Most accurate kit(s) ever (1/24-25)?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Some more that spring to my mind as capturing the initial look and proportions of the 1:1 versions quite well are AMT's '49, '56 and '57 Fords...and Johan's '61 Dodge Phoenix is pretty good, though the front end on the Dodge seems a little 'heavy' visually.

I've never actually measured any of these though. 

Revell's new-tool '29 ford got the curve of the rear deck behind the cockpit much more "right" than the old-standard AMT '29 did too.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Mark]

Not an area of interest for me, but I bought a couple of them for parts and was impressed: the mid-Eighties Monogram sprint car kits.  I think the main chassis is molded with D-shaped (cross-section) "tubing" instead of being round as it should be (to ease molding).  But the rest of the kit is great...no tires or other parts adapted from anything else, the whole thing was done from scratch.  Like any race car kits issued in series, the earliest one(s) will be the most correct, as later versions usually get a few new external pieces added in an attempt to keep the kit looking up-to-date.  The updates under the skin are usually ignored.  The early Monogram Pro Stock kits (two Camaros, two Thunderbirds) are nearly as accurate, but lose a few points for lacking inner door panels.

The Revell Tommy Ivo Showboat is a bear to build (years ago, I won a bet with my older brother by getting one assembled) but it too looks like the 1:1 to my eyes.  

The bodies in the early Jo-Han kits are great, but more so in areas most people don't realize unless they cut a couple of them apart.  The Mopar bodies are accurate enough that you can swap windshields, fenders, and clips between them without much messing around.  I'm pretty certain their AMC stuff has similar commonality.  I've got a started '62 Dodge Custom 880 (1:1 was a rush job; '62 Chrysler body with '61 Phoenix front clip).  I cut the front clip off of a busted '61 Dodge kit body that I found at NNL East, and it fit the '62 Chrysler body like it was made for it.  Which it was.  In 1:1, the '62 Chrysler was actually a '61 Dodge with the '61 Chrysler front clip and roof, and new quarter panels (to get rid of the fins).  I should get going on that one again.   

Those types of swaps don't always work out in scale.  The AMT '65 Bonneville and Grand Prix bodies differ just a bit in width, for example...just enough to be maddening.  I want to swap an early Sixties Comet front clip onto a Ranchero; again the widths are a bit different so some additional cutting and fitting will be needed to make everything match up.  Ford did the same swap in 1:1 (Comet wagons were basically Falcon wagons with Comet front sheet metal; wheelbase on the wagon was the same as a Falcon, shorter than the Comet passenger cars).  Ford Australia did the same swap on their Falcons in the mid-Sixties, because they didn't want the North American '64 restyle.   

[sjordan2]

I remember seeing the Batmobile on display at a car showback when the TV series first started. And remember that I was a bit surprised that it was not shiny but more like a satin black 

 

edit: just read were they were "Bat-Flocked" at one time. (there were also 3 replicates made by Barris)

Back in the 70s I saw the bat-flocked version in the Barris showroom -- very coarse to the touch; I was told it had been painted with some sort of electroplating process causing tiny metal particles to adhere to the surface. I always assumed that flatter finishes were used to prevent gloss black from reflecting lights, camera and crew.

On the subject of this thread, I agree with the Johan Gold Cup series, especially the Mercedes 500K roadster limousine. Not surprising, since Johan instructions said they had access to the actual car for measurements. The reissued kit, not identified as Gold Cup, suffered from excessive flash and poor chrome coverage. 

Edited September 19, 2015 by sjordan2

[Mark]

The fiberglass Batmobiles probably got the flat paint or flocking to cover less-than-perfect bodywork. 

[Matt Bacon]

Pretty much any of the more recent Tamiya kits: LFA, GT86, DBS, LaFerrari. In fact pretty much any Tamiya kit (the XJ220, NSX, and Alpine A110 are also ace, even though they are a couple of decades old.).

The Fujimi EM Dino is pretty good, as far as I can see looking in the box...

...and I was just marvelling at the body shell of the Ebbro DS19 that's recently landed on my desk. 

