Revell 2022

[niteowl7710]

9 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

That's a big statement.  I didn't realize you worked for Revell and inventoried their tooling.

You know I stopped posting here for months and I swore I was done coming here. But I heard through the grapevine that people were referencing me so I figured I'd check in and provide clarity if I could.

Huge mistake on my part clearly because now in addition to being a "so called insider" apparently I'm and out and out liar who didn't speak to Ed Sexton FACE TO FACE about the origins of the 71 body.

This place was a relatively decent forum - drama aside - when I joined 15 years ago, but it's taken a turn over the past year where there's a decided glee in going after the people here who actually know stuff and talk to the people who are doing the stuff to know about. I regret logging back in today, and won't make that mistake a second time.

You sir can directly take your smarmy attitude and shove it sideways somewhere painful.

[Rob Hall]

8 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

 

Huge mistake on my part clearly because now in addition to being a "so called insider" apparently I'm and out and out liar who didn't speak to Ed Sexton FACE TO FACE about the origins of the 71 body.

 

Heh, heh isn't that special. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Rob Hall

[Oldcarfan27]

Whatever semantics there are with the Holiday Coupe body, I am happy they are bringing out a new variation of this Oldsmobile. 

Variety is a good thing and we should be glad for a hardtop body and a 71 at that. At least they didn't do it as "another" 69.

With this, can a 70 be far behind? Maybe a 68 Hurst? A 71 Cutlass SX?

I'm glad they are trying new ideas, now the 71 442 will be off of our "grail" lists!

BTW, aren't the 350, 403, and 445 Olds engines based on the same block? Just like the Pontiac 350, 400, 428, and 455 visually look identical outside. The only way anyone can tell what the internals are in 1/25 scale, would be if you told them or you put a decal on it.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Oldcarfan27

[Casey]

12 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

Heh, heh isn't that special. 

He's not wrong. Having talked to Ed in person myself, I learned a few things which I could never have found out otherwise. I'm always inclined to give those who do the actual legwork (James in Vegas in this case) the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've proven themselves to provide accurate information on more than one occasion.

Not sure why folks are getting worked up here, but could be the temps outside making everyone stir crazy inside. Whatever the reason, I'm sure we'll al l have plenty of time to critique and comment on the '71 Olds 442 once it arrives, then again when future variants appear, whatever those may be.

For those wanting a formal roof, that particular body was available from the aftermarket years ago when the convertible was released, and at least one member here has/had a WIP showing how he did the roof addition, so get after it if you truly want one.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Casey

[Rob Hall]

4 minutes ago, Casey said:

He's not wrong. Having talked to Ed in person myself, I learned a few things which I could never have found out otherwise. I'm always inclined to give those who do the actual legwork (James in Vegas in this case) the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've proven themselves to provide accurate information on more than one occasion.

 

It just seems odd that Ed would give out internal corporate info to an outsider...

[mikemodeler]

2 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

It just seems odd that Ed would give out internal corporate info to an outsider...

Oh why not? What harm can come from that?

 

There's a reason why second hand information isn't considered in most court cases and for good reason.

And just because you talked to someone who works for a company and they relay information you take to be "insider knowledge" doesn't mean they are accurate or speaking from a position of actual knowledge.

[Casey]

3 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

It just seems odd that Ed would give out internal corporate info to an outsider...

FWIW, what Ed told me regarding the 1/8 scale Monogram Chevy V8 engine parts was later confirmed by Atlantis. I think if he was worried someone else was going to swoop in and undercut Revell by tooling up an all new 1/8 scale Big Drag, he would've kept quiet.

I can understand James' frustration. He did travel to Las Vegas, then provided plenty of info and images directly from the event. I doubt he's looking for any credit or adoration, as his love of the hobby seems clear to me, and he owes nothing to any manufacturer, has no ties to publishers (that I'm aware of), etc., so he seems free and clear to deliver what he wants without restrictions...which is exactly what I feel he did, and very well.

Maybe it's just cabin fever getting to the Northern hemisphere folks, too.

At any rate, Revell seems to be rounding the corner a bit, and some good things are on the 2022 release schedule so far, IMHO.

[Can-Con]

16 minutes ago, Casey said:

FWIW, what Ed told me regarding the 1/8 scale Monogram Chevy V8 engine parts was later confirmed by Atlantis. I think if he was worried someone else was going to swoop in and undercut Revell by tooling up an all new 1/8 scale Big Drag, he would've kept quiet.

