A reasonably SERIOUS new-tool '70 Charger Revell is hiding in plain sight...

[martinfan5]

 

and don't forget what this rear fascia was grouped with...

 

 

Sounds like you are telling us to read between them lines

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Oh, ain' TELLIN' anyone.

Just SAYIN'...

 

[keyser]

Chuck, make like a tree and leave...Wait, that was BTTF not F&F 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Waitaminit, wasn't that "make like a tree and go away"?

Not the sharpest putty knife in the drawer, that Biff. 

[stavanzer]

Dang that Blower Hat looks good. I may need 3 or 4 of these kits.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Scoop was one of the first "oooh" moments for me too.  I could swear there was a light parting line mid-level 'round the thing, but the shot looks more like it picked up a sprue reflection than it did that.

Guess I gotta git m' specs on 'n have another lookie.

Looking between the Toretto car and the R/T and seeing how the trees are grouped, I'm half-wondering now if the street R/T will have guards on the rear bumper.

[gtx6970]

 

Looking between the Toretto car and the R/T and seeing how the trees are grouped, I'm half-wondering now if the street R/T will have guards on the rear bumper.

I believe the rear bumper guards ( aka fangs ) are standard on a 1970 Charger. Fronts were optional

 

[Daddyfink]

The blower hat looks like the one that came in the Tony Foti LAPD Camaro kit

Not my build

[CapSat 6]

Ok- I got mine today. Soooo...while hoping NOT to start any controversy, I would like to share my real thoughts here. 

Whenever a new tool for a subject that I am intensely interested in come out, I now have to play this game: "does it look like a ________". The blank represents the make and model of car in 1:1 that it is supposed to represent. I think that is a fair test, especially after some of the kits that have been put on the market recently (cough'70Cuda)...

I say this because it's my opinion that no matter how great the little details are, it's all for naught if the body shape is poor. I build scale replicas, and while I don't consider myself a rivet counter, a 'Cuda should look like a 'Cuda, not like a Camaro's illegitimate son.

The answer here: yes, in my opinion, it looks like a '70 Charger. 

I think Chuck has been spot on with his observations so far (different, although very similar tool to the Revell '68 and '69). All good so far, really.

I compared it to some reference pics on the Internet (but not dial caliper style- I just used my eyes), and to me, it looks pretty good. There have been some kits that have been so far off in my eyes that they simply gross me out, and consequently won't be built by me (cough...)...but this is not one of them. I think the heavily hinted-at stock version is going to be a winner. 

I think Revell actually improved this over the '68-'69 body, in the areas of the door scallops and the wheelhouses (they enlarged the wheelhouses, and made the scallops less pronounced). 

The only nits I have are: 1) the front fender turn signal indicators seem a little wedge shaped to me, and the front bumper/ grille seem a little tall (especially compared to the original MPC). Neither of these things are bad enough to dissuade me from building it. Overall, my opinion is that they captured the 1:1 pretty well. 

First pic- top car - F&F '70, bottom car- '69 Daytona. 

2nd pic- left car- original MPC '70, right car- F&F '70. 

3rd pic- top car- F&F '70, bottom - MPC '70. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by CapSat 6
Clarified text.

[CapSat 6]

One more thing I tried out: the Daytona hood does fit the F&F body, but it will need a little trimming. Also, the curvature is a little different where it meets the fender sides, but I think it could be bent to shape. 

I believe that both 1:1's used the same hood. The '68-'69 hood scallops are wrong for both the '70 and the Daytona. I think the hood was used on the Daytona as a model-year "pull forward" production part. 

[Bob Ellis]

I could make a statement; most of the MPC cars seemed narrow undersized. That becomes a problem if you are using the MPC Charger as the standard.

[CapSat 6]

I could make a statement; most of the MPC cars seemed narrow undersized. That becomes a problem if you are using the MPC Charger as the standard.

Looking at pics of real cars, myself- I like the proportions of the MPC bumper a little better. I'm not necessarily saying that MPC nailed it. I'd still like to see both in paint, but so far, I think given the choice between both bumpers, I like the MPC's a little better. The Revell bumper is not a fail in my eyes, just that I prefer the MPC when I look at the picture references. I feel the same way about the '68 and '69 Revell & MPC kits as well though, so it could be one of those optical illusion-type things, where for some reason the MPC front ends seem more agreeable to my eyes.

I'd agree with you as well that the MPC B-Bodies seem undersized. I think they're about 1/25.5 scale...

 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Excellent, Bill!

Pile on right here if you want as you get yours, everybody. The more the merrier - and more complete the assessment, the more eyes we get on it.

[charlie8575]

I wonder if that taillight panel, which doesn't have the R/T badge on it, means we're getting a standard-trim, 318-powered car? That would certainly be different for a model, and if that LA is good, i'll buy a whole bunch of these just for the engine/transmission.

My dad had a '68 new, with a 318. He loved it. The aerodynamics on this car were so good, he regularly got 25-27 at 60, and even with the 318, it would get up to 120, and there was still rod on the loud pedal.

He was living in Connecticut at the time, and one of his co-workers needed to go back up to Lawrence, Ma. when his son took very, very ill. They were down on the Connecticut shoreline in Startford, making this about a 200-mile run. His co-worker's ratty old Chevy wasn't going to make it up and back, so Dad let him use his Charger, and asked him to return it with some gas.

