Round 2 2026

[phirewtiter]

Just picked up the Python Mustang for a little more than I really wanted to pay. Probably will be reissued soon.😋

[Ragtop Man]

At risk of repetition - the Bobby Issac Torino absolutely nailed the look of a Bud-Moore-Massage '72 Fastback body. Super well done.

That said, the chassis is as generic as Wal-Mart asprin, and needs some love (see articles from the late Bill Coulter) to bring it up to speed for a semblance of accuracy. 

Sure would love to see a proper 3D 351 Cleveland one of these days, gets a little spendy blowing up Revell B351s. 

[Edsel-Dan]

Yes, I did mean the Former "Polar Lights" 64 GTO and 65 Coronet Convertibiles

 

[horsepower]

On 11/13/2025 at 7:41 PM, Robberbaron said:

 

I agree with Steve's assessment.  When I was a kid these 1:1 Monzas were everywhere, and the MPC kits/promos always seemed spot-on to me.

Been a while since I looked at my AMT "Original Art" reissue, but I seem to recall thinking the belt line/side window shape didn't seem quite right.  As Steve noted, the AMT chassis is better, with separate drivetrain/exhaust detail from what I recall.

The best Monza recipe might be to bash the AMT dirty bits with an MPC body.  The MPC Monza promos can still be scored quite cheap from what I have seen.

IMHO, the "original" AMT corporation was hitting its low point in the mid-seventies.  As a general rule, most AMT annuals from this era have body proportion problems vs. their MPC counterparts, which are usually pretty accurate.  Similar examples are the Camaros, Pinto coupes, and the Novas.  (The roof shape in the just-reissued AMT 1976 Nova Pro Street is all wrong vs. the MPC 1979 Nova, which gets it right.)

I built one of these in the first release and it was definitely something I didn't do at all, in fact I think this is the only one I did this way. The strange way? I did it as a box art copy but it never did seem to do anything exciting for me but after picking up a different Monza that was intended as a NASCAR Super Speedway build I was pretty amped when I saw this one was making another appearance I had a serious brain storm, but I have to make sure I give my wife pre storm notice as she was just sure I was having some kind of stroke😋. But when I told her my big idea it must have been a good one because she gave it a better review than her usual oh, that sounds cute, remark with a with all of those things stuffed under that little Monza it should be a real attention getter. But back to my thoughts I've been looking at one of the Grand Sport Corvette kits that Revell bagged from Accurate Miniatures and I saw it with the trick small block the Weber cross ram induction and the tricked out IRS I have almost convinced myself that stuffing all the go-fast things under the Monza body should make a good mountain racer or at least something that would wake up the teeny bopper GTA group so here I go again!!

[ChrisBcritter]

Regarding the '72 Torino, what is the connection (if any) between this kit and the Jo-Han kit? Did AMT/MPC copy it or did they get the Jo-Han molds?

Edited November 21 by ChrisBcritter

[Rob Hall]

1 minute ago, ChrisBcritter said:

Regarding the '72 Torino, what is the connection with this kit and the Jo-Han kit? Did AMT/MPC copy it or did they get the Jo-Han molds?

None that I'm aware of...it was an MPC stock car kit that came out in the same era as the Jo-Han promo based stock car kit. 

[Proximitas]

I owned an actual Monza Mirage. It was my very first car. The wide body panels had been torn off by someone prior to my owning it. I never could find a replacement set.

Sadly, I got t-boned by a speeding driver broke my hand in the accident, but the car was toasted as the body had been completely sprung.

Oh, how I miss that car.

I built the MPC Monza Pro Street kit as a Mirage - scratch building my own body kit. I sure wish they would reissue these kits.

[Motor City]

1977 Monza Mirage

[Mark]

On 11/21/2025 at 3:40 PM, ChrisBcritter said:

Regarding the '72 Torino, what is the connection (if any) between this kit and the Jo-Han kit? Did AMT/MPC copy it or did they get the Jo-Han molds?

The old CAR MODEL magazine did mention a connection as I recall; that Jo-Han allowed MPC to use information they had already gathered, and to possibly use the wooden "masters" Jo-Han had created for the body and related parts.  MPC's body was strictly NASCAR trim as they weren't concerned with doing a promo as Jo-Han had done.

There were some loose ties between these companies in that period.  AMT was in the closing stages of selling Jo-Han kits in AMT packaging.  The last of these were in '74, and included the pro stock Maverick, Dodge Challenger funny car, and the '72 Torino NASCAR kit.  MPC cribbed the design of their 1/16 scale '63 Corvette kit off of Monogram's 1/8 scale '65 (again, supposedly with permission).  A couple of MPC's 1/25 scale snap kits ('40 Ford coupe, '50 Mercury, Willys panel) are simplified versions of AMT kits.  If you have the MPC snap Mercury, look at the chassis.  You can see the seam in the engine's oil pan, and trunk mat detail on the top of the chassis even though the snap Merc doesn't have the opening trunk that AMT's kit does.

