Robberbaron

After I opened it I was very impressed: many more optional parts than I expected. I knew some of the basics like the 2 engines, the choice of wheels, etc., but was quite surprised by just how much other stuff was included, such as 3 different types of taillights. It even goes to the level of offering options for the options, since if you elect to use the 5.0 Ford engine, you can then choose between fuel injection or carbed, 2 different types of valve covers, etc. Kind of reminds me of a 60s era AMT Trophy series kit as far as the level of choices it gives you. Funny thing is that this was kind of a spur of the moment purchase: had a Michael's 50% off coupon burning a hole in my pocket, and they didn't have anything else that interested me. Ended up paying only about $12 for it.

Finally got a hold of the Revell '70 Torino GT, seems like it's been moving off the shelves pretty good in this area. Also picked up the '32 Ford 5-window. Just realized that's actually the first version of a Revell 32 Ford that I've ever purchased.

Jason, very impressive! Nice to see all your hard work pay off, and the fact that you've worked, earned, and bought it for yourself makes all the difference. Your also very fortunate to have a father that's involved and that you share a common interest with. Keep up the hard work and the positive attitude - it will serve you well throughout life. That's one of the keys of the American dream: instead of waiting to have something handed to you, go out and earn it and get it for yourself. Really wish we could get more young people with your work ethic. Keep us posted how things are going. (Oh yeah - cute girl, too!)

My LHS finally got one of these little buggers in, so I picked one up (got a '76 last year). Did a quick comparo between my kits, and both my '75 and '76 have the 2-barrel and 4-barrel intakes, in addition to the tunnel ram. So the only differences in hard parts that I'm seeing between mine are the header panel and grille. Aside from the obvious box differences, the decal sheets, and the 1:1 style bumper sticker, the only other differences I'm seeing are in the actual plastic they used for each issue. My '76 was molded in conventional white styrene, while this '75 is molded in kind of a cream-colored off-white. I want to call it pre-aged, since it reminds me of the way a vintage built-up kit starts to yellow over time. Not sure if that's Round 2's intention for using that shade of styrene, but I kind of dig it for some reason. It seems like a lot of their kits that I've been buying recently have been molded in this off-white shade. While the tinted windows in the '76 kit were a dark smoke color (think '80s MPC), the tinted windows in the '75 are kind of a pale, bluish-lavender tint (really pretty weird, actually - maybe call it periwinkle?). Since both kits come with conventional clear windows too, the tinted ones are more of a novelty to me. A couple things I haven't seen mentioned yet: the side marker lights that should be on the '75 header panel are non-existent, so you will have to cut these in if you want your build to be accurate. Everyone who built the '76 seemed to comment about how the header panel was too wide for the body. It seems like the '75 header panel is the same width as the '76, so I'm expecting the same problem on this one. I also don't think I've seen anyone mention the fact that the vents that should be in the C-pillar (behind the quarter window) are missing. I didn't notice that at first when I bought the '76, but both bodies are the same, and the C-pillars are totally smooth. Kind of a disappointment, since it would be tough to carve in 4 perfectly parallel grooves behind each quarter window to correct this. Using the stripe decals in each kit would mostly disguise this problem, but it would have been nice if this detail was there. Not sure if the original issues had this or not, or if it's something they decided to skip when they restored the tool back to stock. Right now the body shell is kind of generic - I wonder if they plan to tool up additional bumpers/grilles to do earlier model years? Might just plan on including decals to disguise the C-pillars for each release ('70 thru '73 had horizontal vents, '74+ had the diagonal vents that followed the angle of the quarter windows)

