Could you make a business case for upcoming new kit subjects?

[Ace-Garageguy]

... The only thing iconic about the Tucker is how fast it flopped.

I have to disagree. Just because a car didn't sell in the millions doesn't make it insignificant. The Tucker was killed by the competition (if you believe the story), Hollywood thought enough of it to make a feature film about it (with name talent), and it had many advanced and interesting engineering innovations like the rear-mounted, air cooled engine. I personally think it would make a fascinating model.

Of course, as it shares components with virtually no other car on the planet, crossover sales or light re-tools wouldn't be possible. On the other hand, I'd pay a LOT more for a good 1/24-1/25 Tucker, and I'd buy several.

[Brett Barrow]

The real car flopped, the movie flopped (though it is a good movie from a critical standpoint), I'd be willing to bet a mainstream plastic model kit would flop as well. It's a good choice for a resin kit (and there's already one) and maybe if car modelling had short-run injection plastic companies the way aircraft and military modelers do it might make a decent choice if it only had to sell a couple thousand pieces to break even. No way a mainstream company could sell 40-50,000 Tuckers in today's market. The time to do it would have been 1988 when the movie came out, that was probably the zenith of public awareness for the Tucker.

[Danno]

Sadly, what Brett said is no-doubt true.

Still, I'd love to see a Tucker kit also. Yet, I'd only buy one. Maybe two.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I'm sure Roger, Brett and Danno are right about a Tucker having little chance of success as a kit from a major manufacturer...poor business case, which is what the thread is about...but it MIGHT make an interesting subject for some talented and enthusiastic fella to measure carefully and digitize in hopes that the 3D printing scenario will become cheap and high-resolution enough to enable building a full-detail model, but side-stepping investment in tooling.

[Harry P.]

The real car flopped...

The real car didn't flop. It never even got the chance to flop. The real car never went on sale to the general public. Production of the car was shut down and Preston Tucker was put on trial for stock fraud (and found not guilty on all counts, BTW) before the company had the chance to market the car to the public. At the time his trial began and the plant shut down, only 37 cars had been built.

How can a car that was never given the chance to compete in the marketplace have "flopped?"

[Luc Janssens]

This is reminiscent of Luc Janssens $25,000.00 new kit challenge.

You think so?

Anyway...been uploading a few of those old proposals on some wish list....will some see the light of day, dunno, but at least I tried.

[Greg Myers]

You think so?

Anyway...been uploading a few of those old proposals on some wish list....will some see the light of day, dunno, but at least I tried.

Yes you did, and a noble effort at that.

[1930fordpickup]

The real car didn't flop. It never even got the chance to flop. The real car never went on sale to the general public. Production of the car was shut down and Preston Tucker was put on trial for stock fraud (and found not guilty on all counts, BTW) before the company had the chance to market the car to the public. At the time his trial began and the plant shut down, only 37 cars had been built.

How can a car that was never given the chance to compete in the marketplace have "flopped?"

Yes they were never in real production , But my grandfather had a deposit down and had got his luggage from Tucker but never got the car. The luggage is long gone , I asked grandpa about five years before he passed. Tucker was railroaded out of town by the Big Three.

[Harry P.]

Tucker was railroaded out of town by the Big Three.

That's the general perception.

The SEC investigation into the "fraud" that Preston Tucker was supposedly trying to pull was the work of persons with an interest in, and beholden to, the Big Three, most notably influential Michigan senator Homer Ferguson. There were various forces at work that did their best to throw roadblocks in Tucker's way. For example, the Tucker Corporation mysteriously had a hard time buying steel, while the Big Three had no such problem. And the behind-the-scenes shenanigans went on and on.

During Tucker's trial, the prosecution tried to make the case that Tucker never had any intention of actually mass-producing an automobile, and that what he really was doing was selling phony dealerships to unsuspecting investors. When it came time for the defense to present their case, Tucker's lawyers didn't call anyone to the stand. They said simply that there is no need to "defend" Preston Tucker or the Tucker Corporation, because no offense had been committed.

The prosecution's witnesses claimed that Tucker had misused investor's money for his own benefit. When the defense asked for the proof that Tucker had done anything illegal, the prosecution witnesses had no answer. And the jury agreed–not guilty on all counts.

In regards to the accusation that Tucker was running a scam, and never really intended to mass produce a car, the facts say otherwise. Literally hundreds of thousands of engineering drawings, documents, etc. have been collected by Tucker enthusiasts that tend to bolster the case that Tucker indeed was planning on mass producing his car. At the time of Tucker's trial, the Tucker Corporation had almost 2,000 employees, including engineers and machinists. Why would Tucker have hired a staff if his real intent was merely to scam investors?

While we may never know the whole truth, all the available evidence points to the Big Three and their various agents actively trying, and eventually succeeding, in shutting down Tucker and his upstart car company.

