The MPC Super Stocker series consisted of the Dick Trickle Mustang, the Jegs Camaro, the Bob Larrivee Chevelle & a fictional GTO, fictional Cuda, & a fictional Monte Carlo. All but the Monte Carlo used a modified version of an annual kit body, with one partial exception to be seen. The Monte Carlo used the body tooled up for the Coo Coo Marlin #14 NASCAR Monte Carlo tooled up by MPC, as MPC never did a Monte Carlo as an annual kit at that time. The GTO is also only partially part of the MPC annual series, because in 1970, apparently they got a huge promo order for GTOs from Pontiac, & thus tooled up two different bodies. One went on to be the basis for the GTO annual kits from 1970-1972 & the other wound up as the body for the David Pearson driven NASCAR GTO he ran in a few races in 1971. That body then wound up as part of the Super Stocker series. Other than the Monte Carlo & the GTO, the bodies for all the rest were later retooled back to stock, & have been reissued in that form many times over the past thirty or so years. That's why when the Model King reissues were done, the GTO & the Monte Carlo were the only two that could be reissued. The chassis used in the kits are very close to what Ed Howe & Ray Dillon were producing for short track racing in the 70s, & thus were indeed able to be put together with differing wheelbases for use under different bodies, so those kit chassis are highly accurate for both the cars & the era. What isn't accurate, at least for the Mustang, Cuda & GTO is the big block Chevy engine used in all the kits. Here's a link to some Howe Racing Enterprises catalog pages from back in the day so you can see just how close MPC got the chassis on these cars: http://public.fotki.com/RodM/canadian_short_trac/howe_racing_enterprises/
Though I have disagreed with Mr. Gieger in the past, in the case of station wagons models in that other thread, he never said he was against them, he merely laid out from a business standpoint why the manufacturers don't waste precious tooling dollars on them, in a logical & very well thought out manner. He is also 100% right in that scenario, based on past sale performance of said models over the years. Most of the station wagon models tooled up in the past were annual kits, who's tooling costs had been at least partially paid for by the 1/1 manufactrers via the promos they ordered. In this case Revell, et al, would have to absorb the tooling costs themselves, & the desires of a small but vocal minority of model buyers isn't enough to convince them of the ROI on such a product.
Are you really so obtuse as to fail to grasp the difference?
And why pray tell are you dragging that subject into this thread if for no other reason than to start up another argument?
What!?! Your analogy is roughly equivalent to saying if I want a good meal at a fine restaurant I have to cook it myself. That's completely off base. Wanting an accurate, buildable kit from what I purchased is laziness? Where do you get that idea? If I chose to modify or customize a kit, then yes, I should & do expect to do more work to get it to look like I envision. But for crying out loud, I shouldn't have to do their work for them to get a kit to the level of accuracy it should have been at in the first place.
If all of this is part of model building, then why do I rarely have to do more than basic cleanup with a Tamiya or a Galaxie Ltd kit? Why did the Revell midget kits I built, (a shining example of Revell getting it right), just fall together? Why did my Moebius International ProStar, ( a shining example of Moebius getting it right), not only build up well, but look accurate & true to the 1/1 when completed? Why was my Moebius Frankenstein kit, (another that they got right), such a joy to build & so great in capturing the look of Boris Karloff as the Monster? That one did require a lot of putty in certain areas, as well as much flling & sanding of seams, but that's to be expected given the way those kits are designed & tooled up & as to how they assemble. it's not the amount of work involved in buidling a kit, it's the reason that the work is required.
Trust me, I am far removed from a ten year old building a model with glue on the windshield & have been for years. I was building in the 70's as well, (the 60's also, to be exact), but this isn't the 70's anymore. My skills & abilities have indeed progressed from where they were 40+ years ago when I was that ten year old boy. Why shouldn't I expect the model manufacturers to have upped their game as well?
It's not a matter of being "skilled enough", it's a matter of we shouldn't have to do this because Moebius or any other manufacturer didn't get it right. By your crteria we hould be happy if a model company put a block of wood in a box & said "Carve away at that until a 69 Ford pickup emerges."
I'm sorry, but on this forum I do all my communicating out in the open. I have my PM's disabled & prefer it that way. I have no interest in getting into a debate by PM over things. Just for the record, these aren't my "opinions". They are observations made based on the evidence at hand. That test shot simply isn't accurate enough, & no amount of excuses or cheerleading can change that.