The early 80s Heller kits, like the Delahaye I just finished and the Bugatti T50 and 11CV TA that are in the stash look bang on the money as well.

bestest,

M.

[Pete J.]

Hands down, the Tamiya Enzo.  Chassis  is spot on.  All the body panels measure out correctly.  I have never heard a single bad word about this kit. A real tour de force for Tamiya.

[Art Anderson]

I've found it's easy to judge a kit of any exotic car, which I will never see in person, by photographs and agree to its accuracy based on careful photograph study.  However, about 40 years ago, I took an MPC 1914 Stutz Bearcat to a small museum about 20 miles from me, and compared it to the real, restored 1:1 '14 Stutz Bearcat--it was spot-on in every way.

 

Art

[Art Anderson]

The fiberglass Batmobiles probably got the flat paint or flocking to cover less-than-perfect bodywork. 

Racop, of Logansport IN, is the officially licensed (by DC Comics) to build exact running replica's of the 1966 TV Series Batmobile.  I'd met the guy back about 1990, when he came into my then-hobby shop looking for some AMT Avanti kits (at the time, he was buying up used Chevy Monte Carlos, stripping their bodywork, sending the  engines to Avanti Corporation, which by then had long since run out of their huge stock of leftover Studebaker Lark convertible chassis and had resorted (by about 1978 or so) to fabricating their own duplicates of the Stude chassis from rectangular section steel tubing.  Chances are that the Racop Batmobile (and those are as exacting a replica of the actual TV car as can be) is what Round2 used as a reference, along with, quite possibly, the massive amount of photographs and measurements Racop did of the real car. Racop lists the flocked version of the Batmobile on their website, BTW, and their fiberglass work is beyond reproach, from what I have seen.

 

The actual steel Batmobile was, of course, "customized" at Barris (Collectible Automobile had an inset story of the car, which was designed by Dean Jeffries BTW in their article on the Lincoln Futura).  In the course of working up the TV Batmobile, Barris Customs replaced the original chassis, which was a prototype of the forthcoming 1956 Lincoln "Fishbelly" frame, with a modified GM midsized corporate chassis, as used for the Olds Cutlass/Buick Skylark/Chevrolet Monte Carlo for a couple of decades) along with a GM V8.  

Art

 

Edited September 19, 2015 by Art Anderson

[Mark]

According to the 1966batmobile.com website, the original car (the one converted from the Lincoln Futura concept) still has the original chassis, but the engine and transmission were replaced with a mid-Sixties Ford 390/C-6 automatic.  The fiberglass copies constructed at the Barris shop were built on '65-'66 Ford Galaxie (not GM) chassis, lengthened several inches in the middle.  All three of those used the FE-series V8/C-6 automatic powertrain also.  The website includes a number of period pictures of two of the copies under construction, clearly showing fullsize Ford chassis being used.  

[iangilly]

Johan bodies have always been spot on, and their hemis are pretty nice especially for the time they were made in.

[jbwelda]

What do you have to say to that, Art? Could it be that you are incorrect? (Naw, couldn't be)

Anyway I would have to be willing to wager that as far as accuracy goes, never mind level of detail, that even the most mundane Tamiya mom bomb model kit is MILES above anything JoHan ever dreamed of producing (with possible exception of the Chrysler Turbine car...and even then). I would be willing to bet that every body line and nuance is right there dead on in any Tamiya kit of the past 20 years, the only possible problem might be ride height but I would bet the Tamiya offerings build to exactly the ride height given by the manufacturer. I know every one I have measured vs the mfg specification (as indicated on the Tamiya instruction sheet) was dead on.

JoHan had its day way back in the sixties, but half height interiors, or no interior at all, combined with closed hood and elementary chassis detail put it way back there in my book.

jb

 

[Art Anderson]

What do you have to say to that, Art? Could it be that you are incorrect? (Naw, couldn't be)

Anyway I would have to be willing to wager that as far as accuracy goes, never mind level of detail, that even the most mundane Tamiya mom bomb model kit is MILES above anything JoHan ever dreamed of producing (with possible exception of the Chrysler Turbine car...and even then). I would be willing to bet that every body line and nuance is right there dead on in any Tamiya kit of the past 20 years, the only possible problem might be ride height but I would bet the Tamiya offerings build to exactly the ride height given by the manufacturer. I know every one I have measured vs the mfg specification (as indicated on the Tamiya instruction sheet) was dead on.

