Test shot Pics Revell '70 AAR 'Cuda

[Rob Hall]

I suppose if I got ambitious/insane I could try a roof and tulip panel swap with the Monogram '71 (since the '70 is 1:24th also).

Edited October 1, 2007 by Rob Hall

[Zoom Zoom]

I suppose if I got motivated I could try a C-pillar swap with the Monogram '71 (since the '70 is 1:24th also).

Might be better to do a front clip replacement, as the '71 Hemi body is a lot better though not perfect (always had a thick/heavy look to it, as if the splash pan areas front/rear were too thick).

I can't find any way to get motivated by this turkey after seeing the pictures. It's a complete disaster in my eyes. The beltline crease from the center of the door aft is all wrong, almost comically so. The roof is slightly short, the C pillar is too narrow. Wheel openings misshapen. The more I look, the more I realize the earlier version was better than this one. The decals hurt my eyes, they draw my eyes to the incredibly misshapen rear fender.

Welcome to the new Revell AARggggghhh Cuda

[Rob Hall]

The more I look, the more I realize the earlier version was better than this one

The earlier version, though, had a wierd chop-top look to the side window openings (which seemingly was later copied by Johnny Lightning for their 1:64 AAR)..

[41CHEVY]

The roof is deffinently too short. but the rest is'nt too bad. so i'm gonna get one. and cut the roof off. make it convertible

My thoughts exactly...... An AAR convertible like the nascar converts of the 50's!!!!!!!!!! Paul

[Darin Bastedo]

My 2 cents:

In this day of advanced computer software, CAD, etc. there is no reason for any model company to release a kit that is inaccurate.

Sure, most of us can fix the flaws, but that's not the point. The flaws shouldn't be there in the first place!!!

We shouldn't HAVE to "fix" a brand new kit, any more than we should have to "tune up" a brand new car. It should be right...from the factory!

Computers are just tools like a pen and a dial caliper. If you ask me the problem is human. A human didn't sit back look at the shape, he created and see if it looked right. There are plenty of reasons for a model company to release a kit that is inaccurate. there may be few viable excuses though. I guess this goes back to my Rant about measuring. Those who championed the practice of Eyeball engineering, here is your model.

I agree with you Harry, We shouldn't have to fix a new kit, But unfortunately this kit is what it is. Revell isn't likely to swing for a third time after two strikes, and there is nobody else at bat. If you want to build an AAR 'Cuda, you have to use what is available.

I guess the million dollar question is, would anybody buy a corrected resin body for this kit? If so I'm willing to bet I could make it happen.

[MrObsessive]

Welcome to the new Revell AARggggghhh Cuda

Now that's funny!!

[Zoom Zoom]

The earlier version, though, had a wierd chop-top look to the side window openings (which seemingly was later copied by Johnny Lightning for their 1:64 AAR)..

That's a whole 'nother subject, the diecast ripoffs of kits. I saw a '70 Torino diecast the other day, from one of the "bargain" mints; has the same body error as the Revell/Pro Modeler. There is no shame when it comes to Chinese knock offs of other people's work.

The old AAR roof was kind of chopped and/or long on that old AAR. But the rest didn't seem so grievous as this one. Now it's not just the roof, but the body, and the decals, a domino-effect of human error gone awry. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during design stage through test shots. Did they really design it that poorly, or perhaps the tooling shop took too many liberties? And by then was the budget busted? Did someone say "oh, they'll never notice it"? Was it wrong all along, and nobody at Revell noticed it? I would imagine we will never be privy to that data.

I have 1/25 resin 'Cudas, so I'd definitely pass on a resin correction for this particular model. To truly correct it the body would need work, along with the interior bucket and/or side panels, and then decals. And then it would still be a 1/24 scale model. Honestly if I'm going w/resin I'd go with what's already out there for the '70's. MPC's kit certainly looked right.

I think the biggest goof was Revell revisiting the '70 AAR in the first place. Had they backdated their '71 Hemi Cuda into a '70, it likely wouldn't have been as misshapen, as it already had the basic proportions correct, even if it's '71 grille/headlights were a bit strange. The AAR's grille/headlights aren't as good as MPC's efforts from nearly 40 years ago.

Someone wants an AAR convertible? Get the '71 convertible Hemi and do a front clip swap. You'll never get the AAR body looking right aft of the center of the door without a lot of unnecessary work.

