MPC kits

[Donny]

Having just returned to the model car building scene, I have never purchased a MPC kit, so how do they rate compared to Revell and AMT? Good or bad guys?

Don

[Fat Brian]

They're about equivalent to AMT, like AMT a lot are old promos and annuals that have been through the wringer to varying degrees. In fact, a few kits on the market are combinations of AMT and MPC parts, the 70 Superbee comes to mind immediately with it's AMT chassis and MPC body and interior. 

[StevenGuthmiller]

The question needs to be equated with kits from comparable eras.

Of course Revell has a number of exceptional newer kits produced within the past couple of decades, but MPC hasn’t produced a new kit since probably at least the mid 80s.

Since they were absorbed into ERTL, all of MPC’s offerings have been re-pops of earlier kits, so if comparisons are going to be made, they need to be made with AMT and Revell kits from the same time period.

As a rule, I think that you’ll find that they’re no better or no worse than anything else from the same time frame.

 

 

 

Steve

[sidcharles]

1 hour ago, Donny said:

Having just returned to the model car building scene, I have never purchased a MPC kit, so how do they rate compared to Revell and AMT? Good or bad guys?

Don

i know it isn't an answer to you question, but a suggestion is to build a couple of AMT Trophy kit reissues as confidence enhancers, and then jump into MPC world.

[Can-Con]

As I've said before, ANY kit from ANY company needs to be taken on it's own merit. 

That being said, it also depends on the skill set of the builder. Some can build a great model out of anything, some should stick to Lego. 

[Donny]

10 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

As I've said before, ANY kit from ANY company needs to be taken on it's own merit. 

That being said, it also depends on the skill set of the builder. Some can build a great model out of anything, some should stick to Lego. 

😄point taken

Don

[peteski]

5 hours ago, Donny said:

Having just returned to the model car building scene, I have never purchased a MPC kit, so how do they rate compared to Revell and AMT? Good or bad guys?

There are no recent MPC or AMT, or  AMT/Ertl kits because those companies have not existed for quite a few years (or decades). If you see kits branded for those companies, they are older kits.  But the rights to those names (and often some older molds) were acquired by new model companies which do production runs using those older molds. Sometimes those companies modify old molds to add some features or correct some problems. Sometimes they reprint old decal artwork, other times they run new version of the decals. 

Basically there is no simple answer as to which brand kits are better than others. You have to research the specific models you are interested in and compare them with others.  Then of course are Japanese model companies too.

[Donny]

4 minutes ago, peteski said:

There are no recent MPC or AMT, or  AMT/Ertl kits because those companies have not existed for quite a few years (or decades). If you see kits branded for those companies, they are older kits.  But the rights to those names (and often some older molds) were acquired by new model companies which do production runs using those older molds. Sometimes those companies modify old molds to add some features or correct some problems. Sometimes they reprint old decal artwork, other times they run new version of the decals. 

Basically there is no simple answer as to which brand kits are better than others. You have to research the specific models you are interested in and compare them with others.  Then of course are Japanese model companies too.

Thanks Peter. I never thought about car kits this way. Just don't want to buy a lemon.

Don

[stavanzer]

Most of the MPC kits have tooling similar to AMT kits of the same vintage. MPC lasted up to about 1988 or so.

I find the MPC kits to be a little more delicate in the tooling than AMT kits, but it is mostly a matter of taste. MPC did kit some cars that AMT & Revell never did, so it depends on what you are wanting as to whose kit is better. Sometimes the MPC (or AMT, or Revell)kit is the only game in town for a particular car.

Scalemates is a good place to check the history of a Car Kit.

Ask lots of questions about a kit before you buy it. All of us here will try to help you get an idea of what you are looking at.

Alan

[Chris V]

The majority of the american car kit manufacturers have been around since the late fifties/early sities. With tooling archives spanning multiple decades of production and technological advancements there’s not much point in comparing any manufacturer to the other in general terms: They all have their good, bad, and uglies. 
 

As mentioned above, MPC has been under the same ownership as AMT since the nineties and was absorbed by the AMT brand for a while. The current owners, Round2, has re-established MPC as a separate brand and started reissuing and and re-creating improved versions of their older kits. 
 

Model kit reviews like the ones posted on this forum are generally the best way to find out how a particular kit rates. Though many people are fond of the website Scalemates, it’s important to note that it’s uncurated and more or less free to edit by contributors - and thus contains a lot of incorrect information as well. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:57 AM by Chris V

[Donny]

3 hours ago, stavanzer said:

Most of the MPC kits have tooling similar to AMT kits of the same vintage. MPC lasted up to about 1988 or so.

I find the MPC kits to be a little more delicate in the tooling than AMT kits, but it is mostly a matter of taste. MPC did kit some cars that AMT & Revell never did, so it depends on what you are wanting as to whose kit is better. Sometimes the MPC (or AMT, or Revell)kit is the only game in town for a particular car.

Scalemates is a good place to check the history of a Car Kit.

