611 replies to this topic

[G Holding]

And, did Revell actually send anyone to examine the real car up close or were pictures used as reference?  I understand the $$$ situation, but, sometimes, you gotta spend money to make money.  Really, how much more would it have cost Revell to get some more accuracy?  No master cylinder -was it forgotten, overlooked or determined to be un-necessary?  This kit will probably grab the general public's eye more than the '57 Ford or '50 Olds kits will, yet from what I read, those kits are more accurate than the Rat Roaster.

 

 

Yeah....just a couple of old guys....Sexton and Harney....(I think they know more than most here)

 

I have read this whole topic, I am not sure why Revell would even think of making this "junk"    BUT they MUST have a reason And I think they will do fine while making a lot of money

 

22 pages of whining and moans.....I like the kit and will get a couple....And I am sure revell will send all the purists a master cylinder

 

 

SHEESH !!

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

 

Yes, I am aware of what a spindle mount wheel is and how it's retained, which I tried to convey in my comment using "style" to indicate the RR's wheels were similar to, but not exactly like the spindle mount Sprint wheels.

 

I think these'll be quite popular. 

 

My apologies then. I do think the wheels look good and agree that, with the tires in the kit, they'll be popular.

[Harry P.]

I have read this whole topic, I am not sure why Revell would even think of making this "junk"    BUT they MUST have a reason And I think they will do fine while making a lot of money

 

22 pages of whining and moans.....I like the kit and will get a couple....And I am sure revell will send all the purists a master cylinder

 

 

SHEESH !!

 

But don't you question at all why a newly-tooled kit of a very specific car, not just a generic '32 Ford, has so many inaccuracies? I realize we're not talking about the fate of civilization here, but considering that this is a model car forum, you don't question that? At all?

[mrknowetall]

Bingo! Lots of pissing and moaning about this, that and the other, as regards the Rat Roaster kit. The Rat Roaster isn't perfect. We know that. It could be better. We know that too. Will Revell sell a bunch of the kit? No doubt.

They (Revell) had to start somewhere, and I'll bet that the proceeds from the sale of the RR will bring us sometning "more better".

BTW, I know Ed Sexton on a professional (business) basis. Fairly well. He's paying attention to the various model forums, as is Roger Harney. They do what they can do, given the amount of money they have to invest in new tooling. More often than not, they do an excellent job, as witnessed by their recent '57 Ford, '50 Olds, and '62 Corvette kits. All released in the past four months.

No plastic kit is EVER perfect, and they know that.

Edited by mrknowetall, 07 February 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[Longbox55]

I'm amused by the whining about the "missing" master cylinder!     It's not even visable from underneath on the actual car, as it's hidden inside a frame cross member.

Check at 0:14, you'll see where it is.

Edited by Longbox55, 07 February 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[mrknowetall]

Not entirely true, but close. The '32 five window body has a completely different firewall that matches the curvature of the five window body, but not the roadster or three window bodies. Go figure. The nineties '32 three window and roadster kits share the same firewall. You'll find that the mid-nineties '32 roadster body, in terms of cowl proportion and dimension(s), is very close to the Rat Roaster body, and the RR firewall is a fairly decent fit on the older '32 roadster body.

Does all that make sense?

Edited by mrknowetall, 07 February 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well first, the master cylinder seems as if wouldn't be invisible, but second - check out the 1:1 frame crossmember and the rear suspension arms, for example, and the master cylinder kinda recedes into the least of the problems with the undercarriage.

 

We're rather far from even the zipcode to pretend anybody's asking for a perfect kit here.  Pointing out deviations Stevie Wonder would notice doesn't exactly a "whiner" make.  Let the record show who's turning it personal.  Again.

[G Holding]

 

But don't you question at all why a newly-tooled kit of a very specific car, not just a generic '32 Ford, has so many inaccuracies? I realize we're not talking about the fate of civilization here, but considering that this is a model car forum, you don't question that? At all?

 

NO......NO.......NO.....

 

I have watched for many reviews about all the "faults"  these new kits all have...(No I do not remember decals on the 50 Olds) and as I watch...ole dumb me I see Revell, Moebus selling all these BAD kits in great numbers. How come ? 

 

I suspect good research by Revell does pay off   I Must admit quickly I do not build stock anything...so 100% accuracy means little to me, although I HATE the Boyds version of the 32....That body is so poor...THAT should be bashed.

 

The "missing master cylinder" is a great example of my point....Thanks Bill! 

 

I do understand and respect Bernard's view, As I think he has built more 32's than I have built models...and he does show all sides. 

 

!00% accurate       
 

....no, But then is MCM's  cover date accurate ? Does Either matter     NOPE   

[G Holding]

Bingo! Lots of pissing and moaning about this, that and the other, as regards the Rat Roaster kit. The Rat Roaster isn't perfect. We know that. It could be better. We know that too. Will Revell sell a bunch of the kit? No doubt.

They (Revell) had to start somewhere, and I'll bet that the proceeds from the sale of the RR will bring us sometning "more better".

