MPC Super Charger - 1974 Charger rundown

[Ragtop Man]

21 hours ago, tim boyd said:

John is spot-on here.  The E58 '74 360 was by far the best engine choice for any '74 Mopar, and easily among the best choices for any car that year (the Pontiac SD-455 and hi-po Camaro Z-28/Corvette 350 being the others).  Mother Mopar did a great job bringing this performance-oriented engine to market for 1974 in spite of government and insurance industry plots (err...let's make that "actions" instead) to undermine any performance-oriented auto offerings those years. 

What Chrysler - and most of the enthusiast rags - horribly failed at was getting the message out to performance car buyers on this engine.  At the time most media scoffed and called it nothing more than the C-body 360 wagon motor with a four barrel carb added, listing net hp ratings of somewhere between 180 and 200 hp, and thoroughly dissiing the effort.  This was happening even as recently as 20 years ago in some very respected publications. 

I've got a whole file on this subject (and had written a detailed sidebar on it for my "Collecting Muscle Car Model Kits" book a few years ago which I had to drop because I was way over the contractual word count for the mag).  Short story is the E58 was rated at 245 net hp (equivalent to 305-315hp under the 1971 and prior gross hp rating system), had nearly all the 340 gubbins inside except the cylinder head and forged crank (some sources even state it had the same cam and specs as the original 1968 340 automatic), and possessed low-mid-range torque a 340 could only dream about.  (The NHRA soon refactored the recognized HP for racing classes at 270-280net hp). After I took delivery of my '74 E58 road runner, the son of the local Shell Station owner ordered his like mine, except he wanted to "upgrade" to the 400 4-barrel.  I gave him all the reasons not to do so but he did so anyway.  Big disappointment. 

All of the above applies only to the 1/1 engine discussion.  As much as I'd love to see newly tooled '71-'74 B Body model kits, my business side suggests there are considerably more promising venues for Round 2's limited kit design budget at this point in time, even though I wish that wasn't the case. 

Best...TB    

In '74 There was a great story in CARS Magazine (maybe SSDI?)  about that exact 1:1 vehicle and powertrain. Mag went in thinking they would get the last 440 but apparently missed a cutoff, ordered the hot 360 after a tip from their PR contact. Black on black, with just the wheel lip moldings, Rallys and G60 Goodyears, hood pins, TF+slap stik, Tuff wheel, guages, yadda yadda. Left off the kiddy candy, car looked like a million bucks. A B-Body was pretty heavy, then, so it was unlikely to ET but it was otherwise an excellent performance car.

[CapSat 6]

18 hours ago, Andria H said:

Can't wait to see this back (hopefully) Hope they do a Force 440 Monaco/Coronet coupe body or even a new tool Magnum body and interior for the Dukes/Goon Car/CHP Monaco sedan.

I’ll see your bet and raise: 

New tool in the style of the ‘68 Coronet and ‘71 Demon. 75-79 Cordoba, 300, Magnum, and Monaco Sport/ Sport Fury bodies. The bodies would more or less be a straight interchange between all of these body styles, with just a few variations in the interiors, and perhaps a few different stock wheel sets. 

I know it sounds crazy, but interest in these cars has gone up. While they might not be inspiring to some, I could definitely see some interest.  If they lead off with the sexier body styles (Magnum, 300), and add in a few neat custom options (Six Pack intake, headers, hood scoop, custom wheels and decals), then it might justify releasing a regular Cordoba and Monaco Sport (Force 440) if the design is already baked in. 

I’m not saying this should be Round 2’s next project, but it may be something to consider, if their current design program gets easier or more economical. 

[Ragtop Man]

3 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:

I’ll see your bet and raise: 

New tool in the style of the ‘68 Coronet and ‘71 Demon. 75-79 Cordoba, 300, Magnum, and Monaco Sport/ Sport Fury bodies. The bodies would more or less be a straight interchange between all of these body styles, with just a few variations in the interiors, and perhaps a few different stock wheel sets. 

