tim boyd

Dave - thanks for resurfacing this thread ************************************* Some really cool building skills and creativity on display here from all who've posted. Congrats to all. ************************************* And Bernard....some more pix on that killer gold metalflake channeled '27 T Turtledeck, please? Somehow I missed this one previously. ************************************* Best regards to all....TIM

Lloyd....there are now NNL or NNL-like non-competitive events all around the country, and indeed, overseas (including South Africa and Australia). Many of these shows are showing growth in participation and entries (contradicting the view of some that "the hobby is dying"). As noted in one of the other threads in this folder, some believe that the NNL Motor City may pick up some of the recurring participants in the NNL Nationals after next year, and I expect other established NNL events will do the same. Thanks for the "thanks" on posting the images, too. TIM

Thanks everyone for your comments and feedback. I love this show, and I love sharing it with all of you. If it inspires one more model to be built, or one more partially built model to be completed, it's all worth it. See you all there next year....TIM

Tony is right in that the overall floor space is much, much bigger than the NNL Nats in Ohio. The kit manufacturer presence has also mostly migrated to this show as well. However, the built model car display remains much smaller than the NNL Nats - although it too has shown impressive growth over the last several years. As the NNL Nats 40 year run ends with the final show October, 2019, there is considerable speculation that the built model display at the Motor City NNL will gain many additional participants in the next several years... TIM

Checkout the Contests and Shows' section of the forum (scroll way down on the Forum home page) for full coverage of the 2018 NNL Nationals #38......TIM

Greg.....I missed the announcements as I was talking to someone when the announcements were made and could not hear the PA system very well I do know that Rick Hanmore was awarded the Tony Hill Memorial Family award for his Deora-style transporter and Bonneville Streamliner Go Kart combo. I also was told that John Pizio was voted the "Junk in the Trunk" Theme Award and the Overall Show "Most Popular" awards for his 1963 VW van...... I did not hear the rest of the awards and would welcome anyone who can fill us in with this info.... I always want to caution people that the NNL "most popular" awards are not intended to honor necessarily the "best" overall model at the show, but instead to honor the most popular model - that is, the one that you would most like to load up, take home, and display on your own model shelf. There are plenty of excellent model car contest events these days that single out the "best overall model"; whereas NNL's are all about displaying your models and hanging out with your modeling friends in a non-competitive environment.... Best.....TIM

For your viewing enjoyment and modeling inspiration.....TIM 2018 NNL Nationals Full Coverage

Richard....I did not mean to imply that anyone disregard the photos. I DID mean to express that I do not believe it is valid to make a final, definitive judgement on ANY new kit until one has painted and built it and examined it in its final 3D glory (or not). Photography alone sometimes does not tell the whole story. As for this particular kit, draw your own conclusions based on the photography presented so far. Beyond that, I was fortunate enough to see and briefly handle a completed (but not painted or detailed) test shot of the kit. I was favorably impressed. But I still want to hold off a final determination (i.e. my own personal conclusion about the new kit) until I see assembled and painted examples by members of this board and others, and possibly assemble the kit myself. I apologize as it appears that I have been less than clear about the above points.... Cheers.....TIM

Out of the box, my vote is solidly behind the Revell snapper as the most authentic body (thought not perfect).. I address the issues of all these kits (including the MPC '71/'72) in my book, and yes, as some of you mention, I also conclude that an all-new tooling of a full detail 1970 Chevelle SS454 LS6 kit is must. Personally I'd like to see what Moebius would do with this, but since the guts (engine/chassis/suspension) of the new Revell 1968 Chevelle are also correct for a 1970, the new Revell Germany would be the obvious choice for such a kit. This presumes that they will do further North-American-specific kits - still an open question at this point. TIM PS - for those of you that want to work with the Revell snapper, an article on detailing this kit is scheduled for a future issue of a different publication......TB

For those looking for images on correcting both the 1967 Camaro and Revell 1966 Impala kits, check out the highlighted photo albums dating from about four years ago...there are also detail photos of other 1/1 scale cars referenced in this thread at this folder link.....including the Revell 1969 Revell and 1970 'cuda, and Chuck's all time favorite kit of all (Not!). I did not mean to imply that photography alone prohibits you from finding errors in a given model kit (as several of you have thoroughly demonstrated above); but only to say that do draw an overall conclusion of the total worth of a given kit, you need to give it the benefit of being built and painted in three dimensional form (just as you need to see a real car in three dimensional form) to come to a solid, final conclusion about its design. Photography is a great help, but it alone can't get you over the finish line. And while Chuck's experience is otherwise, mine is that paint and chrome (i.e. BareMetal) is absolutely essential in drawing a conclusion about a given model kit. Like Chuck and I, your experience may vary...…:) TIM

