An in-depth look at all the parts of a test shot of the upcoming Moebius 1965 Chevy II Gasser....

[niteowl7710]

I've developed a working theory over the past few years that's made the hobby a great deal more enjoyable personally. It's come as I've delved more and more into the backside of the hobby as it were in terms of production and decision making. I don't say this as a be all end all, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Having said that, every project has a budget, and sure it would be great if gaffes weren't made no matter who's responsible for the mismeasurements. But eventually money and time runs out, and the project has to get out the door. 

My theory is something I call - The 99% Trifecta, and it goes as follows.

99% of the people buying the kit don't care about the problem. 

99% of the people who see the built kit won't know what the problem is (because there is a)

99% chance the built model and the 1:1 example will never exist in the same time at the same place.

That doesn't mean I want to accept some sort of sloppy mess of a kit, but there should be a series out called - Why the Business of the Hobby Should be Your Business.  Kits don't just magically fall out of the air or show up in The Blueprinter or the old SA(E) ads from Hobby Heaven anymore. Take a hot minute and invest some time into the how's and why's of kit manufacturing, you might not like/agree with all of the answers, but it makes a lot more sense if you grasp why things happen the way they do.

[Casey]

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

Again, the body is not 100% perfect.  Dave M. would probably tell you that himself.  

I think only an extreme few expect 100% accuracy-- perfection, essentially. Most people are realistic enough to realize perfection is a nearly unachievable goal.

Passing the eye test, with nothing which stands out as not quite right, is a good baseline for accuracy.

You mentioned in an image caption:

"Moebius made some changes to the tool from earlier test shot runs to address the view of some (including this writer) that the roof/greenhouse had a non-factory, slightly “chopped” appearance."

What exactly was changed? Is is accurate to say that you believed the earlier version, images of which Dave shared here on the forum, had an inaccurate greenhouse area?

Your statement doesn't specifically say exactly what was changed, and maybe you can't or are are unwilling to share what changes were made-- both fine-- but I think it would be good to know if the window trim was thinned, the cavity for the roof section in the mold deepened, etc. Again, not required, but providing that info would end some (though I doubt all) speculation regarding what changes were made.

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

When I show pix of the finished model, you can draw your own conclusions. 

*snip*

Finally, I have just verified my earlier thoughts about how to make the body better with a few quick swipes of the file

I remain doubtful any finished model is somehow going to sway what people see on the unfinished body. You mentioning that some areas (presumably thinning the window surround trim which is too thick, and admittedly, a likely concession to molding limitations, such as the vertical vent window trim) need to be thinned down makes me even more concerned the real issue was never truly addressed.

[tbusch]

2 hours ago, roadhawg said:

As a HUGE fan of The Southeast Gassers Association, I'll probably get a few of these just for parts. But that body will probably end up in the trash lol. Even Stevie Wonder can see the roof ain't right. 

The roof ain't right for what, a gasser?

Comparing the 2 photos above their are lots of thing wrong with the kit other than the roof line. The front end sits to high, the grill is wrong, wrong tires and wheels, some lumpy thing in the hood and their is something hanging out the back of the model that is not on the production car.

Oh yea, it is a gasser not a production car. When the OEM model comes out, have at it on the roofline and whatever, but this kit right here is a race car nothing else.

[the other Mike S.]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

I've developed a working theory over the past few years that's made the hobby a great deal more enjoyable personally. It's come as I've delved more and more into the backside of the hobby as it were in terms of production and decision making. I don't say this as a be all end all, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Having said that, every project has a budget, and sure it would be great if gaffes weren't made no matter who's responsible for the mismeasurements. But eventually money and time runs out, and the project has to get out the door. 

My theory is something I call - The 99% Trifecta, and it goes as follows.

99% of the people buying the kit don't care about the problem. 

99% of the people who see the built kit won't know what the problem is (because there is a)

99% chance the built model and the 1:1 example will never exist in the same time at the same place.

That doesn't mean I want to accept some sort of sloppy mess of a kit, but there should be a series out called - Why the Business of the Hobby Should be Your Business.  Kits don't just magically fall out of the air or show up in The Blueprinter or the old SA(E) ads from Hobby Heaven anymore. Take a hot minute and invest some time into the how's and why's of kit manufacturing, you might not like/agree with all of the answers, but it makes a lot more sense if you grasp why things happen the way they do.

