Round 2 AMT (ex-MPC) '69 Camaro

[Snake45]

Dunno if it's out yet, but if it isn't it will be soon. This is the AMT (ex-MPC) '69 Camaro Round 2 will soon be selling in a beautiful new box. AFAIK except for tires it will be identical to this AMT F&F tagged one I bought and built for my son last time it was reissued, sometime around 2003-05? Absolutely straight from the box, right down to decals and wheels. (This one's missing one taillight, which has gone AWOL over the years somehow--not a big deal.)

I have other photos of this model side by side with a Revell, and with a previous-reissued MPC, which had a little better body, which I'll post later, but for right now, I'll let these speak for themselves, and everyone can evaluate its accuracy (or lack thereof) on its own merits. Comments should be interesting. 

[Can-Con]

You're making me want to build a '69 Camaro, Snake ,,, a Revell '69 Camaro.?

[Mark]

The new issue is out...I saw it at the Three Rivers show yesterday.  I did buy an AMT Surf Wagon Chevelle kit there, the Valiant Scamp Kit Car was available too...

[Hard_2_Handle_454]

Proportions seem a little off.  Especially the grill.  I'd like another Camaro since the ones I have in my collection now were from when I first started building and they didn't come out so well.  I think I'd just try to find an old Revell kit though.

[Snake45]

I forgot to say last night, to me it looks more like a Kass & Bernie cartoon of a '69 Camaro than it does a real '69 Camaro. Maybe I'll build a diorama base for it with it rolling down a boulevard of Wavy As. 

[randyc]

I did the 67 & 68 from AMT/MPC whatever.  they didn't seem this bad to my memory.   THIS is what they are selling in that box?  Really?  Wow, that's awful.   So, is there a comparison thread on which is worse, the Mongran rampage 69 Camaro or this one?  I have a set of Revell 69 Camaro taillights in my model desk drawer that have been floating around for probably 10 years or more in there.   I was going to offer them to you, but they would never fit that opening.  LOL  

Steering wheel and dash look nice in your photos and your build quality is solid, as usual.  

[Casey]

12 hours ago, Snake45 said:

I have other photos of this model side by side with a Revell, and with a previous-reissued MPC

 

[Snake45]

41 minutes ago, Casey said:

 

Look at the big memory on Casey!

Yeah, that's the earlier issue I was talking about. But I shot new pics Sunday, of the blue Yenko with the blue Revell Snapper I just finished, and with that green "68 1/2" in that thread. Will post up some of those sometime soon. 

 

[Bob Ellis]

Missing a tail light in this kit? You have to be kidding.

[Snake45]

23 minutes ago, Bob Ellis said:

Missing a tail light in this kit? You have to be kidding.

It was in the kit and there when I built it, it's just fallen out over the years. It might be around somewhere. 

If not, I bought 2 more copies of this kit at the time just for the engines and wheels (not one but TWO different sets of Torq-Thrust-ish knockoffs). They were only $5 or $6 at the time at Walmart. 

[stavanzer]

Fortunately, my inability to see proportional errors or shape issues, renders the kit just perfect to me. I literally see nothing wrong with it. 

So I'll let others hash out the details and buy one and enjoy it.

[Luc Janssens]

My eyes, my eyes! 

 

[randyc]

33 minutes ago, alexis said:

Fortunately, my inability to see proportional errors or shape issues, renders the kit just perfect to me. I literally see nothing wrong with it. 

So I'll let others hash out the details and buy one and enjoy it.

I don't always see the details perfectly, but this one does scream "WRONG!" at me.   Have a good go at it.  

[tbill]

I never used to think that that was such a bad looking kit, but after building 6 revell camaro’s at once, and then seeing your pics Snake, the proportions of it just jump right out at me now.........

[SteveG]

Back when I was building up test shots for Racing Champions I received an early sample of the AMT F&F Camaro.  This was shortly after I had built up a F&F Supra test shot for them, I had very high expectations as that was such a nice kit.  Well you know when I opened the package what I got looked to me more like a Cartoon of a 69 Camaro then anything else.  I quickly fired off an email to their Product Development Manager who I won't name here.  I did my best to describe all issues with it in a professional manner to them and ended my comments with that they should expect a package back from me with a sample of what a 69 Camaro should look like. 

