New From Round2/AMT 2020

[Rob Hall]

1 minute ago, Luc Janssens said:

Hmmm, somehow the topic changed from Round2 to Monogram

Such is the nature of the internet...topics take unexpected directions at times...

[Tom Geiger]

2 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

People don't even look at the parts layout on the box.  I saw a post on a FB group last week about a guy that bought the recent AMT '63 Impala reissue and thought it would be all-new and was disappointed. 

If you want to see where 99 percent of the kits go, check out Model boards on Facebook.  Threads with 100 responses defending not painting models at all or that brush painting bodies is good enough. 

[vincen47]

2 minutes ago, Tom Geiger said:

If you want to see where 99 percent of the kits go, check out Model boards on Facebook.  Threads with 100 responses defending not painting models at all or that brush painting bodies is good enough. 

Absolutely. I could not agree more. We tend to forget that the quality of builds we see, and techniques we discuss on this forum are not typical.

[Luc Janssens]

33 minutes ago, Tom Geiger said:

If you want to see where 99 percent of the kits go, check out Model boards on Facebook.  Threads with 100 responses defending not painting models at all or that brush painting bodies is good enough. 

Yet somehow the military/plane side of the model kit spectrum keeps on getting more detailed, I guess our efforts to bring automotive kits a few notches up are useless....Let's revive Palmer!

a quote from the Borg, "resistance is futile"

 

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[Vince Nemanic]

I see so many people make a comment like "All they need to do is tool up a new (insert some major body or interior part here)".  Tim clearly stated that it can take months or years to do this type of thing. But I have a question for someone in the know: what is a ballpark figure for the cost for Round 2 to tool up the new parts for the "64 Cutlass?

$25.000? $50,000? More (or less)?

Perhaps there would be fewer such "tool up" comments if modelers were aware of the costs involved.

[1972coronet]

B09 Apprehender Package was the mother of invention for the 4-4-2  ; it was available for four door ( Oldsmobile's police package ) or two door ( 4- barrel , 4-speed , 2-exhaust , originally ) .

The inclusion of the Jet-A-Way 2-speed transmission means making this F-85 an accurate B09 would necessitate a 4-speed trans. But , at least the hard parts are there ; kit-bashing for those whom wish to update their '64 Cutlass F-85 .

I'd be very happy with an OOB build of a '64 Olds !

[Luc Janssens]

35 minutes ago, Vince Nemanic said:

I see so many people make a comment like "All they need to do is tool up a new (insert some major body or interior part here)".  Tim clearly stated that it can take months or years to do this type of thing. But I have a question for someone in the know: what is a ballpark figure for the cost for Round 2 to tool up the new parts for the "64 Cutlass?

$25.000? $50,000? More (or less)?

Perhaps there would be fewer such "tool up" comments if modelers were aware of the costs involved.

It's all about the willingness to put money behind the idea, it takes money to make money.

Up until now the tool was waste, an incomplete paid for block of steel that was taking up space and costing money, one can do two things then, (ROI) depending on the state of the tooling, desirability of the subject and restoration costs and that is invest the cash or dump it, simple as that.

Revell (before the Hobbico implosion) could do it, and so does Moebius and many other foreign model companies, I think it's more about the focus of the money guy of Round-2, the big savior of the legacy of Amt, Mpc and to a much much much much much lesser extent Lindberg

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[larman]

10 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

B09 Apprehender Package was the mother of invention for the 4-4-2  ; it was available for four door ( Oldsmobile's police package ) or two door ( 4- barrel , 4-speed , 2-exhaust , originally ) .

The inclusion of the Jet-A-Way 2-speed transmission means making this F-85 an accurate B09 would necessitate a 4-speed trans. But , at least the hard parts are there ; kit-bashing for those whom wish to update their '64 Cutlass F-85 .

I'd be very happy with an OOB build of a '64 Olds !

A 4-speed and interior console swap are relatively easy to do. The nice thing about this car is it doesn't have a different hood, grille, tail lights, or trim specific to the high performance model. Like say a Chevelle SS or GTO. Also I was looking at the hardtop roofline and the AMT '65 GTO will probably work, as others have mentioned. I am glad to see this kit back, I had a nice unbuilt convertible and sold it a few years ago. 

 

[highway]

1 hour ago, Snake45 said:

Well, I don't know anything about trucks. 

Of the two cars shown, I think the Impala was always Revell, never Monogram, and the Camaro is 1/24, not 1/25. 

I still can't think of any Monogram, 1/25, car snapper kits. 

I'm sorry you don't know about trucks because they are vital for everything you have, maybe you should broaden your modeling horizons beyond 4 wheels. 

As for the scale on the Camaro, I corrected myself in the second post with the pictures so I could have be confusing it with the truck kits and the fact that the others are all 1/25th scale that I thought the Camaro was also. The main point of my original comment wasn't really for scales, but kit histories and how some really either seem to care or just think because a kit came out in the past couple years or is coming in 2020 it should be "new" or just because a kit is a Skill Level 2 and has the little glue drop symbol on the box there is no way it could be the same kit that came in a Snap Tite box years ago. 