I know it sounds crazy, but interest in these cars has gone up. While they might not be inspiring to some, I could definitely see some interest.  If they lead off with the sexier body styles (Magnum, 300), and add in a few neat custom options (Six Pack intake, headers, hood scoop, custom wheels and decals), then it might justify releasing a regular Cordoba and Monaco Sport (Force 440) if the design is already baked in. 

I’m not saying this should be Round 2’s next project, but it may be something to consider, if their current design program gets easier or more economical. 

Not sure my money would be on the table for it - but I would also bet that a 3D printed Magnum or 300 transkit would be a popular and profitable download, in that same commercial pocket as '70s Grand Am/Grand Prix with high interest in a narrow scope. 

FWIW, in 1979, I thought that 300 was the absolute shyte - Chrysler had resurrected a great name! Stalked the downriver dealer in Taylor after arrival, was sized up by the salesman as having insufficent funds for further conversation, but he did say they had a lot of interest and a markup on it. 

As 1979 unfolded and Detroit collapsed in the Iran oil crisis... the markup was gone and I'm fairly sure the salesman was, too. In the end, my last visit, the poor thing had been marked down to the bone, and I'm not sure if the store survived ChryCo BK. 

[CapSat 6]

5 hours ago, Ragtop Man said:

Not sure my money would be on the table for it - but I would also bet that a 3D printed Magnum or 300 transkit would be a popular and profitable download, in that same commercial pocket as '70s Grand Am/Grand Prix with high interest in a narrow scope. 

FWIW, in 1979, I thought that 300 was the absolute shyte - Chrysler had resurrected a great name! Stalked the downriver dealer in Taylor after arrival, was sized up by the salesman as having insufficent funds for further conversation, but he did say they had a lot of interest and a markup on it. 

As 1979 unfolded and Detroit collapsed in the Iran oil crisis... the markup was gone and I'm fairly sure the salesman was, too. In the end, my last visit, the poor thing had been marked down to the bone, and I'm not sure if the store survived ChryCo BK. 

Now - I will say this up front- I am NOT pushing hard for a late 70’s B Body here, but I do think it might be something to think about. Perhaps not a full detail kit, but maybe a simplified offering could be considered. 

The more I think about the question of “commercially viable model car subject”, the more I wonder if EVERY subject to be chosen as a model offering MUST be a performance car. 

New subjects are often developed that aren’t exactly brutal performance cars. 

Personal luxury was one of the next big things (fun trucks being another), when performance went down the tubes. The Grand Prix and Monte Carlo were big hits early on- Ford and Chrysler took note- and they started to offer variants of this formula for their intermediate cars well before muscle disappeared completely.

Personal Luxury cars were usually not bought primarily to go fast, they were bought to go in style. Many modelers like style. I know of a lot of people in the 1:1 car hobby who appreciate stylish cars and aren’t necessarily solely focused on performance. Style is the keyword here. 

Many of the parties who bash these cars as being “uninspiring” lived during the era when musclecars disappeared almost overnight. That was surely sad and shocking to see. I can understand that the trauma lingers. 

Revell created an all-new ‘77 Monte Carlo awhile back. To me, that’s pretty much the same car as your Cordoba or Magnum. Oh wait- it’s a Chevy. Oh wait- they raced in NASCAR (and yes- successfully). Oh wait- it’s a popular low rider. 

Is the ‘77 Monte Carlo any more inspiring than a Magnum or Cordoba? To me, they’re about the same. 
 
I do get that commercial viability takes in many factors. Again, I would argue that sometimes, it might be worthwhile for a given manufacturer to take slight calculated risks once in awhile, explore new ideas. Run with something that bucks conventional wisdom. 

GM surely did this with the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix. It was probably a little risky to go with a premium luxury intermediate (or at least something of an unknown), at a time when muscle cars and pony cars were runaway sellers, and when Americans generally equated size with luxury. 

