Chuck Kourouklis

Least I can do is appreciate this belatedly. ?

Sweeeeeeet. See the E46 isn't far from breaking cover...

^^^^

And so, in the latest attempt to justify this arcane tendency to take personal offense at criticizing kits that go a little wayward in their stated objective as scale models, we now circle the moebius loop back to a point I made on another forum some ten years ago: kit manufacturers drove themselves just about bankrupt by doing what we asked them to. Not sure what-all that has to do with tooling amortized decades ago, which I thought was the topic here, but it's a point, anyway. I mean, I don't recall just exactly where '41 Chevy pickups or 1/6 scale visible engines ever listed that highly on the most-wanted polls, but by and large, we didn't do 'em any favors demanding subjects and then giving them little more than a flash of initial sales. So yes, quality products aren't quite as guaranteed to fatten the bottom line as inferior products are to diminish it. Far as that hugely impressive PBY goes, it's one of a litany that deserved to do better. But as arduous as the whole development process may be, there's some reasonable expectation and reliable delivery of profit overall, or it wouldn't be happening. There may be a lotta love going into the product - in fact, it's possible to appreciate the sweat that went into a kit that was ultimately inaccurate - but this ain't a charity, or some goodness-of-their-hearts enterprise for which we all should be prostrate with gratitude. Subject selection complicates the picture a bit, but generally, as a consumer, you have a right to expect something living up to reasonable expectations, and it's not quite the affront to humanity some would have you believe to express disappointment with a product that doesn't meet some obvious, objective standards. And as much as some fellows on the forum have projected onto me their own need always to be right, I have to concede, well into another decade of seeing this sad little pattern repeat, that maybe I'm the one who needs come clarity here. It's all the sort of conduct that would make the vaguest kind of sense if this forum's stated objective were strictly to celebrate kits and not offer any sort of criticism about them. This is a privately owned forum and the owner can do whatever he wants. There'd be nothing wrong with sanitizing the content that way, so maybe I missed a memo someplace. But I participate here with what I see to be a conventional understanding of a modeling forum (and again, I'm open to correction even on that). Straw men premises, such as this fantastical cabal for whom "nothing is ever good enough" - that's what goes off topic. For one of a panoply of examples, take a number of us for whom a certain Kit That Must Not Be Named was a bitter disappointment, who also happen to be delighted with a new kit of that same marque even though it's curbside, simply because the new kit is accurate while the one from 7 years ago was not. The whole fable of the unconditional whiner is demonstrably a fairly tale, but it's what you need if you're going to make any sense out of a certain viewpoint. "More important things to think about", well DUH. Everyone has more important things to think about than kit inaccuracies, this year most particularly. But last I checked, this wasn't Twitter or Facebook, this was a forum about model cars. Not only is "having more important things to think about" blatantly off-topic according to my understanding of a conventional modeling forum, taking a break from those "more important things" may be why we come here or even build models in the first place. Mandating that we're talking about "toys" routinely drives the discussion off topic - even though I don't necessarily disagree with that. I mean there are toys... and then there are TOYS... and then there are TOYS: But even accepting the notion of "toys", who is any one of us to dictate the elasticity of that concept to the rest? If certain forum members take their "toys" a little more seriously than others, just what is it to you? Mandating one rigid notion of the appropriate seriousness is what drives these discussions off topic. What might have stayed on-topic would be a suggestion to temper your expectations a bit because in the case of Atlantis, we're talking about the purchase of tooling half a century old - but no, instead we got somebody telling everyone else how they should feel, once again. That's always driven the discussion off topic, as it has in this case and it will every time it happens again. Unless I missed the memo.

GO. JUSTIN. And let's not pretend the whole driving-manufacturers-out-of-business-with-criticism angle hasn't been run ragged over the past decade-plus. That's a lame, wildly hackneyed rationalization plank surpassed in wobbliness only by the mandate that a scale model can't be seen as anything other than some Mattel-grade toy.

Yikes. Makes me glad I landed my little set years ago...

1/16 caught my eye, too. I'da guessed the 3rd-gen F-cars are something Revell AG might hang onto - they just used the Gatorback tires from the '87 IROC/GTA update for their Porsche 928 - but at this point, who knows? 1/16 and likely GM... hmmm...

Sorry. That's just a whole sled team of badly-abused pooches right there.

My approach for the backups would be small foil strips gone over with white paint just thicker than a wash. I pored this thing over against the '68, looking at stuff like identically-shaped windshield wipers and window recesses, and the ejector pin strikes inside - and it does indeed appear the core body mold is common to the two. As differentiated as the body shell is, that seems to be accomplished by different side cavities with extremely close tolerances.

Yeah! Good enough I'll have one, anyway.

WOW - that's more differentiated than I expected. The way they separated the rear taillight nacelle/moldings might have led you to expect distinct side cavities for the '69 applied to the same core mold, but shoot - differences in the front and rear bumper areas, even the rear wheel arch seems to follow a slightly different contour (may be the variation in perspective between the two bodies, though).