Glad to see that many of the initial concerns about exaggerated rear overhang, etc. seem to be unfounded in light of Dave Metzner's additional pics. I agree that I'm not going to judge the roof placement/proportions based on any of the current pics, since this thread has offered ample evidence of how deceiving some photographs can be. Also, this is the first test shot, and Dave has already stated that they will be looking into some issues such as the kick up at the C-pillar. Even if (and that's a big IF) this model is eventually released and the roof is, say, a scale inch or two too far forward, I personally won't have a problem with it. Why? Until Harry drew his red comparison lines on that picture, I had looked at the picture as originally posted by Brett, and didn't see that discrepancy. That is usually the test for me: if I can visually compare a model to a picture of an actual 1:1 subject, and nothing jumps out at me as wrong, it's good enough for me. I can totally respect someone who does notice such a discrepancy and wants to correct it (which, remember, is theoretical right now - this thing is still being developed). As someone else stated earlier, I took it for granted that the PMD engraving wouldn't be on the wheel centers yet, since this is the first test shot. I am a bit more concerned about the spacing of those spokes though, since that is an issue that does "jump out" at me. I seem to recall hearing that the Catalina version would have steelies and poverty caps, as opposed to the Ventura with the 8-lugs (or was that just someone speculating?). If the spacing of the 8-lug spokes can't be corrected for the Ventura kit, my solution will be to get the Catalina instead (although to be honest, I might do that regardless, since I dig the dog dish look anyway)

Really diggin' this one, Snake. Even though some would say this kit is kinda stone age, I've always really liked it. Built one back when I was in high school, and have a couple more in my stash. Really like the down and dirty style on this one. Think I'd leave the primer as is. It's just enough to indicate that there was some bodywork done. I've learned from experience that it's easy to overdo an effect like this, and I think it currently looks just right. Also, good call on picking the lump from the Nova kit. It's a little more brutal than that forward facing scoop. To me it works better with the whole style of the car.

Trying to think of what's still out there of their vintage parts packs that hasn't already been reissued recently. I have a couple of the Blueprinter Parts Packs that they reissued in, what, maybe early '90s? Each box had the 4 engines, but they also included the custom grille parts pack. Don't think that one's been reissued since...

Regarding the Round 2 announcements, really glad to see that Blazer available as a regular line kit again finally. Very smart move on the '32 Vicky - this is a body style not offered by Revell yet in their modern tool line of deuces. Really been wondering why it hasn't been reissued sooner (this will probably also sell quite a few kits for Revell, since I see a lot of people bashing this one with one of the Revell kits). Haven't seen the '37 Chevy in a long time, either. Always wanted to get one of these, but never had the opportunity. Anyone have first hand experience with the previous releases of this kit? I think the last version I've seen was an Ertl release from the early '80s, with a yellow car on the box art. I seem to recall hearing that it was a real pig, but I don't know if it was problems with the original design of the kit, or just that by the early 80s the tool had gotten so screwed up. It looks like they may be restoring this one to its original configuration as well, so if someone can confirm that the original release of this kit was good, I'll also add it to my future purchase list. Kinda curious whether the '69 Cougar Eliminator is going to have the Boss 302 or the 428CJ engine.

Ummm, yes I would say that this is BIG news! (Regarding the two bodies on the left.). For a minute there I thought I was seeing things! Anyone have the straight dope on what the story is with these? Don't see any tags in the display case regarding these. Almost looks like Moebius might have slipped them in there just to see who would notice? Only logical conclusion is that they've gotten a hold of some of the Johan tooling. Think the last time the Turbine Car was available it was the promo version. Tough to tell from this pic, but it looks like the hood is molded shut and there are screw posts for mounting to the promo-style chassis. Much more surprised to see the 59 Dodge. I have a kit of one (unassembled promo) that was made in the late 90s, maybe early 2000s, but really didn't think this tool would ever see the light of day again. Wonder if the plan is to do straight repops of the curbside style kits with the promo-style chassis plates? How cool would it be for Moebius to tool up a full detail chassis/engine/interior for that Dodge? Not really expecting that - just getting any Johan stuff back in production is enough for me! Of course, the mind really starts racing wondering what additional Johan tools (if any) they might have laid their hands on. All sorts of myths/tall tales/legends mixed in with facts regarding what tooling got destroyed vs. what still exists, and where and with whom. It would be great if Moebius was able to purchase all of the known remaining tooling in some kind of package deal. Really hope to hear the story on these two bodies soon...

Agreed! Very impressive little hot rod there!

Very nice - never knew these things existed. The smaller scale diecasts are always a hit or miss proposition, but it looks like they pretty much nailed the proportions on this one. Nice job detailing it out!