1 hour ago, Luc Janssens said:

Hmmm, somehow the topic changed from Round2 to Monogram

The same way the Revell thread spiraled into talk about AMT 69 Chevelles and El Caminos and other AMT kits! 

[tim boyd]

3 hours ago, Ron Hamilton said:

Remember. In 1964, part of the 442 package was a 4 speed manual transmission. The 64 Olds Cutlass tool has a automatic transmission console. I have a hardtop and a convertible that needs a windshield header. I had planned to combine a 64 body with the superior 66 chassis and drivetrain for a future project.

Excellent point Ron.   

To build on this line of thinking, earlier this PM I pulled out my original '64 Cutlass annual kit and the engine block/tranny assy appearance very closely matches some Powerglide documentation in my files.  I don''t know for sure how close the "Jetaway" F85 two-speed tranny was to the Powerglide (both overall and just in exterior appearance), but the tranny in annual kit sure sure doesn't look like a 4 speed manual from what I can tell. 

Sounds like your plans for a kitbashed '64 442 using the AMT-Ertl '66 kit is the way to go here... 

Best...TIM 

[Ron Hamilton]

22 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Excellent point Ron.   

To build on this line of thinking, earlier this PM I pulled out my original '64 Cutlass annual kit and the engine block/tranny assy appearance very closely matches some Powerglide documentation in my files.  I don''t know for sure how close the "Jetaway" F85 two-speed tranny was to the Powerglide (both overall and just in exterior appearance), but the tranny in annual kit sure sure doesn't look like a 4 speed manual from what I can tell. 

Sounds like your plans for a kitbashed '64 442 using the AMT-Ertl '66 kit is the way to go here... 

Best...TIM 

Here's my plan. Several years ago, I bought a 66 442 Convertible kit very cheap. It had no body but everything else. I had bought a built up 64 Cutlass convertible. The previous owner did it as a race car, popping off the windshield frame. I have enough parts to build it with kit parts, but the detailed car was quite interesting, plus I have MCG photoetch for the 442 emblems. Rereleasing the kit in annual form will allow me to pull off the project. I'm still going to buy one when it's available.

When I was a kid, I remember a friend of my dad had bought a new 64 Cutlass Convertible. It was white with a White top and metallic blue interior. 

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, highway said:

I'm sorry you don't know about trucks because they are vital for everything you have, maybe you should broaden your modeling horizons beyond 4 wheels. 

I'm sorry I forgot to mention in my post, "Yes, I know that everything I own, have, or eat, or ever will, was bought by a truck," because I knew you would. Except for older rod types and El Caminos and such, I really have little interest in modeling them, though. Look at the bright side of this: I won't be bidding against you on eBay for rare old ones. (Reminds me of a great old Andrew Dice Clay joke that's far too filthy and politically incorrect to even think of posting here.) 

And remember, this IS the CAR Kit News & Reviews section of the Model CARS Magazine forum. I don't come down to the Truck section whining about the inaccuracies of the Revell '67 Camaro, do I?

As to "broadening my modeling horizons," I've probably built more model airplanes than anyone else on this board over the last 60 or so years, and I can hold my own with armored fighting vehicles, too, when the mood strikes me, which it doesn't that often. So how 'bout a break, okay? Trucks is important. We all get it. 

[ChrisBcritter]

Back to the Cutlass. I wonder what the process was for getting the rust off the molds, and if it left any pitting/scoring that had to be filled in?

Tim, can you add any details, like whether the glass was redone, and will it still have clear red taillights? Any chance it will have a raised convertible top?

[Snake45]

Just now, ChrisBcritter said:

Back to the Cutlass.

A convertible up-top would be a GREAT idea! 

[ChrisBcritter]

Yes, for either Round2 or the aftermarket. Especially if it would also fit the '65 GTO (and could be adapted to the Revell '65 Chevelle, solving its roof problem once and for all ).

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, ChrisBcritter said:

Yes, for either Round2 or the aftermarket. Especially if it would also fit the '65 GTO (and could be adapted to the Revell '65 Chevelle, solving its roof problem once and for all ).

I was thinking exactly the same thing! 

[StevenGuthmiller]

3 hours ago, Snake45 said:

A convertible up-top would be a GREAT idea! 

Now that would be a great addition!

I can think of a few other kits that I could use that top on. ('64 Le Mans for one)

 

The top alone would insure that I would buy more than one kit!

 

 

 

 

Steve

[Tom Geiger]

8 hours ago, Vince Nemanic said:

I see so many people make a comment like "All they need to do is tool up a new (insert some major body or interior part here)".  Tim clearly stated that it can take months or years to do this type of thing. 

People don’t understand how tooling actually works, so they simplify it down as if they were kit bashing... the ole “it’s so simple,  just take the roof off kit A and add the engine top end from kit B!”

