16 for your same brass-gear Bugatti, Harry, a few years back. 'round 12 for complete DeAgostini subscriptions. Warped ABS in the McLaren MP4-23, was gonna stop at the much-cleaner Countach... but then they had to offer the '67 GT500. 7 for the Pocher Aventador, with a reservation on a Huracan and whatever comes of the 300SL. 'round 5-6 on MFH 1/12 Ferraris and their Cobra.
Too true. Our '67 289 2-bbl still managed a brash little junior rumble. My ol' '93 5.0 sang like Pavarotti, obviously a reference for my Coyote, which sings like Bocelli. Never got used to the gargle or bus-like mid-range drone of my LS-1 - but its off-line snap and willingness to rev for a cam-in-block was a nice compensation. Even those lousy 4.6 mills made good pipe music...
Very nice, Bill, and yes, your assessment of the '68 is plenty apt, perhaps for these reasons: There's this weird subtle "hump" in the transition from the fastback pillars to the roof in Revell's profile; AMT's is smoother as is the 1:1 there. Revell has lower wheel arches on the front fenders and higher ones on the rears, as if they were reversed front-to-back. The plastic conversion has some subtle improvements in the front end around the headlight nacelles, but putting aside headlight size, AMT'S is just scads better there. And finally, AMT's suffers from none of the rocker panel angle compromise that Revell's diecast-derived kit does. Revell's own '67 GT500 diecast is considerably better than the '68, even with the same rocker panel effect.
I'll play. Right on your primary focus area, AMT's '67 Mustang is pretty decent, 90's-typical full detail with platform interior and some intricacy in engine and undercarriage. Basic trim level, front suspension could use a bit of trimming at the spindle/brake interface to help tuck front wheels under fenders, building otherwise pretty straightforward. Headlights a bit small. Revell's '68 diecast-converted plastic kit, Bullitt or GT, is a box of interesting parts to mix with an AMT '67 - certainly better headlights and more suitable tires - and otherwise not much on its own. It's even money you'll get the '67 GT500 interior instead of the '68 pieces; the body's kinda garbage in accuracy, and not just in the typical diecast-accommodated rocker panel stuff. Wish I could at least say it's easier to build for its simpler, promo-style metal axles and reduced parts count - but if you have the wrong interior, it jams up the hood hinges something fierce. Roger the above on the '69. There's a resin conversion to de-monstrositize Revell's front end a bit, and the 428 CJ engine is sharp, but again, otherwise not great on its own.
As the consensus has ultimately directed, Fujimi. Fujimi, Fujimi, FUJIMI. I do like the Gunze kit, and it wasn't strictly a curbside - there are versions with pot metal engines out there:
The Fujimi kit has come in for some criticism because the front end looks a little too "snouty" and sharp - but the comparison pictures show that Gunze's rear fender arches deviate far further off the norm than Fujimi's front end. The Avon tires aren't period correct but they're sized right. And if you have to go the one-piece wheel route, Fujimi's really are some of the best Borranis ever executed under that limitation. You want the straightest route to the best-looking GTO out of a box, it's Fujimi, and by a margin.
Yup - reason I pointed out MPC put an optional V6 in the kit before the actual Chevy V6 hit the market is 'cause I wondered if MPC anticipated the 2.8, conjectured the Buick, or just did up some generic V6. Actually picked an original '84-issue kit up not long ago, should pull it down and have a look-see. Considered the S10 and the Syclone as well - maybe the S10 induction could pass. Only kit I can imagine with the 3.8 in 1/25 is the AMT Anniversary Turbo Firebird, if they actually did up the engine. Used to know one way or the other, 'round a quarter-century ago...
Hmm. Good question. Optional V6 in the MPC Fiero (tooled before the actual Chevy V6 Fiero hit the market)? Don't know if the 6 in the recently reissued Opel GT is in that family, or if it's commensurate in detail. If the AMT 20th Anniversary Firebird Turbo has the engine it's supposed to, that minus all the induction is the closest I can conjure.
EXCEPT that as Steve pointed out very correctly above, the AMT '68 Camaro recently reissued and generally available now was a new tool for around 1983. Not so sharp as Revell's '69 but considerably advanced over standard '60s-early '70s promo chassis plate/metal axle practice. Haven't been thru an AMT '68 but would not be at all surprised if it were easier to get together. Loved my Revell Yenko '69, but getting it down on all fours was a pain and a half.
Yup. Been around the virtual block a few times, ain't found no 1:1 '65 matches the Moebius firewall so far. Did find one kit part that looks a li'l more like the 1:1 piece, though (and oh, y'all 're gonna LOVE this)-
Yes, Virginia, there's actually a use for your Trumpeter Falcon kit. Welded braces, too!
Point taken, Tim, but the non-factual "facts" tend to work themselves out pretty neatly, don't they? And I gotta say, the notion of a 7-point distributor for the '30A prob'ly wouldn'ta gained much traction if another 7-point distributor hadn't actually made it to production beforehand. Meantime, the Kit That Must Not Be Named didn't get any less hacked-up from photo preview to HS shelf, now, did it? I'll stop bringing that one up when others stop pretending history isn't littered with examples like these to justify the controversy. So here we come right back to regurgitating arguments I've had pretty comprehensively flattened at the link below. For over three years now. We talk of people "getting hurt" by these discussions as if that's a granted fact, when really, the only ones who seem to be "getting hurt" are those who take it upon themselves to get all uptight about these discussions in the first place! I'm sure manufacturers previewing their wares find it a little frustrating, particularly when they've noted the problems themselves and had to let them pass because development cycles and budgets have gotten out of hand - but the new product KEEPS COMING, doesn't it? So WHO EXACTLY is "getting hurt" again? In the end, it all comes right back to one car modeler trying to dictate insanely arbitrary standards to the other about what is and is not appropriate to discuss among observations that are ultimately topical - whether he likes it or not.
Scott. The question cuts straight back to you: Is it talking about this problem that big a deal? Come on, man. Discussing a kit's deviations from the subject is a major part of what these forums are all about. It's legitimate to discuss. That's a hard fact, and it's not going away no matter who rails against it. Seems to be a small problem, I've duly noted it, and I appreciate it being mentioned. Will probably do my own follow-up research. Won't stop me from snatching up a few of these, either.