gtx6970 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ok, I thought maybe I'de missed something and had found a source for nice 1/25th scale challenger bodies. ( I prefer to avoid 1/24th scale stuff unless absolutely necessary ) Thanks again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPflug Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The MPC '70 1/25 Challenger bodies are nice, just tend to be a bit pricey- also have a nice interior but a non rallye dash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtx6970 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 The MPC '70 1/25 Challenger bodies are nice, just tend to be a bit pricey- also have a nice interior but a non rallye dash I agree , and I already have one MPC 1970 and several 1972-74 versions ( I'm looking for a 1971 challenger builder ) in addition to a few of the AMT 1970 Challenger kits. But the seperate roof and molded in texture hinders my use for old drag car builds . So,,,, I will anxiously wait for this 1970 Cuda kit and will order at least a dozen or so as soon as I can . Then hope it gets converted to a 1971 + 1972-74 later one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSANUT Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Vintage road race would be best on an AAR "cuda wouldn't it? Yes it would, and let's hope Revell has the smarts to do this OBVIOUS version. Besides if they actually tooled for the correct road race parts including the roll cage, they could run those in the T/A Challenger kit as well given their virtually design. Why is it that the vintage road racers are almost always ignored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The MPC '70 1/25 Challenger bodies are nice, just tend to be a bit pricey- also have a nice interior but a non rallye dash Whoa- I could use one of those non-Rallye dashboards for a project/"replica" of my 1:1 '73. I still kick myself in the butt for having sold it back in '85 or '86... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I've read all the coments on this Cuda kit and not one person has said anything about the proportions of the front fenders, From the center body line to the top of the fender, it appears too wide. Like the wheel opening is too short. Over all it looks good, but the fenders look too fat to me. Hard to say, either way to be honest. The monotone of the gray test shot plastic in non-natural light may be playing tricks on the eyes, too... At first I thought the depression in the doors for positive location of the side view mirrors was a little odd, but then I remembered how many times I built the 1/24 Monogram '70 Challenger and didn't get the mirrors positioned correctly when I glued them to the doors before painting the body...too late once it's time to apply the decals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I wonder if someone could "photoshop" the photo of the test shot and colourise it ... To me , I see the following *potential* problems : - The exterior mirrors' location and proportions ( too small and sit too-high-and-far-rearward on the door ) ; - The front sidemarker lamp looks too long (exaggerated proportions) ; - The windshield looks too flat and undersized , and ; - The seats look too thick . Like Casey mentioned : the monotone gray in combination with the blue background and the lighting all add-up to visual "trickery" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparfarmer Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I will agree with the placement of the mirror but you can always move it where you want. The front marker lite is too long but we can't nit-pic this stuff too much.They will quit making it then what do we do. Guess its all based on what their souce of information is. If the source isn't restored correctly then the model won't be either. Lets enjoy this when it comes out and not be too critical of little mistakes. At least its not like the other editions, based off the Challenger...Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I agree with moparfarmer. If we keep nit picking these releases to death then the manufacturers are gonna say forget about it. We are modelers we can fix all the little issues. But also if we don't critique them a little then they won't know what too look at and potentially fix before finallizing the release. Then we can buy something that all of us can be proud of to build. Hope i said that right. Oh well you guys get the jist of what im trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'm certainly not in the minority here when I state that I cannot wait for this long-overdue subject to be released ! At a minimum , it'll best its predecessors (the original Monogram 1971 Hemi 'Cuda from 30 years ago ; the Monogram 1970 Challenger T/A of 29 years ago ; the Revell 1970 AAR 'Cuda of 17 years ago , and ; the disappointing modified reissue of the 1970 AAR 'Cuda from 5 years ago). I pointed out what potential problems I saw , in full recognition that this is a test shot . I have complete faith that Revell will only finalise their best moulds . I can't believe that this kit's destined release month is only a few months away ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodgefever Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The upper part of the front fender does appear a bit too tall, but it may be the oversized lip on the opening that's making it look bulky. I've done a sloppy job on trimming them (lowering it in the process), but see what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think you right. When I first looked at the test shot compared to the actual picture of the convert. It looked like the wheel lip was part of the problem. Trimming it made it look more 1 to 1. I hope revell takes all the suggestions that forum members make so they can build a nicer product than what they have made prior. I can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futurattraction Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I can't speak too much to the proportions of the upper fender, but trimming the fender lips definitely make them more in the correct proportion to the 1:1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think revell needs to tool up a convertible too. That would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 What Scott said, re the fender arches. Gentlemen, with all due respect, I'd really like to see what manufacturer has stopped making new model kits because of nitpicking - if anybody has an actual example, I'm all ears. Now some manufacturers have been prodded to improve their products - like the Lindberg '61 Impala, or the Pro Modeler '69 Charger, or Revell doing a new-tool 1/25 '69 Camaro instead of recycling Monogram's old dog, or Moebius tweaking the '53 Hudson - but seriously, to stop developing the new products your business thrives on out of a hissy fit over nitpicking? Revell/Monogram hasn't done business well-nigh these 70 years by being that stupid. The irony here is that this new 'Cuda is coming about in great part because Revell/Monogram's last two were so lambasted. You guys are in this hobby with the expectation that you will have a miniature that looks as close to its prototype as possible. There's no need to be cautious, circumspect or apologetic about that. In fact, it's those who attack the nit-pickers who have a far more limiting and inhibiting effect on this hobby than the nit-pickers themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think revell needs to tool up a convertible too. I was hoping nobody would bring that topic up. I'm sure there will eventually be a convertible version, much like Revell did with the '69 Camaro kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The upper part of the front fender does appear a bit too tall, but it may be the oversized lip on the opening that's making it look bulky. I've done a sloppy job on trimming them (lowering it in the process), but see what you think. Oh yeah, Stu. The top fender expanses still seem a wee bit broad, but those arches look a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yeah, I'm looking at a bunch of 1:1 pics on my hard disc of that car, and the test shots original wheelwell flares are a bit too much. Stu, your pic manipulation DOES make them look a lot better! It's an easy fix if Revell doesn't address this, but still........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Sorry about the convertible. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I was hoping nobody would bring that topic up. I'm sure there will eventually be a convertible version, much like Revell did with the '69 Camaro kits. And then the version AFTER that release will have the up-top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Yup. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I wonder if some of it could be those silly oversized wheels playing tricks on your vision? I'd want to see a painted sample compared to a real car, but anything off to my eye is slight enough that it wouldn't bother me. For the shock factor, I might build one of these with a Ross Gibson Hyper-Pak Slant Six and 14-inch rims, painted metallic tan or something equally plain. Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Mmm, I dunno - I think some of the problems actually get louder as the wheel diameter goes down: Actually, the rear ain't lookin' so bad, but man, that front... One of the photo manipulations I've wanted to try (brace yourself for the irony: I've been too busy on an ACTUAL BUILD) is to sneak the shadow of that mid-body crease up just a smidge, just marginally. Edited December 13, 2012 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Smith Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I think the angle of the photos and the focal length may be playing a part in the look of the fender problem - maybe. The whole front of the car looks oversized - like a mild fisheye distortion. Hard to say without a good side profile shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsepower Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I think the angle of the photos and the focal length may be playing a part in the look of the fender problem - maybe. The whole front of the car looks oversized - like a mild fisheye distortion. Hard to say without a good side profile shot. By George! I think we actually have a winner!!! 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.