Round2 at Akron NNL

[Rob Hall]

2 hours ago, tim boyd said:

I did not know that.  My '79 Chia 5.0 TRX notchback was ordered in early August 1978 and delivered (IIRC) early October.  It was one of the first ones off the line  Do not recall ever having an issue with the trunk lid.  Cool info anyway...thx for posting Rob.  TB 

PS - scroll down through this blank space just below to see two photos...

 

Yeah, I never realized the '79 decklid was shaped differently than the '80-93.  Between my parents, myself and my brother we have had a 1/2 dozen Fox Bodies over the years, still have my '87 GT.   Heard about the difference and saw pics in a FB Foxbody group I'm in.   I haven't seen a notchback in ages....

Edited October 17, 2024 by Rob Hall

[Zen]

Heard about the 79 trunk lid being different from the old 4eyedpride website.

[Can-Con]

9 hours ago, Mr mopar said:

 

I noticed someone in the video said the original didn't have the 1/4 window pillar, that's incorrect. Here's a couple shots of my annual clearly showing it did have it.

[Radretireddad]

12 hours ago, Mr mopar said:

 

I think that Demon chassis is flawed because the ride height is to low and the wheels are to far inside the openings. Check out my ‘71 Demon kit correction topic in the WIP section to see what I did to fix these issues.

[Radretireddad]

3 hours ago, Can-Con said:

I noticed someone in the video said the original didn't have the 1/4 window pillar, that's incorrect. Here's a couple shots of my annual clearly showing it did have it.

That’s a Duster in every sense of the word!

[Robberbaron]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:44 AM, Radretireddad said:

Hopefully one of them is a ‘71 or ‘72 Dart Swinger.

 

On 10/16/2024 at 1:31 PM, Dave Darby said:

That would require a longer wheelbase chassis. 

Yeah, doubting that one is in the cards.  In addition to the longer chassis that Dave mentioned, that also would force them to create a longer driveshaft and exhaust.  Dont forget a different interior tub and glass.

And all that's on top of the new body.  At that point it really is becoming a completely new kit.  Probably the biggest problem is that there never was a 1970+ factory stock Swinger kit that they can clone, which is their current standard process.

Yeah, they have the L.A. Dart body that they could maybe use as a starting point, but that itself has proportional problems and an incorrect wheelbase.

I thought the best hope for a '70s Swinger would have been a variation off the Revell '69/'68 Dart.  Unfortunately, with their current ownership I think there's little chance of that now.

[gui_tarzan]

On 10/12/2024 at 3:47 PM, Radretireddad said:

I’m wondering why the team at Round2 chose to do a variation of the Demon tooling to make a ‘72 Duster instead of their better detailed ‘71 Duster kit.?

When I built mine many years ago I heard the roofline was incorrect. Maybe that's why? 

[Motor City]

Steve Goldman of Round2 indicated that they corrected the 'B' pillar on the Demon to make it more accurate to the real car.  

[1972coronet]

6 hours ago, gui_tarzan said:

When I built mine many years ago I heard the roofline was incorrect. Maybe that's why? 

The c.1998 ad sequitur "Mueller-Era" 1971 Duster 340 has a 'questionable' roof and C pillars . 
That then-new tooling body was sans the B pillars ; those were moulded with the quarter windows (which are "fun" to install, BTW - perhaps that's why so many of those are built without the quarter windows ?)
 Lesson you're talkin' 'bout the MPC original from 1971 ?

48 minutes ago, Motor City said:

Steve Goldman of Round2 indicated that they corrected the 'B' pillar on the Demon to make it more accurate to the real car.  

The newly-tooled 1971 Demon body has been improved in many, many ways vs. the original MPC annual series from late 1970. 

[gui_tarzan]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:54 PM, 1972coronet said:

The c.1998 ad sequitur "Mueller-Era" 1971 Duster 340 has a 'questionable' roof and C pillars . 
That then-new tooling body was sans the B pillars ; those were moulded with the quarter windows (which are "fun" to install, BTW - perhaps that's why so many of those are built without the quarter windows 

I'm referring to the AMT 1971 Duster 340. Something I read back when I built this was the roofline was too rounded but I never really compared it to the real car. 

[Rob Hall]

3 minutes ago, gui_tarzan said:

I'm referring to the AMT 1971 Duster 340. Something I read back when I built this was the roofline was too rounded but I never really compared it to the real car. 