[espo]

On 11/27/2025 at 7:19 AM, Motor City said:

1977 Monza Mirage

These were such a ticky tacky add on tape and plastic side panels they were almost sale proof on the showroom floor when new. 

[Sledsel]

On 11/21/2025 at 3:40 PM, ChrisBcritter said:

Regarding the '72 Torino, what is the connection (if any) between this kit and the Jo-Han kit? Did AMT/MPC copy it or did they get the Jo-Han molds?

When it comes to the two kits the Johan is superior. The chassis on the Johan is wonderful and other than the Dana rear end it is correct.

 

Edited Monday at 05:00 PM by Sledsel

[Mark]

But that's a stock Torino frame, which the race cars didn't use.  The front stub, at least, would be different (probably a fabricated '65 Galaxie piece).  The Dana rear axle isn't right either; should be a Ford 9" unit.  Jo-Han's Dana 60 isn't 100% correct either, having a 8-3/4" Mopar gear carrier ("chunk").  The cover and housing are great, just needs work up front.  And it's incorrect for the S/C Rambler kit too.

[Mark C.]

56 minutes ago, Mark said:

But that's a stock Torino frame, which the race cars didn't use.  The front stub, at least, would be different (probably a fabricated '65 Galaxie piece).  The Dana rear axle isn't right either; should be a Ford 9" unit.  Jo-Han's Dana 60 isn't 100% correct either, having a 8-3/4" Mopar gear carrier ("chunk").  The cover and housing are great, just needs work up front.  And it's incorrect for the S/C Rambler kit too.

Makes one wonder whether JoHan had planned to do a full detail kit for a stock Torino that was cancelled for some reason…

[oldcarfan]

I'll definitely want a Taurus, and a Monza for sure. I had the Taurus kit back in the day and turned it into a two door coupe. Now I'd like to do one all lowered and with a tuner vibe. The only thing I really remember about the build is that it was pretty straightforward, but the ride height was way too high. 

[CapSat 6]

7 hours ago, Mark C. said:

Makes one wonder whether JoHan had planned to do a full detail kit for a stock Torino that was cancelled for some reason…

I wonder about this one too. The stock ‘72 Torino (through ‘76) did use a full frame. The ‘67-‘69 Fairlane and ‘70-‘71 Torino were unibody, and famously used the Galaxie front stub in NASCAR. I think around 1972 when the Torino hit, the rule in NASCAR was that each model / body style had to use the same chassis format as that particular model/body (but not necessarily stock components)- so - coil springs and full frame for the ‘72 Tornio. I think the Jo Han kit chassis is correct for a ‘72 Tornio/ Mercury. 

I think the rules were more loose as far as the actual components, or at least that is what I read, so it was possible that a given team could have opted for a Dana instead of a Ford 9” rear, for instance, or even a Chrysler transmission instead of a Ford, if that is what the builder preferred. That could explain the Dana in the kit. Whichever car Jo Han looked at might have run a Dana. 

I think right in ‘72, the rules were in flux a bit, but eventually, everybody settled on using the same components for their cars, due to cost, known reliability, and availability (I think Richard Petty once described it as the whole aftermarket going “Chevy Chevy Chevy”, as far as engine parts, which hobbled the Chrysler teams, as good aftermarket engine parts were more expensive and harder to get- although not being able to get good new engine blocks from Chrysler, and the lack of a new body style with decent aero eventually put the final nails into the coffin of their racing efforts). I think the same body/ same chassis rule went away some time around 1976- when they went to the “standard” chassis they used through the late ‘70’s and ‘80’s. 

I always thought that the chassis in the Jo Han ‘72 Torino, Dana aside, was correct for that car (but not for earlier Ford intermediates)- that the Jo Han chassis represented more or less a FoMoCo ‘72-‘76 chassis. 
 

[boss 302 mustang]

Roundy-round cars did not use a Dana as it is way more work to change the gears than just replacing the 3rd member like a 9" Ford or 8 3/4" Mopar.  An AMT NASCAR kit should provide a more realistic rear end if desired.

[Mark]

Jo-Han tended to use parts they already had tooling or masters for.  Compare the S/C Rambler rear suspension to that of the Sox & Martin Barracuda which was tooled around the same time...very similar.  The S/C did not use that axle, it used the same setup as other AMC cars around that time.

The Torino having that rear axle is simple...Jo-Han already had that part mastered.  It's the same as the others, right down to the (incorrect) separate gear carrier.  The Torino's upper front suspension arms resemble those in the Chrysler Turbine Car kit also.  

[Dave Van]

On 11/21/2025 at 3:40 PM, ChrisBcritter said:

Regarding the '72 Torino, what is the connection (if any) between this kit and the Jo-Han kit? Did AMT/MPC copy it or did they get the Jo-Han molds?

The AMT 72 Torino lit is a rebox of the JoHan kit.

