tim boyd

The "hangers" in this case were like coat hangers, and each one held a sleeve of clear plastic with all the parts runners for a given mold inside. Round 2 had apparently contracted for an extremely well qualified individual to go through the tooling bank and run test shots of everything there. (Reportedly this same exercise revealed all the parts of the original AMT California Hauler kit, which were welded off in the Peterbilt 352 cabover tool (e.g., it was actually a shared tool incorporating individual parts for the 359, individual parts for the 352, and parts common to both kits. As most of you know well, the California Hauler 359 was rumored to have been scrapped decades ago.) The pictures I saw clearly showed most of the components of the funny car version of the '64 Olds. TIM

I can't even begin to imagine putting this kit together in under one day and having it turn out like this. Amazing! TIM

Four most excellent upgrades...errr....corrections, Richard! Thanks for sharing....TIM

Lotsa truth in your post, Chris! TIM PS - If AMT/Ertl had done it when they announced their version, it would have been done extremely well to the 95% level and then stopped there, as it always seemed to me that many of the kits of the late AMT/Ertl/early RC era were excellent efforts that were taken out of the oven before they were quite done.....TB

Harry...I don't know the history of this kit, but is it one that saw life previously under the Entex label in the mid 1970's? If so, I can only imagine what you had to do to make it look this sharp....and it does looks terrific. Congratulations! TIM

Regarding the Olds topless roadster kit....a while back there was a post with photos of some of the "hangers" from an in-depth Round 2 tooling audit of the old AMT/Ertl archives...one of the hangers showed most of the unique parts for the '64 Topless Olds kit....but IIRC there were a few key parts still missing. Maybe someone remembers that post and the pictures that went with it? TIM

Steve...you did a spectacular job on that model - and it was a great choice to begin with. I've always liked the '63/'64 Chryslers as they were unique in the Chrysler family at that time and very distinctive in the marketplace. You mentioned you're now working on a '65 300....will be watching for that one too! The paint detailing....accurate appearance, and the underhood wiring/detailing...all really, really sharp. Way to go.... (You may remember that I did a buildup/restoration of a discarded '63 Chrysler 300 a little over 20 years ago for the other model car mag...) TIM

I was doing some work for AMT back when this change took place. The revised two-piece tires required all-new tooling; as I recall the decision was made due to costs of raw materials used for the kits which had gone up stratospheric-ally as a result of the first Arab Oil Embargo, and AMT was looking for every opportunity to reduce their kit piece cost. Again, my 40 year old memory on this is pretty vague, but apparently the cost of vinyl for their old solid-core tires of many sizes was quite high - more than enough to offset the added cost of tooling up all-new tire molds. As I also recall, the AMT Engineering Dept. personnel weren't too happy with this move, as the new two-piece tires had a very obvious seam when assembled, they didn't glue together well with styrene glue, and the tires tended to be distorted coming out of the mold making it a poor match when the two halves were assembled together. This was just one of a number of changes made at AMT that seriously compromised the quality reputation of their kits back then, and was in my view one of several factors leading to a long term sales decline and the eventual sale of the company to Lesney circa late '78/'79. TB

There were four funny car kits that shared this chassis - Nitro Charger '71 Charger, El Toro '70/'71 Torino, Novacaine, and the FunnyHugger II, which was the old AMT '69 Camaro Funny Car body (the one with the horribly radiused rear wheel wells) wherein the original Logghe chassis replaced with this new digger style chassis instead. This last version was reissued a few years back by The Model King. I am not aware of any other kits using this chassis. AMT released yet another, all-new funny car chassis about 2-4 years later, and that underpinned a whole series of funny car kits, with the first one out of the gate being a Ford Mustang II fastback body. A few years ago I built up the Nitro Charger version, using a discarded / damaged Nitro Charger body and engine along with the FunnyHugger II Model King Chassis. It's quite a well detailed chassis, by the way, but the layout and assembly of the interior paneling is not well described in the instructions. It does go together, and fits fine, but you'll need to experiment to figure out the assembly procedure. Each kit version has its own engine - I liked the NitroCharger when it first came out (circa 1971 or 72) because it was the first kit to include the Hampton style blower (instead of the usual 6-71 blower). TIM