I can understand James' frustration. He did travel to Las Vegas, then provided plenty of info and images directly from the event. I doubt he's looking for any credit or adoration, as his love of the hobby seems clear to me, and he owes nothing to any manufacturer, has no ties to publishers (that I'm aware of), etc., so he seems free and clear to deliver what he wants without restrictions...which is exactly what I feel he did, and very well.

Maybe it's just cabin fever getting to the Northern hemisphere folks, too.

At any rate, Revell seems to be rounding the corner a bit, and some good things are on the 2022 release schedule so far, IMHO.

Sorry Casey but it seems to me he's just getting the same treatment he [and one of the moderators] gave to me a few years ago which resulted in my quitting this forum for a year to cool off. 

I feel no compassion for Mr. Duff.

[Bills72sj]

5 hours ago, Casey said:

He's not wrong. Having talked to Ed in person myself, I learned a few things which I could never have found out otherwise. I'm always inclined to give those who do the actual legwork (James in Vegas in this case) the benefit of the doubt, especially when they've proven themselves to provide accurate information on more than one occasion.

Not sure why folks are getting worked up here, but could be the temps outside making everyone stir crazy inside. Whatever the reason, I'm sure we'll al l have plenty of time to critique and comment on the '71 Olds 442 once it arrives, then again when future variants appear, whatever those may be.

For those wanting a formal roof, that particular body was available from the aftermarket years ago when the convertible was released, and at least one member here has/had a WIP showing how he did the roof addition, so get after it if you truly want one.

For those seeking to add a formal roof to the 72 Convertible. Options are 70 Monte Carlo or any 69-72 Pontiac Grand Prix (If you want to cut one of those rarities up)

[Fat Brian]

28 minutes ago, Bills72sj said:

For those seeking to add a formal roof to the 72 Convertible. Options are 70 Monte Carlo or any 69-72 Pontiac Grand Prix (If you want to cut one of those rarities up)

Yeah, I've got an AMT Monte Carlo body I'm going to borrow the top from. I'm just trying to decide if I want to use the convertible A pillars or try to harvest the entire greenhouse from the Monte.

[Bills72sj]

16 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

Yeah, I've got an AMT Monte Carlo body I'm going to borrow the top from. I'm just trying to decide if I want to use the convertible A pillars or try to harvest the entire greenhouse from the Monte.

I would go with the entire greenhouse. A dab of glue at the cowl is a lot easier to hide than at the top of the windshield. That is how I did the SE roof on my 70 Challenger R/T SE.

[Fat Brian]

3 minutes ago, Bills72sj said:

I would go with the entire greenhouse. A dab of glue at the cowl is a lot easier to hide than at the top of the windshield. That is how I did the SE roof on my 70 Challenger R/T SE.

Yeah, mating the convertible windshield frame to the hardtop probably won't give it the right look. There also used to be a resin body someone was making that might be worth tracking down. This project hasn't come high enough on the list to really start serious planning yet.

[Robberbaron]

11 hours ago, Motor City said:

...The '71 and '72 442 would look identical in model car form except for the segmented taillights on the '72.  The '71 has chromed headlight bezels, while the '72 has black painted bezels.  Otherwise, the cars are the same...

Only other difference is the grille color.  '71 442 grille is black, '72 is argent (silver).  Same pattern, though.  So as you point out, in model car form the only parts difference between a '71 and '72 is the taillights.  All other differences can be accomplished with paint.

[Robberbaron]

8 hours ago, Motor City said:

A '70 442 Pace Car off of the '72 H/O would require a different interior, plus different grille, hood and rear bumper.  That would be quite feasible, as would a '72 442 convertible.  It would be relatively easy to do a '70 or '72 442 off of the hardtop tooling.  If these variations did well, there would be a business case to do '68-'69 442 and H/O.  However, the complete chassis and glass would be about all that wouldn't have to be created from scratch. 

The last version of the '72 convertible included a correct 442 bumper/grille assembly.

There's no business case for a Revell '69 442 and H/O, since we have the excellent MPC/AMT kit, which has few if any shortcomings.  '68 is a different story, and I fully agree we need one of those, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

Fully agree that a '70 442 variation is doable/probable, though I'd prefer it as a hardtop.  Once we would get the '70 parts, we could mix match parts to create convertible/hardtop versions of '70/'71/'72.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Robberbaron

[Robberbaron]

9 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

...aren't the 350, 403, and 445 Olds engines based on the same block? Just like the Pontiac 350, 400, 428, and 455 visually look identical outside. The only way anyone can tell what the internals are in 1/25 scale, would be if you told them or you put a decal on it.

