the '67 Charger and GTX, and never gave that a second look. The GTX has some body issues that bug me-----if I ever get around to building it, that would be chief among my corrections. Curious about the rear diff though............ I'm not aware of any '66-'67 kits with the Dana 60 , so one would have to semi-scratch-build one for the Revell '67 GTX / RO23 // Coronet / Charger ; Dana 60 centre , with Evergreen tubing for the axle tubes . Perhaps a Torqueflite conversion would be easier (e.g. , the trans from one of the Revell '68-'69 Dart kits , and the brake pedal arrangement from the same). The one that I built was a "build-this-for-me-and-I-don't-care-about-chassis-details" commissions . Starting with the 1966 model year , Chrysler started employing the Dana 60 for 4-speed / Hemi cars (making a '64-'65 Hemi / 4-speed / 8.75" rear correct) . Here's the breakdown : - 440 , 440+6 , Hemi : Torqueflite / 8.75" rear standard . 4-speed / Dana 60 was optional . And , yes , a Dana 60 / Torqueflite combo was an option . Exceptions ? All 1969 1/2 440 Six Pack / Six Barrel Super Bee / Road Runner came with the Dana , regardless of transmission . Also , no Dana 60 / air conditioning combo ; same with air conditioning and 440+6 or Hemi . - 340 , 383 : These were all 8.75" , regardless of transmission . Edited June 19, 2016 by 1972coronet
Xingu Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Just checked as these are on my bench at the moment:The Revell Foose version has the 8¾" rear as well. The Monogram Superbird and the Revellogram '69 Dodge 440 both have the big Dana. Edited June 19, 2016 by Xingu My keyboard did not spell correctly.
Roadrunner Posted June 19, 2016 Author Posted June 19, 2016 Interesting stuff, John, so thanks for the info. While this may annoy some, I seldom (if ever) will worry about the underneath of the car, one way or the other, including even the engine.
Roadrunner Posted June 19, 2016 Author Posted June 19, 2016 Just checked as these are on my bench at the moment:The Revell Foose version has the 8¾" rear as well. The Monogram Superbird and the Revellogram '69 Dodge 440 both have the big Dana.Good to know if I ever decide to trick out the bottom of one of my car models. Since I anticipate the majority of my finished car models will just sit on shelves here, the bottoms will virtually never be seen. Assuming I can ever finish a car that I'm not embarrassed to take to a show, at least in the beginning, they'll all be done up as curbside examples.
Jantrix Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) Has anybody built both, and can post pictures of the MPC and Revell Chargers together? That would be interesting to see. I have built both but literally decades apart. Not to mention the differences in skill level. This is the MPC, built 90's style with the engine chassis from the AMT '70 Superbee pro-street. The build is 20+ years old. Aside from the sink marks already mentioned, one thing that was an issue was the shallowness of trim and badges. It would not be fun to foil IMHO. As you can see here, I did not. I'm fairly certain it's an "axle through the engine block" kit as well. The Revell kit is - in a word - spectacular. This was built shortly after release ('01?) and it's box stock - something I've yet to do since. Great fit, everything short of the lower coolant hose is a breeze to put together. Great trim definition. In my opinion it's in the top ten best kits of all time. My only beef is that it would have cost Revell another twelve cents to add parts to make it a '66 OR '67 and they didn't think to do it. Edited June 22, 2016 by Jantrix
Snake45 Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 This is the MPC... one thing that was an issue was the shallowness of trim and badges. It would not be fun to foil IMHO. As you can see here, I did not. My only beef is that it would have cost Revell another twelve cents to add parts to make it a '66 and they didn't think to do it. I'm working on an '80s or '90s reissue of the MPC, and the badges on the roof sides and front fenders are amazingly sharp. The chrome strip that runs along the top edge of the body, not so much. I ended up sanding that off mine and am doing it as a late-'70s "high school hot rod/project car" in primer just for that reason. What would Revell have needed to include to make it a '66--wheel covers and seats (front and rear)?
Jantrix Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 What would Revell have needed to include to make it a '66--wheel covers and seats (front and rear)? Based on this. http://www.chargersourceguide.com/66_67Differences.html It looks like the differences for a scale model would be1. Delete the fender directional indicators for '662. Side mirrors: '66 - "dual post" style, '67 - single post and look like the remote mirrors.3. Hubcaps, spinners on 66, not on 674. Console (full in 66, split in 67)5. Single stage master cylinder on 66, dual stage on 67 ( I don't know how physically different they would look.)That's about it.
Roadrunner Posted June 22, 2016 Author Posted June 22, 2016 I'll probably grab the Revell kit next month. Thanks again, fellas.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now