So, I guess no ‘80’s ProStreet Camaro Z28 in late quarter 2025 like Steve G. promised?

[tim boyd]

The AMT-Ertl 1970 1/2 Z-28 and Baldwin-Motion Camaro kits introduced around the turn of the century were all new tooling.  No comparison with the earlier kits in terms of interior/chassis/interior/powertrain detail.  While I am not a fan of ScaleMates in terms of achieving high degree of accuracy on kit history, apparently, they called this one correctly. 

I can post detailed images of two builds from this kit (a 1970 1/2 SS396 kitbash and a late 1970 1/2 (with pull ahead 1971 paint and late year front and rear spoilers) mild kitbash) if anyone wants to see more details on the subject kit.... for now, here's an overall shot.

This is the same kit tooling that was reissued just a few years back with the alternative (base non-RS)  1970 1/2-1973 full front bumper/front end treatment....TIM 

[Can-Con]

51 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

The AMT-Ertl 1970 1/2 Z-28 and Baldwin-Motion Camaro kits introduced around the turn of the century were all new tooling.  No comparison with the earlier kits in terms of interior/chassis/interior/powertrain detail.  While I am not a fan of ScaleMates in terms of achieving high degree of accuracy on kit history, apparently, they called this one correctly. 

I can post detailed images of two builds from this kit (a 1970 1/2 SS396 kitbash and a late 1970 1/2 (with pull ahead 1971 paint and late year front and rear spoilers) mild kitbash) if anyone wants to see more details on the subject kit.... for now, here's an overall shot.

This is the same kit tooling that was reissued just a few years back with the alternative (base non-RS)  1970 1/2-1973 full front bumper/front end treatment....TIM 

Just for clarity, I'm thinking Mike was referring to this kit, not the new tool '70. 

This for those who don't know about the older kit, I know you're familiar Tim.

[1972coronet]

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

1970 1/2 SS396 kitbash and a late 1970 1/2 (with pull ahead 1971 paint and late year front and rear spoilers

Please do link to them, @tim boyd.

Is that ( gorgeous ) orange 396 the 350hp or 375hp replica ? 

[AMT68]

21 hours ago, tim boyd said:

if anyone wants to see more details on the subject kit.

The information would be of interest and appreciated.

Superb work on both of your examples. 

[mikos]

On 12/8/2025 at 5:17 PM, Can-Con said:

Just for clarity, I'm thinking Mike was referring to this kit, not the new tool '70. 

This for those who don't know about the older kit, I know you're familiar Tim.

Yes, that’s the kit.  The AMT ‘77 Camaro was back-dated into that issue.  The headlight pods in the fenders were still too round just like on the original AMT promo/annual for ‘70.  

As Tim noted, a brand new tool was done at the turn of the century (I wasn’t 100% sure) and they finally tooled up a correct front end with headlight pod and grill shape to look more realistic.  

The only detail MPC gets better is the curve of the upper door sill line.  On the new tool ‘70.5 Z28 , the curve of the sill looks too straight (not enough of a gently sweeping curve) compared to the real car.  

[tim boyd]

On 12/8/2025 at 8:17 PM, Can-Con said:

Just for clarity, I'm thinking Mike was referring to this kit, not the new tool '70. 

This for those who don't know about the older kit, I know you're familiar Tim.

Without going to my storage site, I believe this particular kit revision dates to the late 1980s or early 1990s.  I remember looking at it when it came out and thinking "oh well"....  

[Rob Hall]

45 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Without going to my storage site, I believe this particular kit revision dates to the late 1980s or early 1990s.  I remember looking at it when it came out and thinking "oh well"....  

Yes, I remember thinking the front end looked funny on the box art. 1989 according to Scalemates, seems right as that is the box art style of that era. 

[mikos]

There was a “how-to” article back in the ‘90’s (Scale Auto Enthusiast) on how to correct the front end on that kit.