Another parallel would be the GTO and the Road Runner. Sales of both were projected to be in the few thousands. Taking the risk of exploring the youth market, and later, exploring budget supercars, resulted in qualified sales hits that blew initial expectations clear out of the water for both cars, indeed, they became legends. 

My grandmother had a saying: “faint heart never won fair lady”. 

Some visual food for thought. Inspiration, if you will…

Edited June 19 by CapSat 6

[Can-Con]

16 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

Ertl bought MPC in 1986, before either of those kits were tooled. The Olds was the last new tool sold under the MPC/Ertl label,  which was discontinued in 1989. The engineering looks very similar to the 66 Nova, and other Ertl kits from around that era. I'm pretty sure both kit tool designs originated in Dyersville. 

 

10 hours ago, tim boyd said:

FWIW, I agree with Dave on this subject...TB

No doubt you guys are correct, I wasn't there after all but the engineering of the RR also looks very similar to a lot of the MPC kits from the late '70s/early '80s such as the Pintos and Mustang IIs and front drive Mopars. The wheel mounting style has MPC written all over it, In fact, I've found that a lot of the wheel retainers and wheel backs from those kits will interchange with the RR parts. Nothing like the snap-on style of the Nova kit and '67 Chevelle released shortly after the Nova. 

That's why I've been suspecting the RR was in the works before the buyout. But again, You guys would know better then I would with your histories in the hobby.

[Dave Darby]

3 hours ago, Can-Con said:

 

No doubt you guys are correct, I wasn't there after all but the engineering of the RR also looks very similar to a lot of the MPC kits from the late '70s/early '80s such as the Pintos and Mustang IIs and front drive Mopars. The wheel mounting style has MPC written all over it, In fact, I've found that a lot of the wheel retainers and wheel backs from those kits will interchange with the RR parts. Nothing like the snap-on style of the Nova kit and '67 Chevelle released shortly after the Nova. 

That's why I've been suspecting the RR was in the works before the buyout. But again, You guys would know better then I would with your histories in the hobby.

It's entirely possible that some of MPC's engineering staff came over to Ertl with the sale. John Mueller and the late Dave Carlock are/were industry veterans.

[slusher]

Guys is this  73 74 Charger going to be reissued?

[stavanzer]

22 minutes ago, slusher said:

Guys is this  73 74 Charger going to be reissued?

No One Knows,Carl.

We are just speculating about the kit.

 

[Justin Porter]

On 6/19/2025 at 1:16 PM, CapSat 6 said:

Now - I will say this up front- I am NOT pushing hard for a late 70’s B Body here, but I do think it might be something to think about. Perhaps not a full detail kit, but maybe a simplified offering could be considered. 

The more I think about the question of “commercially viable model car subject”, the more I wonder if EVERY subject to be chosen as a model offering MUST be a performance car. 

New subjects are often developed that aren’t exactly brutal performance cars. 

Personal luxury was one of the next big things (fun trucks being another), when performance went down the tubes. The Grand Prix and Monte Carlo were big hits early on- Ford and Chrysler took note- and they started to offer variants of this formula for their intermediate cars well before muscle disappeared completely.

Personal Luxury cars were usually not bought primarily to go fast, they were bought to go in style. Many modelers like style. I know of a lot of people in the 1:1 car hobby who appreciate stylish cars and aren’t necessarily solely focused on performance. Style is the keyword here. 

Many of the parties who bash these cars as being “uninspiring” lived during the era when musclecars disappeared almost overnight. That was surely sad and shocking to see. I can understand that the trauma lingers. 

Revell created an all-new ‘77 Monte Carlo awhile back. To me, that’s pretty much the same car as your Cordoba or Magnum. Oh wait- it’s a Chevy. Oh wait- they raced in NASCAR (and yes- successfully). Oh wait- it’s a popular low rider. 

Is the ‘77 Monte Carlo any more inspiring than a Magnum or Cordoba? To me, they’re about the same. 
 