If you can't see the accuracy flaws in the test shot in comparison to only the 1/1 but also to the tooling master than I simply don't know what else to tell you. The kit is likely buildable, but I personally wouldn't be happy with it on my shelf. All that a model car is supposed to do once finished is to look like an accurate miniature replica of the 1/1, nothing more & nothing less, if it is indeed meant to be a miniature replica of the 1/1, in other words, a replica stock model. It serves no other function on the shelf. That's also why I would never buy a diecast such as the one of a similar model Ford pickup as was shown a few pages back, as it didn't do any better of a job of replicating the 1/1 either, at least overall. It was closer in some areas, but not close enough in others.
Whoa there, why one earth should I support a project like this when the end result isn't going to meet even basic standards of accuracy that have been pointed out ad infinium in this thread? That "impossible to please" comment sounds a lot like those tiresome canards that we're wanting a "perfect model", when all we want is an accurate one. There are countless model companies that get things more accurate than Moebius has in their vehicle kits thus far. To expect less from Moebius is doing ourselves, the hobby & Moebius itself an injustice. They should strive to create the most accurate kits for the money as is humanly possible, not make nor accept excuses of "good enough". We, as a community should hold them to the same standards before we part with our money for their product.
As I said, I didn't place their International models in the same category, & I will also say that they are very accurate & were a pleasure to buy & build, so I have purchased their kits in the past, when they've met my criteria & been worth spending my money on.
As long as we blindly cheer & support Moebius, (or any other manufacturer), for churning out kits that fall short as to accuracy, or buildability, or any other basic criteria that should be expected by the modeler, then we do ourselves & the hobby a disservice.
Wanting a model to be an accurate miniature of the 1/1 isn't being "impossible to please", it's wanting basic value for the money. If you can't grasp that concept, then I simply don't know what to say.
Invaild comparison, as in a 1/1 vehicle they can & do make running changes to correct flaws. The only flaws in this case that I'm speaking of are as to the kit's accuracy, or the lack thereof. In this case we can see from the tooling master to test shot #2 that something was lost as to accuracy in the process from master to test shot. Ray Charles can see those issues between the two & he's both blind & dead. Such accuracy flaws need to be addressed before the kit makes it to market.
Granted Revell & Monogram have made corrections to flawed kits during production runs, (the reversed 69 Nova gas tank & the sloping DLO on the initial 69 Chargers spring to mind), but said running changes are usually few & far between. The aforementioned Nova is proof of that as Revell has admitted that the 1/1 car they based it on had poorly fitting & inaccurate aftermarket replacement rear quarters, which is why it's rear fenderwells are so far off. They didn't bother to fix that, & I won't even mention that 90 Mustang LX abomination.
Having valid complaints, (such as a kit being inaccurate), has merit. Complainng that they should have tooled up the "extra rare Canyonero option package that was only ordered on five trucks", which is what I would consider miniscule & insignificant, isn't valid & thus lacks merit. If the kit is no more accurate than prior Mobeius vehicle kits, (excluding the International rigs), then like all the rest of their vehicle kits, (again excluding the Internationals), I too will pass on spending my discretionary income on it. So far Moebius is zero for six in selling me one of their vehicle kits, & that's not including the Model King variants. I want to add that as far as subject matter on those six kits & variants goes, each one of them was a subject I had lusted after in scale for more years than I care to admit. The fact that they have yet to sell me a single one, due to major accuracy issues, speaks volumes.
Unlike many here that "can't wait" for this kit, (or any other kit from any other manufacturer), to be released, I'd personally rather that all the flaws & issues get corrected, all the kinks worked out & all the "I's" dotted & "T's" crossed instead of rushing to meet an announced release date. It's not like the release of any kit is vital to solving world hunger, bringing about world peace, or easing the heartbreak of psoriasis. Taking the time to make it as accurate as possible, (please note all, I'm not asking for it to be "perfect", I know that there's no such thing), to me is more important than rushing it to market. Please get this one accurate.
I'm thinking it could be fact that Moebius has a presence here, sharing test shots & the like & Revell doesn't. Because of that it likely makes people here feel privy to "insider information", (or so they think), so they look more kindly upon them than they do Revell, for that reason. Not me. I don't care who is here, if it's wrong, it's wrong. Bottom line.
Also note that this time Moebius got farther along in the process before exposing this kit, perhaps so they wouldn't have to go back & fix all the errors in this kit?
Nice to see you know exactly what I, (& others), are really doing. Wanting a kit to look more like the 1/1 vehicle it is supposed to represent is whining? It seems that some folks hobby is complaining about those that have a different, (& factually based at that), opinion from their perceptions. You can call it whining all that you like. Flawed is flawed & the test shots & other photos I've seen show a serious step down from the masters first created for the tooling design. Something was lost in translation between those & anyone who looks can clearly see the differences.