MrObsessive Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Okay guys and gals............here's a few pics of Revell's "new" '70 AAR 'Cuda kit test shot taken at NNL East today. You decide on this one...................I'm off to bed------it's been a looooong day! I'll add my 2¢ in the morning of what I think and what I was told. :? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Looks to me like they missed it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc @ MPC Motorsports Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Better than their first attempt, but they still missed the mark. This is one turd that with Revell's polishing, will still be a turd. And it's still 1:24 scale too. I would have rather seen an all new 1:25 scale version. Nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Something looks all wrong in the roof and top half of the rear fenders. Maybe it looks better in person. The Camaro looks dead-on to my eyes. 8) I imagine they'll have a Challenger at some point too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Looks better than the first one, but the roof and rear fenders are wrong. nothing I can't fix, with some careful cutting, but annoying none the less. Still it will be an easier fix than their last attempt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperDave Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I looked at the pic and the rear fender didn't look right. The Cuda's upper body line on the rear fender starts to bend just about where the chrome strip on the C-Pillar points. That is the highest point that it makes and it goes down all the way to the back of the fender. On the 71 Cuda model it is a little off and on the old AAR kit it is also off. Both seem to peek about about 1/2 inch to far back or 1 foot for a real car. On the new kit it looks like the highest point of the rear fender is about mid way between the back corner of the rear window and the front corner of the trunk. That would put it back aboout 1 inch or 2 feet on the real car. The pic looks like the body line makes a smooth curve from where it starts all the way to the back. No kink up at the rear window. I hope it is just the angle of the pic and not the way the body is molded. So you ask what difference it makes. Well if you have a set of Fred Cady decals for the AAR that look correct they won't line up right and if you want to make the 70 Hemi Cuda by using another hood and using Cady's hockey stick stripes they won't line up either. For the good parts from what I see. They did raise the window line at the rear and the side window looks better. I also looks like they made the sides of the back window straight and didn't use the Challenger window. It's hard to tell for sure from the angle of the pic. It does seem that the trunk is a little short or the rear window is too short. I think the real car is about 7 inches from the chrome to the trunk edge and the new model looks like 10. I will have to make some measurement when I buy the kit. I hope someone else took more pics at different angles so I can get a better look. I might be a little picky but I have been waiting for a long time to get a correct body so I can make the 48 Gurney Cuda. . This is the pic I use in my profile. (I am the short one) You can see the correct shape of the rear fender and the rear of the roof line. It looks like they corrected somethings but I guess this is the best we are ever going to get. They still missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 Okay, everyone noticed pretty much the same things.................The rear fenders are arched too high, and the C pillars don't "stretch back" far enough. From a distance it looks like they got it right, but when you get up close and personal as I tried to do..................you can see that's it's woefully inaccurate-----------again! :x The rear fenders look like they're also too rounded. The 1:1 that Dave shows in his pic-----the fenders are rather "blocky" from a side profile. But here's the thing that kinda got me tee'd off where I just stop taking pics............ When I approached Ed Sexton and told him that they missed the mark (and I was as polite as ever), he simply gave a half smile, shrugged his shoulders and said "Oh well.......!" Now those of you who read the "Rants and Raves" section may remember a long thread I posted about the model companies and how they seem to miss things that are obvious these days (body shape wise) as opposed to the "old days". If they're wondering why they're losing market share and us experienced builders get very ticked off, it's due to apathetic attitudes such as this one! When you're paying upward of 15 bucks for a new kit, you shouldn't have to dissect and reshape body panels that should have been designed and molded correctly in the first place. I'm not saying Ed is a bad guy, (he was very nice) but maybe there's some hope that if others saw the same thing as I did (and you guys too) and said something, that maybe they'll pull this turkey off the line and roast it! :x Hey Bob! No, I'm afraid it won't look better in person when you see it..................IMO it would have been better to start off with a completely new tool (ala the '69 Camaro) than to perfume and primp up this pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Wow, that story is quite disappointing. There is plenty of reference for the car and they're spending a good amount of $$ to "fix" something incorrectly. I don't eat, sleep, and breathe those cars, but in that first picture from the side I could tell the C pillar