I do get that commercial viability takes in many factors. Again, I would argue that sometimes, it might be worthwhile for a given manufacturer to take slight calculated risks once in awhile, explore new ideas. Run with something that bucks conventional wisdom. 

GM surely did this with the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix. It was probably a little risky to go with a premium luxury intermediate (or at least something of an unknown), at a time when muscle cars and pony cars were runaway sellers, and when Americans generally equated size with luxury. 

Another parallel would be the GTO and the Road Runner. Sales of both were projected to be in the few thousands. Taking the risk of exploring the youth market, and later, exploring budget supercars, resulted in qualified sales hits that blew initial expectations clear out of the water for both cars, indeed, they became legends. 

My grandmother had a saying: “faint heart never won fair lady”. 

Some visual food for thought. Inspiration, if you will…

There are certainly quite a few underserved categories that you would think are in the wheelhouse of the domestic label kit manufacturers. Full and midsize personal luxury coupes - malaise era or not - are certainly among them. A good example of the potential success can be found in Revell's recent G-body Cutlass. That being said, Moebius currently is neck deep in new-tool projects, Round 2 isn't terribly interested in cutting all-new tooling, and Revell has gone all-but silent when it comes to communicating future domestic auto projects, leaning more heavily on marketing their upcoming 1/32nd scale military aircraft kits. 

[CapSat 6]

22 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

There are certainly quite a few underserved categories that you would think are in the wheelhouse of the domestic label kit manufacturers. Full and midsize personal luxury coupes - malaise era or not - are certainly among them. A good example of the potential success can be found in Revell's recent G-body Cutlass. That being said, Moebius currently is neck deep in new-tool projects, Round 2 isn't terribly interested in cutting all-new tooling, and Revell has gone all-but silent when it comes to communicating future domestic auto projects, leaning more heavily on marketing their upcoming 1/32nd scale military aircraft kits. 

I’m wrestling with the current concept of “new tooling”. 

There are what I would call “state of the art” tools. An example of this would be the new Round 2 2021 Charger.

There are what I would call “simplified” or “retro” tools. Examples would be the MPC ‘68 Coronet or ‘71 Demon/ ‘72 Duster. 
 
Lastly, there is a “promo style” tool, like the AMT 2008/ 2009/ 2010 Challengers. 

All of these are what I would call “new” tooling. I would imagine the design gets less costly in order from the top. The steel tools probably cost about the same, or perhaps with fewer parts, the cost of the steel tools comes down a bit, but my guess is that the steel tool is much of the cost. 

As an aside, many of the new 3D “tools” that I’m seeing seem to fall somewhere in detail between the retro tool and the promo tool, except that in many cases, the 3D tools have details (suspension, interior and engine) that are less correct than what we see with Round 2’s efforts. Undoubtedly, 3D tools will get more common, and better. I have been reading what’s being said about Jo Han’s current revivals, and I think we are only going to see more of that kind of thing. I’m amazed at what we have seen so far, and how quickly it has gotten here. 

I don’t know what the actual economics really are between the 3 options. I would imagine that doing a simplified/ retro tool lessens development costs a bit, making certain projects more feasible. It does seem that Round 2 is leaning into the simplified/ retro option, which is in turn bringing a few more projects than we would normally see (which I am fine with). 

The ‘74 Charger would be fine as a “simplified/ retro/ level 2” tool if the original tool is no longer viable. If the original tool is still there, then maybe it would be worth it to fix the wheel arches, or just tool up a few bodies for it (I don’t know for sure what this would cost). 

Regarding late B Bodies, perhaps the “promo” style tool would work. That might be a way to get these body styles without a heavy investment from the manufacturer. As many as 4 or 5 bodies (all using the same clear windows, I think) and 2 or 3 wheel sets could be developed that would use the same chassis plate and much of the interior. Maybe throw a hood scoop, rear spoiler, stock and custom decals, and a set of custom wheels into the box to make them a little more interesting. Instead of fussing with positive locators for the hood scoop, maybe a few piece of double sided tape could be thrown into the box. Basic modelers would not be left with no good way to attach the hood scoop, and better modelers wouldn’t need it anyway. 

