Return of the 1/25 MPC '68 Coronet/Super Bee RT Convertible...

[Plowboy]

3 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

The point is not whether or not it's an easy kit bash to replace the chassis with something more detailed. The point is that in 2022 there is no excuse for purposefully engineering a kit to be worse than an existing product. 

Frustratingly, the Bronco and Charger kits PROVE that Round 2 is wholly capable of producing relatively modern kits. They are deliberately underserving builders of American classic cars because they are cruelly aware of just what dreck they can foist on a customer base that will gleefully defend AMT regardless of how many times the company slaps them across the face with their indifference.

This is my sentiments with Moebius. Except, they produce kits that only resemble the subject. It doesn't matter how many details a kit has if the body, grille and sometimes the chassis' are inaccurate. But, people will still lap them up like ice cream in July and talk about the colored instructions and what great kits they are. ?  

At least the body on this kit appears to be accurate and they have made improvements over the original. As many times as the '68 Coronet subject has came up over the years, I doubt you would find many (if any) that would say they would rather not have one at all. Maybe, just maybe, they have plans for a better chassis later on down the line. 

[Justin Porter]

7 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

This is my sentiments with Moebius. Except, they produce kits that only resemble the subject. It doesn't matter how many details a kit has if the body, grille and sometimes the chassis' are inaccurate. But, people will still lap them up like ice cream in July and talk about the colored instructions and what great kits they are. ?  

At least the body on this kit appears to be accurate and they have made improvements over the original. As many times as the '68 Coronet subject has came up over the years, I doubt you would find many (if any) that would say they would rather not have one at all. Maybe, just maybe, they have plans for a better chassis later on down the line. 

I don't shy away at all from some of the baffling errors Moebius or Revell have made in their kits. In fact I'm still rather wounded by the E-Type FHC windshield. However, incompetence/indifference on the part of Revell or Moebius isn't actually relevant to a deliberate design choice by Round 2. This isn't that they made a mistake with their dimensions or failed to double check their references. This is them tooling a properly detailed current Dodge Charger and then turning around and saying "but the people who want to build a '68 Dodge Coronet get reheated promo leftovers" BY CHOICE. Round 2 deserves no defense on choosing to tool kits from new as if they were constrained by the cost and durability demands of manufacturers who need advertising giveaway toys.

[keyser]

As predicted, this is now a complain about R2 thread. 
Steve G has been kind enough to give details about advance stuff, stuff people begged for. 
If my company was greeted with this, I’d tell you to pound sand. 
Start a separate thread. Analogous to a baby announcement and you spend time criticizing the parents for being ugly/trolls/vegans. 
Every. Single. Thread. 
Need a friggin’ sub forum for this. 
This board is known for this. 
Some people can never be happy, nor let others be happy. 

[Plowboy]

16 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

I don't shy away at all from some of the baffling errors Moebius or Revell have made in their kits. In fact I'm still rather wounded by the E-Type FHC windshield. However, incompetence/indifference on the part of Revell or Moebius isn't actually relevant to a deliberate design choice by Round 2. This isn't that they made a mistake with their dimensions or failed to double check their references. This is them tooling a properly detailed current Dodge Charger and then turning around and saying "but the people who want to build a '68 Dodge Coronet get reheated promo leftovers" BY CHOICE. Round 2 deserves no defense on choosing to tool kits from new as if they were constrained by the cost and durability demands of manufacturers who need advertising giveaway toys.

True. But, maybe folks should reserve judgement until they've actually seen what it is. 

From what has been described, it kinda sounds like this may be the style of chassis the Coronet will be getting. Only sans the screws and engine/transmission plate.

Is it great? Of course not! Is it horrible? I don't think so. But, I can't see it very well once it's on the shelf.     

[Can-Con]

Personally, I think the chassis will be just fine. As Roger points out above, you can't see it when it's on a shelf ,, or contest table either usually. 

Some people like a 500 piece kit with everything separate.  ,, well, maybe not considering how many Trumpeter Pontiacs and Novas I've [not] seen built. 

That's fine. If they enjoy painting and assembling a 50 piece chassis, more power to them. I just don't find that part of the build enjoyable. I'd rather spend my time with stuff I'll be looking at.  And I think there's others around here that feel the same way.

