MPC 1979 Trans Am'

[1hobby1]

hey guys, 

Picked this kit up to make a replica of my fathers 1:1 version. This kit has the some of the worst body lines I've ever seen. Not to mention nothing fits properly. Has anyone else had this issue with this kit? Any finished versions on here? I would love to see if anyone worked some magic. 

 

Thanks!

Edited December 28, 2016 by 1hobby1

[Can-Con]

I finished one, here's a link to it,,

Here's also a link to my build I have in the works of 2 more of them,

,,And here's a general discussion in the kit news and reviews section,,

 

[charger74]

I built it Last year. I remember the back window was a bad fit, and if you put the carburator with the shaker, the hood won't fit properly. Here is my take on it

[randyc]

I have an original and a reissue from early 00's.  neither fit worth a hoot.  Not a very good kit by today's standards.  Lot of work to make it "right"

[Motor City]

As I recall, the original promo kit doesn't have as poor a fit stuffing the interior tub and chassis into the body as the regular original kit.  It's not a very good tooling.  The comment regarding the hood scoop is correct, too.

[charlie8575]

This is one car that really needs to get a new mold done. With the proper options and parts, it would probably sell very, very well.

Charlie Larkin

[Luc Janssens]

This is one car that really needs to get a new mold done. With the proper options and parts, it would probably sell very, very well.

Charlie Larkin

Back in the day when Ertl was tooling up the all new Amt 2nd gen. Camaro model kit, they should've considered doing the Poncho twin, and the changes both models went thru, during the decade they were produced.

I'm sure the engineers tried to, but that marketing told them "every man his trade"

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Luc Janssens

[echoxrayniner]

This is one car that really needs to get a new mold done. With the proper options and parts, it would probably sell very, very well.

Charlie Larkin

Totally agreed, hell I'm still contemplating buying a new one already after having gone through the trouble(or absolute hell rather) of already making one, now I know that if I just make it a pretty curbside and avoid even putting a engine in there I may just be able of getting the front wheels to sit the way they should and the shaker/scoop may just sit... straight-ish.

Though MPC's not really known for retooling old kits, are they? D:

[1hobby1]

Glad to see mine is not the only one! Spent a few visits at the bench just sanding and using body putty to try and make it look somewhat presentable. A new mold would be awesome!

[Mike999]

Bought the latest release and it has all the fit problems everyone has mentioned.  The fit of the nose to the fenders is especially gruesome.  One minor thing I do like about this kit - it has a well-engraved console for the automatic transmission.  You can actually read the "P-R-N" letters.  The old AMT '78 Trans Am had a manual console, and not a very good one.  So you can do the foil-and-epoxy trick on the '79 and copy its console. Or just hack it out with a razor saw, if you get frustrated enough at the rest of the kit.

Long as I'm here - people often comment that the 400 engine in all these kits looks "too small."  I thought so too, until I started looking closely at photos of wrecked Firebirds.  I think part of this is just that the model-kit engine is not buried in smog equipment, A/C, hoses, etc. so it looks smaller than the real thing.

But the real thing looks pretty small too. Here's a '79 Trans-Am with the engine visible:

 

[IHSS]

Bought the latest release and it has all the fit problems everyone has mentioned.  The fit of the nose to the fenders is especially gruesome.  One minor thing I do like about this kit - it has a well-engraved console for the automatic transmission.  You can actually read the "P-R-N" letters.  The old AMT '78 Trans Am had a manual console, and not a very good one.  So you can do the foil-and-epoxy trick on the '79 and copy its console. Or just hack it out with a razor saw, if you get frustrated enough at the rest of the kit.

Long as I'm here - people often comment that the 400 engine in all these kits looks "too small."  I thought so too, until I started looking closely at photos of wrecked Firebirds.  I think part of this is just that the model-kit engine is not buried in smog equipment, A/C, hoses, etc. so it looks smaller than the real thing.

But the real thing looks pretty small too. Here's a '79 Trans-Am with the engine visible:

 

That's a Chevy small block not a Pontiac 400

[Young iron]

That's a Chevy small block not a Pontiac 400

Ditto

[Mike999]

Whoops!  OK, thanks.  Here's a T/A under restoration, hopefully with a Poncho engine. Same idea, the engine by itself doesn't take up all that much room:

 

[unclescott58]

Back in the day when Ertl was tooling up the all new Amt 2nd gen. Camaro model kit, they should've considered doing the Poncho twin, and the changes both models went thru, during the decade they were produced.

I'm sure the engineers tried to, but that marketing told them "every man his trade"

 

Luc you bring up something I've never thought about. Your right, it would have been nice if Ertl would have tooled up a new early 2nd gen Firebird when they did the Camaro kit. The only trouble I can see is that they would have done another Trans Am. Don't get me wrong, I do like Trans Ams. But, I rather see a 1970 - '72 Firebird Formula. (I've also wish someone would offer an SS version of 2nd gen Camaro. Without the RS front end.)

Scott

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by unclescott58

[Luc Janssens]

Lic you bring up something I've never thought about. Your right, it would have been nice if Ertl would have tooled up a new early 2nd gen Firebird when they did the Camaro kit. The only trouble I can see is that they would have done another Trans Am. Don't get me wrong, I do like Trans Ams. But, I rather see a 1970 - '72 Firebird Formula. (I've also wish someone would offer an SS version of 2nd gen Camaro. Without the RS front end.)

Scott

 

Maybe we can convince Moebius

 

[unclescott58]

Luc, sorry about misspelling your name above. I didn't see the mistake until I saw your response. I have corrected it.

Scott

 

[Luc Janssens]

Luc, sorry about misspelling your name above. I didn't see the mistake until I saw your response. I have corrected it.

Scott

No problem Scott, I did saw it, but thought it was a typo, like Billy Joel sang "we're only human..."

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Luc Janssens

[unclescott58]

No problem Scott, I did saw it, but thought it was a typo, like Billy Joel sang "we're only human..."

 

It was a typo. I don't know if it was me, the "human," or the autocorrection of the iPad? I'm leaning towards the human.

Scott