Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

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


tim boyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/26/2021 at 8:59 PM, the other Mike S. said:

The side window aperture stills looks a little too narrow to me.  I wonder if reducing some of the lower window sill height/thickness would make it look better.  I know you can sand some of it off when building it, but can they still change this in the CAD stage before cutting the actual tooling?

I'm wondering if some of this is caused by the relative rarity of the '65 2DS body. Most of us I'd guess have seen many, MANY more of the '62-'64 2DS and '62-'65 HTs and that's what we're used to seeing. I know this roof didn't look "right" to me at first, until I started doing some research. I'll reserve my judgement until I actually have the kit in my hand.  And I'll still happily build it anyway. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 1:54 PM, Classicgas said:

I give up. One thing everyone I'm sure knows about me, I'm no rivet counter. Everyone ragged like crazy about a hard for me to see 1" problem with the revell jaguar roof. I didn't see it. Got labeled as accepting mediocrity. Now I see a legitimate questionable issue that clearly isn't right and I'm still wrong. Hopefully mobius gets the stock one done correctly. A friend of mine that knows the subject well thinks it's still off as well and he said as highly anticipating this kit. I'm damned if I do damned if I don't.

Welcome to the club Lee! You'll learn that you're not supposed to mention that the Kool Aid tastes funny. Least not until everyone has had a glass. Just drink it quietly. 

The roof on this kit looks like it has a three inch chop to me. Especially if you compare it to the roof height on the recently released '63 Nova wagon. I know that's apples to oranges (sort of). But, the roof heights should be the same. Maybe Tim could measure both and see what the results are.

The chopped top is not a big deal if you're building a gasser as it's intended. Lots of full scale gassers had chopped tops. But, if the stock version is like this, it's gonna be the Mustang LX all over again.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 3:10 PM, tim boyd said:

Please read my prior reply.  Right now you are comparing apples to oranges. 

Harry tried to make this same argument here years ago. You can compare an image of a real car and a model, and still see they are not the same.

The roof height was too short when the first test shot was publicly shown 18 months ago (or so), and it appears it's still the same now. Sorry, Lee and others are right now, and they were correct back then-- the greenhouse is too short. I think we all understand you probably can't give a brutally honest, no- holds barred critique, pointing out every flaw you see, and risk jeopardizing relationships, but others can, and honestly, they should. Honest critiques (should) lead to better, more accurate models, instead of "close enough". See Revell's 1/25 '70 'Cuda, '48 Ford Coupe, and the AMT '71 Plymouth Duster 340 for some modern era kits with "Oh, I see it." inaccuracies.

I doubt many people will care if the sedan's greenhouse is not right, and I doubt Moebius cares to get it right, since they had plenty of time to do just that and elected not to. 

Does anyone know if the sedan and hardtop windshields are the same size? I'm thinking along the lines of the Tri-Five Chevies which have two different windshield heights, one for hardtops and convertibles (and Nomads), the other for sedans, wagons, and sedan deliveries.

*edit*: info here which seems to state there is a difference between hardtop and sedan windshields for '62-'67 Chevy II/Novas: https://www.stevesnovasite.com/threads/coupe-vs-sedan-2dr-windshield.297489/#post-2788593

It will be interesting to see if both the Moebius '65 and '64 share the same clear parts, especially the windshield...

Edited by Casey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Casey said:

Harry tried to make this same argument here years ago. You can compare an image of a real car and a model, and still see they are not the same.

The roof height was too short when the first test shot was publicly shown 18 months ago (or so), and it appears it's still the same now. Sorry, Lee and others are right now, and they were correct back then-- the greenhouse is too short. I think we all understand you probably can't give a brutally honest, no- holds barred critique, pointing out every flaw you see, and risk jeopardizing relationships, but others can, and honestly, they should. Honest critiques (should) lead to better, more accurate models, instead of "close enough". See Revell's 1/25 '70 'Cuda, '48 Ford Coupe, and the AMT '71 Plymouth Duster 340 for some modern era kits with "Oh, I see it." inaccuracies.

I doubt many people will care if the sedan's greenhouse is not right, and I doubt Moebius cares to get it right, since they had plenty of time to do just that and elected not to. 

Does anyone know if the sedan and hardtop windshields are the same size? I'm thinking along the lines of the Tri-Five Chevies which have two different windshield heights, one for hardtops and convertibles (and Nomads), the other for sedans, wagons, and sedan deliveries.