This could also work for several Mopar C body kits (my call for those would be: ‘70 Chrysler Hurst 300, ‘69 Dodge Polara police car, 70 Sport Fury), or, a simplified / “level 2” tool for the C Bodies could be done. 

The promo style tool was more or less what we got from Revell with the ‘77 Monte Carlo (basically a promo tool with adjustable suspension). I think many modelers who want late B bodies would be fine with a promo style tool, as long as the body details were accurate. Even I would say that the dirty bits of those cars are largely uninteresting, and I would just kitbash my way into a better chassis and engine if given the chance. 

Edited Monday at 05:20 PM by CapSat 6
Punctuation

[Justin Porter]

5 hours ago, CapSat 6 said:

I’m wrestling with the current concept of “new tooling”. 

There are what I would call “state of the art” tools. An example of this would be the new Round 2 2021 Charger.

There are what I would call “simplified” or “retro” tools. Examples would be the MPC ‘68 Coronet or ‘71 Demon/ ‘72 Duster. 
 
Lastly, there is a “promo style” tool, like the AMT 2008/ 2009/ 2010 Challengers. 

All of these are what I would call “new” tooling. I would imagine the design gets less costly in order from the top. The steel tools probably cost about the same, or perhaps with fewer parts, the cost of the steel tools comes down a bit, but my guess is that the steel tool is much of the cost. 

As an aside, many of the new 3D “tools” that I’m seeing seem to fall somewhere in detail between the retro tool and the promo tool, except that in many cases, the 3D tools have details (suspension, interior and engine) that are less correct than what we see with Round 2’s efforts. Undoubtedly, 3D tools will get more common, and better. I have been reading what’s being said about Jo Han’s current revivals, and I think we are only going to see more of that kind of thing. I’m amazed at what we have seen so far, and how quickly it has gotten here. 

I don’t know what the actual economics really are between the 3 options. I would imagine that doing a simplified/ retro tool lessens development costs a bit, making certain projects more feasible. It does seem that Round 2 is leaning into the simplified/ retro option, which is in turn bringing a few more projects than we would normally see (which I am fine with). 

The ‘74 Charger would be fine as a “simplified/ retro/ level 2” tool if the original tool is no longer viable. If the original tool is still there, then maybe it would be worth it to fix the wheel arches, or just tool up a few bodies for it (I don’t know for sure what this would cost). 

Regarding late B Bodies, perhaps the “promo” style tool would work. That might be a way to get these body styles without a heavy investment from the manufacturer. As many as 4 or 5 bodies (all using the same clear windows, I think) and 2 or 3 wheel sets could be developed that would use the same chassis plate and much of the interior. Maybe throw a hood scoop, rear spoiler, stock and custom decals, and a set of custom wheels into the box to make them a little more interesting. Instead of fussing with positive locators for the hood scoop, maybe a few piece of double sided tape could be thrown into the box. Basic modelers would not be left with no good way to attach the hood scoop, and better modelers wouldn’t need it anyway. 

This could also work for several Mopar C body kits (my call for those would be: ‘70 Chrysler Hurst 300, ‘69 Dodge Polara police car, 70 Sport Fury), or, a simplified / “level 2” tool for the C Bodies could be done. 

The promo style tool was more or less what we got from Revell with the ‘77 Monte Carlo (basically a promo tool with adjustable suspension). I think many modelers who want late B bodies would be fine with a promo style tool, as long as the body details were accurate. Even I would say that the dirty bits of those cars are largely uninteresting, and I would just kitbash my way into a better chassis and engine if given the chance. 

The fly in the ointment of your theory is Revell. 

The new-tool Revell 1971 Mustang Mach 1, kit #4555, carries at it's absolute steepest (distributor Stevens International) an MSRP of $28.95. This is a kit that very neatly fits in with your "state of the art" definition, being an exceptionally detailed kit that was 100% new from the ground up. 