JoHan had its day way back in the sixties, but half height interiors, or no interior at all, combined with closed hood and elementary chassis detail put it way back there in my book.

jb

 

Bill, even Tamiya themselves, in a video tape offered to hobby shops way back in 1984, freely admitted to "fudging" contours of model car kit body shells (even to the point of showing a designer and one of their then wood-carving pattern-makers discussing this very thing!), with the narration that "...it is possible to make a model kit pattern numerically exact, but it may not look right." !  The video tape was titled "Design and Development Of A Plastic Model Kit".

Art

[Matt Bacon]

Tamiya themselves, in a video tape offered to hobby shops way back in 1984, freely admitted to "fudging" contours of model car kit body shells (even to the point of showing a designer and one of their then wood-carving pattern-makers discussing this very thing!), with the narration that "...it is possible to make a model kit pattern numerically exact, but it may not look right." !  

I'm not sure I'd call it "fudging". After all, we all want a replica on our shelves that looks like the real thing, right? Case in point... I measured up the Revell SLS kit every which way, and it is a _perfect_ 1/24 scale reproduction of the real dimensions. Yet, in the cabinet, it looks nothing like wide and flat enough compared to what I see when I see one in real life... which does happen from time to time. Unlike, say, the Tamiya DBS, which looks just as good on the shelf as the real thing does in my driveway. I say full marks to Tamiya for trying to create model kits that when built look and photograph like the real thing, rather than simply reducing all the dimensions by 24...

bestest,

M.

 

[jbwelda]

what Tamiya may or may not have done 30 years ago doesn't really relate to the discussion. even IF they "fudged" proportions to "look right" in those days, what they were selling were essentially motorized toys. things have changed drastically since then and I would bet my bottom dollar their kit mirrors real life 99% of the time in the past two decades. I know when I have questioned wheelbase etc on their models and then measured and compared, they were dead on the money to the factory specs.

and as Art has pointed out many times, the mold makers "art" always comes into play up until at least the widespread computer imaging that we all know today, so JoHan probably did at least the same if not worse back in their day. I don't think there is any comparison between those dinosaurs which might miraculously "look right" and the modern high quality kits available from japan and elsewhere (even the USA on odd occasion) today.

but what do I know...not being an "insider" but merely a kit assembler

jb

 

[Pete J.]

what Tamiya may or may not have done 30 years ago doesn't really relate to the discussion. even IF they "fudged" proportions to "look right" in those days, what they were selling were essentially motorized toys. things have changed drastically since then and I would bet my bottom dollar their kit mirrors real life 99% of the time in the past two decades. I know when I have questioned wheelbase etc on their models and then measured and compared, they were dead on the money to the factory specs.

and as Art has pointed out many times, the mold makers "art" always comes into play up until at least the widespread computer imaging that we all know today, so JoHan probably did at least the same if not worse back in their day. I don't think there is any comparison between those dinosaurs which might miraculously "look right" and the modern high quality kits available from japan and elsewhere (even the USA on odd occasion) today.

but what do I know...not being an "insider" but merely a kit assembler

jb

 

You are spot on with this.  Models from as late as the late 70's and early 80's were pretty much the result of the tool and die makers art.  Good as even the Tamiya mold makers were they were not perfect by a long shot.  I first discovered this when I decided to cut a front windscreen for a 1:12 935.  I made a card outline of the frame and cut it out and then folded it to make sure the sides were symmetric and they really weren't.  Front, back and sides were all off.  Not a lot but it was noticeable.  These guys did a great job and the fine work was phenomenal considering how they were working  but then they went to computer controlled electrostatic discharge milling, the accuracy shot through the roof.  That is why I said the Enzo.  It was the first of it's kind by Tamiya to combine CAD and CAM and slide mold technology to create a complete model.  I will never forget the first time I opened the box and saw the body panels as separate parts and though, S**T a step backwards from a one piece body.  Then I saw the frame and how they mounted and with such precision and when WOW, this is beyond cool.  I think the Enzo instantly set the bar for the rest of the world. 