On the 1965/66 kit, by all indications I can determine, was tooled and produced by AMT, not MPC. Not an ironclad conclusion, though. (For anyone unfamiliar with these kits, the AMT-branded 1965 Barracuda kit box art is pictured in my book in the chapter on all the Pony Cars except Mustang and Camaro....). I also checked the Paul Bender promotionals guide book (caution.....my copy is dated 1995 so it is well out of date); it said the 1967 Barracuda promo was by AMT, not MPC. So Dennis and the Paul Bender guide (unless corrected in later editions) seem to have drawn different conclusions as well. I have come up with one person who was there at the time and might possibly know for sure, I'll try to contact him this week and see if he can shed any light on it. Until then, let's continue to presume both alternatives are plausible......cheers....TIM

Dave......I appreciate the added info. I've known Dennis for over 40 years now and trust him a great deal as an accomplished modeler, writer, and historian. In this case I am going to stick to my guns....I believe that the AMT '67 Barracuda was an AMT tool, derived from the 1965-66 tool, and then migrated to MPC for the 1968 run. To the best of my knowledge, the only MPC-tooled kits that were originally sold under the AMT are those that carried all the elements cited in my earlier post. But I think you also have compelling rationale for your conclusion, so I guess this is one where we maybe need to agree to disagree. Too bad Mr Toteff is not around these days, I'll bet he could tell us for sure... TIM

Richard....thanks for your thoughtfully worded counterpoint. I'm looking forward to seeing how this project progresses.....TIM

The 1969 Dodge Daytona and 1958 Corvette were the first two Pro-Modeler series kit of automotive subjects. The Torino GT followed a couple of years later IIRC.

What Mark said.....really good points all, and even more-so about being the only accurate kit source of a Ford 385 series (429/460) engine. TIM

Good points all and good discussion. * My comments were intended to apply to newly tooled modern generation kits, not kits of the past. * My point about building the kits certainly applies to fit and finish, but equally to judging proportions, and judging the overall accuracy and lifelike appearance of a kit. * Relying upon photography alone to make a valid determination of a kit's accuracy is risky practice. In some cases photography can and will mislead you. * I generally prefer not to talk about my work life experiences when I am discussing our hobby, but I am going to make an exception here. During the last 1/3rd of my professional career I worked alongside some of the auto industry's most talented design executives in a business/organizational support role, and during the last five years, I took over responsibility for my former employer's three global advanced design studios. What I experienced during this 11 year period personally and from my colleagues was the following: I can say with certainty that trying to judge a car's appearance (or a model car's accuracy) from photography alone is not a valid way to make a complete determination. The only way to do that is to see something in person, in 3D presentation. I experienced this time and time again both in my professional career and my hobby. In the case of a model car, that means a built and painted, complete model car. ***** The Revelll 1967 Camaro kit is a good example of a kit where the photography does reveal some flaws; particularly the lack of the two horizontal bars in the grille engraving, and the undersized wheels. The overly emphasized rear fender edge sloping inward toward the ground was less obvious to me but some of you picked it out as well. However, no kit is perfect, and to form an overall, educated conclusion you need to build the entire kit, then assess the finished appearance along with the ease of assembly, fit and finish, parts choice, overall accuracy, etc. I still maintain that's the only way to come to a completely educated conclusion. I have not built that kit myself, Based on what I have observed, it strikes me as an OK but somewhat flawed effort; not among Revell's best kits of the last five years. But unless and until I build it, my conclusion remains incomplete and somewhat ill-informed. BTW, I have personally seen a completed built up sample of the new 1968 Chevelle kit. It was not painted which is a strike against making an educated conclusion, and I was only able to observe and handle it for a very short period of time. As a result, my take on the kit is lacking an informed judgment in a number of areas. What I can say is that I did not see any major alarm bells and the overall impression was favorable. But until a number of us actually build the kit and show the results, my point remains that we will not have a totally informed and fully educated point of view on the kit. Take all this for what it's worth. I doubt I will convince anyone who sees this differently, but at least you hopefully might understand why I would take this position. Best to you all! TIM

