Revell 2019

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

I think the Dana vs. 8 3/4 axle is a relatively minor issue.  Besides, now we have a source for Dana axles to swap into the Revell Monogram 1967 Charger/Coronet R-T/GTX kits that had the incorrect 8 3/4 rears, and use those kit axles as a swap back into the AAR kits.   What are we talking....maybe ten minutes with a razor saw and some glue to effect the swap?  

I'm more interested to know if there are any tweaks to the body casting to improve some of the issues cited when the Hemi 'cuda version debuted in late 2013?  Last I had heard (pre Hobbico BK) they had determined that the potential fixes were not containable....

TIM 

Great post, Tim. 

[MrObsessive]

9 hours ago, Force said:

Well I woun't loose any sleep over it, I'm just glad we get a decent AAR 'Cuda with more correct proportions than the last two tries Revell did. 

 

2 hours ago, tim boyd said:

I think the Dana vs. 8 3/4 axle is a relatively minor issue.  Besides, now we have a source for Dana axles to swap into the Revell Monogram 1967 Charger/Coronet R-T/GTX kits that had the incorrect 8 3/4 rears, and use those kit axles as a swap back into the AAR kits.   What are we talking....maybe ten minutes with a razor saw and some glue to effect the swap?  

I'm more interested to know if there are any tweaks to the body casting to improve some of the issues cited when the Hemi 'cuda version debuted in late 2013?  Last I had heard (pre Hobbico BK) they had determined that the potential fixes were not containable....

TIM 

Yes, I agree! This time around to my eyes it's absolutely 100% better than the last monstrosities Revell foisted on us!

While I would have liked to have seen Revell fix those wheel wells (and those quarter windows), this is not a deal breaker in the least. Now maybe we can get a '70 Hemi 'Cuda convertible----with an up top...........................please?

[Muncie]

Looks like I'm in for a couple of the AAR's - the 1970 'Cuda is one of my favorite cars due to a family preference for Plymouth station wagons when I was growing up.

I can't build stock out of the box.  It looks like everything that I need to kit bash this one except wheels and tires is already in the box.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Muncie

[CapSat 6]

I can kind of live with the Dana, for a few reasons:

1) I have realized recently that I don't flip my models over all too much.

2) other sources for the 8-3/4 would be: the Revell '68-'69 Dodge Dart, AMT '71 Duster or '71 Charger, Revell 1/25 '70 Challenger R/T-T/A.

3) if I really had to scrounge for an 8-3/4, I would not be averse to using one from the Monogram 1/24 Challenger T/A.

4) it could be worse, the Revell 1/25 Challenger "T/A" used a 440 Six Pack! At least it looks like we're getting a nice 340 6-BBL with this kit. I'm really hoping they throw in an optional 4-BBL (bringing them closer to a "Trans-Am" equipped car, Minilites would be nice, too), can anybody confirm whether they do or not??? 

Somebody should cast up 8-3/4 rears for these AAR's, and also for the AMT '70 Challenger R/T kit. Several casters do nice 727 Torqueflites (probably based on the ones from the Revell '68 Dart or AMT '71 Charger), which are always useful to me, as I don't like to build everything with a 4 speed. 

 

[Snake45]

47 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:

1) I have realized recently that I don't flip my models over all too much.

Preach It, Brother CapSat! Can I get a AY-men from the choir? 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Sure, there are metric tons of 1/25 8-3/4s  out there. Me, I'm glad enough to have an unused set of Rallye wheels in the Sox & Martin 'Cuda to swap right over for the wheels the '70 Charger Hemi really needs.

And no, I don't care what metric anybody uses, 30 bucks won't get you a decent dinner for two these days. 

BUT.  Should you have to go looking for the right rear end, and are the modelers who don't appreciate that wrong for pointing it out?

Well, least it ain't no 7-point distributor.  Right, boys?

[Force]

17 hours ago, tim boyd said:

I think the Dana vs. 8 3/4 axle is a relatively minor issue.  Besides, now we have a source for Dana axles to swap into the Revell Monogram 1967 Charger/Coronet R-T/GTX kits that had the incorrect 8 3/4 rears, and use those kit axles as a swap back into the AAR kits.   What are we talking....maybe ten minutes with a razor saw and some glue to effect the swap?  