It happens this way because people are willing to accept these major problems in body proportions because it has a few extra little detail parts, like header gaskets, or something.  Again, I will ask.  Why do we have to accept these rather noticeable flub ups when the technology exists that can give us almost 99.9% accuracy?

Think about it for a moment.  If people buy this kit anyway, even though there are major body proportion problems, why would they want to try to correct these problems on future kits?  They won’t because they know, we as consumers, will accept mediocrity and less than accurate model body shapes.

I think some are forgetting the forest for the trees here.  All the detail in the world is NOT going to eliminate a major body proportion problem like the chop top greenhouse.  That is, unless you are building a chop top custom in the first place.  Those who are willing to forgive that and build the kit anyway, good for them.  However, you will never be able to build a realistic model of this car if you don’t also correct the chop top roofline.

If they don’t correct the greenhouse, all I will see is a model that does NOT look like the real car, or a version of the real car, no matter how much detail or great your skill as a builder is.  I always thought this hobby was called “scale model car” building because we strive to make these miniature cars we build to look the closest to the real thing as we can?  If that is not the case, or has never been the case, then all we are doing is building toy model cars that do not look like the real thing.

Edited September 30, 2021 by the other Mike S.

[stavanzer]

James Duff.

You have stated my opinions better than I could have. I thank you for your clear writing.

The "99% Trifecta" is a good reminder that those of us who comment on these online forums constitute about .1% of the model buying public. We should be grateful that our comments are even given a fair hearing by the PTB at the Model Companies, given the vitriol that sometimes accompanies the accusations of laziness and incompetence that are thrown about willy-nilly.

 The last few years on the board have been eye-opening to me. Should I ever win the lotto, and start my own company to produce kits, I can guarantee that All Phases of a new kits life cycle will be public simultaneously. In other words, the First Look, Kit Sales and On Line Sneak Peak, Behind the Scenes tidbits, will all happen in one hour on the same day. And all public comments about the accuracy (or not) of a particular kit will be met with a firm "Thank You for your input" reply. And Nothing else!

I get the whole "With Modern Technology, Yada Yada Yada, vis-a-vis Accuracy" argument. But reading comments on this forum especially, makes me think that some folks will simply NEVER be satisfied with a given kits shapes, dimensions, or details. Since relative strangers to you are gambling with money you have not invested with them, in order to sell you a leisure product, a little  consideration of their efforts might be appreciated.

And, I'll happily include myself as a Hypocrite in this rant. I've taken Round2's so called "B Team:" to task on multiple occasions, for what I believe to be poorly executed or just plain lazy, re-issues of older kits. But, as James notes, Round2 is a business. Sometimes, "Get it out the door & on the shelf", is the only option for some kits. I moan about it, but at the end of the day, If I want to do better, I need to buy the company......

I really enjoy the expertise that is shared in these  Forums. But, sometimes, the Horse is just Dead. Give it a break guys. As others have noted, by the time you see photos of the test shot, only small details are going to be changed. There is NO BUDGET for anything major, by that point. So, if you don't like it then, you aren't gonna like it now. And absolutely nothing you say will change it......

 

 

 Alan

[roadhawg]

21 minutes ago, tbusch said:

The roof ain't right for what, a gasser?

Comparing the 2 photos above their are lots of thing wrong with the kit other than the roof line. The front end sits to high, the grill is wrong, wrong tires and wheels, some lumpy thing in the hood and their is something hanging out the back of the model that is not on the production car.

Oh yea, it is a gasser not a production car. When the OEM model comes out, have at it on the roofline and whatever, but this kit right here is a race car nothing else.

Yes sir, I totally get that. I've never been a fan of chopped post-war cars (except for Jimmy Vaughn's '61 Caddy....Oooooo!) but I do know a chopped top is plausible for a gasser. I think some people were planning on kitbashing this one with the stock kit, however, when it comes out, to build a stock sedan.....which would be impossible with the body shown. In the 70s, I had a '64 Nova sedan body on a dirt track car, so I was kinda hoping too. Oh well. I WILL wait and see the finished version.....but at this point I'm not overly optimistic. 

[Jack L]

did the real car its based on have a chopped top?