*edit*: info here which seems to state there is a difference between hardtop and sedan windshields for '62-'67 Chevy II/Novas: https://www.stevesnovasite.com/threads/coupe-vs-sedan-2dr-windshield.297489/#post-2788593

It will be interesting to see if both the Moebius '65 and '64 share the same clear parts, especially the windshield...

Casey, I do respect your views and your long track record of contributions to this forum.  But I object to a suggestion that I cannot be brutally honest with my review.  You are dead wrong with that.  I have been doing model car journalism for four decades now, and I would never - never - choose to compromise my integrity with model car hobbyists by sugar-coating what I say in a review or preview.  

Having said that, I continue to stand by my view that the images shown here so far are apples to oranges, and that you cannot effectively value a model kit's accuracy and proportions until you build, paint, and trim it. (I have witnessed many instances in this hobby where people formed a point of view based on incomplete information that turned out to be inaccurate when the actual kits were made available.)   No one is going to change my mind on these points.  So I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on these points.   

When I'm done building the model, everyone can then make an informed decision by looking at the results - but it would be even better if they built the model themselves and then made the call.   Many here may very well conclude the green house dimensions are not completely accurate, but then they'll be making it with with all the facts.  Some of those who come to that conclusion may decide the kit is not worthy of their purchase, and if that is the case so be it.  Others who look at the overall content of the kit, no matter what they think of the body, may conclude that this is one of those "can't miss it" kits and drop everything for a "clear the desk" build.  Again, based on full knowledge.  Finally, for those who do conclude that the proportions are not quite right, I'll mention a couple of ideas I have for easy mods that would address their greenhouse appearance concerns.    

As I remarked earlier, Dave told me that they did change elements of the roof in this round of tooling refinement. He also sent me both the Sedan and Hardtop windshields and clear shots, and yes, they were different.  I wish I had taken a picture of them together, but regrettably, I didn't at the time.   

Guys, I'm not gonna waste any more discussing this.  You all can make the call when I'm done.  Which should only be a few days now.  

Best...TIM 

 

 

Edited by tim boyd
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Casey, I do respect your views and your long track record of contributions to this forum.  But I object to a suggestion that I cannot be brutally honest with my review.  You are dead wrong with that.  I have been doing model car journalism for four decades now, and I would never - never - choose to compromise my integrity with model car hobbyists by sugar-coating what I say in a review or preview.  

I'm not suggesting, at all, that you are compromising your integrity, just to be clear.

I guess it boils down to what I, you and everyone else sees on the model. If we chose to use images or the real car, or the real car itself if we have direct access to one, to compare to the model, I feel that's a fair tool to use for comparison. 1:1 vehicles may have some subtle differences between each other, even the same year, make and model, but to disregard them as a basis for comparison to a 1.25 scale version seems bizarre. The 1:1 version is exactly what the 1/25 version is based upon. I understand there is distortion in images, parallax, etc. involved when viewing things with our own eyes, so while I agree and admit there will be some variance between what different people see, I don't think Lee and others are wrong. YMMV, and that's fine.

 

25 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

When I'm done building the model, everyone can then make an informed decision by looking at the results

So, anyone who looks at the bare plastic body and makes a critique without seeing the finished, built model built by you is uninformed? Come on, Tim. That statement is just...no, I'm not going there. No need.

The raw, plastic body is there for people to see with their eyes, and you're right, we all have to decide for ourselves if we feel it's accurate or not. I don't think a finished model, built one particular way, by one person, is going to make people change their mind, but we can all agree to disagree.

Many of us have spent decades around 1:1 vehicles, and while very few are experts in one particular make and model, many of us have a very good "feel" for design subtleties, and we recognize when things are slightly off. To discount or dismiss that, IMHO, would be a mistake. 

Here's the earlier test shot posted by Dave Metzner, and a real '65. Look carefully at the top edge of the windshield on both:

m65nova.jpg.f55a4784178f66b0c49fe9b112d115e6.jpg

65-Sedan-1-1.jpg.b5edf8c4668a44911f9aa60d070b272e.jpg

 

I'd be happy if that were the cause of the "too low" looking roofline, as that could be rectified without major surgery, much like the new-tool AMT '67 Fairlane.

 

47 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Finally, for those who do conclude that the proportions are not quite right, I'll mention a couple of ideas I have for easy mods that would address their greenhouse appearance concerns.    

Why would this be necessary if the body is accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things never change. We go through this every release of a new kit. When we get to this stage what we see is what we get. No amount of hand wringing and nashing of teeth will change that. For the few that are unhappy with some aspect of a new kit no company is going to spend the money to improve a kit for the minority of those who aren't happy with it. They aren't going to get enough of an increase to justify the expense. 