I'm more interested to know if there are any tweaks to the body casting to improve some of the issues cited when the Hemi 'cuda version debuted in late 2013?  Last I had heard (pre Hobbico BK) they had determined that the potential fixes were not containable....

TIM 

My point exactly and it was what I meant with "look no further than the Revell '67 Plymouth GTX", swap the 9-3/4 for the Dana 60 and build both cars.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Force

[1972coronet]

Don't get me wrong , my fellow plastic fanatics --- I LOVE this new version of the '70 'Cuda ! Its strong points vastly outweigh any of its oversights ; that 340+6 looks simply gorgeous ! I suppose that my ire with the wrong differential is based upon my arthritis : I simply cannot modify smaller parts without my fingers either giving-up ( losing my grip ) or my wrists and hands cramping like I just wrestled a 440 into a '65 Dart ! 

If the springs / axle assembly from the 1968-1969 Dart , 1967 GTX , etc. , etc. , fit with little-to-no massaging , then I'm good .

Additionally , I apologise if I implied any ad hom. attacks .

[gtx6970]

16 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

Don't get me wrong , my fellow plastic fanatics --- I LOVE this new version of the '70 'Cuda ! Its strong points vastly outweigh any of its oversights ; that 340+6 looks simply gorgeous ! I suppose that my ire with the wrong differential is based upon my arthritis : I simply cannot modify smaller parts without my fingers either giving-up ( losing my grip ) or my wrists and hands cramping like I just wrestled a 440 into a '65 Dart ! 

If the springs / axle assembly from the 1968-1969 Dart , 1967 GTX , etc. , etc. , fit with little-to-no massaging , then I'm good .

Additionally , I apologise if I implied any ad hom. attacks .

its all good in my eyes.

Doubtful I'll build more than 1 ,, If I build a 2nd one it will go to a friend of mine who owns a 1/1 That actually  HAS a Dana in it. Plus a 484 CU IN Hemi as well , but thats another story .

 

I guess its more wishful thinking on my part. They go thru the trouble to tool up the AAR specific parts yet leave the Dana just boggles my mind

[Jhedir6]

All this yapping about the new AAR Cuda and I can't believe no one has posted that they scored one already or started a wip? I can't be the only one that has bought one? I'm hoping mine gets here by the end of the week. It left JFK on the weekend and is currently stuck in the abyss that is the Canadian Postal System. 

As for the  rear end, would it be nice if it was correct? Sure, but lets face it, how many kits get released, even now a days, as new tools that are 100% perfect. The new Revell Ford GTLM, started life as the IMSA car with the camera pod on the roof and then was taken over by German, but no one thought to remove it before production, but update the decals to do the Le Mans car? And why do the 2017 car that finished 2nd, when they could have easily done the 2016 car which WON??????

Even Tamiya's Ford GT isn't perfect, they put those stupid vent decals over clear plastic instead of doing a small PE set, not a huge deal but, without the full engine it would have been nice. Even the new NSX which is a very detailed kit with the full engine in the back has those stupid vent decals instead of PE. 

I'm pretty happy with the looks of the Cuda, tho I'm more into modern race cars so I tend to be more critical of those than older cars. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Jhedir6

[Tom Geiger]

I seriously wonder how many modelers will actually even notice the rear end?  I know I'm as anal as most of the guys on this board, and I cannot tell rear ends apart.  Once it gets down to the general public, the consumers of 99% of kits, it's immaterial. 

[Casey]

9 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

I seriously wonder how many modelers will actually even notice the rear end?  I know I'm as anal as most of the guys on this board, and I cannot tell rear ends apart.  Once it gets down to the general public, the consumers of 99% of kits, it's immaterial. 

If you know the differences, they are easily discerned from one another, but 99.9946% of consumers will neither notice nor care.

