Casey Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 That green on green car is gorgeous...is that a painted green roof--doesn't look like a vinyl top... It is, and yes, it is. It's also a good look at the rear window molding pieces, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I don't care for the way the inner fenders are molded to the floorpan, either, as it reminds me of the die-cast style 1/25 '70 T/A-R/T and '68 Mustang kits. Maybe that's the design style in which Revell is headed, though. I can see how molding them the way they did make positive location at final assembly time much easier, and they did hide the locating pins and holes up underneath the fender tops, so you really can't see them once everything's assembled. I think it's an improvement over the grooved framerails and a slot under the inner fenders locating method, too, so I would say it's a small improvement. As for the rear window, the Revell kit's looks more accurate to me. The long sections between the corners is straighter compared to the same areas on the AMT promo's body, and the corner radii are smaller on the Revell body, too. I only have two large clear shots of 1:1 rear windows, but I give the nod to the Revell kit's rear window. Looking at the drip rail area on the 1:1, it doesn't appear to stand away from the roof panel very much, so maybe a subtle drip rail was the best compromise: I believe the design of the front fenders being located to the interior walls may have to do with the assembly process. That big 'ol honkin' Hemi would have a difficult assembly operation if you were to try to place the body with the front fenders already molded in, on top of/over the chassis with the engine already located in it. Of course, for 1/1 scale cars the engines may have been top-loaded into the engine compartment on E bodies (Mopar experts, beat me up if I'm wrong here), which would be impossible on a 1/25th scale car unless the transmission mount was made a separate part. In any case, I actually prefer the new Revell approach, because as Casey notes, you get a much more definitive final assembly result with the hidden tabs and the secure mating of the fenderwell tops to the body itself. Casey....great shot of that "cuda roof - I was looking for images like this that would show the drip rail moldings, but I never found one that showed it as well as this image. This image also describes visually the "racetrack molding" that needs to be added to the body for the rear cove blackout panel. TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS23U Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 AFAIK the engine and trans was bolted to the front subframe (aka k-member) along with some other stuff like the steering gear, then the body was lowered down onto this assembly. So room between the inner fenders have to be wider than the engine from exhaust header to exhaust header. Also, the engine bay of an e-body should be the same as a 1971/72 b-body. At least from rad wall to firewall and inner fender to inner fender. The cowl area is different as well as the room in front of the rad wall. Tim, sent you a pm. Couldn't get through to you via mail... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 AFAIK the engine and trans was bolted to the front subframe (aka k-member) along with some other stuff like the steering gear, then the body was lowered down onto this assembly. So room between the inner fenders have to be wider than the engine from exhaust header to exhaust header. Also, the engine bay of an e-body should be the same as a 1971/72 b-body. At least from rad wall to firewall and inner fender to inner fender. The cowl area is different as well as the room in front of the rad wall. Tim, sent you a pm. Couldn't get through to you via mail... Thanks Jens...I wasn't fully clear on that. And I have read many articles stating that the '70-'74 E Body and '71-74 B Bodies shared the entire engine compartment including cowl structure .... although as you note, the area in front of the radiator wall is different. I'll check the PM...don't know why mail would not have gone through...TB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Irwin Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 The only thing that really bugs me is the inner fenders molded to the interior floor pan. I really don't understand the thinking behind that. Seems that Revell thinks it's a good idea for some reason. Mine were twisted and cracked during shipping. I cut mine loose, repaired them and glued them in old school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Anderson Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Mine were twisted and cracked during shipping. I cut mine loose, repaired them and glued them in old school. Craig, If done well, this type of parts breakdown makes a body shell easier to line up and mount onto the chassis or platform. Also, if there are recessed areas in something such as the inner fender panels that would result in an unworkable "undercut" were these panels molded as part of the body, they can be accomplished in a part separate from the body shell itself. Just a couple of pennies worth here. Art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I have been watching this thread which is now comparing the Revell Cuda to the old MPC Cuda. The old MPC Cuda that you compare is not the annual from 1970-1974 .It is the reincarnation of the Cuda by MPC in the '80s and later by ERTL. It's not as good as the original and the wheel lip moldings may not be representative of MPC best efforts. It has a funky wavy side and rebuilt wheel openings from it's time a track racer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk312 Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Has anyone seen this kit at Hobby Lobby yet? I was at mine tonight, and am still not seeing this