 

I believe it's the side window opening, the drip rail has too much of an arch and curve compared to the 1:1...

[Mark]

The new-tool '71 Duster also has quarter windows that are massively curved compared to those in the original kit.  But then again, they should be.  The original side glass is too flat.  The 1:1 Duster/Dart Sport side glass is way more curved than that of the sedans and hardtops.  Maybe the newer kit has it too curved, but that doesn't take anything away from the originals being overly flat.

And, don't leave the quarter window glass out when building one.  Those windows didn't roll down in the 1:1 car, they flipped out a couple of inches at the back.

[Rob Hall]

6 minutes ago, Mark said:

 

And, don't leave the quarter window glass out when building one.  Those windows didn't roll down in the 1:1 car, they flipped out a couple of inches at the back.

I've seen a lot of pics of builds without the quarter windows, always wondered if it was people too young to know the originals didn't roll down.  Similar to the quarter windows on the '69-70 Mustang Sportsroof body style..

[Mark C.]

Yes, and the “B-pillar” in this case is just a little chromed post that bolts to the body to support the flip out quarter glass.

It makes me wonder if the original concept was for this to have a real hardtop configuration with roll down quarter glass, but was axed for some reason.  The body was designed to support what is basically a pillarless side window opening, yet it was never actually made into a real hardtop…

[Rob Hall]

7 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

Yes, and the “B-pillar” in this case is just a little chromed post that bolts to the body to support the flip out quarter glass.

It makes me wonder if the original concept was for this to have a real hardtop configuration with roll down quarter glass, but was axed for some reason.  The body was designed to support what is basically a pillarless side window opening, yet it was never actually made into a real hardtop…

Probably costs.  Cheaper this way. 

[Luc Janssens]

2 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

Probably costs.  Cheaper this way. 

Yep, they think in cents per unit. But sometimes odd decisions are made. Remember way back in the'90s at Opel/GM power windows were cheaper to produce than manual roll-up/down units, yet marketing insisted on having the option to have manual units, too.

[Rob Hall]

16 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

Yep, they think in cents per unit. But sometimes odd decisions are made. Remember way back in the'90s at Opel/GM power windows were cheaper to produce than manual roll-up/down units, yet marketing insisted on having the option to have manual units, too.

Yeah, probably why most everything today has power windows...not enough demand for manual windows to be cost effective.  In the US I can't imagine there is much demand for manual windows. 

Edited October 20, 2024 by Rob Hall

[1972coronet]

The door glass alone was an engineering miracle on the 1970-1976 A body "29" body style. I can't image trying to get the quarter windows to roll up/down ! I'm sure there were structural considerations vs. "being cheap". 

The tilt quarter windows are one of my favourite features of the Duster (et alia). Works as a de facto backlight defogger , vent for the heater (draw-through) so that one doesn't get sleepy (ask me how I know ! Haha), and vent for those hot days when one doesn't want to leave the door glass even slightly opened. 

[Dragonhawk1066]

6 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

I've seen a lot of pics of builds without the quarter windows, always wondered if it was people too young to know the originals didn't roll down.  Similar to the quarter windows on the '69-70 Mustang Sportsroof body style..

Yeah, when I built mine the rear quarter glass fell off when I put the body to the chassis. The glue held together very well, so there was no separating to try again, so I tried to put the windows in as assembled and they just wouldn't go in. I left them off not realizing they were supposed to be permanent. I got called out a few times for that, but I honestly think it looks cleaner that way, lol.

[Mark C.]

3 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

The door glass alone was an engineering miracle on the 1970-1976 A body "29" body style. I can't image trying to get the quarter windows to roll up/down ! I'm sure there were structural considerations vs. "being cheap". 

The tilt quarter windows are one of my favourite features of the Duster (et alia). Works as a de facto backlight defogger , vent for the heater (draw-through) so that one doesn't get sleepy (ask me how I know ! Haha), and vent for those hot days when one doesn't want to leave the door glass even slightly opened. 

Yet the “23” body style did have roll down quarter windows (Swinger/Scamp).

My line of thinking was as follows:

- ‘68-‘70 B bodies had the same roofline and doors with sashless window design for both 2-door sedan “21” and hardtop “23” bodies.  Presumably a departure from the past for cost/production (and hence cost) reasons.