[Casey]

30 minutes ago, tbusch said:

Oh yea, it is a gasser not a production car. When the OEM model comes out, have at it on the roofline and whatever, but this kit right here is a race car nothing else.

I find it highly dubious the body for the Moebius '65 Sedan was based upon a modified 1:1, with the only major deviation from stock being a lower roofline. Now, if true, fine, I'll eat plenty of crow, especially after I see/read/hear someone from Moebius state they have, and never did have, any intention of releasing a correct factory stock version in the future. Given the flexible nature of the parts design and layout already seen, I will double down on my belief the body was designed to be factory stock, and a future factory stock version was planned from the get-go.

The body will be what we see in the test shots. Revell didn't correct the '90 Mustang LX's roof height, and this one won't be corrected either. Disappointing? Yes. Surprising? No. We all have to set our own standards and decide what we find acceptable. This kit will be no different.

[Snake45]

12 minutes ago, roadhawg said:

In the 70s, I had a '64 Nova sedan body on a dirt track car, so I was kinda hoping too. 

Then your '64 roof was different from the roof on this '65. 

MCW makes a 2DS body for the Trumpeter '63. I have one and it's pretty nice, and was reasonably priced. That might work better for your purposes. 

[Snake45]

2 minutes ago, Casey said:

We all have to set our own standards and decide what we find acceptable. This kit will be no different.

True dat. As with every other kit with flaws ever made (which is most of them), you have three choices: 

1. Build it and live with it. 

2. Fix it yourself (or buy a "corrected" aftermarket part). 

3. Throw it back in the box (or just leave it on the store shelf) and go build something else. 

And I've done all three. 

[Justin Porter]

Given how folks have been buzzing my phone asking about when I'll have the Revell Henry J on the shelf, I tend to think that the folks who want a Gasser Chevy II are going to give the roof height a bit more of a pass than others. I definitely UNDERSTAND the concerns and disappointments here, but I'm also looking at the box contents going "This is going to be a very popular kit" based on things like how well thought out the actual build is and how nice the parts appear. I'm willing to go as far as to say I'm expecting that for the metalflake paint and cottonball burnout smoke crowd this kit will probably be even more popular than either Revell's '57 Ford Station Wagon Gasser OR their '62 Corvette Gasser. 

[bobthehobbyguy]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

I've developed a working theory over the past few years that's made the hobby a great deal more enjoyable personally. It's come as I've delved more and more into the backside of the hobby as it were in terms of production and decision making. I don't say this as a be all end all, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Having said that, every project has a budget, and sure it would be great if gaffes weren't made no matter who's responsible for the mismeasurements. But eventually money and time runs out, and the project has to get out the door. 

My theory is something I call - The 99% Trifecta, and it goes as follows.

99% of the people buying the kit don't care about the problem. 

99% of the people who see the built kit won't know what the problem is (because there is a)

99% chance the built model and the 1:1 example will never exist in the same time at the same place.

That doesn't mean I want to accept some sort of sloppy mess of a kit, but there should be a series out called - Why the Business of the Hobby Should be Your Business.  Kits don't just magically fall out of the air or show up in The Blueprinter or the old SA(E) ads from Hobby Heaven anymore. Take a hot minute and invest some time into the how's and why's of kit manufacturing, you might not like/agree with all of the answers, but it makes a lot more sense if you grasp why things happen the way they do.

Right on the money.

 

33 minutes ago, alexis said:

James Duff.

You have stated my opinions better than I could have. I thank you for your clear writing.

The "99% Trifecta" is a good reminder that those of us who comment on these online forums constitute about .1% of the model buying public. We should be grateful that our comments are even given a fair hearing by the PTB at the Model Companies, given the vitriol that sometimes accompanies the accusations of laziness and incompetence that are thrown about willy-nilly.

 The last few years on the board have been eye-opening to me. Should I ever win the lotto, and start my own company to produce kits, I can guarantee that All Phases of a new kits life cycle will be public simultaneously. In other words, the First Look, Kit Sales and On Line Sneak Peak, Behind the Scenes tidbits, will all happen in one hour on the same day. And all public comments about the accuracy (or not) of a particular kit will be met with a firm "Thank You for your input" reply. And Nothing else!