So no... the Tucker wasn't a "flop." It never had the chance to compete in the marketplace.

[Art Anderson]

That's the general perception.

The SEC investigation into the "fraud" that Preston Tucker was supposedly trying to pull was the work of persons with an interest in, and beholden to, the Big Three, most notably influential Michigan senator Homer Ferguson. There were various forces at work that did their best to throw roadblocks in Tucker's way. For example, the Tucker Corporation mysteriously had a hard time buying steel, while the Big Three had no such problem. And the behind-the-scenes shenanigans went on and on.

During Tucker's trial, the prosecution tried to make the case that Tucker never had any intention of actually mass-producing an automobile, and that what he really was doing was selling phony dealerships to unsuspecting investors. When it came time for the defense to present their case, Tucker's lawyers didn't call anyone to the stand. They said simply that there is no need to "defend" Preston Tucker or the Tucker Corporation, because no offense had been committed.

The prosecution's witnesses claimed that Tucker had misused investor's money for his own benefit. When the defense asked for the proof that Tucker had done anything illegal, the prosecution witnesses had no answer. And the jury agreed–not guilty on all counts.

In regards to the accusation that Tucker was running a scam, and never really intended to mass produce a car, the facts say otherwise. Literally hundreds of thousands of engineering drawings, documents, etc. have been collected by Tucker enthusiasts that tend to bolster the case that Tucker indeed was planning on mass producing his car. At the time of Tucker's trial, the Tucker Corporation had almost 2,000 employees, including engineers and machinists. Why would Tucker have hired a staff if his real intent was merely to scam investors?

While we may never know the whole truth, all the available evidence points to the Big Three and their various agents actively trying, and eventually succeeding, in shutting down Tucker and his upstart car company.

So no... the Tucker wasn't a "flop." It never had the chance to compete in the marketplace.

Chances are, even had the court case not happened, that Tucker would not have survived past the production cycle of the original 1948 model, given that the company was very thinly financed. For example, Chevrolet Division of GM spent more money restyling and modestly re-engineering their 1941-vintage chassis for 1949 than Tucker Corporation ever had in the bank account. Also consider that Kaiser-Frazer failed to made any serious impact in the postwar auto industry despite the then tremendous capital resources of Kaiser Industries (then flush with wartime profits from shipbuilding).

Preston Tucker had acquired a reputation by the war as a promoter extraordinaire--just dig up old Henry Ford, ask about the 1935 Tucker/Miller/Ford Indianapolis race car project. And yet, the Tucker family remained in business in Indiana for decades--FC Tucker, Indiana's largest realty firm was started by siblings of Preston Tucker.

Art

[Harry P.]

Chances are, even had the court case not happened, that Tucker would not have survived past the production cycle of the original 1948 model...

We'll never know that.

Tucker never had the chance to succeed... or fail. They had their legs cut out from under them by the interests of the Big Three before the car was ever able to enter the marketplace.

[drball]

Me three.

And I'm surprised the Homeowner's Assn. hasn't shot the guy working on the Mustang at the top of Greg's post #19. Oh, I know. All the other houses are empty bank repos.

In our town all you have to do is call the city compliance officer-the home owner is warned then fined.

[1930fordpickup]

Well said Harry both points.

Well said Art also.

What if is the name of this game. Much like what if they made this or that kit.

[Tom Geiger]

And I'm surprised the Homeowner's Assn. hasn't shot the guy working on the Mustang at the top of Greg's post #19. Oh, I know. All the other houses are empty bank repos.

Yea, my HOA would have a coronary over that Mustang! The bylaws specifically mention "no outdoor maintenance of motor vehicles". My driveway is long enough and sheltered enough that they can't see what I'm up to anyway.

[Robberbaron]

This is reminiscent of Luc Janssens $25,000.00 new kit challenge.

My apologies if I'm rehashing a topic that's already been covered. Well, I know it's KIND OF been covered before, but I don't recall the emphasis on "practicality", if you will. If that was Luc's angle, we'll just say that great minds think alike!

[Greg Myers]

Read that OP again Andy. Take your time, it's about making a business case not a fantasy wish. Ain't no what ifs to it. a few just got side tracked on the Tucker thing.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Greg Myers

[Greg Myers]

My apologies if I'm rehashing a topic that's already been covered. Well, I know it's KIND OF been covered before, but I don't recall the emphasis on "practicality", if you will. If that was Luc's angle, we'll just say that great minds think alike!

Not a problem. I really like the way you presented this. I usually cringe when everyone drags out the "Car Grama used to drive" and we end up with a list of stuff that no one would buy. The Revell Of Germany Poll ( ROG Poll http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=88305 ) is a good / bad example of this .