Me I'm tickled pink to have two new 1965 Chevy Novas. One gasser and one stock.

Again thank you Tim for providing the insight into this great new kit.new kit.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program "High Anxiety over new models realeases".

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually just read the posts on here and really enjoy learning new techniques and seeing some beautiful builds I can’t sit by anymore listening to the complaints even before this kit is in our hands . Whenever a new model kit is introduced, it never fails ,someone instantly finds fault with it. I just don’t understand. I have built 100s of kits over the years and I’m always excited when a new one comes out, which is not very often these days. I definitely can’t speak for everyone but my models are built and looked at by my wife and maybe one of my kids then into the cabinet. My point is no one that looks at them really knows if anything is wrong with the dimensions. In my opinion Tim is probably one of the most knowledgeable guys around when it comes to kit accuracy, he’s been doing this a lot longer than any of us on here I’m sure. So I will have to agree with him on this matter. I’m not going to worry about the roof line at all. I’m going to buy the kit when it comes out and have a blast building it. Sometimes you guys are just too much. I already know what the responses will be to my comments, “if we’re paying good money for a kit we demand accuracy “. 
If you don’t like the kit don’t buy it. Quit building models if your not happy with the kits that are coming out today. 
I do not plan on getting into any arguments here , so I will not have anything more to say about this. 
I just couldn’t handle all the complaints anymore, as I’m following this post trying to learn ideas about the build through Tim’s review.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

I'm really stoked to get this kit, and I agree that the roof does indeed look chopped.

But I don't care.

Though I once did. A lot!

Years ago, after building a whole squadron of new and awesome 90s Lindberg kits:

- Firebird Firehawk

- Color Me Gone 64 Dodge

- 67 Olds 442

- 53 Ford Victoria

- 61 Impala

- I also enjoyed their Caravan, Crown Vic, Atlantic, Sebring convertible, and 1/20 Blazer

 

So then, imagine my glee and excitement to discover that Lindberg was coming out with a 1948 Lincoln!

I was so stoked, my skin was vibrating in anticipation.

Got my copy, and ripped into it.

What the?!?!?

I was so angry, furious, and bewildered, I threw a tantrum, smashed it against the wall, stepped all over it, and blasted it into oblivion. I wanted my money back. How DARE they.

That was an inflection point for me. Super embarrassing.

After that, I started to appreciate kits as they were, learned more about kit history, managed my expectations, and left the things I was OK with, and modified the things I wanted to change/improve.

Sometimes, I want a quick, simple 64 Galaxie to build, and sometimes, I want a fiddly Mack R685ST to build.

For me, it's now about a blend of quality AND quantity. Sometimes I cut corners to save time. Sometimes I get in deep and spend months paying a high price for a small reward.

There are dozens and dozens more kits I want to build before I'm dead, and I'm trying to let go of my perfectionism, and just have fun building.

This hobby needs all kinds of builders to make it work.

We need the super hardcore rivet counters, and we need the casual guys, too. And everyone inbetween.

I've built models I was super proud of, only to discover years later that I'd painted the bell housing the wrong colour. And I hated myself for not knowing that.

And I unironically built Revell's infamous 70 AAR Cuda back in 95 when it just came out, and I loved it. Until I realized just how off it was. Hated myself for not seeing that.

We should never feel ashamed for building something inaccurate, or feel compelled to change/improve/correct things. We can if we like, and that's cool. If not, that's cool, too.

It helps to try to not take things personally. I lurk here every day, and I love love love the stuff you guys are putting out. I seldom contribute cuz you guys know so much more than me, and are far quicker at responding than I am. Today, I felt it was appropriate to chime in.

And man oh man, I really want to get me another 48 Lincoln, and build the F out of it.

YMMV.

Godspeed, good sirs.

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with those that point out the roof issue on this kit. Reminds me of a resin caster that adds B pillar to a hardtop body and casts it as a sedan. That said I'm still thankful that this is finally coming to market and do look forward to building more than a few. Should the body issue still bother someone just look at the treasure trove of parts in this kit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tim boyd said:

For those that are still following my build project, I just posted another update in the "WIP" cars section of the forum....TIM 

Not for nothin' Tim - and this may explode a few skulls around here - but the model could be fifty ways from jacked and many of us would still be interested in following along.

