Test shot Pics Revell '70 AAR 'Cuda

[Ron Hamilton]

I built one from an original MPC '70 'cuda as a 440 car, utilizing a shortened AMT '71 Charger R/T Chassis and underhood structure like I did the GTX. Even though that one was not "perfect" either, it is better than the "new" Revell Body. Now it looks to me that this one may be offered by a certain resin caster in the future, you have to ask yourself two questions.

1) What will be the quality of the resin body you get, as I have gotten a few that has needed a lot of work, just to prepare it for paint. If the master, mould, or quality of resin is not right, then money will be thrown away.

2) The cost factor. Around $50, plus a donor kit, plus other incidentals such as chroming, wheels/tires/detail parts.

I was fortunate enough to find an unpainted, white one to work with. The chassis was junk, but the '71 Charger bits worked fine, and I was happy with the result.

I'm sorry that I am not able to download the photo of the finished model to this forum, as my photo hosting site is not compatible. I did try.

[Marc @ MPC Motorsports]

I built one from an original MPC '70 'cuda as a 440 car, utilizing a shortened AMT '71 Charger R/T Chassis and underhood structure like I did the GTX. Even though that one was not "perfect" either, it is better than the "new" Revell Body. Now it looks to me that this one may be offered by a certain resin caster in the future, you have to ask yourself two questions.

1) What will be the quality of the resin body you get, as I have gotten a few that has needed a lot of work, just to prepare it for paint. If the master, mould, or quality of resin is not right, then money will be thrown away.

2) The cost factor. Around $50, plus a donor kit, plus other incidentals such as chroming, wheels/tires/detail parts.

I was fortunate enough to find an unpainted, white one to work with. The chassis was junk, but the '71 Charger bits worked fine, and I was happy with the result.

I'm sorry that I am not able to download the photo of the finished model to this forum, as my photo hosting site is not compatible. I did try.

Can you post a link to your photo hosting site? I would love to see your build with the Charger chassis and how you did it. I started to look at the Charger chassis but once I got it to fit inside the MPC 'Cuda body it has way too much overhang. I would love to know how you modded it. The Challenger chassis is way better than the MPC, but the Charger is even better still.

[Darin Bastedo]

Can you post a link to your photo hosting site? I would love to see your build with the Charger chassis and how you did it. I started to look at the Charger chassis but once I got it to fit inside the MPC 'Cuda body it has way too much overhang. I would love to know how you modded it. The Challenger chassis is way better than the MPC, but the Charger is even better still.

Hey Marc, Here is a link to Frank Kokosza's Fotki album. he did a simoliar build using the AMT 71 Charger Chassis under his 'Cuda kit.

Frank Kokosza's Fotki

[Marc @ MPC Motorsports]

Hey Marc, Here is a link to Frank Kokosza's Fotki album. he did a simoliar build using the AMT 71 Charger Chassis under his 'Cuda kit.

Frank Kokosza's Fotki

Believe me when I tell you that Frank's site was the first place I went before I settled on the Challenger chassis. When I saw just how much work he did, I immediately lost interest. Not that I can't do it, but that chassis that Frank did is a long term project all to itself.

Thanks for sharing his site. Very useful.

[Darin Bastedo]

At the IPMS Regional Convention in Roanoke VA this weekend I took the opportunity to purchase two Revell AAR 'Cuda kits. As one who likes to "cut through the bull" when it comes to the discussion of inaccuracies in new kits I've taken it upon myself check the dimensions of the body myself.

In previous posts many modeler including myself have postulated that the roof was once again wrong, and that the rear fenders were grossly inaccurate. We all were only half right. I spent nearly an hour at a local car show measuring a real 1970 'Cuda with the help of a very patient car owner. My conclusions are as follows;

Overall:

Many asked why the test shot wasn't redone when the rear fender issue was pointed out. I believe the reason is simple. It couldn't be fixed in such a way that the car would have looked better.