or the new Camaro kit yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slantasaurus Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Has anyone seen this kit at Hobby Lobby yet? I was at mine tonight, and am still not seeing this or the new Camaro kit yet. Hobby Lobby hasn't reset their kit section in several months, they should be resetting sometime soon though and I would bet the Cuda will be on their shelves then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodie_83 Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Another option for a smallblock Mopar would be the 360 out of the Lil Red Express...not sure how much of an improvement (if any) it would be over the 340 from the Duster, but might be worth a shot. Also, the thing about the 340 "Six Pack" from the Duster is that the air cleaner is very small in scale compared to what it should be. Still though...it may be too small for the 'Cuda, but its a very detailed engine that looks great when built! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodie_83 Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Either way, when I do get the kit, it will NOT be getting the 426 Hemi in the engine bay. I'd rather have a 440, 383 or even a new 5.7/6.1 Hemi in mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slantasaurus Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Either way, when I do get the kit, it will NOT be getting the 426 Hemi in the engine bay. I'd rather have a 440, 383 or even a new 5.7/6.1 Hemi in mine. BTW, the 383/440 with 727 trans drops right onto the engine/trans mounts in the Cuda. Fit around the bellhousing is tight but a little filing isn't a problem. I haven't tried fitting the 6.1 from the Magnum yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 (edited) Another option for a smallblock Mopar would be the 360 out of the Lil Red Express...not sure how much of an improvement (if any) it would be over the 340 from the Duster, but might be worth a shot. Also, the thing about the 340 "Six Pack" from the Duster is that the air cleaner is very small in scale compared to what it should be. Still though...it may be too small for the 'Cuda, but its a very detailed engine that looks great when built! I just checked my Little Red Express Truck kits (one the original MPC release, the second an AMT-Ertl reissue from the 90's) and they have the original big block Mopar Wedge V8 engines that have been in most (all?) of the MPC Dodge D100 pickup kit derivatives since it the tool was developed in 1972. Is there a version of this kit that has the 360 V8 (among other items, with the distributor in the typical SBC location rather than to the passenger side of the water pump as in all Big Block Mopars)? And FWIW, I strongly agree with your take on the MPC "Six Pack" 340 Duster engine. Not sure that I agree with some who think it is underscaled, though. Thanks! TIM Edited December 27, 2013 by tim boyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FASTBACK340 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 FWIW: Popped open my `Cuda kit last night. Nice chrome… same half-bent decal sheet, but otherwise it's pretty nice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FASTBACK340 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 And FWIW, I strongly agree with your take on the MPC "Six Pack" 340 Duster engine. Not sure that I agree with some who think it is underscaled, though. Thanks! TIM FWIW: A small block get's lost in that wide E body engine compartment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteowl7710 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) So I saw some photos of this kit being built recently elsewhere, and something struck me as odd, so I had to dig back through this thread to find Tim's photos. Now I know this sounds "nit-picky", but considering they've had 43 years to research this kit, and three shots at getting it right...No not the debatable body contours in places, but rather - it's so considerate of Revell to include a SEVEN (7) cylinder distributor cap... I know, I know, replace it, fix it, blah blah blah...but really is the V-8 a new development? Did that extra cylinder catch them off guard at the last minute? Gonna make wiring the engine with the cap in the box...impossible... Some people claim it's going to be 2014 in three days, but don't tell the Q.A. people at Revell that. Edited December 29, 2013 by niteowl7710 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinfan5 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 So I saw some photos of this kit being built recently elsewhere, and something struck me as odd, so I had to dig back through this thread to find Tim's photos. Now I know this sounds "nit-picky", but considering they've had 43 years to research this kit, and three shots at getting it right...No not the debatable body contours in places, but rather - it's so considerate of Revell to include a SEVEN (7) cylinder distributor cap... I know, I know, replace it, fix it, blah blah blah...but really is the V-8 a new development? Did that extra cylinder catch them off guard at the last minute? Gonna make wiring the engine with the cap in the box...impossible... Some people claim it's going to be 2014 in three days, but don't tell the Q.A. people at Revell that. We should just be thankful that Revell is still in business and making kits for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 I have been watching this thread which is now comparing the Revell Cuda to the old MPC Cuda. The old MPC Cuda that you compare is not the annual from 1970-1974 .It is the reincarnation of the Cuda by MPC in the '80s and later by ERTL. It's not as good as the original and the wheel lip moldings may not be representative of MPC best efforts. It has a funky wavy side and rebuilt wheel openings from it's time a track racer. I'm 