I get the whole "With Modern Technology, Yada Yada Yada, vis-a-vis Accuracy" argument. But reading comments on this forum especially, makes me think that some folks will simply NEVER be satisfied with a given kits shapes, dimensions, or details. Since relative strangers to you are gambling with money you have not invested with them, in order to sell you a leisure product, a little  consideration of their efforts might be appreciated.

And, I'll happily include myself as a Hypocrite in this rant. I've taken Round2's so called "B Team:" to task on multiple occasions, for what I believe to be poorly executed or just plain lazy, re-issues of older kits. But, as James notes, Round2 is a business. Sometimes, "Get it out the door & on the shelf", is the only option for some kits. I moan about it, but at the end of the day, If I want to do better, I need to buy the company......

I really enjoy the expertise that is shared in these  Forums. But, sometimes, the Horse is just Dead. Give it a break guys. As others have noted, by the time you see photos of the test shot, only small details are going to be changed. There is NO BUDGET for anything major, by that point. So, if you don't like it then, you aren't gonna like it now. And absolutely nothing you say will change it......

 

 

 Alan

Exactly.

 

10 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

True dat. As with every other kit with flaws ever made (which is most of them), you have three choices: 

1. Build it and live with it. 

2. Fix it yourself (or buy a "corrected" aftermarket part). 

3. Throw it back in the box (or just leave it on the store shelf) and go build something else. 

And I've done all three. 

Yup so true. And with 3 you can view whats in the box before you buy. If its not acceptale to you then vote with your wallet.

[stavanzer]

After looking at Part 3 of Tim's build, I'll call out one part that Moebius Goofed Badly, and one that is Awesome.

The Blower Scoop is just Lousy. Fit is awful, at the front, (notice the gaps) and the bland ridges are just tired looking. (same for the Valve Covers) Un-inspired and boring, these are real let downs, IMHO.

The Headers on the other hand! Wow! I wish Moebius had put all 6 parts on one tree. Then they could sell just the Headers in 12 packs to Gasser Builders who wanted them.

P.S., The wheels look good, the tires, less so.

[the other Mike S.]

1 hour ago, Jack L said:

did the real car its based on have a chopped top?

Jack, No.  It did not.  

As for the people who are saying that this chop top is “acceptable” for a gasser.  Can you show me one pic of a real ‘65 Chevy II 100 2dr sedan “gasser” (of this particular car) that has a chopped roofline?  I did a search on Google and couldn’t find any.    

As for the comment made by Dave M. of Moebius stating that they knew the body was not 100% accurate anyway.  Well, that sounds like significant back-pedaling to me.  They SCREWED UP and are now trying to PASS IT OFF like it was their intention from the start.  Jeez, give me a break!

The critical design and development probably took place in another country (hint: China) and that’s probably what contributed to the goofed up roofline.  Even Round 2 had a problem over there with one of their recently modified tooling reissues, (full bumper ‘70 Camaro) I believe.  So, you really don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why it happened.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by the other Mike S.

[Mr. Metallic]

57 minutes ago, the other Mike S. said:

As for the comment made by Dave M. of Moebius stating that they knew the body was not 100% accurate anyway.  Well, that sounds like significant back-pedaling to me.  They SCREWED UP and are now trying to PASS IT OFF like it was their intention from the start.  Jeez, give me a break!

4 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Again, the body is not 100% perfect.  Dave M. would probably tell you that himself. 

You may want to re-read Tim's actual comment. It doesn't say Mr Metzner actually said that

Take a step back and maybe actually wait until the finished build is presented here as Tim has repeatedly requested. As a major contributor to this hobby for decades I think he at least deserves that much respect

Edited September 30, 2021 by Mr. Metallic

[tim boyd]

Casey, I did the research and photography last night to address as much of your questions above and from your post a couple of days ago, as I am able to knowledgeably do.  Same with several other of you who have posted questions over the last couple of days on this subject.  I'll post the results and my takeaways in the "upon reflection" follow-up after I show the finished model tomorrow. 

Someone (sorry, don't recall exactly which of you) noted that the blower scoop was substandard, and at least on that point, that was also my reaction. It does not live up to the detail standard of the rest of the kit, in my view.  Simple parts box swap.  (See above....no kit is 100% perfect...) 