This topic was covered in a kit review of the Revell '50 Olds in the other magazine not long ago, but not nearly in the detail of Bob's post above. I think Bob's recollection of the timing may have been a bit off....by 1966 Monogram was starting to enter into its "thingie" and Tom Daniel kit phases; I think a more logical time frame from both Monogram and Revell perspective might have been 1964 or 1965 (perhaps right before or after both companies introduced their 1955 Chevy Bel Air kits in 1963 and 1965, respectively). Regretably, as we all know, Bob Paeth passed away a number of years ago, so we can't revisit the subject with him now. And for some reason I was under the impression that Bob Johnson didn't join Monogram until much, much later than in 1966. But I could be wrong... Casey, I for one am enjoying these old posts that you are bringing forward. And like all of you, I too miss Bob. TIM

Dennis...thanks...I thought that might have been the case. One of these days I need to go reread all those Modeler's Corner columns....TIM

John...count me in. I had the eight track back in 1969/70....which of course gave up the ghost many years ago....so I got the CD also many (now) years ago...maybe I need to dig it out and play it again! TIM

Jeff - I've long wondered about that very point. Several Revell's Executives (past and present) are (were) very accomplished model car builders. TB

..and that's your choice, rightfully so. My statement reflected my view of the situation, but apologize if that was broadly interpreted to speak for everyone in the hobby.... TIM

Stephen....yes the rear chassis pan needs to be trimmed (as noted in the instructions), but what they don't say is that it must be trimmed laterally along the back, but also additional triangular sections off the far rear corners of the pan....do that and the rest falls into place (reasonably well). TIM

"Maybe the model companies will figure out that they don't make kits for 12 year old's anymore..." ************* Depends on the price point and content, but I can assure you that the model companies know every well that the target for their full detail kits is adults. We won that battle (more or less) back in the 1980's. This debate then is simply a function of cost to the manufacturer vs. customer price point - what can the product be priced at, and what can be included in the kit at that price and still make a profit. Unfortunately, adult model builders in the Americas have shown to be very price sensitive (vs. adult modelers in other markets worldwide), and that restricts the options for the model companies. Personally, between photo-etch and deeper engraving, I'd like to see the emblems engraved with greater depth, but failing that, decals are an OK solution. In cases like the Revell Camaro, where all indications point to future derivatives, engraving nameplates just doesn't work. Photo etch sheets, as a variable expense, are a big hit in the cost of the product to the manufacturer. I like the idea of photo-etch at a higher kit price, but don't forget that the original Revell Pro-Modeler 1970 Torino GT kit, with its original much higher price point, included a fairly extensive sheet of photo-etch. Apparently it was not valued, as the kit was not a great seller. Great news is that the kit was just reissued, and still includes the photo etch (along with some other updates/corrections), at a more mainstream price point. It will be interesting to see if the addition of photo etch at a mainstream price point increases sales the second time around. Also, I like Luc's idea of metal transfers, but that again carries a higher cost to the manufacturer - will the (adult) modeling public be willing to pay the higher cost? TIM

Wow...these are all great builds of these very simplistic kits. Whenever I see a series of models like these, I think back to the AMT Designers, Modeling staff, engineers, and Art Department and how they would be amazed - and I suspect, very proud - of this kit series, and what we've done with them. Bravo! TIM

Mark...thanks for the postings and for your work with Don. I especially enjoyed your "phantom" two door sedan and thanks for posting additional photos of that. Best Regards...TIM

Great stuff, Ira. It is SO COOL to see one of the premier builders from the "old days" back in the hobby, building new models, and expanding your scope of interest. Just inspirational. TIM

Gene...really.good progress. And glad to know your Cats are supervising.....mine does the same thing. As a matter of fact, he was sitting here on my lap, making it difficult for me to type, until just a couple of minutes ago! TIM

I told Steve in a private email that I thought I remembered this model. I think I might have seen it in person at an NNL event back then???? Anyway, it sure looks sweet....and I like Steve's top treatment better than the one I did. My build, including the paint and top, was inspired by the late Brian Borden's artwork from a Revell catalog IIRC. Thanks for posting Steve - and sure glad you liked the article. Best regards...TIM