 

[Oldcarfan27]

2 hours ago, keyser said:

As predicted, this is now a complain about R2 thread. 
Steve G has been kind enough to give details about advance stuff, stuff people begged for. 
If my company was greeted with this, I’d tell you to pound sand. 
Start a separate thread. Analogous to a baby announcement and you spend time criticizing the parents for being ugly/trolls/vegans. 
Every. Single. Thread. 
Need a friggin’ sub forum for this. 
This board is known for this. 
Some people can never be happy, nor let others be happy. 

I'd be willing to bet that many of the complainers aren't even interested in the subject matter anyway, they just want every box to include the 350+ parts, photoetch, accurate hinges and perfect rubber tires.

And then they complain about the $100 cost and that WalMart or Hobby Lobby don't carry it!

Steve Guthmiller proved what can be done with an old, original annual kit like this. If you want that kind of detail, there is the standard - go live up to it! Otherwise, go start your own model company and see how easy it is to make subjects the way you expect others to do!

For a kit that hasn't been produced for almost 55 years, I'll take anything I can get. And if it's a NEW copy of that annual, then it's at least as good as anything else available and I'll make it better if I want to. Better than waiting for someone else to come out with a multi-media unicorn that doesn't exist. 

There, end of rant.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Oldcarfan27

[CapSat 6]

For the late 60's/ early 70's era, the Charger and Coronet chassis were pretty good. What they actually lacked was front suspension detail, and they were kind of gappy in the wheelhouses. 

In the 80's, the MPC '68-'70 Charger chassis, which was very similar to the Coronet chassis, was actually considered the hot ticket for B Body builds for a little while, and an upgrade to the Jo Han Plymouths (Road Runners, GTX's and Superbirds) because it had separate exhausts and rear (never mind that the exhausts and rear were molded as a unit).  

If I were to engineer a better version of that chassis, I would make the exhausts and rear axle separate (as it sounds like Round 2 is doing), reduce the gaps in the wheelhouses (as it sounds like Round 2 is doing), and tool up some add-on pieces for the front suspension (lower control arms & sway bar). While I was at it, I would work on the brake booster and reshape the front inner fenders a little. 

With those changes, you would improve the look of the kit pieces greatly. Would it be state of the art? No. Would it make the finished product look much better? Yes- you would be surprised as to how far those things can go.

The results will depend upon whether or not these fixes (some of which have been confirmed) will be done right. 

I recently added some extra front suspension pieces from a Revell '70 Hemi Cuda to a Jo Han Pro Stock Cuda chassis (it was a car I built nearly 25 years ago, and I didn't want to completely rebuild it), and it improved the look of the front suspension greatly.     

I get that the building experience itself might not be ideal form some people- that a new tool should really be new.  The problem is: there might not be a business case for every subject to get the "ground up/ state of the art" treatment.   

I don't take this as Round 2 ripping anybody off. My guesses are that 1) they have determined that a somewhat Retro style release will be exciting for a good portion of the market for this subject, 2) the body- which to me is an extremely important hardpoint to start with- is a solid starting point for this subject, and 3) it might actually be a little less time consuming and/or expensive (definitely less risky) to take this design approach.

I think the order might actually be 3, then 2, then 1, but 2 and 1 help 3 along here. I do find their recent design choices interesting. Many, many people seem to be happy with the Nova Wagon. 

I'm just fine with all of this.     

[GMP440]

2 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

I don't shy away at all from some of the baffling errors Moebius or Revell have made in their kits. In fact I'm still rather wounded by the E-Type FHC windshield. However, incompetence/indifference on the part of Revell or Moebius isn't actually relevant to a deliberate design choice by Round 2. This isn't that they made a mistake with their dimensions or failed to double check their references. This is them tooling a properly detailed current Dodge Charger and then turning around and saying "but the people who want to build a '68 Dodge Coronet get reheated promo leftovers" BY CHOICE. Round 2 deserves no defense on choosing to tool kits from new as if they were constrained by the cost and durability demands of manufacturers who need advertising giveaway toys.

Well, I'll gladly step up to the plate and purchase that 68 Coronet reheated, promo leftover kit.

[Justin Porter]

10 minutes ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

I'd be willing to bet that many of the complainers aren't even interested in the subject matter anyway, they just want every box to include the 350+ parts, photoetch, accurate hinges and perfect rubber tires.

And then they complain about the $100 cost and that WalMart or Hobby Lobby don't carry it!

Steve Guthmiller proved what can be done with an old, original annual kit like this. If you want that kind of detail, there is the standard - go live up to it! Otherwise, go start your own model company and see how easy it is to make subjects the way you expect others to do!