As explained by Casey:

On 1/5/2022 at 9:20 AM, Casey said:

...like Pontiac, Olds didn't have big and small block V8s, only a difference in deck height, giving us tall-and short-deck Olds V8s. Is the 1" difference in deck heights between the two accounted for in the Revell (and earlier MPC '69 442) kits' engine blocks? The '84 Olds Cutlass? Not sure if anyone has measured any of them, but the '71/2 Revell Cutlass Supreme kit's engine is excellent IMHO, so it should be used as a starting point if you want a grocery getter type engine look.

https://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/1964-1990_Oldsmobile_V8_engine_information

I believe the tall deck versions were the 400, 425, and 455.  All other versions were the "standard" deck, including the smogger 403.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Robberbaron

[Oldcarfan27]

3 hours ago, Robberbaron said:

There's no business case for a Revell '69 442 and H/O, since we have the excellent MPC/AMT kit, which has few if any shortcomings.  '68 is a different story, and I fully agree we need one of those, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

Don't discount Round 2 from doing one though. If they can do a 64 Cutlass convertible and 442 hardtop from an old tool, then the 68 Hurst is a "piece o' cake"!

3 hours ago, Robberbaron said:

As explained by Casey:

I believe the tall deck versions were the 400, 425, and 455.  All other versions were the "standard" deck, including the smogger 403.

Unless you were to build a complete crankcase assembly, I don't think you'd be able to see a 1" deck height difference in 1/25, but I guess you could shim it up if you really needed to. (tell them it's extra gaskets) 😎

I think you just reiterated what I said - visually, they'd look the part. Valve Covers are the same. Heads are the same. Blocks are the same EXCEPT for the deck height difference.

They might dock you for points at an NNL meet, but the rest of us would be none the wiser.

[niteowl7710]

14 hours ago, Can-Con said:

I feel no compassion for Mr. Duff.

I don't recall asking anyone for any, if I need a dose, I'll be sure to ask someone else.

 

15 hours ago, mikemodeler said:

Oh why not? What harm can come from that?

 

There's a reason why second hand information isn't considered in most court cases and for good reason.

And just because you talked to someone who works for a company and they relay information you take to be "insider knowledge" doesn't mean they are accurate or speaking from a position of actual knowledge.

So, when a reporter interviews someone and then writes an article/produces a video, that is secondhand information?  Cop interviews a witness - COMPLETELY UNTRUSTWORTHY in MikeModelerland.  You know what you're right, clearly the guy in charge of U.S. Product Development is a know-nothing dullard who passes on fake news.  If nothing else, I guess I do admire your relentless stubborn instance to be wrong nearly every time you post here.  Because saying Ed Sexton isn't in a position of knowledge might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen said here - and that's saying something.

 

17 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

It just seems odd that Ed would give out internal corporate info to an outsider...

If you ever get to a show he's at (I think NNL East will be the next time on this side of the world if it doesn't get canceled again), ask him stuff.  If he can talk about it, he will, if he can't, he won't.  It's not rocket surgery, and I have spoken to him multiple time over the past half decade, so it's not like it was the first time we ever met.  With that being said I've seen people nearly yell in his face when they get an answer that doesn't comport with their fantasy idea of what Revell is or isn't which is pretty embarrassing for everyone nearby.  Think about Moebius, what's the most effective free advertising they can get? Sending Tim stuff in advance.  I'd argue more people see his posts here and spread his Fotki links around social media than any singular post Moebius could hope to make, or advertisement they'd try to place - and it doesn't cost them anything more than an advanced review copy of the kit. Also, same principle with Chris on YouTube, Round2 & Model Roundup both use his videos in their own social media posts.  Free advertising for the "price" of a review kit.  Same principle with Ed telling people stuff about "advanced" kit announcements.  I mean for cripes sakes there was a body on the table with a handwritten note next to it so clearly, he can/will discuss it at a show with thousands of people in attendance over the week.  Frankly having a car guy around to keep him occupied from all the IPMS hussies who were up his backside for not having test shots of the RazorCrest and SR-71 was probably a relief.  Plus, in posting what I did here the first day I was able to take back the feedback from the following day to Ed which gave him a rare real-time reaction to their product news he seemed to appreciate.