[Abell82]

So what Body, did we loose to gain this ... this thing? Did they modify the tool for the old AAR, or the Challenger, or?

[Harry P.]

I believe it's the old AAR _ which, of course, was based on the Challenger tool _ with a newly tooled body.

The Challenger and the 'cuda had different wheelbases and different overall lengths. If they based the AAR on a Challenger body, no wonder it's all goofed up.

[Rob Hall]

The Challenger and the 'cuda had different wheelbases and different overall lengths. If they based the AAR on a Challenger body, no wonder it's all goofed up.

There are some wierd things going on with the body...the wheelbase is the same as the '71 (1:24th, ex-Monogram), but when I compare the bodies side by side, the rear (decklid, tulip panel, quarter panels) is considerably longer on the '70 AAR body, and the curvature of the rear quarters is different... if both bodies were accurate, the '70 and '71 bodies would be shaped the same..

[Ron Hamilton]

I will have an extensive review of this kit in a few days after I look it over.

[Guest roadkill2525]

At the club meeting I go to I picked up a SAE issue from October 95. Larry Greenberg wrote a review of the 70 AAR Cuda saying Bob Johnson (then Product Manager at R-M) had the idea of using the 71 Cuda and 70 Challenger molds, he said the best part of the kit was the decals. He goes on to say that theres rumors of R-M redoing this kit properly .

[ViperDave]

I will have an extensive review of this kit in a few days after I look it over.

The decals on the old AAR Cuda weren't correct. There should be 74 segments and they had 70 on the kit's decals

The 10th one and the 32nd one should be on the door lines. They did the front fender ok but got behind on the door and ended up short. The spaces at the end were to far apart.

The new kit might have the stripes right but then sure didn't get the shape right on the fender so the stripes aren't correct. I don't have the new kit and I'm not sure if I will get one. Well maybe for parts to convert some older bodies but the rear window is so far off I won't be using it.

[Ron Hamilton]

1970 Plymouth AAR Cuda

Revell Kit # 2875

½4 Scale

Modified Reissue

I have been building model cars about 45 years, and I have never seen a kit so maligned before it was released for sale as this one. With the advent of the internet, there were a lot of negative opinions vented on the various model message boards, as well as word of mouth at several model club meetings around the world. A lot of the opinions were based on a test shot of the kit at the NNL East this past March, which was displayed with other upcoming kits from this manufacturer. Revell promised us a “newly tooled†body for this kit, and we were waiting with baited breath. Revell did do a new body for this kit, but they did not take the route that most of us had hoped they would. I did not see the model in person until I bought this kit, but I did see photos taken at the NNL East. From the various photos I saw, I too thought this kit looked a little “cartoonishâ€, as compared to the real car. Part of my bias came from the first iteration of this kit from this manufacturer. We were promised a state of the art new tool of this automobile, and what we got was..., well, needless to say I was quite disappointed in what I saw when I opened this kit. It was one of the few kits I bought, that I gave away soon after I bought it, it was that bad. One of modelers who was present at the NNL East had a conversation with one of the officials from Revell, who told him, and I am paraphrasing what I read, basically, what you see here, is what you’re going to get in the new kit. Honestly, I was not expecting much from this kit, but I thought I would give it a fair shot in a review.

First of all, I took the body out of the box, and made comparisons of it with a couple of other ‘70 Cudas I have in scale. The first is an original MPC ‘70 Cuda that I have, as well as a Franklin Mint ’70 Cuda Convertible. I am basing my opinions using the two aforementioned models as a guide, as well as several photographs of the real car from the book “Challenger and Cuda- Mopar’s Factory Muscle Carsâ€, by Robert Genat. This is the best book about these cars I have ever seen, and is a valuable resource material for researching these cars. In looking this kit over, it is not too bad proportion wise. While there are some problems with the rear quarter panels, this one is far better than the previous ‘70 Plymouth AAR Cuda offering from this manufacturer, and it looks better to me that any of the ‘71 Cuda iterations from this manufacturer. In my opinion, there is too much of an arch on the upper rear quarter panel and the bottom looks to be about 1/8" too short. Along with that, the sail panels looks a little shallow, effectively shortening the roof . These three items make the car have a “hiked up†look in the back end, as well as making the deck area look too long. While these aspects of the body proportioning is unacceptable to some modelers, it will not deter other modelers from building an outstanding example from this kit. I did not compare this model with the Monogram ‘71 Cuda, because in my opinion, that kit has its own issues with certain proportions in its body, which affects it’s appearance.