The immediate comparison would be AMT's upcoming 1966 Shelby Mustang. This is one of AMT's "cloned" kits, which is to say that it's derived from and/or engineered to replicate a vintage kit. Nearly the same age of tooling (regardless of cloning), from the same distributor (that is to say, Stevens International), and the MSRP on the Shelby is an eye-watering $41.99. That's a full $13.04 MORE than the Revell and in a strange moment of serendipity, $13.04 less than the equally state-of-the-art Tamiya kit of the modern racing GT4 Mustang. 

I think there is an exceptionally valid question to be answered as to WHY we give Round 2 the leeway to "save money" on intentionally retro kit design while remaining at a consistently higher MSRP than Revell and Moebius and only being beaten for the top MSRP spot by Salvinos JR; a company with a truly niche product that's entirely USA produced.

[CapSat 6]

3 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

The fly in the ointment of your theory is Revell. 

The new-tool Revell 1971 Mustang Mach 1, kit #4555, carries at it's absolute steepest (distributor Stevens International) an MSRP of $28.95. This is a kit that very neatly fits in with your "state of the art" definition, being an exceptionally detailed kit that was 100% new from the ground up. 

The immediate comparison would be AMT's upcoming 1966 Shelby Mustang. This is one of AMT's "cloned" kits, which is to say that it's derived from and/or engineered to replicate a vintage kit. Nearly the same age of tooling (regardless of cloning), from the same distributor (that is to say, Stevens International), and the MSRP on the Shelby is an eye-watering $41.99. That's a full $13.04 MORE than the Revell and in a strange moment of serendipity, $13.04 less than the equally state-of-the-art Tamiya kit of the modern racing GT4 Mustang. 

I think there is an exceptionally valid question to be answered as to WHY we give Round 2 the leeway to "save money" on intentionally retro kit design while remaining at a consistently higher MSRP than Revell and Moebius and only being beaten for the top MSRP spot by Salvinos JR; a company with a truly niche product that's entirely USA produced.

I didn’t even get my brain to why Round 2’s kits are generally more expensive. And yes- the argument can be made that the more expensive product itself often isn’t of clearly better quality overall in many cases. Their new state of the art tools compete for sure, but in many cases, their older tools definitely fall short (as is the nature of the beast, if you are putting out product that was originally designed 50+ years ago).

Then again, very few commercially sold new item markets work the same way. Most other types of items are either retooled completely at some point, or older tools aren’t so heavily relied upon. The only parallel I can think of are joke store items, like whoopee cushions, snapping gum, etc. That stuff doesn’t seem to have changed in 60 years, and yet, you can find a lot of those old novelty items in stores today.  Truly, Round 2 deals in nostalgia. 
 
There is a line of action figures that I see in stores like Target and Game Stop sometimes- from a company called “ReAction”. They are about the same or slightly less quality that the old original Star Wars 3-3/4” figures, except that they do new versions of retro subjects. It’s as if they did figures and packaging for certain movie and TV properties back in the 80’s, even though they are just doing them now. I just don’t get it. To me, they look terrible. I guess that’s how some of these older model tools seem to some people. 

The only thing I can figure is that perhaps the other companies realize some kind of advantage to what they spend for kit development. It does seem like Round 2 spends more on their packaging and extras than the prior ownership from 20+ year ago. Back then, box art was at best, “phone it in”, decals were just repops of the weak original offerings (if included at all), and tires were also just straight repops. To me, the new box art/decals/ pad printed tires really do juice the old offerings considerably, and I think it’s that kind of buyer/ collector (not necessarily builder) that Round 2 really markets to. That’s not a knock, just an observation. 