Oh I just saw that and brayed like a jackass, if it makes you feel any better...

X3.

Yup, can verify the Tamiya kit has an engine. Seemed like AMT did some copying from it, too. Think their kit has the same twin-turbo setup, whereas a more accurate modded Supra would have a bigger single turbo. Still, considering the dreck we got after AMT's 2000 bonanza of new tooling, this kit was actually something of a low-bar improvement. Certainly stronger than the Eclipse and Jada-cartoons Evo and 350Z, even if that ain't saying much. AMT had a later version of this kit with better-looking headlight covers than the weird original ones the boxcover would indicate for this re-release. Wonder how that all works.

YEAH, I'm good widdit! Tamiya's is fine 'n all, but I'd LOVE one with a platform interior and front wheels I can point right or left. Diggin' me some 'Gawa lately.

You may have hit on the only way to make a more conventional build of this kit, Matt. Because it follows that uniquely Heller practice of integrating the DLO side windows with the inside door panels in one clear part that you glue from inside the body shell, you wouldn't have to spread the rocker panels to get the body over the interior. As you describe it, the body should just drop right on once you've done the surgery. Only things I can imagine complicating the process are the rear splash aprons for the front wheels, molded to the forward sections of what you want to cut loose. Still, I think that'd beat trying to paint a filled body fuselage-style, around a complete interior and drive train as the aircraft guys always have to do.

Yeah, might just be a matter of trim thickness along the upper border. Revell has definite points of advantage but right now, I'm liking Heller better overall. Will reserve till new kit is on hand.

Okay, then, and thanks for the link! The more I look, the more convinced I am from the tree layout that this kit and the convertible following it will not be sharing windshields and trim - but danged if the build-up doesn't have the general flavor of a coupe with a convertible windshield.

Well here's what occurs to me about that - It's strongly hinted from the interior breakdown, the clear parts grouping, and the fact that they bother to set off "(Coupe)" in the instructions that there's a convertible version iin the offing. And if so, the chrome surround for the windshield might be a common part between the two versions? The chrome sprue grouping indicates it might not be, and the windshield seems to install from the outside, so that and some paint detailing might go some length to correct the apparent height and thickness of the trim. STILL, it seems worth asking those who know these things before we decide to go google it for ourselves - Is the convertible windscreen any lower in profile than the FHC's?

You too, Sir. ? And yup, spare on the right is the only one with that tire. The four holding everything up get the rubber on the left. Re finished, yes, we'll see...

Thanks, Doc! In the interest of finishing something non-review before I DIE, whatcha see there is a pre-finished base with corrections as needed. Heater mesh is a wee cleaner since the shot, dry brushing covered with punctured dull foil cut by a compass blade. Black front suspension arms painted ally, Alclad finishes on rotors and calipers, engine repainted from silver monotone incl molded-in exhaust flanges - sheen is a bit low for shiny ceramic but okay to me. Intake refinished some to spiff up SU bowls and other bits from the silver monochrome pre-finish. Gold pre-finish on diecast top of cylinder head kinda scatty, think I redid it to match molded-in lower head on plastic block w/Alclad gold. Acres-of-black broken up in rear end too w/oxide for the diff and the same Alclad for inboard brakes - think I can knock it back out to get the rear cover black. Wheels are supposed to be a three-cross spoke pattern for the Dunlops provided, but they were SO clearly designed for a two-spoke cross. Just managed to beat the spare wheel on the right kicking, screaming and clawing into the supposedly correct pattern, shimming the assembly jig, rotating rim relative to hub - - but what worked for one wheel didn't necessarily for the next, so I broke down and did the 2-spoke cross on the left for the other four b/c it was merely p-i-t-a difficult, instead of a bloody drag-down knock-out fist fight against parts that obviously weren't conceived for a 3-cross. Took two full days of IT WORKED ON THE SPARE before I finally threw my hands up. Spokes can still pop loose from 3-cross on the right, but they're all locked drum-tight for 2-cross in the other four. And DON'CHA KNOW - have a good look at the Revell wheels and they seem to cross two spokes too. Still love the old Monogram 1/8 dearly, but iIrc, that spoke pattern wasn't even close. Doors have gotten a couple U-Pol clearcoats, but the body shell looks like it might do pretty well without. Go figure...

oooh, THANKS! Just showed why I'll find this really useful.

Quick aside for a man who'd know - been up to my eyeballs in E-Type lately... ?

Welp, gonna be "that guy" again. Isn't the DLO lower supposed to be a dead-straight line? Looks like it kinks up over the haunches at the rear window in the test shot. Not such a hard fix and I'll be getting mine. Still 'n all...

I'm guessing not - tires are this sort of stiff vinyl or nylon-feeling plastic a bit like what Lindberg big-scale tires are made of, two halves with a flat tread piece you encircle between them. Separate white wall rings. Man, thought I got a deal on mine a few years back - if the link above is any indication, now I know I did. ?