- ‘67-‘69 A-bodies had the old-style separate roofs for sedans and hardtops (Dart), Plymouth had Barracuda for 2 hardtop models, plus a standard Valiant 2-door sedan.

- For 1970, Plymouth A-body line initially had only a 4-door sedan, and Duster for its 2-door model. Barracuda was now more specialized as a sports type car (E-body).  Dart continued with its 4-door sedan and Swinger, but no 2-door sedan.  Dodge now had Challenger as well, on the same platform as Barracuda.  I was wondering if Plymouth was planning to have both hardtop and “sedan” 2-doors in their A-body line, and thus may have designed Duster to be both, sharing the same roof, as had become corporate practice.

- Meanwhile, there had developed a rivalry between Plymouth and Dodge within the corporation, with them wanting a version of Duster, which they received for 1971 (Demon - which helps explain why that car had differently shaped front and rear wheel arches with Dart fenders combined with Duster body).  Plymouth got Scamp out of the deal (Swinger body with Duster/Valiant fenders).

- By this line of thinking, I’m thinking that before the 1970s debuted, Plymouth knew they were getting Scamp, and thus decided to not offer Duster as a real hardtop for a 1-year only deal.  This is only me speculating on what may have happened, given all the moving pieces within Chrysler at the time.

- As a side note, this is also why Dart Swinger 340 was gone for 1971 (in USA), as Dodge decided to make Demon their budget performance car, and Swinger 340 would have been redundant (and competition for Demon 340).

Or something like that.

[1972coronet]

35 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

As a side note, this is also why Dart Swinger 340 was gone for 1971 (in USA)

Speaking of which - I'd love to see a 1971-1972 Swinger Special 340 ! 

[Mark]

Chrysler had already started with the flip-out quarter glass, on the Roadrunner coupe (and presumably the Belvedere two-door as well).  Too, it looks a lot cleaner than a framed quarter window.

On some cars the roll-down quarter glass really didn't make much sense.  I remember my dad's '59 Chevy Bel Air two-door sedan, the rear windows only went down a couple of inches.  My '62 Fairlane is similar in that respect.  

As for every car having power windows now, it probably just makes it easier to build the door with the guard beam that has to be in there.  The power regulator with a cable setup to raise and lower the glass takes up less space than a manual crank setup, and most of it can be located wherever the engineers want to put it.  When the doors were a lot wider than they are now, everything was easier to design.  

Edited October 21, 2024 by Mark
D--- spell check

[1972coronet]

37 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

By this line of thinking, I’m thinking that before the 1970s debuted, Plymouth knew they were getting Scamp, and thus decided to not offer Duster as a real hardtop for a 1-year only deal.  This is only me speculating on what may have happened, given all the moving pieces within Chrysler at the time.

I understand your logic. I was thinking in terms of the inner structure of the Duster , et al. , quarter panels ; their inner supports. Perhaps the inner structure wouldn't permit roll-down quarter windows ? That's dismissing the convex shape of the quarter glass. 

Just a supposition on my part.

[Mark C.]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Chrysler had already started with the flip-out quarter glass, on the Roadrunner coupe (and presumably the Belvedere two-door as well).  Too, it looks a lot cleaner than a framed quarter window.

On some cars the roll-down quarter glass really didn't make much sense.  I remember my dad's '59 Chevy Bel Air two-door sedan, the rear windows only went down a couple of inches.  My '62 Fairlane is similar in that respect.  

As for every car having power windows now, it probably just makes it easier to build the door with the guard beam that has to be in there.  The power regulator with a cable setup to raise and lower the glass takes up less space than a manual crank setup, and most of it can be located wherever the engineers want to put it.  When the doors were a lot wider than they are now, everything was easier to design.  

1968-1970 Coronet/Super Bee pillared coupe had flip out windows as well.

It's been 30 years since I had my '60 Bel Air 2 door sedan, but I could have sworn the quarter windows rolled mostly down, but I can't say for sure now.

If I am remembering this correctly, the later model crank window mechanisms I've seen also have the cable reel and beam, but the crank gear mechanism simply replaced the electric motor.  I think the power window thing was based upon economy of scale, where most people preferred the option until it became cheaper for the manufacturer to just make power windows standard in everything.

[Mark C.]

1 hour ago, 1972coronet said:

Speaking of which - I'd love to see a 1971-1972 Swinger Special 340 ! 

A rare beast indeed!