Edited May 3, 2014 by Greg Myers

[Tom Geiger]

My apologies if I'm rehashing a topic that's already been covered. Well, I know it's KIND OF been covered before, but I don't recall the emphasis on "practicality", if you will. If that was Luc's angle, we'll just say that great minds think alike!

No, I think your thread is valid and the game has changed a bit since Luke did the $25,000 kit challenge. BTW, I won it twice with a 1965 Barracuda and the split window VW. Funny thing is that nobody has ever done a split VW in 1/24 or 1/25 ever!

The game today is that nobody can turn a profit off a tool in a single run of kits. The cost of tooling vs the small runs the market can absorb today make that a necessity. I've recently been told they need a minimum of four different potential kit releases to be viable.

Look at the Moebius strategy for the Hudson tool... Up front they released a 1953 Replica stock car, followed by a 1952 Convertable Replica stock car. Then they got into the old Nascar cars.... 1952 and 1953 Marshall Teague cars, 1952 Tim Flock car. That's five so far, and with the announced two body styles of the 1954s, bet your bippie that those will be followed with race versions as well. Figure we will see at least 10 versions. And it's a given that guys will do kit bashes for 1952 stock coupes and 1953 convertibles. 12 possible versions so far.

Revell's recent strategy has been to invest in new tools of timeless classics that you will build over and over again. The world was clammering for a good 1932 Ford and they responded. So far we've had a 3 and 5 window coupe, a 2 door sedan, Highboy convertible in both standard and Good Guys boxes and now the Rat Roaster/ Gearz version. That's six versions so far and the possibilities are endless. Never mind that this kit's chassis will be used under countless other bodies, both plastic and resin. Note that this isn't a car that will go out of style. We all know tooling can last 50 years, so there's no reason why this kit won't sell forever.

Revell has also done the Tri-Five Chevys, 1957 Ford, 1970 Nova to name a few. We've already seen the '57 Ford as the Custom (wisely not competing head on with the classic AMT Fairlane 500), the Police version and Fireball Roberts stock car. People are asking for a new Ranchero (to put Revell's classic but tired kit out to pasture) and a Ranch Wagon. I'm putting money on some '58s as well. No end to what they can do off this basic chassis! And I won't even get into the Chevys.

So as you think what you would tool up, think in this kind of strategy. No Tuckers or other one offs. The companies are realizing that the Baby Boomers are retiring and will be taking up hobbies and spending more time and money in pastimes. So we should see a renaissance over the next 10-20 years.

And the hobby has taken interesting turns. Someone recently said, "Who would have thought we'd have a Hudson shelf in our collections?" We do live in interesting times!

[ToyLvr]

A 64 Chevelle, could be made from the existing 65 Z-16/ 66 El Camino/ wagon tooling. A 65 Malibu/ SS, 66 hardtop, & 67 Chevelles, could also be done, with the same chassis.

Would LOVE to see a decent kit of a '64 Chevelle. The original curbside AMT doesn't quite cut it, and they're so rare that the price is outrageous (if you can find one).

[62rebel]

look how many mid-70's/early 80's econo-box kits have been popping up in the Workbench threads... look how well modern tuner/drift cars do, and look at the artistry that is embodied in the Bombas and lowriders..... Revell hit one out of the park with their 59-66 series of Impalas..... RC2/Ertl did the same with the '62 Catalina.... the recent although mistake-ridden LX Mustang is a big hit; seems like more than enough builders can excuse the short roof..... Moebius is due to release those long-awaited F series trucks soon; with a little luck maybe they'll do some accurate GMC/Chevy and Dodge trucks so we don't have to correct a raft of errors to build one from what is presently offered.

accurizing presently offered kits would me my target; correcting flaws and adding optional trim levels if possible, or restoring parts like the IROC Camaros and Firebirds had. correcting serious flaws in NEW kits as well, such as the afore-mentioned Mustang roof or grossly misshapen quarter window on the new Duster, or cleaning up misaligned seams......

one key item that's been recently noted is that the makers have been showing potential buyers the stuff in the box more accurately... parents don't want to have a kid open a box and be overwhelmed by a hundred frail and easily lost parts if that kid doesn't have a lot of experience building.... those "promo style" kits STILL have a place and it's squarely in the lower end of the learning curve for beginners to get some nice looking completions done. experienced builders can hack 'em up and do exceptional stuff with them, but beginners need some successful completions to get their confidence up for tackling say a Revell Mysterion...

[berr13]

How about a 1963 Falcon Sprint? It's an early attempt at the muscle car idea with appealing styling, and would make a great box stock kit. A follow up could be the Monte Carlo rally cars (they're so hip even Jay Leno has one), and NHRA stockers, I suppose. In my perfect world (an imaginary one, for sure), this kit would transform in time to a convertible then a Squire wagon. Oooooh....

[Robberbaron]

Well said, Tom.