The rear fender line is way too high, but I believe this was done on purpose to hide another flaw that it was also too late to fix. The whole car is too long by approximately one scale foot. That is the reason the roof seems too short, when in actuality the roof is not only the most accurate part of this kit, but is close to perfect dimensionally. No measurement is more than 1mm off and in most cases dead on or less than 1/2mm off.

The roof is setback 3 scale inches too far back on the body, and the door is 4 scale inches too long and the distance from the front edge of the rear fender to the back edge of the front fender is 2 scale inches too long.

Based on these measurements I've concluded that because the most maligned part of their first attempt was the roof they spent the majority of their design work on the roof, but the fundamental problem was that it was still based off of the challenger chassis which remains in this kit, and wheelbase is still the same as the Challenger's. The 1:1 Challenger's wheelbase is 2" longer than the 'Cuda's. At 115 scale inches the wheelbase of the kit is not only 7 Scale inches too long for the 'Cuda, but also 5 scale inches too long for even the Challengers 110 inch wheelbase. The platform they based this kit on is just way too big.

Just like they say in building a house, the foundation has to be sound for everything else to stand. Every dimensional issue with this kit stems from its 115 scale inch wheelbase chassis. The fact that they got the roof right made the rest of the car look appear out of scale (which it is).

Ok so that's the bad news, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The Proportions of the lower body of the Revell (aka Monogram) 1971 Hemi 'Cuda's lower body & wheelbase is better. It's still not to scale but at least is consistently inaccurate (meaning that all measurements are with in a point or two of being off by the same percentage).

This changes making a passable AAR Cuda model more of a kit bash, and less of a "Major Surgery" situation, putting the conversion closer to the skill level of the average modeler. Anyone who can splice in a roof or engine compartment can do all that is needed to fix this car.

In part two I will show you how, with pictures and measurements. Yes in a perfect world Revell would have realized the limitations of the platform they started with and would have done a whole new tool. But it is my theory that the project had gone too far to turn back by the time they realized it. Now is the time that we the modelers step up to the plate and build on.

To be continued...

[MrObsessive]

Darin, thanks for taking the time to measure a 1:1 and giving us the details!

One problem though I see compared to closeup 1:1 photos I have of the car, is the roof crown itself seems off (curves downward to soon). Especially around where the C pillars begin. Now this may be subjective from one pair of eyes to another, but that's how it looks to me.

This may not be a big deal to someone who wants a halfway reasonable model of the car................but to me it sticks out like a sore thumb. Another fly in the ointment unfortunately, is when you change over the '70 roof to the '71 lower body.............you can no longer use the kit supplied strobe stripe decals if you want an AAR. They were made for the incorrect fenders.

One could maybe scrounge around on the 'bay and find Fred Cady's decals but I can see bidding wars already for those!

Maybe Keith Marks makes 'em too...................I dunno.

Can't wait to see how you tackle this one Darin!

[zgator]

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.

I hear this over and over and I'm not sure what to look for? I've got a johan Sox&Martin and a Revell the revell is and old 90's issue and is molded in plum crazy they are not the same scale so I guess that don't do much good. I'd love to get the AAR but if it ain't right I don't want it. If someone could maybe post a picture of a model and a real car I might get it.Thanks.

[Daniel Peterson]

This displeases me.

A look at the box art raised a red flag for me, but I hoped it was just perspective making it look goofy. Hearing various sources confirm the disproportionate proportions, I'll probably pass on these and save my money for the Mach I Mustangs.

I'm not a rivet counter by any means, but the real car is so damned beautiful, it would drive me nuts for even a shelf model to be out of whack in critical areas like the rear quarters. My eye would be drawn to it every time. I pictured stunning factory stock builds of this model when I heard it was coming...now it looks like it's in the hands of the resin aftermarket or Revell to sort this out for us. I'm not skilled, or at least not patient enough to rebuild a body just to make it look like the vehicle it represents.

I had a really bad day (1600 bucks to get both cars inspected...ouch!) and this didn't do anything to make me feel better.

[Spike]

well since no one likes the AAR decals,anyone have an extra set??i got my dads old AAR cuda (molded in green) and am redoing it but missin the decals