Guys.....finally got the time to visit the storage unit and do some more research on this. I don't have complete info but the following is based on the original issue kits, partially built kits, box art, instruction sheets and reissues I do have. 1. The powertrains (both the 426 Hemi and Slant Six) originated in the AMT-designed and tooled 1965 Barracuda kit and carried over essentially intact through the AMT 1966 and 1967 Barracuda and 1968 MPC Barracuda kits (I don't have an original issue MPC 1969 but presume this applies to that kit as well). 2. The promo style chassis plate with engraved single exhaust was (given the degree of info I have) carried through the entire production run of the above kits as well. 3 The promo style chassis plate from the Barris Fireball 500 is identical the one in the Barracuda kits other than that the single exhaust engraving was removed for this kit run. 4. The six or so kits that were tooled by MPC and sold for their first production run under the AMT label all shared the following unique points. (a)... They had MPC-style box art even though they had AMT branding for the first run. (b)... They had MPC style "stick" instruction sheet drawings vs. the beautifully conceived AMT art department instruction sheet illustrations and (c) they were released only once, during the 1964 to 1965 period under AMT labels and all subsequent runs of the toolings wore MPC labels. The original AMT 1965-67 Barracuda annual kits show none of the above traits. From the above, my conclusion remains that the original Barracuda tooling was developed by AMT (not MPC) and it was not until 1968 (for reasons still unexplained) that it migrated to MPC. Hope that helps......don't hesitate to post if you have different info.....TIM

Looking at the pictures, this appears to be the revised Revell 1970 Torino GT kit released a couple of years back. While not mentioned in either of the model car magazine reviews of this updated kit, this issue included a highly important revision to the body casting that corrected the incorrect lower rear quarter panels in the original kit. It also included corrected front bucket seats. This was always a good kit, and with the corrections that much better yet. A great buy at that price above.... TIM

Like Chuck in his consistency on this subject, I will also restate my consistent view on this. The ONLY truly valuable critique on a kit comes from those who have purchased the kit AND actually built it. Since the kit is not on the market yet, no comments to date reflect that level of personal critique and knowledge. I actually think this thread has been fairly tame and fair compared to some other kit critique threads. And like many others I find comments on the accuracy of future, unleased kits to be entertaining and, at times, also informative. But they are no substitute from the posted feedback from those who have actually built the kit, and the more such posts, the more helpful the information becomes for the rest of us. TIM

This was one of those AMT kits from the corporate dark days of the late 1970's. I built it soon after it came out, kitbashing the turbo engine with the styleside version with the pickup bed top that made it look like a van, and a black with candy blue/green/purple graphics. My recollection is that it was a pretty painless build and a very good kit for its era. This tool and its variations does seem like a good candidate for future reissues,,,,,,I'll mention to John G. at Round 2 when we next talk.....TIM t

Dave....nicely done! Those fixed rear quarters do a great job of showing this kit for its true potential. Also, looking at the slightly nose up front stance and the front suspension, looks like you did some serious kitbashing there...….are those the springs from the AMT '37 Chevy Gasser version and a straight tube axle from aluminum tubing? Whatever it is, it really adds to the overall impact.....TIM

Guys, double check me on this one as I do not have my reference material at hand right now, but my recollection is that unlike some of the MPC tooled kits initially sold under the AMT label, the 1967-69 Barracuda tool was an evolution of the earlier 1965-66 AMT kit, meaning in this case it was AMT-originated tooling that migrated to MPC for the 1968-69 updates. My book has the full story on this IIRC. TIM

Jason.....I do not. Steve returned from his successful assignment supporting the Lincoln Navigator launch at the end of last year, and he is continuing to build models of various topics with his usual high-detail standards, but I am not clear on what is happening or not with Calnaga Castings. Recommend you email him and ask directly (PM me if you need his email addy)…...TIM

The blower scoop looks like a Steve Perry/Calnaga Castings part, and I know Steve spent a lot of time doing a more accurate master for the SOHC valve covers, so maybe that is a Calnaga part as well....??? TIM

That "''72" El Camino photo is much closer to actual production than most of the other design studies shown here. How do I know that? First, the GM "A-Body" program was originally scheduled for the 1972 model year, not 1973 as actually occurred. Various explanations for the delay include a UAW strike early in the program development, and another more recent explanation that escapes my memory bank at the moment. Second, well into the 1972 A-Body program, the federal bureaucracy inserted itself into the automotive design world with their declaration that all 1973 cars would have to have 5mph front bumpers. The 1972 (now 1973) GM A-bodies had to be redesigned, relatively late in the development process, to accommodate the 5mph front bumpers. Some of the cars (the Buick Century Regal and particularly the Olds Cutlass and Cutlass Supreme) managed the transition to the bigger bumpers well. The other two, the Chevelle/Malibu/ElCamino, and the Pontiac LeMans/GTO (other than the Grand Am) suffered greatly. This mage gives us a hint of what the Chevelle/Malibu front end might have looked like without the 5pmh bumper change. Not the most beautiful design, but infinitely more commercially acceptable than the final 1973 production design that resulted. Thanks guys for posting all these GM Design Studio photos.....TIM