Later that evening, the other guy, Pete, I think his name was, came back.

Dad: That was quick. Everything okay?

Pete: Yeah, he'll be allright, but in the hospital for a few days. I didn't think that Charger would move that quickly.

Dad: Oh? So, I'm curious...how fast does it go?

Pete: Roy, trust me, you don't want to know.

Charlie Larkin

[MrObsessive]

Bill's pics are very interesting, and I'd have to give the nod to Revell for getting the total body shape more correct. Something about the MPC body in the C-pillar area is not quite right--------almost seems "smooshed" or something, and not quite there.

I personally like the grille of the Revell '70 better as there's just flat out better detail than the MPC. The jury's still out to me on the shape, I'd call it a draw on that one. Interesting how Revell did indeed enlarge the wheelwells on the '70 ever so slightly as to how they were on the '69 as shown on the Daytona. Without seeing the 1:1's before me, I'm not sure which of the two is more correct as both look good. This isn't an egregious error to me as much as Revell fudging up the roofline on their '59 Chevy Impala hardtop, and then quietly correcting it on their '60.

[CapSat 6]

Excellent, Bill!

Pile on right here if you want as you get yours, everybody. The more the merrier - and more complete the assessment, the more eyes we get on it.

Thanks, Chuck. I'm just doing my civic duty! ?

Bill's pics are very interesting, and I'd have to give the nod to Revell for getting the total body shape more correct. Something about the MPC body in the C-pillar area is not quite right--------almost seems "smooshed" or something, and not quite there. 

Bill G.- admittedly, I had some trouble getting the side-on shots with my phone. They're not the best pics. I don't think the MPC bodies' cabs look so smooshed usually, this might be a result of the bad optics, or the fact that the Revell body is slightly bigger in a few places. I'm actually fine with either roofline/ cab myself.

On a side note: I really, really like these cars. I have many, many copies of the various MPC Chargers of this generation, even the stinky ones, and quite a few of the Revells, too. I'm of the opinion that I probably can't have too many '68-'70 Chargers. There is a soft spot in my soul for the MPC kits, which I always thought looked the part. I grew up with these kits, starting with a bunch of the DoH kits I bought on the cheap at of all places- a toy store in Chinatown, NYC in about 1982. I converted some of these into '68's and '70's using resin parts from John Heyer, and sheet plastic for the rear window conversions. 

It's nice to have the Revell kits now. 

 

 

[magicmustang]

Good 3/4s pic of a 1970 Charger R/T for comparison.

[Janne Herajärvi]

I want maybe 2 of these kits... Another to build as F&F car and another just for engine and other parts.. and if/when stock version comes out of this, i want that too... 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Alas, Charlie, I think that if they were looking at a 318 car, we wouldn't have gotten the R/T grille. That part seems to show where R/M's heart really is on this tooling.

So the kit's split for the lower front valence is prototypical, according to Gerald's pic? Cool!

[niteowl7710]

I dunno the kit grille and the yellow car don't look that far apart to me. I have to wonder if some of the "tallness" wouldn't be rectified by painting the argent surrounds and black grill areas. There's just a lot of uniformly SHINY chrome OOB, and have the color transitions might help draw your eye away from how it looks as a single piece.

Sort of the way painting and foiling a '56 Chrysler makes that kit "lose" the odd hump it has in the roof that is pretty prominent on the raw body.

[Mr mopar]

I dunno the kit grille and the yellow car don't look that far apart to me. I have to wonder if some of the "tallness" wouldn't be rectified by painting the argent surrounds and black grill areas. There's just a lot of uniformly SHINY chrome OOB, and have the color transitions might help draw your eye away from how it looks as a single piece.

Sort of the way painting and foiling a '56 Chrysler makes that kit "lose" the odd hump it has in the roof that is pretty prominent on the raw body.

I agree with a little paint on the grill it should look way better !

[charlie8575]

Alas, Charlie, I think that if they were looking at a 318 car, we wouldn't have gotten the R/T grille. That part seems to show where R/M's heart really is on this tooling.

So the kit's split for the lower front valence is prototypical, according to Gerald's pic? Cool!

Assuming they do a set, looks like it'll be MCG photo-etch to the rescue.

Charlie Larkin

[Mr mopar]

Had a good look at the tail light lens ,there wrong for 70' they should have a reflector in the meddle of them . that was new for 1970

Charger ,where 1969 did not have them ,even the 318 car's had them.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Only question I'd have about that - they may be wrong for a '70, but are they necessarily wrong for the F&F car?  The picture I put up from the movie on page three seemed to show a decent match.  Aftermarket pieces?

Main thing has me wondering right now - 'cause I'm too lazy to Google it just yit - is the rear wheelhouse arches, which are pretty changed from the relative match between MPC and Revell '69s.  Wondering how those compare to 1:1 ref pix...

[Mr mopar]

Only question I'd have about that - they may be wrong for a '70, but are they necessarily wrong for the F&F car?  The picture I put up from the movie on page three seemed to show a decent match.  Aftermarket pieces?

Main thing has me wondering right now - 'cause I'm too lazy to Google it just yit - is the rear wheelhouse arches, which are pretty changed from the relative match between MPC and Revell '69s.  Wondering how those compare to 1:1 ref pix...

Did some Google searching the FF charger did use 69' tail lights so the kit is correct ,but I hope the stock version will have the right ones.