Lagib said "...these two openings are open due to a resignation and a retirement...." **************** Al- presuming your source of info is correct (and I am assuming it is), thanks for the clarification. Best regards...TIM

Thanks Snake. I already did one assignment for Revell's Marketing and Engineering VP's about a year ago, after that one, not sure if they would even consider me for another one (smile!). Seriously, I retired from the auto industry about 15 months ago and my plan at that point was to stay retired unless something incredibly tempting materialized. Nothing has happened since then that would change that plan... But thanks for the vote anyway! Let's take this as a good sign that Revell deems their business climate healthy enough to add two people - which given the size of their team today as I understand it, is a significant increase. Best regards...TIM PS everyone - if you haven't already, you should read the job descriptions. Gives you a decent idea of the sorts of activities that are required to design, engineer, and bring to market a model car kit. There's a lot more to it than you would think is required....TB

Chuck...thanks for clarifying....the "engine" in your kit certainly sounds much closer in execution to the GTR than it does to the Aventador in my kit stash. It's funny that, having been more the instigator most of my life, whether speaking professionally or as a hobbyist, I now find myself being the "old school" (spelled that way, intentionally) traditionalist, and probably being judged by some reading this thread as "old fashioned" and "out of touch", at least on the subject of 1/24th/125th scale full detail kit content. That aside, my position steadfastly remains that any kit being considered for "Kit of the Year" must have an engine, and a fully done engine, for the reasons I stated earlier. There is nothing on the face of the earth, now, or in the future, that will ever change that view of mine, even the respected thoughts of yourself and other people on this board whose opinion and reasoning I respect equally to yours. For I have also learned that persistence, when properly placed and done with the proper amount of respect, will eventually attain what many consider to be unattainable. That being in this case, the steadfast position that a full detail kit in "bi-scale" cannot be acceptable for such an esteemed honor as "kit of the year" with anything less than a fully detailed, stand alone engine, regardless of what market(s) it is designed and/or sold in. And that this is, indeed, a highly objective standard for evaluation in a market where there are a number of kits deserving of consideration for this honor. So yes, we respectfully disagree on this subject. But at least now I know that the engine parts in the kit you are suggesting, on a continuum from being what I saw in the Aventador, to what I saw in the GTR, seems to be closer to the GTR in aspiration if not for total and complete engine accuracy. And yes, if any agent of an overseas Model Manufacturer is reading this thread, you need to listen seriously - very seriously, to what I am saying. At this point, having said my piece, I'm going to let others have their say on the topic. But I will be following yours and other's continued dialogue. BTW, Happy New Year, Chuck and to all! TB

Chuck - except that the Lambo kit appears to be missing an engine - looks like just a single engine plate/transaxle part in the upper right of your photo. and some parts that appear from the top view under the hatch. Can you confirm if this is correct, or did I miss the separate engine block/parts on the parts tree? I just looked at my Aoshima Aventador kit and it has a separate engine upper but the only detail is on the very top surfaces - the front, the sides are all just a solid block with no shape, no engraving, nothing but a lump except for the top surfaces. There's no accessory drive/fan belt detail, no exhaust header, etc. The box art states " V12 Seperate Engine Parts" but I could only count the block, the top intake assembly, and two small parts that go on the intake. For me, personally, that's not a separate engine - not even close, Too bad, as the rest of the kit looks spectacular. Jon, I just looked at my Aoshima GTR Longtail Pre-Season testing and it has a wonderfully detailed, totally separate engine assembly including a stand-alone engine block, the front end accessory drives, twelve glorious exhaust header tubes, separate cylinder heads, a multi-part intake assembly....Suberb! I feel like I have just built the engine on the workstand at the McLaren plant in the Midlands (I think it's located in the Midlands ")) . I can't recall for sure, but I think I paid way more than $40 for the kit, however. (I bought it at a store, not mail order overseas). For me, personally, no separate engine, no consideration for kit of the year, full stop. When I build a model, I want it to be a miniature experience of what the real car is. The Lambo approaches (as I understand them from Chuck's photo, and from my own Aventador kit) fall strikingly short in the second most important part of any model car replica (the exterior body being the first). But the McLaren is everything a kit engine should be, and then some. BTW, I acknowledge that many of you do not agree with me on this point, but... Hmmm.... This should be an interesting thread....TIM