wasn't long enough, and that the upper fender line was arced all wrong. Dave's picture made it even more evident. I honestly don't think this one is any better. The rear fender is just as weird looking as the elongated roof in ther first attempt. If they can't or won't do any better then I'm glad I have MPC based Barracudas. I'm at the point I think they'd be better to bury this beast; these 1/24 Mopars have never been proportioned quite right. They should have done a new one in 1/25 like the '69 Camaro, but now I doubt we'll ever see a good modern kit of a Barracuda. If this kit looks the same as what we've seen, I am not inspired whatsoever to buy it. I know how to fix it, but I choose not to. It's unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 While I'm as disappointed as most are in Mr. Sextons responce, I don't think it was "Oh well, I don't care" so much as it is "Oh well it's too late to fix it again." Ed is definately a model car guy, I know he would rather put out a quality project. As far as the 'Cuda goes I still plan to buy a bunch as it still has some good parts that I can use to convert their 71 to a 70, and I can still use it to build something like this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygre Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 What they did was to tool up a new body on the 1995-vintage AAR kit to try and "correct" it. Unfortunately, they missed the mark again. If anyone remembers, I panned the original puppy in "that other magazine" (back when Gary Schmidt owned it) in a special review called "Dog's Day". And I'm afraid, while they got the contours better than before, it still is as incorrect as the original, because (for no other reason) the chassis is the longer wheelbase Challenger T/A unit, and no matter how the curves or contours were altered, the car still looks too long because it IS too long. Hopefully, the new body parts can be transplanted onto the existing '71 kits to produce a reasonably accurate '70. If not, there's always Mark Budniewski's '70 resin conversion set and vacform AAR hood, or Lookout Model Products resin '70 front end. An all new tool would have been far better. Especially if it was 1/25 scale. A '70 Cuda of any stripe with the level of detail and accuracy as any of Revell's newer kits would be nothing short of a grand slam hit out of the park! Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 I don't think it was "Oh well, I don't care" so much as it is "Oh well it's too late to fix it again." Ed is definately a model car guy, I know he would rather put out a quality project. I agree Darin.................I don't think he was being apathetic on his part, I'm talking more about the folks behind the scenes that are doing the tooling to begin with. As Bob said, there are thousands of pics and tons of reference out there to get this body right. However, he's the one that's facing the modeling public since he's the one at the shows. If I were in his position and had some clout, I would NOT put this thing on the market and have yet another black mark on the same kit. They've done this before with the redone roofline on the Pro Modeler '69 Charger when its roof was tooled wrong on the first go round. It would make things in an uproar, but they have to know that the kit was not done right the first time (thus the attempted "rework") and would want to save themselves the embarassment of doing it wrong again. Not to put words in his mouth, but I was also talking to Larry Greenberg and was telling him about the kit. Larry said that he would take a look at it as he said that he included the original in an article he wrote about kits that "terribly missed the mark". (The exact name of the article escapes me :oops:) This was written years ago in SA and he had some unfavorable (but accurate) things to say about the first AAR 'Cuda. I don't know if he got a chance to see the reworked body, but if he's reading this, maybe he can chime in on what he thinks of it now. :shock: Edit: Larry you read my mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I just don't get it. It would have cost them no more to do it right, yet they settle for this? The wheelbase issue isn't a good excuse, they could easily shorten it w/the rear suspension and just move the axle forward a bit. I think it's a case of someone not looking over someone else's shoulder, I'm not putting blame on anyone in particular, but seriously-this is 2007 and Revell knows how to do a good looking kit; I know using the 1/24 scale model hinders it in the first place, but any one of us could massage that beast into submission, so why couldn't the tooling and design guys do that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatRedmond Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Hmmmm.......I hope there's some 'meat' in that quarter panel ridge for some massaging...... :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I just don't get it. It would have cost them no more to do it right, yet they settle for this? Exactly! In this day and age there's no excuse for an incorrect new kit. The kitmakers work from the manufacturer's files, fer cryin' out loud!!! How do they still get it wrong??? Come on, kitmakers...it's not 1962 anymore! :x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettyfan43 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Most Likely, the "oh well" was because others have said the same thing, TO ME it looks like the shortened the roof and screwed up the 1/4 panels. They are STILL trying to make a Cuda body fit a Challenger Chassis. E-bodys