Chuck Kourouklis

A pleasure as always, Tim! I've enjoyed this exchange too, and especially your indulgence as we get down into the weeds. Actually think it would be fun to anthologize, though I don't know if it's worth the effort for just two readers. ? If I may sort the record a little, it wasn't Fujimi's Astro to take that ranking - 2002, I think? and I'm pretty sure it had migrated to Scale Auto by then - but Tamiya's Mitsubishi Evo VII: And it was actually that comparison more than any other to force me to reckon with this whole issue. Those rankings were necessarily subjective, just one dude's experiences and opinions after all; but I tried to impose as many objective criteria as possible and assign them scores. And sometimes the numbers would take those rankings in directions I didn't anticipate. Can't say I was surprised by the Tamiya Evo, though. Scale Auto had completed build pics of most of the other kits that year, but they wanted me to finish this one properly, and it took about half the time I thought it would. To claim it flew together doesn't quite cover it; it was as if the thing actually cheered you on from one step to the next. And so here was a kit with a parts count in the 130s, lavishing significantly more detail and engineering cleverness on its suspension and roll-caged interior than Revell did on the '68 Firebird's engine or any other part of that kit. The Firebird had about 120 parts total and around 90 in whichever version you finished, and while it wasn't exactly difficult to build, it had some temperament here and there where Tamiya's had nothing of the kind in 50% more parts. So I'm supposed to rank the Firebird over the Evo simply because the former had an engine and the latter didn't? The notion was flat RIDICULOUS in this example, and it demonstrated in no uncertain terms just how arbitrary and unmoored from ANY sort of fairness such a criterion would have been. What may stick in your mind about the Astro is that it also beat the Firebird, even with the consideration given Revell in its design score for offering two versions. It was also a trouble-free build with a lot of intricacy packed into its interior and undercarriage, no temperament at all in a parts count 30% greater. The Firebird actually did well to land in 3rd place that year. It wasn't quite the precipitous nose dive in quality embodied by AMT's '58 Plymouth and Ala-Kart, but it was a bit of a backslide, especially as compared to two short years previously. Now as for an engine being the main appeal of a car, recall that the thought experiment mandated objective arguments. Sure, there can be consensus on certain subjects (if there's a curbside plastic kit of a Shelby Cobra anywhere, I sure have yet to see it), but what's a Countach defined by, its V12 or its outrageous shape? What defines a C8 Corvette, the engine or exactly where in the car you see the top of it? It's certainly a line of reasoning to demonstrate why more modelers might want to see the 389 in that Tempest, or that Coyote V8 in what might otherwise be a V6 rental car, and it's a strong, visceral emotional appeal; but as a hard, objective condition for a complete model, it doesn't quite deliver. And as for the representation of an engine versus an operating one, I'm afraid it's not quite as simple as all that... *ducking* I'm glad we're in agreement that an engine bay isn't complete without a steering column and box! But if we take your line of reasoning on commensurate omissions and prosecute it completely, its complexion changes drastically for this reason: the omission of a door is immediately visible. With the exception of hot rods and some exotics pimping their mills under glass, the omission of an engine (and steering components) is not. Let's say you didn't mean an actual missing door, but the engraved panel lines defining it, and that those panel lines would be plenty sufficient for a complete model. By the most commensurate measure, some good 3-D molding of the powertrain lowers on a chassis plate would be EXACTLY as "complete". As for positional steering, here's the most 1:1-looking shot I took of Pocher's Aventador: Now that's a car defined in great measure by its manic V12. But there's a car model feature that might help sell this pic as 1:1 to the less initiated - and it ain't the engine. And this is where it becomes apparent that you and I might not be starting from the exact same premise. A modeling pal came up with what I hold to be the most beautifully quintessential expression of a scale model's purpose, something I've taken to calling the Taylor Maxim: a scale model's primary job is to sit there and look like its 1:1 subject. Accuracy and precision, exact proportions and every immediately visible feature possible in scale are essential to achieve this purpose. An engine. just. isn't. It can be a dazzling addition, but a scale model can be entirely complete by this definition without one. But that's mainly for those who subscribe to the Taylor Maxim, and you might not... Well. There are those who would seize on the first flimsy excuse for some pious declaration on how we've gotten off topic, and here I am venturing dangerously close to actually justifying such a thing. ?

And ain't it a 5.2 Voodoo anyway? Seems you pop the hood on any current GT350 'n ya get 95% of the picture.

Maybe. And for the record, I don't think the promo S550 kits have gotten off scott-free here. When I see "If there were other S550 generation Mustang full detail kits on the market, this would really not be an issue," it's all too easy to read that as, "After six years of balls dropped by a lousy 'Build 'n Play' for the most deserving Mustang since the original, it is MILES beyond frustrating to see a manufacturer like Tamiya come soooooooo close to giving us an engine only to miss it by THAT MUCH." Not to put words in anybody's mouth, but though the commentary isn't explicit, I think it's there pretty loud between the lines. Then again, that's probably just me. ? That's not only a valid point, it's a necessary one to make. Two things to add to the mix: Tamiya has actually delayed the domestic release of the kit relative to the global market, though as it was mentioned earlier, order stops and sales rankings portend big news when they finally cut it loose at home. Second, for a bunch of Yanks conditioned to expect engines in kits over six decades, there seem to be quite a few of us here advocating the world view for that devil omission.

