American Muscle Car Kits, Help Needed

[Hiroboy]

I'm making my first american muscle car, being a 1971 Dodge Challenger and would like to make more. These are the ones I'm after, But the question is which make is the best for each car.

1. 1966 Ford Mustang (Hardtop)
2. 1969 Ford Mustand Boss 302
3. 1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator
4. Plymouth 'Hemi' Cuda

I don't have experience with Revell USA, AMT, Monogram MPC, etc
Also as I have only bought Jap Kits I'm not sure of the best place on the Internet to get these (Best Prices and International Export to the UK)

Any help would be great
Thanks

[JTRACING]

stick with Revell, or Lindberg. they have the best muscle car kits.

[Mustangman25]

Revell just re-released their 1/24 64 Mustang, and AMT has a '66. I know that Revell also has a 70 Boss 429, but the nose is very different from a 69, so that wont do you much good. I know that someone made/makes a 69 Boss 302, but I cant think of who it was off the top of my head. My neighbor's son has an original 69 302 in bright orange, it's one of about 500 left in the world. An amazing car...

[mike@af]

Revell, Revell, Revell. Cheap kits, pretty good quality for American makes.

[AstroRide44]

ya i try to stick with revell as much as possible. i find the best american selection is at ehobbies.com. most of the revel kits are around $12 and u can find AMT for $10

[ol' dude]

Originally Posted by JTRACING

stick with Revell, or Lindberg. they have the best muscle car kits.

Gotta agree with JT, Revell and Lindberg are the better ones to go with!!

[Inservible]

www.modelexpress.net without any doubt

[white97ex]

modelexpress is a great site, i've ordered from there before and they are a very down home, hospitable, and well run organization. some of those you might only be able to find from AMT those kits aren't total crap. they just require a lot of TLC to get them up to snuff. the 69 i just did, seemed to be a pretty good kit, eventhough i hardly used any of the kit pieces. lol

[99civichic]

I built the Revell Hemi Cuda and it's a pretty good model, the undercarriage is a little underdetailed but you can work with it. I also built a Revell 69 Mustang that came in the "Amigo Pack" but I don't think it was a Boss 302. Revell did just re-release the 70 Boss 302. I don't know about a Cougar, but the 65-66 Mustangs are easy to find.

How much of a hassle would shipping be to where you are? If you have Paypal, maybe we can work something out. I see these kits all the time at Hobby Lobby or Michaels, even Walmart, and they sell for $10-$15.

[Layla's Keeper]

Originally Posted by Hiroboy

I'm making my first american muscle car, being a 1971 Dodge Challenger and would like to make more. These are the ones I'm after, But the question is which make is the best for each car.

1. 1966 Ford Mustang (Hardtop)
2. 1969 Ford Mustand Boss 302
3. 1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator
4. Plymouth 'Hemi' Cuda

I don't have experience with Revell USA, AMT, Monogram MPC, etc
Also as I have only bought Jap Kits I'm not sure of the best place on the Internet to get these (Best Prices and International Export to the UK)

Any help would be great
Thanks

Okay, piece by piece here's your outlook for muscle car kits.

1 - 1966 Ford Mustang: Well, AMT did a 1/25th back in the sixties as part of their "annual" series. It's mostly accurate body wise but the chassis is pants with that old school metal axle through the engine block. Your best bet is to combine the AMT body with an AMT/Ertl 1967 Mustang chassis and interior, with suitable modifications for accuracy.

The Revell/Monogram 1964/65 Mustang is 1:24th scale and wouldn't be as good for the conversion, also it's only available as either a convertible or fastback - never as the hard top.

2 - 1969 Boss 302 Mustang: Revell produced a good kit of the 1969 Mustang 428CJ in the 80's that had slightly incorrect grille proportions. AMT produced in the 60's a regular 1969 Mustang based off their 1968 tooling that had a good grille, but woefully incorrect body proportions. Combine the Revell 1969 Mustang 428CJ (also sold as a Dyno Don Nicholson car in the Hot Rod series of kits) with an AMT grille and with parts from the Revell/Monogram 1970 Boss 302 Mustang (along with a resin Cross Boss or inline fourbarrel carb intake, options you could get in 1969 that you couldn't get in 1970) to build an accurate 1969 Boss.

3 - 1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator: If you'd said 1969, you'd be in luck since AMT/Ertl has an excellent 1969 Cougar on the market in current production. However, they haven't produced the 1970 Cougar Eliminator since 1970. Your best bet here is to look into resin sources like Modelhaus.

4 - Hemi Cuda: Pick a year. 1968/69 your only option is to correct the old MPC/AMT annual kit which has another lousy chassis and a shallow interior to boot. The Hemi Cuda hoodscoop is in the kit, though. 1971has been available from Revell/Monogram and Johan. The Johan kit has the better body proportions and superior engine detail (even though the tooling dates back to 1971) but the Revell/Monogram kit has better chassis detail and is more readily available.

Also, it must be mentioned that the Revell 1970 AAR 'Cuda kit is a complete steaming pile. Instead of revising the 1971 Hemi 'Cuda tooling from Monogram (which Revell had at their disposal at the time) they used their in house 1970 Challenger T/A tooling instead. While the Challenger and the 'Cuda were similar cars on the same platform, they shared very few body panels and the net result was a Challenger wearing a 'Cuda nose and bumper. You can, however, transplant the AAR 'Cuda nose onto the 1971 Hemi 'Cuda body for a fairly passable 1970 'Cuda.

However, you can also just add chassis detail from the AMT/Ertl 1970 Challenger kit to a Johan 1970 Hemi 'Cuda kit (namely the Sox & Martin Pro Stock kit) and a stock hood from a resin caster and get the same if not more pleasing results.

[99civichic]

You, sir, know your model kits.

One of our hobby stores has the 1966 Mustang Shebly Hertz (a fastback) and the Hemi Cuda Coupe and Convertible.

[1986Z28]

i find revell the best for muscle cars, there cheap and they have a pretty decent selection

[spidereddie]

from my experience. it takes alot more to make an amt kit look good than a revell kit. I sometimes feel like amt's are heaping piles of flaming dog feces. Little interior detail, bad piece fitment, mold lines a plenty. And just to bug you (the customer), alot of the 3n1 AMT kits don't even say they are or show it on the box the way revell so kindly does. But on the flipside of that, there are many multi-option amt kits out there.

[Okiemodelbuilder]

Originally Posted by spidereddie

from my experience. it takes alot more to make an amt kit look good than a revell kit. I sometimes feel like amt's are heaping piles of flaming dog feces. Little interior detail, bad piece fitment, mold lines a plenty. And just to bug you (the customer), alot of the 3n1 AMT kits don't even say they are or show it on the box the way revell so kindly does. But on the flipside of that, there are many multi-option amt kits out there.

In defense of AMT, the brand is currently owned by Racing Champions, the diecast company. The vast majority of the AMT kits on the shelves date back to the 1960s and 1970s. That is why the engraving on the interiors is poor and the mold lines are so prominent. RC also flunked with their 2F2F releases. The Supra is the best of the bunch but the Mitsu, Camaro and Charger are aweful.

But I will put any of the 1990s new AMT offerings like the 1971 Dodge Charger, 1970.5 Camaro Z28, 1960 Ford Starliner, 1958 Edsel and so on up against any Tamiya kit with the level of engraving, detail, etc.

I prefer the old kits myself but that is another story....Marc

[calvin3]

Great thread guys...very informative!

Originally Posted by Inservible

www.modelexpress.net without any doubt

Thank you very much for that link....tons of cars!!! 4 pages of cars from 60-69! mmmmmmmmm