End of rant.

I think there is a world of difference between asking Round 2 to create a new Enthusiast Series (something that not even Fujimi is especially keen on doing) and asking Round 2 that a new kit that will retail for at minimum the same $41.95 that my vendor is currently suggesting for the ex-Lindberg 1966 Chevelle to be no less detailed than that kit. This is particularly galling when my wholesale cost for said ex-Lindberg Chevelle is only a dollar less than the retail cost for the 100% brand new tooled Hasegawa first generation Toyota MR2. 

And if this was simply the manner in which ALL future tooling from AMT is to be done, point blank end of discussion, then that's that and there's no discussion to be had. However, they have shown that for the new Charger and the new Bronco they are more than capable of modern tooling. They are simply choosing not to do this for the classic builder. You tell me, is that adding value for customers who prefer to build classic musclecars?

[Plowboy]

11 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

I think there is a world of difference between asking Round 2 to create a new Enthusiast Series (something that not even Fujimi is especially keen on doing) and asking Round 2 that a new kit that will retail for at minimum the same $41.95 that my vendor is currently suggesting for the ex-Lindberg 1966 Chevelle to be no less detailed than that kit. This is particularly galling when my wholesale cost for said ex-Lindberg Chevelle is only a dollar less than the retail cost for the 100% brand new tooled Hasegawa first generation Toyota MR2. 

And if this was simply the manner in which ALL future tooling from AMT is to be done, point blank end of discussion, then that's that and there's no discussion to be had. However, they have shown that for the new Charger and the new Bronco they are more than capable of modern tooling. They are simply choosing not to do this for the classic builder. You tell me, is that adding value for customers who prefer to build classic musclecars?

But, this isn't new tooling. It's a revised tooling. Big difference. I'm sure you'll buy them to sell to your customers. Are you going to voice your opinion when one of your customers plunks one down on your counter? Or will you say nothing and take their money?

[Justin Porter]

1 minute ago, Plowboy said:

But, this isn't new tooling. It's a revised tooling. Big difference. I'm sure you'll buy them to sell to your customers. Are you going to voice your opinion when one of your customers plunks one down on your counter? Or will you say nothing and take their money?

I do my best to research kits as they come out so that I curate what goes on my shelves so that less informed customers aren't disappointed by what they purchase from me with their hard-earned money. When I have a customer in my shop that asks me questions about a kit's contents - which is often - I answer with as much clarity as I can because an informed consumer is a happy consumer. The customer who e-mails or DM's or calls me with a specific request for this kit is an entirely different matter. They've made their decision and won't be dissuaded. The walk-in customer who would be at my shelf, holding a Revell '68 Charger in one hand and the MPC '68 Coronet Convertible in the other and asks "What do you think?" is getting told that the Revell, despite its lower price tag, has superior detail including poseable steering and generally better fit and finish while the Coronet while simplified represents a much more unusual subject that hasn't been available in plastic for a long time. Then they can make their choice with the proper information.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Ain't gonna knock your point, Justin - actually, I see it pretty well.

But I do think it all goes back to your own observations of the target consumers, who are not only happy with the general design m o the kit offers, but...

uh...

how do I put it delicately?

Maybe like this: let's just say the sales prospects for this kit, and '60s muscle generally, might not extend quite as far into the future as the Bronco's and Charger's... ?

And so in the business case analysis, the "cloning"/retooling approach was judged the more cost-effective approach here, where the considerably fresher Bronco and even the late hit on the Charger are more likely to justify tooling from the ground up, perhaps?  I think the polite way to gauge the appeal of the Coronet is as definitely more "niche", where the Bronco and Charger might cast a wider dragnet for prospective buyers. 

One thing we gotta remember as consumers is how frequently we've nearly driven manufacturers over a cliff with our requests.  '41 Chevrolet pickups and 1/6 engine kits may have been answers to questions nobody particularly asked, but '66 Novas, '67 Chevelles, '55 Cameos and '70 'Cudas were practically demanded.  And thus began a cycle of initial stampedes and then rapid drop-offs in sales when the manufacturers played those requests.  Sure, that '68 Coronet would appear over and over and over in discussion threads - and based on previous in-demand subjects from folks who could apparently give a hang about chassis detail by and large, Round 2 may have chosen the most logical approach.