Edited yesterday at 01:10 PM by mikos

[stavanzer]

2 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Without going to my storage site, I believe this particular kit revision dates to the late 1980s or early 1990s.  I remember looking at it when it came out and thinking "oh well"....  

I remember reading Tom Gaffney's (?) review of the kit in SAE when it first came out. He thought the kit was riddled with error's. (Small Block Engine with optional Big Block Heads and Valve Covers, and other troubles. Plus many more)

Oddly, I have wanted that kit for years. It's very hard to find.

[Mark]

The first version of that old kit was issued in 1970, and was an SS396 with a vinyl roof.  AMT had the promo model contract that year but lost it to MPC for '71 through '73.

The same kit was available through '71 (not updated), then issued as a '72.  I don't have that one but I believe the vinyl roof detail was removed.  The '73 was called an "SS 350" (there was no SS that year) and that's where the small-block parts on the big-block engine came in. 

The same kit was updated yearly through '77, later had T-roof openings cut into the roof, then got back dated to the '70 Z/28 version.  So that thing has been through the wringer over the years. 

[mikos]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

The first version of that old kit was issued in 1970, and was an SS396 with a vinyl roof.  AMT had the promo model contract that year but lost it to MPC for '71 through '73.

The same kit was available through '71 (not updated), then issued as a '72.  I don't have that one but I believe the vinyl roof detail was removed.  The '73 was called an "SS 350" (there was no SS that year) and that's where the small-block parts on the big-block engine came in. 

The same kit was updated yearly through '77, later had T-roof openings cut into the roof, then got back dated to the '70 Z/28 version.  So that thing has been through the wringer over the years. 

When AMT updated the tooling in ‘74, they never showed a picture of the front end.  They only provided an artist rendering or pic of the real car like on the ‘77 AHC-100 T-top issue.  In the ‘77 issue, they finally included pics of the built model on the box…never showing what the actual front end looked like on the model.  The pics were from the rear view.

Even then, I think AMT knew that the front end was a little wonky and didn’t think it would help to sell those kits by actually showing it. lol!  I guess AMT was not provided with the “official” GM blueprints for the mid-cycle update in ‘74.  This is somewhat strange because MPC did not have the promo contract either, however, the front end on the (‘74-‘77) annuals were much more accurate than the AMT kit.

It makes me wonder that if promos were not requested by GM, did the model companies have to pay extra money for the factory blueprints if they wanted them?

Edited 22 hours ago by mikos

[Mark]

Sometimes if one company got the promo deal, the others wouldn't get access to pre-production info and would have to wait like everyone else to see an actual car.  AMT didn't get access to a number of 1968 GM cars, like the Corvette, Camaro, Corvair, and Firebird.  The Corvette kit ended up being way off, and the others were called "for 1968" kits.  The Corvair was a '67, the other two were based on a '67 Camaro.  None could be built stock.

[Motor City]

The AMT AHC-100 T-top kit I bought had such thin plastic in the door handle area on both doors that there were elongated voids where the recesses were for where a person would grab the handles.  I sold that kit because I didn't think there was a good way to repair that back then.  The only real one I ever saw was also white. 

[tim boyd]

On 12/8/2025 at 8:32 PM, 1972coronet said:

Please do link to them, @tim boyd.

Is that ( gorgeous ) orange 396 the 350hp or 375hp replica ? 

John...and Tom....now done, here: 

Thanks for asking!  And yes, the SS396 was the 375 hp version....Cheers....TIM 

[Carmak]

I would like to provide some historical context to the kit business and specifically AMT in the 70's.

AMT was not in great shape in the early 70's.

* Promos: Promo models in general were on the decline in the 70's and AMT was losing promo contracts MPC. This was bad because AMT didn't have blueprints or models to work from and it was much worse because promos were a major source of income and essentially subsidized the annuals as major portions of annual tooling was repurposed promo tooling (this is the business model that AMT started with in 1958).

