Has anybody actually fixed the C-pillar on the AMT '71 Duster?

[Monty]

Yes, I'm fully aware that this kit was designed and issued years (decades?) ago.  Yet, for some reason most of the ones I've seen built still have the inaccurate C-pillar.  

I guess I'm hoping to get advice on fixing mine, since I can't fathom building it as is.  Is it just a matter of sanding/filing etc, or is there more to it?  Seems like if it was easy, more people would have done it.  ?‍♂️

Pics of any work you've done would be appreciated.  

[Ace-Garageguy]

7 minutes ago, Monty said:

Seems like if it was easy, more people would have done it... 

I haven't done it, but I wouldn't make that assumption.

By far the vast majority of car modelers accept what comes in the box, and either just don't see scaling and proportion issues, or if they do, don't care enough to correct them.

Edited January 16, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[Fat Brian]

It may be worth it to you to check out the new Demon kit and see if the rear window shape is any better. If so you could try to swap them over.

[Monty]

31 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

It may be worth it to you to check out the new Demon kit and see if the rear window shape is any better. If so you could try to swap them over.

I guess I don't see the benefit of this.  Why spend $30.00 to get the Demon, then perform styrene surgery to transfer the roof to the Duster? I plan to buy the Demon eventually, but with the intention of building it.  Regarding the issue I want to resolve, my first impression is that it's just the inside edge of the C-pillar that looks incorrect.  Maybe I could use the Demon to create a template of sorts.  As you can probably tell, I'm  not all that experienced in model bodywork.   

[StevenGuthmiller]

2 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I haven't done it, but I wouldn't make that assumption.

By far the vast majority of car modelers accept what comes in the box, and either just don't see scaling and proportion issues, or if they do, don't care enough to correct them.

And sometimes you have to make decisions about whether it’s worth it or not.

 

 

Steve

[Monty]

3 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

And sometimes you have to make decisions about whether it’s worth it or not.

 

 

Steve

To be honest, having seen about a decade's worth of your work, I would bet the farm that a modeler who would take the time and effort to create highly accurate representations of three-color '50s/'60s interiors would never let something as obvious as this slide.  I may not be able to build at your level, but I will always strive to make a more accurate product.  If the first thing your eye is drawn to is an error, something should have been fixed.  

Edited January 17, 2024 by Monty

[Rodent]

I have this kit, and I opened the box but that is about it. Some Fireball steelies, dog dish hubcaps, and Radial T/As were tossed in the box and put away.

That said, I don't know what you are talking about because I haven't looked at the kit very hard. I was a kid when the cars were new, and living in California, I still occasionally see them on the road. My uncle Earl had a '73 Gold Duster slant 6, and my cousins and I were delighted that the driver's bench seat headrest hit the horn button when folks were exiting the rear seat. It always scared my grandmother.

Your post makes me want to dig the kit out of the stash and look it over. The box art makes the C-pillar look "chunky".

[Monty]

Compare the inside curvature of the C-pillar to a side pic of a 1:1 Duster.  Close, but off enough that I wouldn't build it without fixing it.  I think it could be improved with a little effort, but the responses I've gotten so far indicate that no one has bothered to try.  

Similar situation:  Ertl International Scout II.  I used to walk by one every day I went to high school, and my HS German teacher also had one, so I was somewhat familiar with how they should look.  Ertl's version has a grille that curves across the top, where it should be straight.  Easily fixed (SAE built one and showed how to do it) but 99% of builders don't for some reason.  

 

[StevenGuthmiller]

4 hours ago, Monty said:

To be honest, having seen about a decade's worth of your work, I would bet the farm that a modeler who would take the time and effort to create highly accurate representations of three-color '50s/'60s interiors would never let something as obvious as this slide.  I may not be able to build at your level, but I will always strive to make a more accurate product.  If the first thing your eye is drawn to is an error, something should have been fixed.  

I think sometimes, even noticing some of these inaccuracies can be proportional to ones interest in a particular vehicle.

If a particular vehicle is of high interest to someone, they’re much more likely to be aware of inaccuracies that most others  might not even realize exists.

And then there’s the question of how difficult or time consuming a particular modification might be.

Often, it might just not be worth the effort to someone.

As an example, on my last project, an AMT 1964 Pontiac Bonneville, the Bonneville script on the rear quarter panel was much larger than it should have been.

I was aware of this inconsistency, but then the question became what are the options for changing it, and if possible, is it worth the effort?

In the end, I would have preferred to correct it, but after weighing the options, I decided that in this circumstance, I was better off just leaving well enough alone.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe that the appearance suffered enough to justify the work that might have been involved to correct it.

Sometimes one just has to pick his battles.

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bainford]

1 hour ago, Monty said:

Compare the inside curvature of the C-pillar to a side pic of a 1:1 Duster.  Close, but off enough that I wouldn't build it without fixing it.  I think it could be improved with a little effort, but the responses I've gotten so far indicate that no one has bothered to try.  

 

 

I find the issue with the AMT Duster to be a bit of a sore thumb as well. Every build I see of that kit is thrown off by the incorrect line. I just can't un-see it.

I haven't built one of these yet, but plan to. I have considered how to correct it, either by re-shaping by hand, or sectioning in a piece from an old MPC '76 Dart parts car I have on hand. I have also been waiting to see what the new Demon looks like. If it is accurate, lifting a mold and casting a new section to be spliced in might work. However, this thread has me thinking about this again, and I have been having a closer look at the AMT Duster to see just what is required to fix it. It looks as though the whole roof may be an issue. Clearly the line across the top of the side glass (the drip rail) is too curved, and the point at which it drops down behind the quarter glass is not peaky enough. But, looking at it from the side, it appears the whole roof is too rounded or bulbous. Visually, from side-on, there is too much vertical dimension between the drip rail and the roof line. The Dart is far from perfect, especially with regard to the shape at the rear edge of the side glass, but the roof itself seems much better (thinner, flatter), and more easily fixed than the AMT roof.