My original thought process was focused on kit subjects that currently aren't available at all, but so many people mentioned a modern, full-detail 1/25 first generation Mustang. That got me thinking of some of the other cars that are currently available, but only as sub-par kits. First and foremost in my mind is the lousy selection of 2nd generation (68 to 72) Chevelle kits. For the 1970 Chevelle, what many people consider one of the apex 1:1 muscle cars, we have the old 1/24 Monogram with the "something's not quite right here" front end, the backdated 1/25 AMT kit which is 44 years old, and the fairly new Revell 1/25 snap kit, which I'm told is actually quite accurate proportionally, but a lot of folks have no interest in it since it's a curbside snapper.

For other year 2nd generation Chevelles, we also have the inbred-looking 72 Chevelle that RC2 created based off their 1970 Chevelle, which itself was backdated from the original (decent looking) 72 annual. Rounding out the mix is the old pair of AMT 69 Chevelles, both the hardtop and the convertible. Again we're talking about 45 year-old tooling, but these are even worse than the 70, since there's a laundry list of accuracy problems with the bodies of these kits, especially the butchered, asymmetrical taillights. (I support a lot of what Round 2 has been doing with their recent releases, but they should be ashamed for trotting out that 69 convertible without fixing that bumper/taillight assembly). We haven't seen a styrene 68 or 71 Chevelle available since the 1:1 cars were new.

Imagine having a new, modern, full detail 70 Chevelle LS-6. I think that would rank right up there with the new Revell 70 Cuda. Mechanically and chassis-wise, all the 68 to 72 Chevelles are pretty much identical appearance-wise (a 454 block looks the same as a 402, which looks the same as a 396). I believe the interior remained pretty much unchanged from 70 through 72. So it would be possible to field a whole roster of Chevelles with just body/wheel changes, plus new interiors for the 68 and 69.

If you really want to run with this idea, you could even use the basic chassis for B-O-P variations (new 70 GTO Judge anyone?)

[ChrisBcritter]

I wonder if AMT could pull off a '51 Ford based on their dated but decently accurate '49-'50 tooling? Particularly since a Victoria hardtop and convertible could use the same body, windshield and vent windows. Maybe Revell should take a crack at this, with detail like the '49 Olds coupe and a lot of period custom goodies. Shoebox Fords have never gone out of style; about the only limiting factor would be that they weren't too famous for racing.

[Luc Janssens]

No, I think your thread is valid and the game has changed a bit since Luke did the $25,000 kit challenge. BTW, I won it twice with a 1965 Barracuda and the split window VW. Funny thing is that nobody has ever done a split VW in 1/24 or 1/25 ever!

The game today is that nobody can turn a profit off a tool in a single run of kits. The cost of tooling vs the small runs the market can absorb today make that a necessity. I've recently been told they need a minimum of four different potential kit releases to be viable.

Hey Tom, I even re-posted these on the Revell Germany site...

You're absolutely right about designing siblings from the get go too, the funny thing is one of the great kit designers was promoting that business case way before the 2000s, also sharing r&d with die-cast, sadly he couldn't sell the idea, because at that point in time money came in by the truck loads and when the bottom fell out, well.....they threw out the baby with the bath water...

[alan barton]

Here's one that has been so ignored I just don't get it. Nearly every significant pre-war Ford has been kitted in one form or another but the Chevies not so much. Go to any street rod event and the number one most popular Chevy by a country mile is the '34 Chevy. Ever seen a model of one? O.K, there is a deranged, confused 1/43rd scale sedan delivery by a European diecast company and a cheap and cheerful rip-off of same in the form of a plastic R/C car.

1/18th diecast? Nope

1/25th plastic? Nope.

1/43rd resin? Nope

1/64th diecast? Nope.

Anyone ever seen another one? Nope, not me!

With the Chevies, no one body style seems to be more overwhelmingly popular than another. Five window coupe, two door sedan, roadster, sedan delivery, they are all rather popular, both here in Australia and the USA and Canada. They are obviously popular enough for fibreglass manufacturers to make them. So Revell and AMT and Moebius have the chance to be first on the block with a car that has never been kitted but has a ton of fans. The approach that Revell took with their "32 Fords would be a perfect match. Police car guys would probably kit bash an AMT 37 Chevy six in for a replica stock patrol car. 34 Chevy rods often have relatively stock front and rear suspensions so conversion to factory stock would not be anywhere near as complicated as the equivalent Fords with all their street rod industry components.

So Revell and AMT and Moebius have the chance to be first on the block with a car that has never been kitted but has a ton of fans. Model builders would like them because they would be different.

Plus thousands of 1:1 owners would be able, for the first time, to have a model of their ride for the TV or the bookshelf or the office desk. A natural tie in for another Goodguys release.

Sounds like a business plan to me!

Cheers

Alan