As others have pointed out, there was no name calling or personal attacks aimed at anyone associated with Revell, anywhere in this thread. I do recall the "idiots" comment being thrown out by someone recently in a different thread, but that's not the case here, and I think all but a handful of the members on this board would agree that that was over the line. Things only seem to be getting personal between certain members here. As for "How do they let this leave the factory" and "How could they do something this bad in 2014", I think those are perfectly legitimate questions to ask when we are seeing basic proportional errors or omissions of details that are OBVIOUS the instant you compare the model to a 1:1. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to ask why this kind of thing seems to be happening on a regular basis lately, when that did not used to be the case with new Revell kits. Since I've gotten back into the hobby the last couple years, I never buy a new tool kit without reading online reviews such as this - they are invaluable. When I discover all the different pros and cons of a certain kit, I make my judgement of whether I'll vote with my wallet. The '50 Olds, '57 Ford, and Merc wagon all got my vote within the last year or two. I had every intention of getting the 5.0 LX Mustang and this '67 Camaro, until I learned about the problems with each kit respectively (problems that made me say to myself "do I really want to go through the trouble of trying to fix that"?) I don't doubt for a second that they're flying off the shelves, and that the first run has already been sold out to retailers. This is one of those kit subjects that's pretty much guaranteed to sell. To me this is more an issue of short term vs. long term profit. From this point on, they will be able to sell this kit to the general public in perpetuity, like they're doing with the old 1/24 Monogram 1970 Chevelle kit. There are certain subjects the casual buyer will always be willing to buy, and 90% of them will be perfectly happy and not even notice proportional/detail issues that we're discussing here. Even many members of this board, after reading this entire review thread, will go ahead and buy a copy or two of this kit because they can either live with the problems or they plan to correct them (and more power to them). Here's the key: how many of these people will buy additional copies of the kit in the future if, at a minimum, the problems with the grille and taillight panel aren't fixed by Revell? Many people who build it straight out of the box will be of the opinion "yeah, it was a nice kit, but it looks kind of goofy sitting on my display shelf." For the people that do correct the flaws, will they be willing to buy either photo etch or resin replacement grilles for every version of this kit that they build? Will they be willing to pie cut the quarters to tilt the tail panel out at the appropriate angle, then fill/sand/etc. to get it looking right? Maybe on one or two builds. How many will do it 4 or 5 times? What I'm saying is that for many people, a kit like this will be a "one and done" proposition. One of the charms with the Revell 1/25 1969 Camaro is that it pretty much goes together the way it should, and the darn thing pretty much looks the way a real '69 Camaro looks (can't say that about the old 1/24 Monogram '69 Camaro that I built when I was a kid!). After building the Revell '69 Camaro in the mid-90s, I subsequently bought several more. How much repeat business will Revell lose if they don't correct some of these flaws? How many other potential buyers won't buy a single copy of this kit due to these problems? Not sure if there's any way to quantify those numbers, but I think a little more money and time spent to get things right before they released it would actually pay itself back in the long term...

Not my style, but great attention to detail! In fact, I believe yours is the first build of this kit that I've seen with the bumper rub strips done correctly in gray, including the white accenting in the grooves. Seems like everyone just paints them black, but this is the way they actually looked on 1:1 77 Montes, it was one of the few differences from the previous model year.

Nice looking build!

Very nice job, Brett! How much work did you have to put into that Flintstone body? Keep kicking around getting the 57 and 59 Ford wagons from him, plus the 65 Chevelle 2-door wagon, but I keep hearing that a lot of grinding is required on the insides of his bodies in order to fit any glass in.

Beautiful job as usual!

As far as new stuff for 2015, I have zero insider info. One kit I'm surprised we haven't seen yet is a 1970 442 W-30 hardtop based off the Revell 1972 Hurst/Olds tooling. I believe they dropped both the H/O and Cutlass Supreme versions of that tool a couple years ago, and I'm sure they have this variation planned. Heck, the H/O kit included the W-27 rear end, which I don't think was even available in 1972. All the mechanicals and chassis would carry over, I believe. Probably some of the interior, too (dash and steering wheel, at least). If they did it right, the bumpers and hoods for a 1970 hardtop would interchange with those from the 1972 convertible, which would allow people to create a 1972 hardtop and a 1970 convertible just by swapping a couple parts between kits. Of course, with Revell's track record lately, I'm almost scared to see them bring out new kits of subjects I want.

