randyc Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 LOL. I was moving some display cases around last night and came across this one - you know the one made from the 340T/A Challenger kit. I have recently built the new Cuda and it is diplayed prominently in the living room, where I see it every day. So looking at the AAR, it is just plain evident how BAD that kit's proportions are. So if you are reading this and wondering if you should buy it and build it, the answer is NO. RUN AWAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Both Revell AAR Cudas had serious body issues...the original AAR kit (green car on box) had a roofline that looked chopped--the side windows were too short and oddly shaped...the retool (yellow car on box) had a differently weird roof--the C-pillar wasn't thick enough and the rear deck looked too long.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afx Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) They make good donor kits for an AAR conversion for the new tool Revell. Edited August 4, 2017 by afx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 They makes a good donor kits for an AAR conversion for the new tool Revell. I may do that eventually...I had started kit bashing an AAR with a Monogram '71 Cuda about 20 years ago, never finished it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stavanzer Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 How much work did you have to do to the green hood to get it to fit the new 'Cuda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 Uggggh! I don't care what anyone says--------that second attempt was WOEFULLY WRONG! As you mentioned Rob, the first attempt should have never made it out of committee it was sooooo bad! These are pics of Revell's second attempt I took at the NNL East from 2007. At least they did get the wheelwell trim shape correct..........that's about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodge Driver Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 I happened to find Harry P.'s comments on this subject. I think they're worth repeating... Harry P. MCM Ohana Members 29,071 posts Location:NW suburban Chicago Full Name:A mere layman... Posted 15 Oct 2007 · Report post And Revell could also have sold us a bar of soap in a box, called it a scale model AAR 'cuda, and printed a disclaimer on the box stating that for maximum realism, the builder may have to modify the bar of soap a bit!!! I don't mean to bash Revell, but in my opinion, if the product you're selling is supposed to be an accurate scale model of a full scale car, your scale model should be just that: an accurate depiction of the real thing. There's no excuse for marketing a kit that's this bad. I understand business and monetary decisions played a part in this, but as a potential end-user of this product, I expect better. The point isn't that I could fix it and make it right...the point is, it should have been right in the first place. That goes for any model, not just this one. I'm not a big fan of the "just be glad we have a model of (fill in the blank) at all" school of thought. Just my 2 cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stavanzer Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 Yeah, but if anybody has either the first or second versions they don't want, I'll take them. The shape issues don't bother me at all. I genuinely cannot see the problems that have everyone so worked up. The bodies look great to me. And I like the AAR's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 I may do that eventually...I had started kit bashing an AAR with a Monogram '71 Cuda about 20 years ago, never finished it...I started the same thing about 6 or 8 years ago. I'm putting the '70 front and rear ends on the '71 body. Gotta finish that sometime soon. Still haven't decided whether to go Hemi or AAR with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Suburban Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 I really like the AAR Cuda and built this one back in 1990. This was built with a trans kit from MPB Detail and used the 71 Hemi Cuda and 70 Challenger TA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 I really like the AAR Cuda and built this one back in 1990. This was built with a trans kit from MPB Detail and used the 71 Hemi Cuda and 70 Challenger TA. That looks 100 times better than either Revellogram '70 AAR kit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Suburban Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Thanks, It is funny now because I bought a few of the kits and also did a few 70 Hemi Cudas too. For what was available back then they were great. The new 70 Cuda is awesome but I have not built it yet. I also have the MPC version as well. I also have the 95 version AAR and that one didn't bother me and I built that one too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Suburban Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Here is a pic of the conversion kit. I still have this but lost the rear spoiler. Note the hood is two piece vacuum formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 I have one of these MPB kits and a couple of their 70 grills, no rear spoiler though, not bad for the times and have a half finished conversion that I will get around to finishing someday. The one I have has a full rear tail panel section instead of just the taillights. I think I know where it and will get it out and take a few pictures as well.Robyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerdog Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 The new release looks fine to me. Remember if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Can-Con Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, gerdog said: The new release looks fine to me. Remember if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The "new AAR Cuda" they're talking about in this thread is one that came out a few years ago, not the one that's just been released. Notice that the original post is from almost 2 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerdog Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Can -Con still same answer. I remember several years ago I read a story somewhere where a modeler severely modified a 1//25 or 1/24 '68 Roadrunner, because, to him it didn't look right dimensionally. Well after all his substantial cutting and glueing, it did not look - to me - any different than the original. The only people who may be able to tell might be the ones who actually owned a 1:1 car. I guess the car model community needs its own version of rivet counters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, gerdog said: I remember several years ago I read a story somewhere where a modeler severely modified a 1//25 or 1/24 '68 Roadrunner, because, to him it didn't look right dimensionally. Well after all his substantial cutting and glueing, it did not look - to me - any different than the original. I believe that was our own Mr. Obsessive with an AMT '68 Road Runner. His changes made a HUGE difference, and I could certainly see it. When he got finished, it looked a lot more like the JoHan '69 RR body, which is MUCH more correct. WAY better. I see the problems with the AMT RR body, but in that particular case they don't bother me enough to go to the lengths that Mr. O did. But I HAVE done similar work on other models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyc Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 So who will be first to post a review of the NEW one??? And will I need to build it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodent Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, randyc said: So who will be first to post a review of the NEW one??? And will I need to build it? After watching HPIGUY's video, I have decided that I don't need it. I didn't get the Hemi version either. I have a friend with a 1:1 '70 Barracuda Gran Coupe, and I cannot unsee the kit's fender lips. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Can-Con Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Rodent said: After watching HPIGUY's video, I have decided that I don't need it. I didn't get the Hemi version either. I have a friend with a 1:1 '70 Barracuda Gran Coupe, and I cannot unsee the kit's fender lips. YMMV. Super easy fix, just sand then down to the right width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Can-Con Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 20 hours ago, gerdog said: Can -Con still same answer. I remember several years ago I read a story somewhere where a modeler severely modified a 1//25 or 1/24 '68 Roadrunner, because, to him it didn't look right dimensionally. Well after all his substantial cutting and glueing, it did not look - to me - any different than the original. The only people who may be able to tell might be the ones who actually owned a 1:1 car. I guess the car model community needs its own version of rivet counters. The new one looks fine to me too , except for those easily sanded down wheel lips as Rodent says. I was just trying to make it clear that the car talked about was the older kit, not the one that's being issued now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Fwiw, the green '95 issue, with its drip moldings yanked up some: versus this unmodified body: Because they fixed that Helen Keller-obvious drip molding mistake, I was pleased enough with the '07 re-do at first that it took me a while for everything else wrong with the body to sink in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stavanzer Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Funny. All of the bodies look the same to me. The "Obvious" Shape Errors are invisible to my eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 All I can say to that is there must be a difference, or Revell wouldn't have spent the money and resources on three distinct attempts to get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.