ARE NOT B-Bodys! B-Bodys are the same underneath from one generation to the next, the MAIN differences are body panel related. E-bodyas are different beasts in the wheelbase length and also the OVERHANG length. This exists on EITHER END. The body differences on the FRONT are easy enough. But the tail of the cars are very different. From the firewall back there are many differences in the cars. The problem comes from trying to make the Cuda body fit a Challenger chassis. It's GONNA look misproportioned, NO WAY around it. They had a good idea and kicked it out the door! All to save some tooling money. The unfortunate thing, is that this thing will hit the market (I'll admit I'll buy one for the HOOD!) It'll sit on shelves because of the fact that it DOESN'T LOOK like a 70 Cuda and Revell will claim that there is "No Market" for a new tool Cuda. That is the real sorry thing about this kit. The comments about the kit being misproportioned before the kit is on the shelf will be conveniently forgotten. To borrow a phrase, OH WELL, I'll buy ONE instead of SEVERAL like I had planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperDave Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Exactly! In this day and age there's no excuse for an incorrect new kit. The kitmakers work from the manufacturer's files, fer cryin' out loud!!! How do they still get it wrong??? Come on, kitmakers...it's not 1962 anymore! :x If it was 1962 they would have got it right the first time. The old Johan kits use to have very nice looking bodies. Too bad the guy who did the interiors must have been about 4'11' and made the interiors to fit him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Exactly! In this day and age there's no excuse for an incorrect new kit. The kitmakers work from the manufacturer's files, fer cryin' out loud!!! How do they still get it wrong??? Come on, kitmakers...it's not 1962 anymore! :x Actually on something like this they aren't working from factory blueprints anymore. Usually they are working from photos and measurements. The fact of the matter is in this day and age there are fewer and fewer people who have the abilities need to turn those photos and mesurements into tooling. If you bring a project to a tool and die maker now they want digital 3D models of what you want to plug into their CNC machine. You bring them drawings, pictures and measurements, the price goes way up and so does the chance of them messing it up. If you want to make a model companies day bring them a 3D cad model of all the tooling for a model for them to tool from. they will love you and so will the tooling guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Can Am Garage Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Here's a thought - Could we combine the '70 parts with the body and etc. from the '71 kits? That would be one way to skin this cat so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Here's a thought - Could we combine the '70 parts with the body and etc. from the '71 kits? That would be one way to skin this cat so to speak. I'm thinking, that when it comes out, I'll fix the flaws, toss it Jimmy flintsone's way (he seems to be able to produce resin cheaply) and then for about 20 bucks I'll have an accurate modern 70 Cuda AAR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Actually on something like this they aren't working from factory blueprints anymore. Usually they are working from photos and measurements... Ok, then...photos and measurements. And they can't get it right???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The more I think about it, the more disastrous this model appears. You guys could go through all that work (unnecessary if Revell would quit sleeping during class) and have the body look better; but what if you do that and Revell's decals are sized/shaped for the terribly wrong rear fender profile? The problems w/this kit create a domino effect. This effort by Revell is so...wrong. I really hope they get it right, but I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 We can build space shuttles and nuclear reactors...but we can't produce an accurate scale model of a car? This isn't a case of "We did the best we could"... It's a case of "We don't really give a (blank)"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc @ MPC Motorsports Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I'm thinking, that when it comes out, I'll fix the flaws, toss it Jimmy flintsone's way (he seems to be able to produce resin cheaply) and then for about 20 bucks I'll have an accurate modern 70 Cuda AAR If I build a '70 AAR, I'll get me a resin MPC body, a resin AAR hood and combine these bits with a shortened AMT Challenger chassis. I already have the AAR decals frm Fred Cady. Will it cost more, absolutely. Will it look better and be more accurate, absolutely. That's how I'll skin this cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 We can build space shuttles and nuclear reactors...but we can't produce an accurate scale model of a car? This isn't a case of "We did the best we could"... It's a case of "We don't really give a (blank)"... To be fair, The guys who design space shuttles, and nuclear reactors (I hope) did a lot better in school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperDave Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 First AMT tells us they aren't making any new kits including the 2-in-1 70 Cuda and so we wait for the second best, the new R-M version. Now we get another funny car body. 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.