It is obvious that Revell based this kit on the ‘70 Challenger T/A tool, instead of the ‘71 Cuda tool, so some proportion problems would obviously be evident. First of all the Challenger has a wheelbase 2" longer on the real car, but about 1/16" in ½4 scale. Looks to me that the extra wheelbase was hidden, as the wheelbase on this car matches my Franklin Mint model perfectly. The wheel openings are a little larger on the kit than the Franklin Mint, and the rear fender issues were based on the comparison with the same car. Other than that, the car looks spot-on to me. These cars had short roofs, and the narrow sail panels really accentuate that fact, so the kit may not be off too much in that respect.

Now Revell did make one glaring omission in this kit, that can be easily corrected. The ‘70 Challenger T/A and the “70 AAR Cuda and tires on the rear of the car that was two sizes larger than the fronts, and this feature was omitted from my kit. My Challenger T/A kit had the staggered tires, but not this kit.

I looked the rest of the kit over, and it should go together quite easily. I’m a little picky, so I am going to correct the rear quarters to what I think they should be, get the right rear tires from my parts box, and build my interpretation of a ‘70 AAR Cuda from this kit. I will be buying more to build other variations of a ‘70 Plymouth Barracuda, with a little kitbashing, parts box raiding, and scratch-building skills. I’m sure the aftermarket will make items for this kit, as a lot of the Model Car Garage’s’71 Hemi Cuda PHOTO ETCH Set will work with this kit.

Have an open mind about this kit.. No model kit is perfect, and this one came out as a pleasant surprise. I recommend it.

Ron Hamilton

[MrObsessive]

Ron, you did a great review of this car...............but the body is just too way off IMO for me to even think about trying to fix it. If this were a first time effort for Revell, I might overlook it and give it a shot------but this is the second attempt at this one and they still didn't get it right!

What gets me kinda irritated is the money spent on trying to fix this one could have been spent on all new tool of the car.

To my eyes the whole rear end of the car (from quarter windows rearward) looks "Big Butted" due to the fact that the quarters themselves appear too long------probably due to the roof being so short.

True that the '71 'Cuda had it issues with body proportions...........but ya gotta remember when that one was tooled..........early '80's? A number of Monogram's stuff was ill proportioned then but in this age of CAD and tons of reference, there's no reason for a bad proportioned car.

This one can probably be massaged into a decent looking car, but once you fix the fenders, you won't be able to use the decals------maybe find a set of Fred Cady decals-------maybe........

Then there's fixing that too short roof! Oy Vey!

As time goes on, I'm less inclined to do major surgery on models like I once did...........one reason is cost. They should be correct right out of the box. I think the bigger issue underlying the problem is too many beancounters and not enough passionate car folks in the hobby biz today.

I'll do my part and simply not buy one. Just my 2¢ worth Ron..........

Sorry...........

[Ron Hamilton]

Hey Bill,

While I concur with you concerning the faults of the kit, does the real car look all that good? A lot of what we see is in the first dimension such as photographs. I tend to think a little more in 3-d like you. We do have a good eye for proportion, angles, so forth and so on. This thing is fixable without a lot of effort or expense, just a little skill. Truthfully, this one may be our last shot at a decent '70 Cuda, as AMT/Ertl has pulled the plug on theirs, and no other manufacturer has made such an attempt. My days of spending mega bucks on a model car is over. I can work this boy over to even satisfy you. I have already planned the fixes based on our conversations about the shortcomings of this kit. Remember, the effort we put forth to build a replica stock car is a lot more than most put into customs or race cars.

By the way the sail panels are short on the real thing too. I have looked at hundreds of these cars trying to figure out how to correct the '71, and this one is easier.

By the way, you're right about the bean counters.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Ron Hamilton

[MrObsessive]

Ron looking at 1:1 photos of the car..........the model's C pillars curves inward too abruptly making the tulip panel too long. I guess you could stretch the roof a couple scale inches rearward to fix it, but the side window shape itself isn't correct, due to that way too high kickup of the rear fenders.