* Demand: Model car kit demand started to drop significantly in the 70's. The only thing that kept AMT afloat was the Semi Truck boom.

OIL: Model kits are made from oil - if you know anything about the 70's enough said.

AMT was doing what it could with what it had. Lots of great 60'2 era kits were "de-contented" with parts blocked off to use less plastic (oil). Some parts got thinner to save plastic. Lots of 60's kits were cut up to make stock cars or drag cars to try a squeeze a little model life out of them.

The mid 70's is when I began building model cars and looking back it was a fairly dark time.

[Mark C.]

All this talk about producing models of cars that they had to guess at because they had no access to factory blueprints begs the question:  what about copyrights and standards?  Did they not have to purchase the rights to make a model of “X”, and then have to get approval from the company that this is a reasonable representation of the product brand?

Given what we’ve seen, the obvious answer is no, at least to standards and approvals, but perhaps the legal out was in calling it a custom?  It seems odd looking back from a point of hyper-controlled branding in a litigious society, but it seems even looser than I would have suspected it to be.

[Mark]

Things were pretty loose back then.  If Palmer could use the car names, pretty much anyone could!

[CapSat 6]

2 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

All this talk about producing models of cars that they had to guess at because they had no access to factory blueprints begs the question:  what about copyrights and standards?  Did they not have to purchase the rights to make a model of “X”, and then have to get approval from the company that this is a reasonable representation of the product brand?

Given what we’ve seen, the obvious answer is no, at least to standards and approvals, but perhaps the legal out was in calling it a custom?  It seems odd looking back from a point of hyper-controlled branding in a litigious society, but it seems even looser than I would have suspected it to be.

The 60's and '70's were different times...I think it probably started with Star Wars. Licensing was key to making George Lucas very, very rich. He insisted on retaining the rights to merchandising Star Wars, and that's where most of his fortune came from.

In the 60's- it was looked at as a positive that toys were being made of a brand's cars. "Free advertising", as it were. I think licensing existed back then, but every unauthorized replica wasn't chased down legally like they are now. Also- the Big 3 and AMT did have a relationship back then, I think AMT might have done some non-kit or non-promo plastic work for them at some point, and it was kept friendly. Even among the Big 3, there seemed to be friendly, but competitive, relations back then. Now business in the US tends to be total war.  

The gatekeeping of all of this began in the 80's and only got more intense as time went on.  By the 80's, it seems like the car companies, NASCAR, and parts companies went big on the opinion that their brands and image were to be protected, licensed, & monetized.  

I think I read somewhere that Ferrari actually makes more money out of it's licensing now than it does selling cars. I'm not sure if that is true or not.  

[mikos]

15 hours ago, Motor City said:

The AMT AHC-100 T-top kit I bought had such thin plastic in the door handle area on both doors that there were elongated voids where the recesses were for where a person would grab the handles.  I sold that kit because I didn't think there was a good way to repair that back then.  The only real one I ever saw was also white. 

I still have mine, but the wonky front clip section is the problem for me.   I thought about making a resin copy of the more accurate MPC front end and then grafting it on the AMT body.

If that doesn’t work, trade it for an MPC Camaro kit of the same vintage.  The thing is, no one would trade an MPC kit for that one unless they weren’t aware of the inaccurate front end or desperately needed the T-tops for some reason.

[Carmak]

1 hour ago, Mark C. said:

All this talk about producing models of cars that they had to guess at because they had no access to factory blueprints begs the question:  what about copyrights and standards?  Did they not have to purchase the rights to make a model of “X”, and then have to get approval from the company that this is a reasonable representation of the product brand?

Given what we’ve seen, the obvious answer is no, at least to standards and approvals, but perhaps the legal out was in calling it a custom?  It seems odd looking back from a point of hyper-controlled branding in a litigious society, but it seems even looser than I would have suspected it to be.

It is my understanding that part of the demise of JoHan is related to licensing issues. Not that licensing alone killed them, but it was what pushed them over the edge.