I ended up sending them a Revell 69 Camaro body out of my unbuilt kit collection.  I thought once they saw had bad it looked by comparison, they would be way too embarrassed to go ahead with it as is.  They sent it back acknowledging how much nicer the Revell piece was but basically said there was no budget to make the corrections to fix it.  Yes, they knew it sub-standard and went ahead with it anyways.   I told myself at least I tried to get them to fix it.   As for that F&F test shot, I was so disappointed that never bothered to build it. I've still have it untouched packed away in a box somewhere. 

-Steve

[Rob Hall]

5 hours ago, alexis said:

Fortunately, my inability to see proportional errors or shape issues, renders the kit just perfect to me. I literally see nothing wrong with it. 

So I'll let others hash out the details and buy one and enjoy it.

Well, it's not the level of awful the old Monogram '69 Camaro was, but there are many things wrong...roof shape, rear end too square, too much body in the front fenders and rear quarters above the wheel wells, grille, etc....I wonder if they ever corrected the engine (IIRC the 80s MPC releases had a Pontiac V8 from the '69 Firebird kit).    The whole body just looks 'off' if you compare it to photos of a 1:1, or the modern Revell kit. 

[Snake45]

4 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

...too much body in the front fenders and rear quarters above the wheel wells....I wonder if they ever corrected the engine (IIRC the 80s MPC releases had a Pontiac V8 from the '69 Firebird kit).    

The kit did come with a proper BBC. The "too much body" problem you mention is because MPC tooled this body out of their '68, which had the crease running pretty much down the center of the body. Chevy raised this line a couple inches in 1969 (to the tops of the wheel openings), but MPC didn't raise the line, they tried to get away with rolling with it as-is. 

And they did the same thing with the '69 Firebird, which is also screwed up to this day, and will never look right no matter how masterfully you build it. 

[Slick Shifter]

The MPC 1969 Camaro annual has a pretty nice body but they reworked it for i-don't-remember-what. And then when it reappeared in the 80's as the Hardtop molded in black there were some ghastly bulges in the front fenders where they had welded up the mold and the steel shrunk around the welds. The bulges are still there, last time i looked. Too bad because i got stuck with a bunch of Pace Cars.

But there is a silver lining: i can rob parts out of them to restore MPC 1967-68 Firebirds and 1968 Camaros

[Snake45]

2 hours ago, Slick Shifter said:

The MPC 1969 Camaro annual has a pretty nice body but they reworked it for i-don't-remember-what. And then when it reappeared in the 80's as the Hardtop molded in black there were some ghastly bulges in the front fenders where they had welded up the mold and the steel shrunk around the welds. The bulges are still there, last time i looked. Too bad because i got stuck with a bunch of Pace Cars.

But there is a silver lining: i can rob parts out of them to restore MPC 1967-68 Firebirds and 1968 Camaros

Here's three more MPCs I've built over the years. The gray HT in the middle is an original first-issue I built in 1969. The other two are from '80s reissues. And bad as they are, they're all better than the latest reissue, and the one before that (the blue one shown above in the OP). 

[Mark]

The body in the latest reissue is relatively new, created for the Fast & Furious issue.  The original body was, in order: '68 annual, '69 annual, Dickie Harrell funny car body, Jeg's dirt track car body, the Eighties "black hardtop" issue, then was permanently changed into the convertible a few years after that.  Apparently the convertible alteration could not be reversed, so the new body was tooled.  

[Robberbaron]

15 hours ago, randyc said:

I did the 67 & 68 from AMT/MPC whatever.  they didn't seem this bad to my memory.   THIS is what they are selling in that box?  Really?  Wow, that's awful.   So, is there a comparison thread on which is worse, the Mongran rampage 69 Camaro or this one?

 

7 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

Well, it's not the level of awful the old Monogram '69 Camaro was, but there are many things wrong...

Debating which one is worse is kind of subjective, so I won't argue with anyone that feels different than me on this issue.

All I know is that this thing looks WAY worse to me than the old Monogram Camaro.  At least certain portions of the old Monogram looked kinda sorta OK (I think the taillights/back end looked fairly correct, I really should dig out my old built-up and have a look again).