They have no idea how those parts sit on trees, or how those blocks fit into a tool to work with plastic flow and ejector pins. How much room is there in the confines of a tool? And I’m sure I’ve over simplified that. And that’s why there are engineers!

Edited March 8, 2020 by Tom Geiger

[Motor City]

Besides what was already mentioned (4-barrel, 4-speed, dual exhausts, front fender and trunk emblems), the 442 had a dual-snorkel air cleaner and a rear stabilizer bar.  What we don't need are decal emblems like Revell has done with so many of their releases.

[Fat Brian]

Would the Lindberg/AMT 66 Chevelle chassis be a suitable donor as well? I have an Olds motor to donate to the cause as well.

[Robberbaron]

16 hours ago, tim boyd said:

OK guys, finally time for me to spill the beans on the new Round 2/AMT 1964 Cutlass convertible kit.  Here is my understanding.....

1.  This project has been underway for several years (I recall posting an intentionally very vague hint about it here...what....2 or 3 years ago???)

2. The project involves a newly tooled body, patterned off the original annual kit, that matches up with the rest of the original kit tool.  The body is not a modification of the Streaker funny car body, it is all-new tooling.  

3. The remaining features of the original annual kit, including that way, way cool Judson supercharger unit, are to be included in the kit, again based on what I have been told.  

********************

*   I acquired the original annual AMT 1964 Cutlass convertible annual kit sometime in the mid-late 1970's and always thought it was a cool kit of a really, really handsome car.  Never in a million years did I ever dream it might be available again as a new kit.  Is this a great time to be involved in the hobby, or what?    

Cheers....TIM 

VERY happy to see the news on this one!  Certainly never expected to see this one again, especially after seeing the comments on that old hanger shot picture from several years ago, plus the fact the original body got butchered.

About the only way it could be better in my book is if they had retooled the hardtop body instead of the convertible (since I personally much prefer fixed-roof cars).  I certainly still plan to get one.

I am curious, however: if the body needed to be retooled, is there a reason they chose to do the convertible vs. the hardtop?  Supposedly kits of convertibles don't sell as well compared to the same subject as a hardtop - it's definitely easier for a builder to convert a hardtop body to a convertible than vice-versa.

I'm sure the original hardtop and convertible kits shared the same interior tub (with the convertible doglegs), so that doesn't seem like the answer.  Maybe the reason is that they were able to reuse the original convertible-specific body core that they already had?  Not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth here, just genuinely intrigued by the process R2 sent through when they decided to resurrect this kit.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Robberbaron

[russosborne]

I probably missed it here, but is there any chance they will reissue the Funny Car version of the Cutlass?

I'll probably buy one of the convertible ones just because, but would much rather have the FC version.

And like some others, I have to ask why a convertible if you are redoing the body completely?

Thanks,

Russ

[1972coronet]

Forgive my nighttime meds' brain function here ; I don't see where @tim boyd mentioned the new tool body as being a drop-top . Did I miss something ?

[Luc Janssens]

1 hour ago, 1972coronet said:

Forgive my nighttime meds' brain function here ; I don't see where @tim boyd mentioned the new tool body as being a drop-top . Did I miss something ?

The announcement say's convertible.

AMT PLASTIC MODEL KITS      Plastic Model Kits

Brand

Product #

Description

Suggested Retail Price

Status

AMT PLASTIC MODEL KITS

AMT-1200

1/25 1964 Olds Cutlass F85 Convertible

$35.95

TBA

Personally I find it strange that they don't go for a hardtop body when tooling all new, cuz hardtops sell a lot better, perhaps it's because of the interior tub.

[Luc Janssens]

7 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

People don’t understand how tooling actually works, so they simplify it down as if they were kit bashing... the ole “it’s so simple,  just take the roof off kit A and add the engine top end from kit B!”

They have no idea how those parts sit on trees, or how those blocks fit into a tool to work with plastic flow and ejector pins. How much room is there in the confines of a tool? And I’m sure I’ve over simplified that. And that’s why there are engineers!

Indeed, but think nowadays they use smaller tooling to facilitate the adding of extra parts, to existing traditional non-modular designed tooling.

Remember Revell suddenly adding a wagon to the '57 Ford? 

Depending on tooling design blocking off unwanted parts can be a problem, cuz it might interrupt the flow of plastic,  so they either get included as extra part in a kit, or cut off in the pre-packaging state and regrind.

But one also has to remember that back in the old days, insert swapping was very common, parts which were originally in one kit, a few years later ended up in another, one example the amt '66 Chevy Impala engine in the '61 Ranchero, MPC really mastered it, and without good records, the headache of engineers in search of an insert to re-release a certain kit.

Nowadays newly designed tools incorporate the possibility of several versions, the execution varies between companies.

Now Tom, I'm not an engineer, but used to be a problem solver and set up the work sequence and workstation requirements so an operator had the info, tooling, time and the necessary parts to perform his or her task in a ergonomic and foolproof manner, so give me some slack

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Luc Janssens