I'm guessing when this kit was first designed, with all future variants in mind, the rearend was a known inaccuracy, but one the Revell team was willing to live with. If they chose the 8.75" rear over the 9.75" (Dana 60) people would've complained when the first two kits (2'n1 Hemi Cuda and S&M Cuda) were released, and I doubt including both from the start was in the cards. While watching Chris' video, however, it seems the rearend piece is in a very odd location:

Edited June 25, 2019 by Casey

[Chuck Kourouklis]

The rear end is frankly obvious enough to those who notice it that there's no point trying to impugn anybody's credibility for lack of a progress thread, a diversion entirely immaterial to the main discussion. 

Notice, on the other hand, how nobody's trying to dictate how you should feel or what you should discuss if it doesn't bother you.  Buy and build away!  Maybe somebody swapped axles in anticipation of beefing the motor?  Stranger things 'n all.

One thing that's gotta be pointed out in fairness, and it might explain the location on the tree: thanks to Revell's latest axle pin m o, that one-piece axle is accomplished with a sliding mold arrangement that's probably costlier to modify as a result.

[tim boyd]

The decision to add an AAR variant was taken after the original kit tool was engineered.   TIM

Edited June 25, 2019 by tim boyd

[stavanzer]

That explains the carry-over on the Axle, then. Simple economics, nothing more.

No great plot twist, no evil machinations.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

For the record, the sharpest language I've seen used so far for this is "a shame", or "tough to swallow", to quote directly - and that last, followed up with a pretty comprehensive qualifying remark by the same author.

Several steps shy of any "evil machination" remarks, or am I mistaken?

 

[CapSat 6]

On 6/24/2019 at 11:42 AM, Snake45 said:

Preach It, Brother CapSat! Can I get a AY-men from the choir? 

Thank you for that- that made me laugh, which I have really kind of needed the last few days!

[CapSat 6]

21 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

I seriously wonder how many modelers will actually even notice the rear end?  I know I'm as anal as most of the guys on this board, and I cannot tell rear ends apart.  Once it gets down to the general public, the consumers of 99% of kits, it's immaterial. 

I’m like that with Brand F and G rearends, but since I know what a Dana looks like- I can’t unsee it.

[highway]

I can't help but laugh at 2 full pages of complaining about a rear end in a kit that most of the time it will never be seen when the model is sitting on the shelf!  I would also guess most everyone complaining about the Cuda having a Dana rear end would also be the same ones that would misidentify the rear end in the Monogram/Revell Ford F250 and F350 kits as a Dana rear end when it is not! 

[mikemodeler]

52 minutes ago, highway said:

I can't help but laugh at 2 full pages of complaining about a rear end in a kit that most of the time it will never be seen when the model is sitting on the shelf!  I would also guess most everyone complaining about the Cuda having a Dana rear end would also be the same ones that would misidentify the rear end in the Monogram/Revell Ford F250 and F350 kits as a Dana rear end when it is not! 

My thoughts exactly! Unless the car is on a mirrored base or displayed upside down, will it matter?

 

I can see complaining about kit inaccuracies that are visible when displayed, but it was explained earlier by Tim Boyd why this kit has the wrong rear end in it.

[Daddyfink]

[Chuck Kourouklis]

The rear-facing cover is where the differentials differ most from one another. Catch it from a low enough angle without even picking up the model, and those who care about it will see it.

So once again, rinse, wash, repeat. Certain modelers are annoyed by something they see that is objectively inaccurate, and because they DARE to point it out in a forum where that kind of thing is topical, they get ridiculed.

I think I first sought a rational explanation of this kind of behavior more than a decade ago.

Still waiting.

[Vince Nemanic]

Chuck, I don't think that there is a rational explanation for either viewpoint, since it is a matter of personal preference. Mark Gustafson and Hank Borger went round and round on this in Scale Auto Enthusiast about 40 years ago.

The builder that does a nice paint job on the body and paints the rest black will have one opinion, while the person concerned with the firing order on the distributor will have another. If they are both enjoying their own builds, then they shouldn't have to agree.

[stavanzer]

Amen, Vince.

[Classicgas]

If it bugs you it bugs you. If it doesn't it doesn't. Neither are wrong and neither side should bash the other. I have learned that the hard way. If rivet counters want to count rivets, let them, pm your friends who agree and have a laugh,.  If some don't want to count rivets, rivet counters don't bash non rivet counters. Pm your buddies that think like you and have a laugh.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Classicgas