This thing on the other hand, NOTHING on the body looks right to me.  This really is Palmer territory here.  And we have to assume that the new release will be a straight reissue of this, because otherwise Round 2 would have made a point of heralding a "newly-tooled, accurate body" or some such description.

The fact that they're willing to reissue garbage like this makes me scratch my head, especially compared to most of the good business decisions they make the majority of the time.  Others are right, they will sell a fair number of these just because of the subject matter and the nice box art.  But man, are they going to P.O. a bunch of people once they all see the contents!

Edited October 2, 2019 by Robberbaron

[Ace-Garageguy]

Thanks for the review. Camaros are sorely lacking in my collection, and I've been wanting a good '69 to start. So glad I didn't buy one of these, only to open the box and see this misshapen mess. I'd have sent it back to them with a tube of special lubricant.

Still very difficult for me to grasp how "professionals" that get paid decent money can get away with putting out garbage like this.

[89AKurt]

???☄️⚡???️

Glad I'm into Ferraris. ?

[randyc]

7 hours ago, Robberbaron said:

 

Debating which one is worse is kind of subjective, so I won't argue with anyone that feels different than me on this issue.

All I know is that this thing looks WAY worse to me than the old Monogram Camaro.  At least certain portions of the old Monogram looked kinda sorta OK (I think the taillights/back end looked fairly correct, I really should dig out my old built-up and have a look again).

This thing on the other hand, NOTHING on the body looks right to me.  This really is Palmer territory here.  And we have to assume that the new release will be a straight reissue of this, because otherwise Round 2 would have made a point of heralding a "newly-tooled, accurate body" or some such description.

The fact that they're willing to reissue garbage like this makes me scratch my head, especially compared to most of the good business decisions they make the majority of the time.  Others are right, they will sell a fair number of these just because of the subject matter and the nice box art.  But man, are they going to P.O. a bunch of people once they all see the contents!

That's a good one - "Palmer territory" .    As for the WHY, I would say that it has to do with selling kits.  A 69 Camaro should sell.   I mentioned this somewhere else, but on a recent trip through Hobby Lobby, there were several folks on the model aisle looking at kits for gifts and they had no idea what they were looking at.   So they were getting kits based on box art.  Good box art goes a long way towards sales.   So they sell some more 69s and folks getting them either don't know the difference or  like many of us, would buy for the extras - wheels, tires, engine, etc.  Slip a clunker or two in there now and then and just collect the money.   They are a bigger part of the industry than a few of us vocal critics.  They can get by with it.   

[Snake45]

23 hours ago, randyc said:

which is worse, the Mongran rampage 69 Camaro or this one?  

I've built five of the MPCs and three Monograms (and three Revells, and one original AMT annual, and have owned two real '69 Camaros for a total of about 15 years), so I feel qualified to speak on this topic. 

First off, NEITHER ONE is worth expending any "special effort" on, such as wiring engines, extra detailing, aftermarket resin or PE, expensive "authentic factory" paint, etc. If you want a good '69 Camaro model, get a Revell kit and drive on. 

The Monogram is 1/24, and a bloated looking 1/24 at that. So if you're a 1/25 purist, that's the deal-breaker right there. If you really want a nice 1/24 '69 Camaro, start shopping diecasts. M2 has done quite a few interesting variants of their very nice '69, and most of them are available at very reasonable prices. Johnny Lightning did a 1/24 '69 which isn't quite as good as M2s, but still WAY ahead of the Monogram. And there are probably high-end Franklin or Danbury Mint ones, too, I haven't checked. 

I have no intention of ever building another Monogram OR MPC, but if you put a gun to my head and MADE me build one, I'd pick the Monogram over the current issue MPC. I figured out how to do an easy mod to the front valence of the Monogram kit that makes it look about 100% better, at least from the front. (Still looks bad, but a lot better.) But I'd rather build one of the MPC '80s reissues (or an original 1969) than the Monogram. My two green models above--the dark green one and the Rally Green one--were built from the black plastic '80s reissues. I made some mods to the body of the dark green one (built around 2007 or so) which improved it a bit, and even more mods to the Rally Green one (started around 2014). I'm semi-proud of both of those--I think those are about as well as that kit can be built, or at least as well as I can build it.