Which Dodge Challenger kit is better, the Monogram or Revell?

[Monty]

For some reason I've never gotten around to building a '70 Challenger despite it being one of my top-five favorite muscle cars. I'm also not going to use scale as a factor in determining which one to buy.

The little research I've been able to do informs me that the 1/24 Monogram version is nice, if fairly simplified, a la most of their muscle kits issued in the early '80s. I'm told the engine is meant to represent a 340 but is grossly out of scale. The front fascia has an odd (incorrect) join angle on the front fender, but it looks to be easily correctable.

I know far less about the 1/25 Revell kit except that it has a wire axle at the rear and metal retaining pins for the front wheels. Is this a 2-in-1 kit? What engine(s) and wheels are in it?

For those who have experience with both, please tell me which is the better overall kit, and why.

[Phirewriter]

I won't comment as to which is better, I'll let Mopar experts take that one. The Monogram kit dates back to the 80's when they were coming out with numerous muscle car subjects. The Revell version is a plastic version of the Vanishing Point metal kit so there are definate differences.

[Fat Brian]

I've built the Monogram and AMT Challengers, both are pretty straightforward. You are right about the 340 being vastly out of scale, it's almost as big as the 440 in the 70 GTX kit. The good thing is that the Hemi from the 71 Cuda and the aforementioned 440 are easy swaps. The AMT kit seems more true to scale and is an equally easy build, the only drawback is having to glue the top on for a hard top version.

[Sport Suburban]

I personally really like the Monogram 340 TA version myself. I have built about three of them over the years. I did buy the new tool 1:25 version and found out it is based on the die cast version that Revell had out for awhile. I built that Vanishing Point die cast but did not like it. The newer kit is mostly a plastic version of that kit. The body looks real boxy to me and does not look right.

When it comes to the 70 Challenger kits. I would put the MPC kit up at the top of the list. Monogram 1:24 in second, AMT kit next, (love it with the Flinstone RT/SE body), then the Revell 1:25 TA or RT two in one last.

[Junkman]

The nicest body shape has the Lindberg kit.

[Snake45]

The nicest body shape has the Lindberg kit.

Lindberg has a '70 Challenger? Do you mean their ex-Palmer '74 (or whatever it is)?

[JTalmage]

Wow glad I read this. I was thinking of picking up the new Revell Challenger 2n1 and now that I know its based on their metal kit... I may pass.... the '68 Mustang was enough for me...

Sad really

[johnbuzzed]

The original Monogram/Revell T/A fuel and brake lines are molded on the wrong sides of the chassis, and they have just about no firewall detail- if I remember correctly, just the master cylinder. A wiper motor, heater hoses and ballast resistor would add a lot to that big, empty expanse. This is the actual, original, 2 in 1 kit- you can build a stock 340 T/A, or add the funky tunnel ram, aftermarket wheels, and a different spoiler to the trunk lid. No big-block engine option. This kit has nothing to do with the die-cast-based kit, as far as I know. The kit that I have on my shelf now has a copyright 1986 on the chassis. I have built one of these and the AMT/Ertl kit, and I prefer this one, even though the latter has some more detail.

I do have another AMT/Ertl kit; it will be used as a donor for a rebuild of my vintage, original '73 MPC Challenger that I built back in '72. I hope to build a fairly accurate replica of the real '73 that I owned back in the early '80's.

Edited February 10, 2015 by johnbuzzed

[Casey]

Sad really

There really isn't a great '70 Challenger model available. The 1/25 Revell R/T-T/A kit isn't horrible, but it's not steller, either. Same for the 1/24 Monogram kit-- good, but not great, and definitely showing it's age. The AMT kit is convertible only. No self respecting builder would slap on the supplied "roof" and call it a hardtop.

[Monty]

Wow glad I read this. I was thinking of picking up the new Revell Challenger 2n1 and now that I know its based on their metal kit... I may pass.... the '68 Mustang was enough for me...

Sad really

It's especially sad in light of the fact that Revell can put out great kits. What's harder to explain is how some of the more egregious ones ever got released, given the increasing number of "adult" builders looking for more serious products. As an example of their range in quality, their '69 Camaro may be one of their best toolings, especially considering its age, yet that "Revell quality" thread shows us why it's always wise to ask about their kits before buying them.

[Casey]

I would pick up one of the original issue of the 1/24 Monogram kit, molded in Metal Glow plastic, Monty. The second issue was molded in bright red plastic, and the post-'Cuda AAR release kits all have the incorrect interior, too:

An original issue will cost you less than a newer (maybe still current) release anyway, and the things which need correcting on the Monogram kit aren't too difficult. It's the least incorrect of the three IMHO, and looks the best when completed and sitting upon the shelf.You can separate the front valence panel from the grille, attach the valence to the body, then scribe in correctly located valence-to-fender extension lines.

One good thing about the newer reissues is the expanded decal sheet, which also includes the coolant sticker, fender tag, etc.

[Monty]

Thanks, Casey! I had no idea.

[thatz4u]

I built the Revell 1/25th, it was a lot better than the AMT...although I used an AMT 70 Super bee hemi in it..