Robberbaron

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.

Well, to see the Rally Sport embems in the pictures I posted, you'd actually need to LOOK at the pictures... And I never said there was "conflicting" badging on anything. My only point in all this was that if you want to build an accurate model of a Z/28 for any of these years (1967, 1968, 1969), you need to do your research, since there were lots of little changes year to year. I do need to respectfully disagree with you on a couple issues: The 1967 Z/28 was a quickie rush job to homologate all the mechanical parts (mainly the 302 engine) for the Trans Am class in SCCA. As someone else stated earlier, there were only 602 made. They had rally wheels and the dual paint stripes, but there were no Z/28 badges anywhere on a 1967 Z/28. Here's an article from Jeff Smith at Car Craft: he was able to buy an actual 1967 Z/28 for peanuts back in the day because the guy selling it didn't know what he had, since there was no Z/28 badging on these cars: http://www.carcraft.com/featuredvehicles/ccrp_0909_1967_chevrolet_camaro/ In 1968, Chevy did add Z/28 emblems at the front of the fenders, but I don't believe there were any Z/28 emblems from the factory on either the grille or the tail panel in 1968. If a standard Camaro was ordered with the Z/28 option, it would still have the Camaro script on the fenders, behind the front wheels. However, a Camaro with the RS option and the Z/28 option would have the "rally sport" emblems in this location, instead, NOT "Camaro": The grille would also have this RS emblem in the center: Both of these emblems are clearly visible in the pic I posted previously: The rear of this car would also have an "rs" gas cap, too. All of the Rally Sport identifiers remained in place on a 1968 Z/28 with the RS option. For 1969, Chevy still put the Z/28 emblems on the front of the fenders, but as you stated they also installed Z/28 emblems on the grille and the tail panel. If a 1969 Camaro was ordered with both the RS package and the Z/28 option, the big "RS" emblem in the center of the grille was not included, just the Z/28 emblem on the driver's side. The "RS" emblem on the tail panel would also be replaced with a Z/28 emblem (forgot about that previously). There would, however, still be "rally sport" emblems on the fenders, behind the front wheels, in the location where the "Camaro" script would otherwise be located on a non-RS car:

Obviously no "SS" badging on a Z/28. However, I do believe both the 1968 and 1969 RS Z/28s did have the "Rally Sport" badges on the fenders: Might be a little tough to see, but they're there on both the above cars. The 68 also had the "RS" grille emblem. In 69, they started adding Z/28 grille emblems, so I believe that's why they eliminated the "RS" grille emblem in 69. There was no external Z/28 badging in 67, just the dual paint stripes. Another thing that makes it tough to keep all this straight is just how many fake RS, SS, and Z/28 Camaros have been created over the years, and an awful lot of the people doing it don't get all of the details right.

Another great review, Tim! I also didn't know about the rear quarter problem previously, just the seats. I was happy enough to see that this kit was being reissued, since I missed it on the first go around. Sure never expected any corrections like this. Also really didn't expect the PE to be included again without "premium" pricing. Even though Revell has gotten flamed a lot lately for certain problems on certain kits, this goes to show that they can still hit it out of the park when they set their minds to it. This kit is definitely now at the top of my "must buy" list the first time I see it at my LHS. I've always been loyal to GM in real life, but I really have a thing for these 70-71 Torinos. It might go back to my childhood. Down the street from me, there was a bright yellow Sportsroof Torino sitting in someone's side yard, under a tree. I don't think I ever saw that car move under its own power, but I was always fascinated with the styling. Same goes for the 70-71 Cyclones. Those cars were so unusual, I never even saw one until I was about 9. I couldn't get over the fact that they actually made a car with a gunsight in the grille! Would really love to see Revell bring one of those out, too, they already have the chassis and mechanicals all ready to go here.

AMT 36 Ford retro kit.

Thanks for the thorough review, Tim, and for that update about that lower body trim. Makes sense now - wouldn't have known that myself, since I have only casual knowledge about these cars. If the two cars they used for reference both had this trim, the logical conclusion is that they both must have had the Rally Sport package. For me that pretty much clinches it that there will be a future RS version of this tool (even though that was a safe bet, anyway). Looks like this trim was used for the RS package in both the 67 and 68 model years, although it looks like the 68 may have been blacked out, at least when it was paired with the SS option: It's always tough for me to sort out some of the specifics on these 67-69 Camaros, since certain trim packages/options affected each other. For example, a basic (non SS) Camaro ordered with the RS package would have RS identification on the grille and fenders. However, on a car with both the RS and SS options, the SS badges would take the place of the RS badges. However, I believe the RS badging remained in place with the Z/28 option, with the except of the "RS" grille badge for the 1969 model year.