From a side profile, the roofline itself curves downward too soon making the roof too short to begin with.

It's true that the actual car can change shape from photo to photo.............but in this instance to my view they didn't even come close as far as getting the shape right in this redo.

If I wanted too I could fix the roof and "stretch it" much like I did the hardtop on Monogram's '57 Corvette, but the real disappointment is they've struck out twice on this one IMO.

The '71's problem is there's a steep tumblehome on the roof.................much more difficult to fix, unless you cut the roof in half and bend it outwards for starters. Along with those incorrect spaced dual headlights.

Just for kicks on second thought, I have a good mind to BUY this kit, accurize everything wrong with the body, and send a pic to Revell to show them how it should've been done. This from a guy who has no CAD or special tools to work with.

[Harry P.]

...in this age of CAD and tons of reference, there's no reason for a bad proportioned car.

Amen to that. No reason for a newly tooled kit to look this bad!

[Ron Hamilton]

Not to start a flame war, remember, No model car is perfect out of the box. Even in this world of CAD drawings, a lot of them are still off. They all need a little "massaging". Especially a lot of the newer releases. I am willing to bet that I could "pick apart" most of the new releases by the model manufacturers on subjects I am familiar with. Granted this one needs more than most.

I'm waiting for one of us brilliant modelers to correct this kit instead of complaining about it. The wonderful thing about the marketplace is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm not completely satisfied by the resultant kit either, but all of us have seen worse, even by the so-called "premier" model car companies. I am no means a "rivet counter", but I know what looks good, and this kit holds much more promise than any currently available kit of this subject on the market. Perfect? No.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Revell apologist, as there have been some decisions made by this company I will never agree with, and a better job could have been done with this offering, but I do not see this one as being such a dog as some other kits I have seen of other subjects. A lot of the criticism is being leveled at this kit by those who are relying on photographs and word of mouth. Some of these people have not had their hands on the actual kit, nor have they seen one built by an "accomplished" modeler in person.

Let's reserve judgement until we see some of these on the tables at the club meetings, NNL's, contests, and on the message boards. Personally, I will take great joy in "straightening" out this one to the best of my ability, and showing my work off.

Go for it.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Ron Hamilton

[MikeMc]

Ron, I applaud you on writing a very mature and open minded review on a "less than perfect" release, and handling this "touchy" review in a diplomatic manner. This is why I am now enjoying this forum. I look forward to your future objective, and non offending reviews/comments. It is a shame that Revell didn't "get it right", but then it's not going to be the end of my "rivet counting nip-picking" world. Thanks! Fury3

Glad to see your post again Fury3..!!

[dustym]

My wife picked this model up for me without asking. she knew I didnt have this one. She wants it built with the lime green color. Since I have never been that close to a real one, I will build it as is. I will never be able to tell the differences anyway.

[Rob Hall]

I got one last week...I did a comparison w/ the R-M '71 and the biggest difference I see is that the decklid & rear quarters are longer..I haven't compared it with my MPC and Jo-han Cudas, but the main thing I noticed over the previous Revell AAR is the roof no longer looks chopped.

If I get ambitious, I'll try swapping the roof from the '71 body or shortening the decklid...(though I've heard the R-M '71 body has issues also..)

I haven't seen a 1:1 in years...the last time I think I saw any 1:1 '70 Cuda up close in person was probably at the Barrett-Jackson show in Scottsdale 4 years ago!

Edited October 9, 2007 by Rob Hall

[MrObsessive]

If I get ambitious, I'll try swapping the roof from the '71 body or shortening the decklid...(though I've heard the R-M '71 body has issues also..)

Rob, if you use the roof out of the '71.............the main issue with it is that it's got too much tumblehome (angle of the roof to the beltline from front or rear view) lending the roof a kind of "pinched" appearance. That's the main thing that stopped me from building that one years ago.

Other than that, the only other problem is the dual headlights are spaced too far apart. I thought someone years ago made a resin fix for that (was it MPB Detail?), but I could be wrong.

[Marc @ MPC Motorsports]

Amen to that. No reason for a newly tooled kit to look this bad!

No reason at all, Harry. How about this MPC 1970 Cuda body?

[Zoom Zoom]

How about this MPC 1970 Cuda body?

Ahh, much better.