99.9% sure the red body I used for comparison is the circa-1993 or so AMT promo/kit body, which RC2 reissued in 2002 in both yellow and red, so I probably should've been more careful with the AMT and MPC names. I wish I had an original MPC body, just to have another option to judge the differences better, regardless of which area is better or best on any of the bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRM Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) Good lord. Easy fix. Sand off the stupid nubs, drill 8 stupid holes, wala, 8 plug wires. I'm not trying to be spellcheck guy, but it took me a minute to figure out that wala is supposed to be violà . No worries - I thought it was kind of funny... Anyway - yes you are right - it is not a big deal to fix, but it is something that should not have to be fixed at all. Designing on computer should allow them to get things correct like the non- symmetrical beltline, correct number of plugs, etc. They should have a checklist of basics to check off before a kit can be signed off and sent to production. Yes, it is good that they are in business, but they would be in better business if they got things right. One guy in my club is still all bent about the '69 Nova kit. He says the rear end is wrong, and he said that if they had gotten it right he would be buying a bunch of them. To his eye it looks too wrong, so he spends his money on other things. I have an original MPC annual for the Barracuda - I'll check it against the '74 snap kit and the new issue and post some photos. Edited December 29, 2013 by VRM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingiguana Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 I don't get all the issues with inaccuracies. With all this computer drawing we should have kits that are a 100% accurate. They should be exact scale versions of the 1/1 subject. I just don't get fender openings that are off, body lines that are off, missing this, missing that, 7 pin distributors, 5 cap batteries, and the like. I still buy a lot of these kits, and will either live with the issues, or fix them. But its bad we should have to fix anything at all. I don't mind removing a small amount of flash, or mold lines. I got the new Cuda, and was surprised at the quality of the chrome, and the amount of flash on a new kit in 2013 ?? Revell is doing some great subjects, but let's have a tad more accuracy, and quality control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteowl7710 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) Good lord. Easy fix. Sand off the stupid nubs, drill 8 stupid holes, wala, 8 plug wires. Yes and your distributor cap will have 7 stupid ribs, not 8. Sanding the cap flat isn't going to fix the overall dimensions of the entire piece. Which either means you're going to have 8 wires poking out of a 7 lead distributor, or you have to source one from another kit, or buy an aftermarket distributor -- and those last two cost money in some form or fashion, which some people would have a big problem with... While I'm nit-picking, anyone else notice that the carbs are molded with in a N/S/E/W configuration rather than the primary and secondaries being in a two neat rows like they should be. At least the air cleaner covers that mess up... Edited December 29, 2013 by niteowl7710 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-409 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 This nitpicking is getting out of hand. ...As always. Okay I don't have this kit yet, but I will be buying one. That distributor thing is not a problem after I put the plug wires on place. No one will see how many ribs there are when the wires cover them. So that doesn't matter in my case, though if someone is building Box Stock, that's a different thing... Only thing that I don't like on new kits, are mold seams on the bodies. They seem to be really hard to get covered, or I mean that it takes a lot of work. Currently I have Revell's new '50 Oldsmobile and Jo-Han '61 Olds Wagon on my bench and the mold seams in Jo-Han kit were a lot easier to smooth out. But I'm really happy that Revell and Moebius are releasing new kits and AMT is re-releasing great kits. Despite all of this "nitpicking" in here, I'm always really happy about each new kit that I buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRM Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Good lord, I guess we are not modelers, we are kit assemblers. This nitpicking is getting out of hand. So you get to start with a Palmer Plastics Barracuda then. Seriously - that argument is a non-starter...some of us are kit assemblers, some are artisans, and some of us are everything else in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 a SEVEN (7) cylinder distributor cap. While not the biggest snafu ever, it certainly is an obvious error, one which should've been caught and corrected at some point in the kit's development. A seven cylinder distributor is not going to make the kit unbuildable, but it's still disappointing to see. It's too bad, as the Street Hemi in this kit has a beautiful A-833 4-speed transmission and a nice set of exhaust manifolds, too, which were only available in the '67 GTX and Coronet R/T kits previously, so taken as a whole, the engine is quite nice. Another nice detail is something which was omitted, namely the battery cables. That detail alone makes the battery much more realistic than one with molded in cables running straight down the side of the battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Barrow Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) Nit-picking I don't mind. I can do without the snark from a few posts back. Can't we just say "Hey, the distributor has 7 nubs" and leave it at that? Edited December 30, 2013 by Brett Barrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.