Ask lots of questions about a kit before you buy it. All of us here will try to help you get an idea of what you are looking at.

Alan

Thanks Alan, appreciate the advice and information.

Don

[Dave G.]

MPC kits weren't particularly tricky to build, if that's what you're asking. I built mostly the classic era kits, like the 1928 Lincoln. Similar to Monogram at the time, only 1/25th rather than Monograms 1/24. This was before the Monogram/Revell merger. I did find the fine work, such as chrome door handles, spoked wheels, the hood ornaments to be of better scale than AMT by a little bit, in that era vehicle at least.

[NOBLNG]

9 hours ago, Donny said:

Thanks Peter. I never thought about car kits this way. Just don't want to buy a lemon.

Don

The two best ways to avoid a lemon is to 1) Ask about a specific kit here. 2) Look for build videos on YouTube.

The videos can give a good look at what all is in the kit for parts, but most are not critical of dimensional or aesthetic flaws. That type of information, if it’s critical for you, is better asked for here.

[bobss396]

My first MPC kit was a 1966 Pontiac product. They made loads of Pontiacs and Mopars. I recall a 1976 Fury convertible. Their Charger was pretty nice.

I found the bodies to be molded thinner than AMT kits and the detail was a little crisper.

[Carmak]

The issue with some MPC and AMT model kits is a combination of mold wear (many MPC & AMT molds are 40-60+ years old) and poorly done revisions or repairs (often changed into race cars and then changed back).

This issue is only true with some of their kits as Round2 (the owner of MPC & AMT) is producing new molds and repairing/rebuilding part of old molds on a regular basis.

You have to be a bit of a kit historian to know what is in the box. This is why it’s good to research (or ask) before buying a kit. The website “scalemates” can help but is often tragically wrong.

 

Examples of this challenge with three current MPC kits:

*MPC 1968 Coronet – Brand new mold.

*MPC 1967 GTO – Mold from the 60’s and in poor shape.

*MPC Grumpy"s Toy Vega – Brand new mold for the body combined with interior and chassis from the 70’s.

 

This can also be true with Revell kits but to a lesser degree as they sold the vast majority of their older molds to Atlantis.

 

Lastly all Moebuis molds are fairly new.

 

I hope this helps.

[Donny]

1 hour ago, Carmak said:

The issue with some MPC and AMT model kits is a combination of mold wear (many MPC & AMT molds are 40-60+ years old) and poorly done revisions or repairs (often changed into race cars and then changed back).

This issue is only true with some of their kits as Round2 (the owner of MPC & AMT) is producing new molds and repairing/rebuilding part of old molds on a regular basis.

You have to be a bit of a kit historian to know what is in the box. This is why it’s good to research (or ask) before buying a kit. The website “scalemates” can help but is often tragically wrong.

 

Examples of this challenge with three current MPC kits:

*MPC 1968 Coronet – Brand new mold.

*MPC 1967 GTO – Mold from the 60’s and in poor shape.

*MPC Grumpy"s Toy Vega – Brand new mold for the body combined with interior and chassis from the 70’s.

 

This can also be true with Revell kits but to a lesser degree as they sold the vast majority of their older molds to Atlantis.

 

Lastly all Moebuis molds are fairly new.

 

I hope this helps.

It does, thanks for the info. Boy, that question of mine sure brought out a lot of comment, and I thank you all for contributing. Interesting stuff, you buy a kit not realizing what you are buying. I for one never realized the issues that might exist regarding  old molds etc, and the issues with parts not fitting correctly for us guys building them. It's good to know, as it can be that when building a kit, and something not fitting right, it  can be the parts in the kit, and not you having a problem with the fit.

Thanks guys. Don

[StevenGuthmiller]

52 minutes ago, Donny said:

It does, thanks for the info. Boy, that question of mine sure brought out a lot of comment, and I thank you all for contributing. Interesting stuff, you buy a kit not realizing what you are buying. I for one never realized the issues that might exist regarding  old molds etc, and the issues with parts not fitting correctly for us guys building them. It's good to know, as it can be that when building a kit, and something not fitting right, it  can be the parts in the kit, and not you having a problem with the fit.

Thanks guys. Don

The most beneficial attitude for you to have in order for you to minimize fit issues, whether or not you should decide to buy a kit that is badly reviewed, ( a lot of good kits have fit issues on occasion) is to take the time to address any problems immediately after opening the kit, before you start throwing paint on everything and gluing stuff together.

Most of the time when I see people losing their patience and their temper and throwing the kit against the wall out of fit frustrations, it could have been completely avoided if the time was taken to test fit, mock-up and correct.

I’ve said it before, and yes, I’ve gotten flack for it, but my opinion still remains that there are no bad kits. Just bad modelers.

It’s only plastic.

Every issue can be overcome.

 

 

 

Steve

[Donny]

1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

The most beneficial attitude for you to have in order for you to minimize fit issues, whether or not you should decide to buy a kit that is badly reviewed, ( a lot of good kits have fit issues on occasion) is to take the time to address any problems immediately after opening the kit, before you start throwing paint on everything and gluing stuff together.