As far as speculation on what is wrong with the body and why it is wrong, be careful, some of you are digging yourselves a very big hole.  Just sayin'...  Can't you wait another day or two and see the result, then fire away if justified in your mind?  I doubt that all of us will come to any kind of final consensus or agreement on the subject, but at least the conversation will be based on looking at a finished model of the very latest test shot status...

TIM  

[the other Mike S.]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Metallic said:

You may want to re-read Tim's actual comment. It doesn't say Mr Metzner actually said that

Take a step back and maybe actually wait until the finished build is presented here as Tim has repeatedly requested. As a major contributor to this hobby for decades I think he at least deserves that much respect

I agree. Tim Boyd is a very talented experienced builder so I’m sure he can work his magic on what they gave him.

[Classicgas]

All the paint,  careful building and talent in the world can't change a flawed from the get go item.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Classicgas

[stavanzer]

I love that after reading James Duff's "Trifecta" Comments and Snake's "Three ways to handle the problem" Comments, people just keep circling back to the same tired whine about Top Chops and Accuracy.

Let's put this a baldly as possible. The Kit is now, the way it will be forever. As Snake said you have Three and only Three options.

Posted 9 hours ago

  9 hours ago, Casey said:

We all have to set our own standards and decide what we find acceptable. This kit will be no different.

True dat. As with every other kit with flaws ever made (which is most of them), you have three choices: 

1. Build it and live with it. 

2. Fix it yourself (or buy a "corrected" aftermarket part). 

3. Throw it back in the box (or just leave it on the store shelf) and go build something else. 

Further Commentary on these Forums will not change any of the facts about this tooling.

I find it fascinating how many folks will continue to want their grievance rather than just accepting the situation.  Guys, Nothing you post now, or tomorrow, or next week, or next year will change this kit, or the perceived issue. I'll yell for a bit now.

NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE! It is Done. It is Over!

Build it! Don't Build it!

Very, Very politely agitate for a better result on the next kit.  But, as the say on "Forged in Fire", "Put your tools Down. This Round is over"

Look. I Get it. I really Do. We as a collective are very passionate about this hobby, and many of you guys are Master Craftsman who are almost physically hurt by shape and proportion errors.  But, this is at it's heart a Time & Money Business. And as a Business, at a certain point, you have to sell finished product to earn revenue.  No Revenue, No Business. WE can all carp about the quality of the finished product.  But the only (ONLY) input we have is our wallets. Buy It, and support the business.  Don't Buy It. Punish the Business for not giving you what you want. Esoteric discussions about what "Should Be Possible" are non-productive for the future, and ultimately probably do not help the collective Cause of "More Accurate Body Shapes & Dimensions".

Alan

[Snake45]

52 minutes ago, alexis said:

But, as the say on "Forged in Fire", "Put your tools Down. This Round is over"

BOO-YA! "It will keeeeel!" 

[bobthehobbyguy]

2 hours ago, alexis said:

I love that after reading James Duff's "Trifecta" Comments and Snake's "Three ways to handle the problem" Comments, people just keep circling back to the same tired whine about Top Chops and Accuracy.

Let's put this a baldly as possible. The Kit is now, the way it will be forever. As Snake said you have Three and only Three options.

 

Posted 9 hours ago

  9 hours ago, Casey said:

We all have to set our own standards and decide what we find acceptable. This kit will be no different.

True dat. As with every other kit with flaws ever made (which is most of them), you have three choices: 

1. Build it and live with it. 

2. Fix it yourself (or buy a "corrected" aftermarket part). 

3. Throw it back in the box (or just leave it on the store shelf) and go build something else. 

Further Commentary on these Forums will not change any of the facts about this tooling.

I find it fascinating how many folks will continue to want their grievance rather than just accepting the situation.  Guys, Nothing you post now, or tomorrow, or next week, or next year will change this kit, or the perceived issue. I'll yell for a bit now.

NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE! It is Done. It is Over!

Build it! Don't Build it!