 

14 hours ago, Casey said:

I doubt he's looking for any credit or adoration, as his love of the hobby seems clear to me, and he owes nothing to any manufacturer, has no ties to publishers (that I'm aware of), etc., so he seems free and clear to deliver what he wants without restrictions...which is exactly what I feel he did, and very well.

See there-in lies the rub.  I joke about "hobby insider" because frankly all the owners of all the companies could get together and do a Reddit style AME Q&A session live on this forum, and some people here still wouldn't believe them.  Horse and water and all of that.  So, no I DON'T speak about the various projects (in Asia) I've provided R&D assistance, technical assistance, design assistance, et al to over the years.  Because frankly it's nobody's business unless I decide it is, and I don't want to be seen as some sort of attention seeking dingus who is all - LOOK WHAT I DID!!!   There's a bunch of people on this forum who qualify as "insiders" if they were willing to talk about what they do or who they know.  But they don't post here (or disclose what they do) because this place is also known for being a huge joke within the industry for the way people treat those who do try to pass along actual information.  Y'all darn near burnt Tim Boyd at the stake a few months ago over that Chevy II build.

One of the things I disdain most about people who do "show coverage" about new kits stuff is - they never take pictures of everything, and for some reason they never seem to be bothered to TALK to the people who are there.  So, in the coverage I did in Vegas - which I did for my own YT channel, this place was a secondary beneficiary - I aimed to take all the photos (probably should have taken more) and talk to the people involved to make sure I had actual facts instead of random suppositions over blurry out of focus stuff in the background.  But I guess since modeling is a solitary hobby that doesn't bless people with social graces (or the ability to take baths by and large) it's too much to expect people to behave with any actual decorum.  Bunch of hugely divisive issues in the world we can't talk about here per the rules, so let's use that poor divisive rhetoric and attitude on the stuff we can talk about - toy cars. Brilliant...

[Casey]

8 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Unless you were to build a complete crankcase assembly, I don't think you'd be able to see a 1" deck height difference in 1/25, but I guess you could shim it up if you really needed to. (tell them it's extra gaskets) 😎

 

If Revell's biggest sin in 2023 is trying to pass off the .04" 1/25 scale difference between a tall-and short-deck modern Olds V8, I think most people would be perfectly fine with that. 🙂

[deuces wild]

Revell did it with the '69 383 Dodge Dart kit and the '68 440 Dart gts... the motor halves are identical.... It don't bother me one bit....

[Rob Hall]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

If Revell's biggest sin in 2023 is trying to pass off the .04" 1/25 scale difference between a tall-and short-deck modern Olds V8, I think most people would be perfectly fine with that. 🙂

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be very noticeable... sitting here at my desk in my home office, I can see a Revell '72 Cutlass and an '83 Cutlass on my shelves...have to compare the 455 and 307 to see how they compare visually..

Edited January 10, 2022 by Rob Hall

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

If Revell's biggest sin in 2023 is trying to pass off the .04" 1/25 scale difference between a tall-and short-deck modern Olds V8, I think most people would be perfectly fine with that. 🙂

I'm probably one of the most technically persnickety builders around, and I couldn't care less.

If somebody can see 40 thousandths of an inch discrepancy in the deck height of a 1/25 scale block, and knows enough about real engines to make the call, they definitely have more interest in minutiae than I do. Jell...you wouldn't even notice it on a real engine unless you were looking for it, especially if all the accessories were in place and the thing was in a car.  

[Rodent]

Blue = 455

Gold = 350

That's all I need..... (For 70-72 anyway)

[Can-Con]

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

Blue = 455

Gold = 350

That's all I need..... (For 70-72 anyway)

The 455 2bbl in the '70 Delta 88 I had was gold. Original engine, never changed.

I can't explain it, It's usually as you say but maybe it because of the lower horsepower or something.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Can-Con

[sfhess]

16 hours ago, Robberbaron said:

As explained by Casey:

I believe the tall deck versions were the 400, 425, and 455.  All other versions were the "standard" deck, including the smogger 403.

Wasn't the "Pontiac" 403 actually an Olds engine?

[mikemodeler]

If nothing else, I guess I do admire your relentless stubborn instance to be wrong nearly every time you post here.  Because saying Ed Sexton isn't in a position of knowledge might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen said here - and that's saying something.

 

Ya know, the funny thing is I can probably find a dozen instances of YOU posting incorrect information before you could find one thing I posted incorrectly. But you go on thinking you're right and the rest of us have it wrong, it's thinking like that that proves what many of us know.

Edited January 10, 2022 by mikemodeler