Juuuuuuuuust sayin'...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I now recognise -- via the evidence presented , photographic as it is -- the potential  roof inaccuracy between the 1:1 and the kit  ( I see evidence of a windscreen "brow" trim not inline with the rain gutter trim ; and , a "rounded bump" on the C-pillar , which are absent on the former ) .

With that being said , I will withhold any further observations until I see the competed build . Other mitigating optics between the stock 1:1 sedan and the 1/25 scale Gasser ( Street Freak et al. ) such as a through-the-hood blower / hat vs. stock , flat bonnet ; raised nose vs. stock ride height ; and wheels & tyres can skew the overall image . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Daddyfink said:

When it comes to new kits, just be Aunt Edna..... 

Aunt Edna on Make a GIF

Why should we have to accept mediocrity, in this day and age, when they could get it totally accurate?

It’s obvious when I look at the pics of the built test shot that Tim showed, the top looks a little chopped.  What’s with these model car companies and their chop top rooflines?

Revell did the same thing when they released their ‘90’s Mustang LX notchback.  I was going to buy a case of them until I found out about the chopped roofline.  I didn’t buy a single one.  The recent Jaguar XKE is another.  There’s no excuse to be having these types of major fub ups with the technology that is available to them.

For some reason, this smells like a “translation problem” in mathematical measurements with the engineers in China.  Think about it for a moment.  What has been the common thing in all of these cases?  The country these kits are designed and manufactured in.

So, Mobieus wants us accept this major body flub up and just buy it anyway?

These kits cost a lot of money. They’re not free.  They’re approaching almost $40+, especially for a Mobieus kit, which are usually more expensive than a similar 1/25th scale kit from Round 2 or Revell.

They simply goofed up.  They didn’t realize that the Chevy II 100 sedan has a ever so slightly taller greenhouse than the hardtop.  However, the Chinese CAD programmer who transferred the data files into the 3D printing machine wouldn’t know that.  So, the printer just made what was programmed into it, one slightly chopped top ‘65 Chevy II 100 sedan.

As for who cares?  Well, I do.  You got people throwing fits on the modeling forums about having realistic looking header flanges when the body looks chopped.  Come on, lets get real!

I really don’t care how well detailed a kit may be if the body doesn’t look right.  It’s called scale model building for a reason.  I want to build and collect realistic looking model cars, not models that look like inaccurate toys.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by peteski
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, boy what an education this has been. 

All I can say at this point is:

1) the body is not 100% perfect, few model kits are perfect in every way.  When I show pix of the finished model, you can draw your own conclusions. 

2) for most you, please keep an open mind until you see the above. 

Among those who are negative about the kit, the pattern among some here seems to be a) speculate the body is wrong b) speculate where and by how much the body is incorrect c) speculate why the body was done this incorrectly d) therefore the kit is junk or worthless e) do all of the above before all the evidence is in front of us. 

In an odd way, this has actually been a positive development because it allows me to go back and investigate some of these theories and accusations.  Revealing the result of those investigations is gonna be fun....and we're going to see that several (not all, but several) of the definitive statements (err....speculation) above about what/why is wrong are....well... just wait and see.  

Again, the body is not 100% perfect.  Dave M. would probably tell you that himself.  But again, for most of you, my advice is to keep an open mind for just a few more days on just how short of perfect it really is, and whether that will, along with all the other elements of the kit, make it worthy of your purchase dollars and your build time.   

Finally, I have just verified my earlier thoughts about how to make the body better with a few quick swipes of the file, which I will present along with the above in a follow-up post (after I show the finished model tomorrow) that I will call "upon reflection".  

Now, as my UK colleagues from my career would say, let's all "Carry On"....

TIM

PS - Some of you on this board and others continue to speculate that for some reason I can't tell the whole truth, most theorizing that I am afraid that I will offend the manufacturer.   Simply stated, I tell it the way I see it.   Because at times I have been brought under the tent at the kitmakers during the kit selection and development process, I do understand more of what it takes to put together a kit than some, and that makes me have a more balanced, in my view, verdict on kits as a whole.  But I also recognize that everyone has their own view, and for some, a less than 100% perfect body is a definitive "no purchase" result, just as for me the lack of a complete, stand-alone powertrain/engine in an otherwise amazingly good kit from an Asian kitmaker is a "no purchase" condition for me.  Also, on this and other boards, I have tried to share what I have learned about kitmaking with you so that you too can better understand how and why kits end up the way they do.  You are free to learn from that, or reject it.  But please do not accuse me of being afraid to offend the kitmakers.  That is just wrong.  TB 

  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...