[stavanzer]

19 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:

 It does seem like Round 2 spends more on their packaging and extras than the prior ownership from 20+ year ago. Back then, box art was at best, “phone it in”, decals were just repops of the weak original offerings (if included at all), and tires were also just straight repops. To me, the new box art/decals/ pad printed tires really do juice the old offerings considerably, and I think it’s that kind of buyer/ collector (not necessarily builder) that Round 2 really markets to. That’s not a knock, just an observation. 

This is a very Astute Observation. For me the Decals and Tires are where the Value Added part of the equation comes from. For Many others too, I am sure. But, I do get tired of "Original Instruction Sheets' when Many of the Ertl Instructions are are leaps better, with better colour call outs and clearer and cleaner assembly drawings. Since I was buying new AMT kits from 1977 to the 2000's in quantity, the 1960's boxart usually leaves me cold. I'm all in for Nostalgia, but the target buyers are now 70-80 years old. They are the ones who remember seeing this box art on the shelves. I'd like to see them use some 1970's-1980's boxart, if the want to grab MY memories of old AMT kits.

[Radretireddad]

3 hours ago, stavanzer said:

For me the Decals and Tires are where the Value Added part of the equation comes from. For Many others too, I am sure.

Me too, me too! It’s frustrating knowing I’ll have to pay almost $40 for a kit I already have just to get the decals and tires. I wish Round2 sold them all individually.

[Dave Darby]

9 hours ago, stavanzer said:

This is a very Astute Observation. For me the Decals and Tires are where the Value Added part of the equation comes from. For Many others too, I am sure. But, I do get tired of "Original Instruction Sheets' when Many of the Ertl Instructions are are leaps better, with better colour call outs and clearer and cleaner assembly drawings. Since I was buying new AMT kits from 1977 to the 2000's in quantity, the 1960's boxart usually leaves me cold. I'm all in for Nostalgia, but the target buyers are now 70-80 years old. They are the ones who remember seeing this box art on the shelves. I'd like to see them use some 1970's-1980's boxart, if the want to grab MY memories of old AMT kits.

I agree in many instances, but there are exceptions. The AMT/Ertl ProShop 32 Ford Roadster had a horrendously erroneous instruction sheet, calling the chromed roll bar  brace a radiator hose, and instructing builders to section the injector pump. They also had you install the triple carburetor set onto the blower manifold as an option. I don't think the old instructions were all that bad. They may not have used numbers and paint color call-outs (which in the case of the new tool Ala Kart were completely wrong, having you paint chrome suspension parts flat black), but millions of 12 year olds still managed to successfully complete most of those kits.

[Stef]

18 hours ago, stavanzer said:

I'd like to see them use some 1970's-1980's boxart, if the want to grab MY memories of old AMT kits.

TRON GRIDS FOR THE WIN!

[stavanzer]

This is the Nostalgia Box Art that would open my wallet. This whole series. I wanted every one I ever saw, although I only bought a few.

[Chris V]

16 hours ago, Stef said:

TRON GRIDS FOR THE WIN!

The "Tan and Tron"-series 😂

[CapSat 6]

Aaargh- my eyes! Please no Tron Grids!  

[1972coronet]

I'll take those "TRON Grids" over the horrible Rally GT tyres that most of AMT's kits of that era were plagued with !

[stavanzer]

28 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

I'll take those "TRON Grids" over the horrible Rally GT tyres that most of AMT's kits of that era were plagued with !

Oh Yes! I agree on this. Those Rallye GT Tires are the worst, and they wound up in so many AMT kits......

I do not miss them.

[Stef]

13 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

...horrible Rally GT tyres...

13 hours ago, stavanzer said:

...Rallye GT Tires are the worst...

Ha ha, right you both are! We've all acquired squillions of these over the years, and me personally, I have never, EVER used a single set of them on any project I've ever done.

Until last year!

[Mark C.]

Perfect!

[stavanzer]

But, on that little Nissan, they are exactly what is wanted. Great Use of the Tire!

[stavanzer]

To get back on track...

I really just want the Super Charger kit, back with all the parts left in the tool, and new tires and decals. That Would satisfy me, and many, many others.