Would I rather have 150+ parts in separate transmissions and suspension arms and perimeter frames and subframes and steerable wheels and door handles and windshield wipers all across the board?  Oh yes.  I've played devil's advocate with Tim B about the necessity of an engine in a completely developed kit but in the end, I want one about 99% as badly as he does.

And I'll tellya this: that Revell E-Type is a monstrosity for reasons considerably more numerous than just the windshield (just happy about the apparent course correction in their new 911s). Long as this Coronet has the original's proportional accuracy and wow, a platform interior too?

More of a win for me than that E-type or the Kit That Shall Not Be Named, for sure.

[keyser]

@Justin PorterDepending on their skill level, suggest both. Likelihood of either or both getting finished is lower than you’d expect, hence huge stashes. I’m as guilty as anyone, have 68-69 converts, but will consider this revised issue. I’m not a huge Mopar fan, but I like these and Chargers far more than Cuda/Dusters. GTX convert was disappointing from body and small details (Sun visors in particular). I like Hemis, so bought them for those. 70 Coronet convert conversion (Modelhaus WSF) sitting waiting for primer. 
I’m glad they’re amortizing long disused tooling. Yes, fully detailed new tools are great. But builder frustration puts them back in box and kills enthusiasm. Thus killing repeat buys. Cutlass, Nova wagons, Raptors and GT great kits. Mustang deserves more detail, but ok. 
Give them benefit of doubt, and if it’s that bad, don’t stock it or sell it. 
Just don’t shart on preview thread. Get in hands first. 
TL:DR Play nice until in hand. Then rip apart if due. Like I need to tell this board. Lol. 
Hiya Chuck. KTSNBN case in point. ????

[Classicgas]

While I like a multi piece chassis, I also enjoy molded in detail. I have less time than ever for modeling, and my vision and hand dexterity isn't what it used to be so less parts is getting kinda nice.

[Motor City]

I regrettably sold my unbuilt '68 Coronet R/T convertible kit decades ago after I bought a hardtop promo version for $11.00.  Why did I regret it?  Because it is a great looking car and one of the few convertibles from that year.  When displayed, the chassis detail underneath is the least important aspect of it.  An accurate body, grille, taillights, rear panel, bumpers, wheels, emblems and interior are what most people care to look at.  A proper body stance is important, too.  Popping open the hood to show a hyper detailed representation of the engine compartment is high on the list for only the most serious modelers.  The correct trans, Dana rear axle, carburetor and master cylinder are not important to the average person buying a kit.  We have to keep in mind that most people buying kits would not consider themselves experts on all of the minute details of the car being represented in scale.  They just want something that looks cool, is fairly easy to build, and looks nice on the shelf.  I plan to buy both the hardtop and convertible when they come out.  

[Fat Brian]

I think based on the responses in this thread it's obvious why they chose to do the kit this way. Which I still don't understand because it's not like y'all wouldn't have bought the kit if it had been better. 

To everyone saying "you can't see the chassis when its on the shelf" that doesn't matter to me, I want it to be there. You can't see the engine either but I doubt many of you would be okay if they'd have made it curbside. There are many things we do that aren't obvious without a decent inspection of the build.

[Can-Con]

19 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

I think based on the responses in this thread it's obvious why they chose to do the kit this way. Which I still don't understand because it's not like y'all wouldn't have bought the kit if it had been better. 

To everyone saying "you can't see the chassis when its on the shelf" that doesn't matter to me, I want it to be there. You can't see the engine either but I doubt many of you would be okay if they'd have made it curbside. There are many things we do that aren't obvious without a decent inspection of the build.

I'd still have bought it if it was a curbside. 

Heck, I got "Best Mopar" at the last show I was in with a curbside.

[StevenGuthmiller]

22 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

I'd still have bought it if it was a curbside. 

Heck, I got "Best Mopar" at the last show I was in with a curbside.

I’ve won several awards with curbside builds too.

Makes no difference to me either way.

 

 

Steve

[Bucky]

It might be that with the '68 Coronet, they had something to go back to as far as tooling. The new Bronco is just that, new. No prior tooling, to my knowledge. And the new Charger hasn't been done before, either, unless you count the Lindbergh version, or try to do something with the '05 Chrysler 300 tool.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Bucky

[gtx6970]

I'll buy a few and I dont care if it has a flat plate for a chassis.

 

Once on the shelf / in the case . I cant see the  bottom side .