[martinfan5]

 I think the Tamiya instantly set the bar for the rest of the world. 

There, fix it for ya

[unclescott58]

I've noticed nobody has mentioned the good old Palmer kits. I wonder why?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Models viewed from the scale equivalent of a 20-story window MAY not look like the cars you're used to seeing on the street simply because of the angle and scale distance you're viewing from.

I've found over the years that an accurate model, viewed from a scale-equivalent height and angle (as you'd see the real thing on the ground) DO indeed look just like real objects, and photograph like them as well if the correct focal-length lens, aperture and camera placement is used. To see a model as it really looks compared to a real car, it's also sometimes helpful to only view it with one eye, eliminating the stereo-vision effect you get otherwise. 

I'd personally prefer to have have my models be SCALE reductions of 1:1 reality, rather than subjective "interpretations" made by someone whose vision and brain-processing software isn't identical to my own.

All the talk about having to fudge dimensions is illogical from this standpoint: why is it that little photographs of real cars STILL look exactly like the real cars? Assuming a distortion-free lens with no fisheye or foreshortening effect, the argument that "scaling-down won't look correct unless it's interpreted" is repeated and repeated gibberish. If you blew the photo up to full-size, it would STILL look the same.

Just because industry "insiders" and industry "experts" claim the same old same old countless times doesn't make it so.

What was "known fact" about many many things at one time has been proven false by people with open minds who refused to accept the prevailing "wisdom" handed down by "experts in the field".

Kinda why we now know the Earth isn't flat, and isn't the center of the universe either.

Note: (The TRUE center of the universe is my last-ex. Just ask her. She knows.)

Edited September 20, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Careful there, Bill... you don't want to fall off your high horse.

(nudge, nudge... wink, wink)... 

[jaymcminn]

Hands down, the Tamiya Enzo.  Chassis  is spot on.  All the body panels measure out correctly.  I have never heard a single bad word about this kit. A real tour de force for Tamiya.

 Came here to post this. Body shape, details, stance...it's all pretty much perfect.

[Craig Irwin]

What do you have to say to that, Art? Could it be that you are incorrect? (Naw, couldn't be)

I have been under the number one Barris Batmobile, in 2010, and I can verify the original chassis is still under it, and because the Ghia built body is welded to it, I doubt it could be changed. Engine was a 390.

This is me in the Barris fiberglass Batmobile number 4 (the 3'rd fiberglass Bat), at Fiberglass Freaks in Logansport, and I can also verify a Ford Chassis and a 427 dual 4 bbl side oiler.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Craig Irwin

[Harry P.]

Has anyone ever noticed that there is no way to close the Batmobile's canopies?

I guess Batman and Robin only fought crime on sunny days. If it was raining, the Pengiun, the Joker, the Riddler and Catwoman had free reign to terrorize Gotham...

[Craig Irwin]

Has anyone ever noticed that there is no way to close the Batmobile's canopies?

I guess Batman and Robin only fought crime on sunny days. If it was raining, the Pengiun, the Joker, the Riddler and Catwoman had free reign to terrorize Gotham...

It never rains in Gotham! 

 

[Jon Haigwood]

"Holy HiJack Batman" 

[Richard Bartrop]

The Gold Cup kits are certainly right up there, but some of those aren't 100% accurate either.  The Cadillacs actually have the wrong taillights for the V-16 models, and in the case of the Town Brougham, the car they based it on was a recreation of an actual Town Brougham.  It turns out the guy who built it applied all the canework at a 45 degree angle to how the factory applied it, which was faithfully duplicated on the Jo-Han model.  So sometimes you have the problem where the kitmakers create an accurate replica of an inaccurate prototype.