Yikes! That picture pretty much says it all - thanks for posting that, James. When any new kit comes out, I always like to hear input from people who have either owned and/or worked on 1:1 versions of the subject. Someone who's had their hands on a 1:1 is usually the best judge of a kit's accuracy, and I can see now why you instantly spotted this problem. Looking now at the back 3/4 view pictures on the side of the Revell box, it's very noticeable there, too. I think adding the top/bottom trim bars to the grille would be an easy fix for them to make, but correcting the angle of the tail panel would be much more involved. If the Nova kit is any indication, they'll just leave it be. BTW, that error on the Nova REALLY annoyed me - I've probably stared at the back ends of 10,000 of those Novas over the years growing up, and could sketch out the profile by memory and get that feature correct - it is a key element of the design on those cars. I remember buying the SS kit, opening the box, and saying "That ain't right!" It's harder for me to spot the issue with the shape of the quarters, but I will take your word for it, since you obviously have the best reference material right there in person. So this brings me back to the question I pondered in a previous post: what's going on with Revell's review process on so many of their new tools? Both the grille and tail panel problems on this kit are instantly noticeable as soon as you compare the kit parts to pics of a 1:1 example (which is what most modelers will do when they're building a kit - get good reference material). Shouldn't stuff like this be getting caught and corrected at some point, certainly after the first test shots? It really is a shame, because it looks like most other elements on this kit were very nicely done. So it looks like a similar situation to the 5.0 LX kit: a nicely detailed new tool of an iconic car, that they botched by not getting down the BASICS of the car's shape.

That's sweet! Really dig the post coupes.

Really wanted to get the Revell 1970 Torino GT the other day, but my LHS was sold out. Checked Hobby Lobby and the only one they had left had a pretty mangled box, so I didn't dare get it. They did have the new '67 Camaro, but not planning on getting that one unless they fix the grille. Had a 40% off coupon burning a hole in my pocket, so ended up getting the AMT 63 Vette kit - ton of optional parts in that one. Stopped by Michael's and also no 1970 Torinos. Did end up getting the Revell California Wheels 1957 Chevy. With a 50% off coupon, only shelled out $11!

Only one I can recall getting was an AMT Mikado RX7 1/25 snap kit, when I was a kid. Got it as a gift from someone, probably my grandparents. Perfect example of a kid getting a kit of a car that they have zero interest in. To make it worse, the body was molded in an awful grass green color, with bright yellow interior and wheels, with dry rub decals. If it sounds awful, seeing it would be even worse. After a couple years I couldn't stand looking at it on my shelf anymore, so I pulled the wheels/tires off and trashed the rest. Think that's the only model I ever did that with.

For anybody questioning if this kit will be a big seller, I'll offer this insight: My local Wal-mart started carrying a limited model kit selection again a couple years ago. For whatever reason, it seems like they must prefer to purchase from Hobbico (Revell/Monogram brands), because all but one model kit that they carry is lowest common denominator Revell/Monogram (stuff like the Shelby Cobra, 57 Chevy snap kit, etc. - basically guaranteed sellers). What is the only Round 2 kit that they carry? The old glue version of the MPC General Lee kit. For Wal-mart to deal with a separate supplier so they can sell only that single kit tells me how much demand there must still be for a kit of the GL. This is backed up by Round 2 being willing to pony up for a brand new snap kit of this subject. They wouldn't be doing that if they weren't sure of a quick return on their investment.

That Galaxie is really looking great! Like the color combo on that...

Not really a matter of "legal", but as a matter of courtesy most of us normally don't post links to other model forums. I do recall that tutorial, and I think it would be beneficial to anyone building either the 67 or 68 AMT Camaro kits, especially since the 68 was just reissued again. If you have the text and pics saved, duplicating the tutorial here (instead of posting a link) in a separate thread, specifically for the AMT Camaros would be no problem.

Hey, Snake, glad to see you here! I used to lurk a lot on that "other" forum (never joined), and always found your postings insightful. You'll fit right in here. You'll also recognize lots of familiar names. Oh yeah: nice avatar, too.