Very, Very politely agitate for a better result on the next kit.  But, as the say on "Forged in Fire", "Put your tools Down. This Round is over"

Look. I Get it. I really Do. We as a collective are very passionate about this hobby, and many of you guys are Master Craftsman who are almost physically hurt by shape and proportion errors.  But, this is at it's heart a Time & Money Business. And as a Business, at a certain point, you have to sell finished product to earn revenue.  No Revenue, No Business. WE can all carp about the quality of the finished product.  But the only (ONLY) input we have is our wallets. Buy It, and support the business.  Don't Buy It. Punish the Business for not giving you what you want. Esoteric discussions about what "Should Be Possible" are non-productive for the future, and ultimately probably do not help the collective Cause of "More Accurate Body Shapes & Dimensions".

Alan

Well said. Right on the point. 

[the other Mike S.]

13 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

I've developed a working theory over the past few years that's made the hobby a great deal more enjoyable personally. It's come as I've delved more and more into the backside of the hobby as it were in terms of production and decision making. I don't say this as a be all end all, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Having said that, every project has a budget, and sure it would be great if gaffes weren't made no matter who's responsible for the mismeasurements. But eventually money and time runs out, and the project has to get out the door. 

My theory is something I call - The 99% Trifecta, and it goes as follows.

99% of the people buying the kit don't care about the problem. 

99% of the people who see the built kit won't know what the problem is (because there is a)

99% chance the built model and the 1:1 example will never exist in the same time at the same place.

That doesn't mean I want to accept some sort of sloppy mess of a kit, but there should be a series out called - Why the Business of the Hobby Should be Your Business.  Kits don't just magically fall out of the air or show up in The Blueprinter or the old SA(E) ads from Hobby Heaven anymore. Take a hot minute and invest some time into the how's and why's of kit manufacturing, you might not like/agree with all of the answers, but it makes a lot more sense if you grasp why things happen the way they do.

No offense, but this is a far cry from the sentiments you espoused during the Revell “chop top” Mustang LX days.  

Have they finally beaten you down?  Or, do you have a vested interest in seeing the ‘65 Chevy II gasser do well in the marketplace?

As a modeler and hobby consumer, I know why these things happen.  It is primarily due to the location of production and the relationships between the home office and the designers/tooling engineers that work in these foreign countries.  You don’t have to be genius to figure that one out.

I do know that having factory support is highly advantages for a new kit release.  If you don’t have that, you will be in a constant uphill battle to get the details right.  So, developing and maintaining good relationships with the auto manufacturers is probably the best thing you can do as a model company to ensure accurate looking models.

 

 

 

[Plowboy]

54 minutes ago, the other Mike S. said:

As a modeler and hobby consumer, I know why these things happen.  It is primarily due to the location of production and the relationships between the home office and the designers/tooling engineers that work in these foreign countries.  You don’t have to be genius to figure that one out.

 

Not entirely true. Look how the Revell Foose FD-100 and Cadillac kits turned out. Proof positive of the advantages of 3D scanning. Both models were as true to the full scale versions as it gets. Pretty sure the tooling for those were cut and manufactured in the same country.

In all likelihood, the Nova gasser is what it is. All that's left to do when it hits the market is vote with our wallets. I've seen enough to make my decision. 

[slusher]

54 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

Not entirely true. Look how the Revell Foose FD-100 and Cadillac kits turned out. Proof positive of the advantages of 3D scanning. Both models were as true to the full scale versions as it gets. Pretty sure the tooling for those were cut and manufactured in the same country.

In all likelihood, the Nova gasser is what it is. All that's left to do when it hits the market is vote with our wallets. I've seen enough to make my decision. 

I agree..

 

 

[peteski]

Mr. Boyd,

You are very skillfully pussyfooting around the subject of the inaccuracies.  Yes, you admit there are some inaccuracies.  Just like a hard-core politician, you go into all sorts of explanations and reasons for this, but you don't provide any substance. Let me post a copy of what I posted earlier.  If you would only do that, then we would all clearly know just how much off, and in which areas, the model body is compared to the 1:1 car.

I would think there is a very easy way to resolve this "chopped top" discussion once and for all. 

You could take some measurements of the model you have in hand, and compare them to the 1:1 car's dimensions.  Even if you don't have the 1:1 measurements, I suspect that there are members on this forum that have access to the 1:1 car.  No photos,  no lens differences, no different photo angles. Just pure measurements.

Of course you might not want to do that for obvious reasons.  Of course, when the kit is out, someone will eventually do this, and the truth will be told (one way or another).

It can't be any clearer or simpler than that.