[tim boyd]

Sharing/copying my post from the other thread discussing the new Coronet R/T kit, I commented: 

...if the design brief had been to do an entirely new 1968 Coronet R/T kit engineered to current model car kit standards, the kit topic would have never made it out of the first Round 2 future kit projects review.    There would have not been sufficient sales volume of that particular kit subject to justify the time and expense of doing an all-new kit to 2022 kit design expectations.  Conversely, topics like the current Dodge Charger, and especially the new Bronco, offer much greater domestic and international market sales potential vs. the Coronet R/T and also enable expedited kit development time and expense (due to the availability of factory CAD data - at least in the case of the Bronco) thus justifying the decision to do all-new kit tooling.  Thus, by applying the appropriate approach to each kit topic, a profitable business case for each can be developed and approved.  

Bottom line - the "cloning plus minor improvements" approach Round 2 is taking with the Coronet R/T is enabling a market offering that would have not been available at all if subject to the typical way kits are developed. 

I understand and to a degree sympathize with the concerned sentiments expressed in these several threads about the approach taken with the Coronet R/T, but I also hasten to remind everyone that (sorry, here it goes again) the world of kit development and sales is a business above all else, and as such it depends on successful and profitable sales of new kits to operate and to continue to bring additional new kits to market.   Personally, I'm very happy with the Coronet R/T kit and the additional variants that will come later, and like many of you I plan to be in line to buy the first ones off the ship from overseas. 

As always, to each his own...TB  

[stavanzer]

I just have to say this.

Justin, if your comments about this kit on the board, are in ANY WAY representative of how you talk to your customers about the kits on your shelves, I am suddenly glad that I am not able to buy from you in person. It may not be, but that is sure how you sound...

17 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

I do my best to research kits as they come out so that I curate what goes on my shelves so that less informed customers aren't disappointed by what they purchase from me with their hard-earned money. When I have a customer in my shop that asks me questions about a kit's contents - which is often - I answer with as much clarity as I can because an informed consumer is a happy consumer. The customer who e-mails or DM's or calls me with a specific request for this kit is an entirely different matter. They've made their decision and won't be dissuaded. The walk-in customer who would be at my shelf, holding a Revell '68 Charger in one hand and the MPC '68 Coronet Convertible in the other and asks "What do you think?" is getting told that the Revell, despite its lower price tag, has superior detail including poseable steering and generally better fit and finish while the Coronet while simplified represents a much more unusual subject that hasn't been available in plastic for a long time. Then they can make their choice with the proper information.

The somewhat Strident, "No Prisoner's Taken" approach to this kit, is frankly a real Turn-Off, no matter how nice you may be in person. After reading your comment here, I would not feel comfortable purchasing this kit from you. I don't want to spend my hard earned Hobby Budget, just to be silently judged for buying the 'wrong' kit.

I think I would do Mail Order with on of the Biggies, and not be looked down on.

Sorry. 

 

[drodg]

31 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Sharing/copying my post from the other thread discussing the new Coronet R/T kit, I commented: 

...if the design brief had been to do an entirely new 1968 Coronet R/T kit engineered to current model car kit standards, the kit topic would have never made it out of the first Round 2 future kit projects review.    There would have not been sufficient sales volume of that particular kit subject to justify the time and expense of doing an all-new kit to 2022 kit design expectations.  Conversely, topics like the current Dodge Charger, and especially the new Bronco, offer much greater domestic and international market sales potential vs. the Coronet R/T and also enable expedited kit development time and expense (due to the availability of factory CAD data - at least in the case of the Bronco) thus justifying the decision to do all-new kit tooling.  Thus, by applying the appropriate approach to each kit topic, a profitable business case for each can be developed and approved.  

Bottom line - the "cloning plus minor improvements" approach Round 2 is taking with the Coronet R/T is enabling a market offering that would have not been available at all if subject to the typical way kits are developed. 

I understand and to a degree sympathize with the concerned sentiments expressed in these several threads about the approach taken with the Coronet R/T, but I also hasten to remind everyone that (sorry, here it goes again) the world of kit development and sales is a business above all else, and as such it depends on successful and profitable sales of new kits to operate and to continue to bring additional new kits to market.   Personally, I'm very happy with the Coronet R/T kit and the additional variants that will come later, and like many of you I plan to be in line to buy the first ones off the ship from overseas. 

As always, to each his own...TB  

I am an avid Mopar fan and have a few 1:1 muscle cars.  I am so excited to see this kit come out.  I have tried to bid on a few 68's on Ebay and would never pay the money it would take for a nice kit.  Thanks for the  comments Tim as it gives a business perspective that is needed.  