The MPC kit was a new body on the NASCAR chassis MPC had been using in the series.  IMHO MPC did base the body on the JoHan Torino because ALL parts swap between the 3 kits. Hood is an exact fit....Grilles swap perfect etc. 

This parts box build is a mix of all kits...

 

[fairlane1320]

GET OFF MY LAWN! 

 

[Sledsel]

21 hours ago, Mark said:

But that's a stock Torino frame, which the race cars didn't use.  The front stub, at least, would be different (probably a fabricated '65 Galaxie piece).  The Dana rear axle isn't right either; should be a Ford 9" unit.  Jo-Han's Dana 60 isn't 100% correct either, having a 8-3/4" Mopar gear carrier ("chunk").  The cover and housing are great, just needs work up front.  And it's incorrect for the S/C Rambler kit too.

The front suspension of the '65 Galaxie and '72 Torino are nearly identical so the use of the Torino frame and suspension would be correct. 

[Mark C.]

What about the use of “truck arms” for NASCARs with coil spring rear suspension (Mopars used leaf springs)?  I’m pretty sure that some Chevys were using truck arms around 1972.  Did Fords use them as well?

Also, back to the JoHan Torino in particular, are people surmising that the separate frame, totally stock body with opening hood, etc. were only meant to create a NASCAR version?  I can see adapting the totally stock promo body tool with as few changes as possible to create a NASCAR, but then why not go the extra step to include the promo interior, wheels and tires, and some stock engine parts for a stock street version?  They could have made it a 2 in 1 (or 3 in 1 with some drag race or custom/street machine parts, and potentially opened up some sales opportunities for the kit.  I’m sure a lot of it revolved around JoHan’s declining business model at the time, but looking back, it would have been unique subject matter and seems (retrospectively) like a lost opportunity.

Thoughts?

[Dave Van]

18 minutes ago, Mark C. said:

What about the use of “truck arms” for NASCARs with coil spring rear suspension (Mopars used leaf springs)?  I’m pretty sure that some Chevys were using truck arms around 1972.  Did Fords use them as well?

Also, back to the JoHan Torino in particular, are people surmising that the separate frame, totally stock body with opening hood, etc. were only meant to create a NASCAR version?  I can see adapting the totally stock promo body tool with as few changes as possible to create a NASCAR, but then why not go the extra step to include the promo interior, wheels and tires, and some stock engine parts for a stock street version?  They could have made it a 2 in 1 (or 3 in 1 with some drag race or custom/street machine parts, and potentially opened up some sales opportunities for the kit.  I’m sure a lot of it revolved around JoHan’s declining business model at the time, but looking back, it would have been unique subject matter and seems (retrospectively) like a lost opportunity.

Thoughts?

OK....this is where it would be nice if Randy's NASCAR model forum was still here. 

By 72 NASCAR did not require STOCK suspension on Cup cars but the wording was 'Stock type'. So if showroom car had coils up front and coils out back with trailing arms a 72 Torino could use GM truck trailing arms and many did. BUT Bobby Allison build his Monme Carlos in his shop and he used stock location trail arms (short) So the basic rule is 'Stock Type' but location points and manufacture was FREE. 

[Mark C.]

2 hours ago, Dave Van said:

OK....this is where it would be nice if Randy's NASCAR model forum was still here. 

By 72 NASCAR did not require STOCK suspension on Cup cars but the wording was 'Stock type'. So if showroom car had coils up front and coils out back with trailing arms a 72 Torino could use GM truck trailing arms and many did. BUT Bobby Allison build his Monme Carlos in his shop and he used stock location trail arms (short) So the basic rule is 'Stock Type' but location points and manufacture was FREE. 

Thanks!  I was the one who posted the SCR article on Bobby Allison’s shop (building a ‘72 Monte) on Randy’s board, and I recall the discussion that gave me the impression that he was the outlier and that most teams were running truck arms out back.  What I didn’t know was what the Fords were doing at the time.

From what you say, the JoHan Torino would technically be correct, but may not have been as competitive due to the stock suspension in the kit.  And, likely a whole lot more correct, chassis-wise, than the MPC NASCAR Torino, which IIRC had leaf springs (?).

[Mark]

I doubt Jo-Han was planning a stock Torino with that level of detail.  Look at the other annual kits they were still doing.  Interior buckets with front and rear seats molded in were still the order of the day (though some earlier kits DID have separate parts).  To even get to a stock kit with an engine, they'd have had to create the engine unless they were going to stick the Boss Nine in there.

Jo-Han seems to have been trying to recast itself as "the race car model company" in 1971-72, after losing the last of their Mopar promo model business after 1970.  They did some great new tooling, but most of the drag cars were too unique and the NASCAR and Trans-Am stuff got outdated quickly.  So after that, they went pretty much in the only direction they could go...diving into the tooling bank.

[Mark C.]

True, but then why do a separate frame?  Other NASCAR kits at the time had fairly simplified chassis.

On the other hand, it did occur to me that they already did have a stock version in the unassembled promo, so they would have been competing with themselves.

Edited 17 hours ago by Mark C.