So, it looks like a whole new roof might be needed to fix the Duster. Which got me thinking; has anyone tried just fitting the Duster front and rear clips to the Dart body? 

For comparison purposes, I have posted some photos; The yellow car is the AMT Duster, the orange one is 1:1, and the purple car is the MPC 76 Dart.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Bainford

[Fat Brian]

2 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

I think sometimes, even noticing some of these inaccuracies can be proportional to ones interest in a particular vehicle.

If a particular vehicle is of high interest to someone, they’re much more likely to be aware of inaccuracies that most others  might not even realize exists.

And then there’s the question of how difficult or time consuming a particular modification might be.

Often, it might just not be worth the effort to someone.

As an example, on my last project, an AMT 1964 Pontiac Bonneville, the Bonneville script on the rear quarter panel was much larger than it should have been.

I was aware of this inconsistency, but then the question became what are the options for changing it, and if possible, is it worth the effort?

In the end, I would have preferred to correct it, but after weighing the options, I decided that in this circumstance, I was better off just leaving well enough alone.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe that the appearance suffered enough to justify the work that might have been involved to correct it.

Sometimes one just has to pick his battles.

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's also whether whatever inaccuracy spoils the look of the vehicle. I see the Duster window but it doesn't significantly alter the overall look of the car for me. On the other hand, now that I've seen the issue with the 68/69 Roadrunner/GTX rear fenders I can't unsee it and haven't built any of those kits until I commit to fixing it.

[StevenGuthmiller]

7 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

There's also whether whatever inaccuracy spoils the look of the vehicle. I see the Duster window but it doesn't significantly alter the overall look of the car for me. On the other hand, now that I've seen the issue with the 68/69 Roadrunner/GTX rear fenders I can't unsee it and haven't built any of those kits until I commit to fixing it.

From the photos posted above, I see that the rear of the rear window opening needs to be a little more squared off at the top and vertical, but in my opinion, it's not particularly glaring.

The rear wheel openings on the AMT '68/'69 B-bodies on the other hand, appear much more obvious to me, as there's not even a basic match in shape to the front wheel opening as there should be.

 

I suppose that if it was a big enough issue with someone, the rear window of the duster may be able to be corrected, at least to some extent, by removing the drip rail molding and squaring the opening with a very thin wedge shaped shard of plastic at the rear of the opening, slightly larger at the bottom than the top, and then replacing the molding.

My opinion?

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure that it's worth the effort.

 

It sometimes occurs to me that occasionally people get too hung up on things that they consider paralyzing issues, like this window shape question, and they'll then spend hours to modify or replace a top, and then in the end, they'll still leave the cheesy door handles, or some other unrealistic or "less than accurate" detail unaddressed.

Our quest for accuracy occasionally gets the better of us I presume.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve 

[Fat Brian]

4 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

From the photos posted above, I see that the rear of the rear window opening needs to be a little more squared off at the top and vertical, but in my opinion, it's not particularly glaring.

The rear wheel openings on the AMT '68/'69 B-bodies on the other hand, appear much more obvious to me, as there's not even a basic match in shape to the front wheel opening as there should be.

 

I suppose that if it was a big enough issue with someone, the rear window of the duster may be able to be corrected, at least to some extent, by removing the drip rail molding and squaring the opening with a very thin wedge shaped shard of plastic at the rear of the opening, slightly larger at the bottom than the top, and then replacing the molding.

My opinion?

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure that it's worth the effort.

 

It sometimes occurs to me that occasionally people get too hung up on things that they consider paralyzing issues, like this window shape question, and they'll then spend hours to modify or replace a top, and then in the end, they'll still leave the cheesy door handles, or some other unrealistic or "less than accurate" detail unaddressed.

Our quest for accuracy occasionally gets the better of us I presume.

 

 

 

 

 

Steve 

Oh, 100% we are our own worst enemy most of the time in this regard. I'm highly guilty of it.

[Mark]

For some reason the roof never bothered me (having some of the annual kits as well as a couple of promos), but the curvature of the quarter windows does bug me.  The side glass on the Duster/Demon/Dart Sport is more curved than that of a Dart or Valiant, but the quarter windows on the newer Duster look too curved to me.  The annuals might be a bit flat, that might magnify the difference in comparison.

[Smitty]

I took a stab at changing the AMT Duster ‘quarter’ windows a while ago.  I sanded off the roof drip mouldings and filed and sanded the rear windows into a shape that I was happy with. Then I replaced the mouldings with styrene strip. This car is important enough to me to go to the trouble. I'm sure it's not perfect to everyone's eyes but I'm happy with it. I'll be building more of these kits in the future, and having seen the very helpful comparison photos posted by Bainford (thanks Trevor), I'll try to make the shape even more angular.

Edited February 4, 2024 by Smitty

[Bainford]

Huge improvement. Looks very good. 

[gtx6970]

Ive seen the issue before and its been hashed here before.

 

Myself, I have a built original issue 71 Duster in the case. and an unbuilt 72 Duster to build. So all the current 71 Dusters I have will be old prostock replicas. Will I change the / alter the C pillar? Not likely

 

 

Pictures are .

Lime green MPC 1972 Duster in the fore ground

All white the Current 71 Demon in the center 

White / primer is the current 71 Duster in the rear 

[gtx6970]

Closeups. Original MPC 72 versus current 71 Demon

[gtx6970]

Current 71 Demon versus current 71 Duster

[gtx6970]

Original 72 Duster compared to current 71 Duster 

[Bills72sj]

You are right. That 71 Duster is way the **** off.