BTW, I know Ed Sexton on a professional (business) basis. Fairly well. He's paying attention to the various model forums, as is Roger Harney. They do what they can do, given the amount of money they have to invest in new tooling. More often than not, they do an excellent job, as witnessed by their recent '57 Ford, '50 Olds, and '62 Corvette kits. All released in the past four months.

No plastic kit is EVER perfect, and they know that.
 

 

I would say THANKS to both !

[Ace-Garageguy]

Man !!! I just got a GREAT idea !!! Revell should make a reality TV show with all of us shouting at each other about the RR kit, it's shortcomings and why some insist they don't matter. Betcha THAT would rack up some sales, eh? Models getting thrown against the wall, stepped on, all KINDS of good stuff. Am I a genius, or what ???

[Harry P.]

But then is MCM's  cover date accurate ? Does Either matter     NOPE   

 

If I had control over it, the cover date would be accurate. Every time.

 

And by your own admission, you never build any model stock or straight out of the box, so obviously accuracy or fidelity to the subject matter doesn't mean much to you!  But not everyone approaches the hobby the same way that you do. To a lot of people, accuracy does matter, and they do expect a kit to have the details done right.

[Longbox55]

Man !!! I just got a GREAT idea !!! Revell should make a reality TV show with all of us shouting at each other about the RR kit, it's shortcomings and why some insist they don't matter. Betcha THAT would rack up some sales, eh? Models getting thrown against the wall, stepped on, all KINDS of good stuff. Am I a genius, or what ???

Can't be any worse than the bulk of the "reality" shows that are already on the the tube!    

[Brett Barrow]

I've said it before, probably a thousand times - the all time best selling model car kit is the MPC General Lee.

The only company I can think of that ever set out to make perfect model kits was Accurate Miniatures. They made 2 car models and went out of business. Twice.

Discuss the importance of accuracy on model kit sales...

[Harry P.]

I've said it before, probably a thousand times - the all time best selling model car kit is the MPC General Lee.

The only company I can think of that ever set out to make perfect model kits was Accurate Miniatures. They made 2 car models and went out of business. Twice.

Discuss the importance of accuracy on model kit sales...

 

That's exactly why most car kitmakers cut corners... because they know that 99% of the buyers will either never know the difference, or won't care. They figure it's better to cut corners and save money and maybe alienate a tiny, tiny handful of hardcore modelers, than to go the extra mile and spend the extra $$$ to make an accurate kit just to please a handful of detail-conscious builders.

 

That sort of thinking doesn't cut it in the military kit world. Those guys demand accurate kits, they're willing to pay the price for accurate kits, and the manufacturers know it and respond in kind.

 

Model car builders are, for the most part, not demanding when it comes to accuracy (except for a very small segment of buyers), and are not willing to pay premium prices. So we get what we ask for, basically. Or I should say, what the manufacturers know they can get away with and we will still gladly lap up, despite flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies.

[Kaleb]

It's only plastic, rather a form of.

Edited by Kaleb, 07 February 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[Dr. Cranky]

Glenn, I had a spare master cylinder and I put it in there.  It fit just fine, exhaust and all.

 

[Casey]

Not entirely true, but close. The '32 five window body has a completely different firewall that matches the curvature of the five window body, but not the roadster or three window bodies. Go figure. The nineties '32 three window and roadster kits share the same firewall. You'll find that the mid-nineties '32 roadster body, in terms of cowl proportion and dimension(s), is very close to the Rat Roaster body, and the RR firewall is a fairly decent fit on the older '32 roadster body.

Does all that make sense?

 

Yes.

 

Is it the same on the real cars that the 5W cowl shape is different from that of both the roadster and 3W bodies?

 

I did more test fitting and comparing tonight, and I there are so many subtle differences, it no longer surprises me this is an all-new kit instead of a continuation of the existing Revell Deuce quadruplets (quintuplets if we're counting the Speedwagon, too?). As Glenn(?) pointed out somewhere here on the forum, the kickup on the frame rail's recess is slightly different, and I verified the frame crossmembers are slightly different, the front axle/spring pieces are different, and even the rearend parts are different. There seem to be enough differences (and room for future changes and additions?) between this new RR kit and the previous Deuces that Revell felt it best to start anew, rather than prolonging the inevitable. Not every kit series (i.e., '69 Camaro) can last 23+ years, so maybe Revell is just being proactive with the Dueces.

[Casey]

Or I should say, what the manufacturers know they can get away with and we will still gladly lap up, despite flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies.

 

An optimist might call that a happy medium. 

 

 

 

 

But don't you question at all why a newly-tooled kit of a very specific car, not just a generic '32 Ford, has so many inaccuracies?

 

This is one of those answerless topics, like "good" art (wait, I think that has an answer.   ), because the next question is, "How accurate is accurate enough?"

 

I wonder if the Dank Fink Speedwagon was gone through with a fine tooth comb when it was first released? 

[Harry P.]

This is one of those answerless topics, like "good" art (wait, I think that has an answer. 

 

The answer is "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!" 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well gee, if accuracy is so inconsequential to Revell's bottom line, you'd think all the "pissing" and "moaning" would scarcely rate the first mention, then.