Most of the time when I see people losing their patience and their temper and throwing the kit against the wall out of fit frustrations, it could have been completely avoided if the time was taken to test fit, mock-up and correct.

I’ve said it before, and yes, I’ve gotten flack for it, but my opinion still remains that there are no bad kits. Just bad modelers.

It’s only plastic.

Every issue can be overcome.

 

 

 

Steve

Thanks Steve. My problem at times, is "should I do this" make this alteration. On the '40 I found the seats didn't fit right, so I had to modify them to fit. When you haven't been doing this for a long time, you don't have the confidence to start hacking away. I tend to think I'm changing something designed by a manufacturer and should leave it alone, but if it won't go together as it should, then I have to stop and think about it and do what I think is right - and hope.  When you correct something and it turns out okay, it gives you a bit of confidence for future builds, and the realization that even the manufacturers can get it wrong.

Don  

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, Donny said:

Thanks Steve. My problem at times, is "should I do this" make this alteration. On the '40 I found the seats didn't fit right, so I had to modify them to fit. When you haven't been doing this for a long time, you don't have the confidence to start hacking away. I tend to think I'm changing something designed by a manufacturer and should leave it alone, but if it won't go together as it should, then I have to stop and think about it and do what I think is right - and hope.  When you correct something and it turns out okay, it gives you a bit of confidence for future builds, and the realization that even the manufacturers can get it wrong.

Don  

Absolutely!

The more you try something, the more confident you get.

It’s just common sense to do as much as possible to check and correct fit if necessary, before it becomes too late.

There’s nothing worse than finding that something doesn’t work once you’re done painting.

It can be difficult, if not impossible to fix at that point.

 

 

Steve

[peteski]

5 hours ago, Donny said:

It does, thanks for the info. Boy, that question of mine sure brought out a lot of comment, and I thank you all for contributing. Interesting stuff, you buy a kit not realizing what you are buying. I for one never realized the issues that might exist regarding  old molds etc, and the issues with parts not fitting correctly for us guys building them. It's good to know, as it can be that when building a kit, and something not fitting right, it  can be the parts in the kit, and not you having a problem with the fit.

Thanks guys. Don

Don, the thing is that back when you were in the hobby decades ago none of these "problems" or complications existed. All the model companies were separate entities and the molds were much newer (with less wear). Sure, there was probably some kit re-boxing going on, but that was minimal.  But even then, there was no absolute answer as to which companies kits were better, because even then everycompany had some excellent and some not-so-great offerings.

[Fat Brian]

I agree with Steve that test fitting is extremely important, even moreso when you're making changes to a kit. The best time to find out that something doesn't fit is before there's paint or glue on it. 

Another issue is that the instructions might not be the best way to assemble a kit. The easiest way usually has you gluing painted body parts together, especially for newer cars. Test fitting allows you to find alternative means of assembly and see if you can squeeze the chassis into the body with the painted bumper covers on or where you need to trim to make it possible.

[Bugatti Fan]

MPC has been around quite a while now, so kits at 'of an age' so to speak, but not bad generally.

MPC I believe marketed the 1/12th scale Airfix Bentley under their name some years ago under a reciprocal arrangement where Airfix sold some MPC under their own name in the UK. 

There is so much swapping of mould usage in the industry that often the same kit emerges under various manufacturers names from time to time over the years.

[Bills72sj]

On 8/19/2025 at 9:02 PM, Fat Brian said:

I agree with Steve that test fitting is extremely important, even more so when you're making changes to a kit. The best time to find out that something doesn't fit is before there's paint or glue on it. 

Another issue is that the instructions might not be the best way to assemble a kit. The easiest way usually has you gluing painted body parts together, especially for newer cars. Test fitting allows you to find alternative means of assembly and see if you can squeeze the chassis into the body with the painted bumper covers on or where you need to trim to make it possible.

I agree. Most kit instructions tell you to start on the engine and end with the body. I always start with the body so that the paint cures without me handling it while I attend to all the other assemblies. I occasionally run into trouble with chassis to body matings. The other self inflicted issue is big motors in little engine bays. This kind of stuff needs dealt with before paint. 

[Donny]

2 hours ago, Bills72sj said:

I agree. Most kit instructions tell you to start on the engine and end with the body. I always start with the body so that the paint cures without me handling it while I attend to all the other assemblies. I occasionally run into trouble with chassis to body matings. The other self inflicted issue is big motors in little engine bays. This kind of stuff needs dealt with before paint. 

Hello Bill, that's exactly how I started to build the '40 I'm building now. I'm pretty new, I haven't built a model in years, but that procedure made/makes sense to me. There's lots that can be done whilst the paint is drying/curing, and it helps with the workflow later.

Don

[bobss396]

I picked up a Grumpys Toy Vega at a discount store and dove into it...it was never a decent kit from day 1.

It was not that many years back when the OG kits fetched $500 + on a certain auction site.