[SteveG]

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

Sharing/copying my post from the other thread discussing the new Coronet R/T kit, I commented: 

...if the design brief had been to do an entirely new 1968 Coronet R/T kit engineered to current model car kit standards, the kit topic would have never made it out of the first Round 2 future kit projects review.    There would have not been sufficient sales volume of that particular kit subject to justify the time and expense of doing an all-new kit to 2022 kit design expectations.  Conversely, topics like the current Dodge Charger, and especially the new Bronco, offer much greater domestic and international market sales potential vs. the Coronet R/T and also enable expedited kit development time and expense (due to the availability of factory CAD data - at least in the case of the Bronco) thus justifying the decision to do all-new kit tooling.  Thus, by applying the appropriate approach to each kit topic, a profitable business case for each can be developed and approved.  

Bottom line - the "cloning plus minor improvements" approach Round 2 is taking with the Coronet R/T is enabling a market offering that would have not been available at all if subject to the typical way kits are developed. 

I understand and to a degree sympathize with the concerned sentiments expressed in these several threads about the approach taken with the Coronet R/T, but I also hasten to remind everyone that (sorry, here it goes again) the world of kit development and sales is a business above all else, and as such it depends on successful and profitable sales of new kits to operate and to continue to bring additional new kits to market.   Personally, I'm very happy with the Coronet R/T kit and the additional variants that will come later, and like many of you I plan to be in line to buy the first ones off the ship from overseas. 

As always, to each his own...TB  

Thank you Tim, you are exactly right.  I couldn't have explained it any better.  I can confirm that we would not be getting an all new modern Dodge Charger if it wasn't for the factory CAD data files, It's just that simple.   To bring a all new vintage subject to market without CAD data these days is tremendous undertaking.  Even with the data every singe part has to be converted to a injectable shape that can be assembled without any fasteners.  it's an art in it's self. 

If somehow we had found the old original Coronet RT tooling, restored it and ran it warts and all we'd be heroes.  Yet reverse engineering and the improving the exact same item is inexcusable in some eyes because we didn't go far enough.  I guess time and sales the numbers will tell us if we made the right call and help us decide if we ever do it again.

-Steve     

[Justin Porter]

41 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

I just have to say this.

Justin, if your comments about this kit on the board, are in ANY WAY representative of how you talk to your customers about the kits on your shelves, I am suddenly glad that I am not able to buy from you in person. It may not be, but that is sure how you sound...

The somewhat Strident, "No Prisoner's Taken" approach to this kit, is frankly a real Turn-Off, no matter how nice you may be in person. After reading your comment here, I would not feel comfortable purchasing this kit from you. I don't want to spend my hard earned Hobby Budget, just to be silently judged for buying the 'wrong' kit.

I think I would do Mail Order with on of the Biggies, and not be looked down on.

Sorry. 

 

You seriously misjudge my attitude. I don't have a poor opinion of customer who WANT this kit, or any other kit for that matter. I happily seek out Atlantis box-scale reissues and Lindberg oddballs and Airfix Classics and Fujimi kits that still have battery boxes and all other manner of old tooling for customers because they happily want it, warts and all, and I want them to enjoy the hobby as they see fit. 

I DO have a poor opinion of Round 2's design approach and I won't shy away from that. I foresee another MSRP well higher than most other 1/25th scale Chrysler muscle cars on my shelf and very little other than that "It's a '68 Coronet convertible and we haven't had that kit available since the 60's" to justify its price tag. I'd love to be wrong. I would LOVE for Round 2 to at least come in somewhere around the old Monogram 1/24th Super Bee in terms of chassis detail. Not perfect but a nice intermediate between the category leaders and the most basic out there. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Round 2 to cater to more than just the nostalgia customer with new tooling.

Unfortunately, auto kit comparisons are rarely as cut and dry as when a customer asks me "So, what's the best 1/48th scale Spitfire MkI?" and I can plainly offer that they have their strengths and weaknesses from Eduard's fine detailing to Tamiya's ease of construction to Airfix's comfortable price point. Since there aren't frequently cut and dry comparisons (Lamborghini Countachs, '57 Chevy Bel Airs, and Nissan GTR's are some of the few consistent examples where there are multiple comparable options on the shelf) it becomes a matter of finding what the customer is looking for and guiding them to the product that best suits their interests and needs.