And I absolutely respect your right to demand an engine and what's more, I even appreciate it, and the weight you put behind it - 'cause if you convince the right people, the resulting kits will certainly suit my preferences better too! Do I feel in my gut that all other things being equal, a car model kit with engine is more complete than one without? Absolutely. Tamiya's second releases with engines, Gunze Sangyo's High-Tech 250GTO with engine versus the one without, YES; I'd agree they're more complete, beyond any subjective doubt. Long as the added GS pot metal doesn't bring a gratuitous new headache in building that GTO, I might even allow they're objectively more complete. But "all other things being equal" is a circumstance rarely encountered between kits. It's a good thing to include "within reason" to squeeze the brakes a bit, but it also begs a deeply subjective question: whose standard of "within reason", exactly? 'Cause on the one hand, you might have a 1300+-piece MFH 1/12 250GTO with individual wheel spokes and an iron mine's worth of photoetch and yes, more than 200 parts of glorious Colombo V12 in miniature, including reciprocating mass that actually reciprocates(!) On the other, you've got a 1/12 488 GTB "proportion" kit that's essentially a few big hunks of resin, flat chassis, metal wheels, rubber tires, and just the engine and interior accoutrements necessary to make it look very accurate and complete as it sits there all closed up and stationary on your shelf. I sure know which I'd rather, even if I also know which is more likely to find its way to literal completion. And in purely objective terms, I find myself hard-pressed to call one kit more complete than the other. I've got really strong feelings favoring the 250, but those feelings are SUBJECTIVE, a PERSONAL PREFERENCE however iron-clad it feels to me. I'm not interested in changing anyone's views either, but I do have a thought experiment to throw out there: I submit that there is no argument anyone can pose for the OBJECTIVE necessity of a full kit engine that doesn't make poseable steering and opening doors even MORE important to a complete car model. C'mon, now. You see those features in the wild an order of magnitude more frequently than you do engines and open hoods. Building a 1:1? You'd better believe you'll be hanging doors on nearly all of 'em, and your finished ride will be less than useless if you haven't built the steering to guide it - even without an engine, the thing can at least coast downhill under control long as you can influence its direction. We could get into brakes, too, but the rabbit hole's inevitable enough as it is. Examine rigorously this question: just WHAT IS IT that puts a full engine "within reason" as an objective requirement for a complete car model - such that you can call a kit without one incomplete with logical infallibility - to the exclusion of steering, opening doors, or any number of other car model features? To pursue this line of reasoning completely and honestly will be to confront a steep slope that really does slide - and I mean like banana peels on melting ice in the middle of an oil slick dead center of the karousel at the 'Ring. Would I have SO much preferred the full Voodoo treatment from Tamiya? A thousand times, yes! Will I call the kit incomplete without it? A thousand times a thousand times, NO.

Very nice! We don't see a ton of these, and it's nice to behold a few done justice.

Just in case anyone needs a refresher - I think Casey might recall - that whole "Kit That Must Not Be Named" thing was less about the kit itself and more about certain forum denizens who got a little put out by constant references to the i r r e f u t a b l e example of a lesser moment from Revell that it was. In truth, it was never even sporting to pick on such a forlorn effort. Still, it is clearly better in certain areas where this old MPC tooling is weak, just as long as you know a bash will entail some serious surgery. As for the Mustang GT4, um, it appears to be selling just fine, even with a fair number of domestic buyers. Anecdotally, anyway - got a number of acquaintances and pals snapping multiples up like Lays chips, me included. It's had an order stop at one pusher across the Pacific and a number three sales ranking at another. Of course, you have the core of an engine right there in that kit. You can also look back to where Tamiya started with a curbside and then grew an entire engine out of a molded-in oil pan for the next release, as with their FD RX-7 and GET THIS - the last Mustang they took a swing at, horrid as that turned out. Is it likely, eh, I dunno. I'd personally want to pore around the strut towers and such to gauge the probability, and I'm still waiting on mine. But stranger things, and all... Do I still sympathize deeply with a demand for an engine? You bet. I'd just propose maybe Revell's Boss 2 from 2013 as a better kit to leverage that point with, say, than something this hoary from MPC. Though I do remember suggesting a reissue of this to Round2 to coincide with Revell's then-new kit. BEFORE the latter was released, of course. Good times. ?

Exactly. Revell's Eclipse tears AMT's a new one.

"...don't get upset with me because I like something different" - ? I've addressed that already. Right there in your quoted section. Now as for "any number of reasons", I see where the line of thought is going and that's grinding to a halt right now: to quote my favorite line from a friend, a scale model's one overarching job is to sit there and look like the 1:1. The single most objective failure a scale model can have is to be visibly off in proportions, and so by the very definition of a scale model, visible inaccuracies make a kit objectively deficient. That's as hard and exact as the 3D mathematics involved to make it right that get violated when it's made wrong, and it's folly to draw any false equivalencies between that basic mandate and anybody's predilection to specific bells and whistles. Pointed out that your 959 example isn't so representative of current Tamiya kits, but I didn't say it was wrong after all. But there's an important distinction you make in saying kits without engines are deficient to you, and that's the difference. It certainly beats more absolute statements for fairness.

Except that they're not that simplified any more. That curbside Mitsu IX from 2002 had 135 parts with scads more detail in its interior than its 92-piece domestic contemporary had in the engine bay. Anybody with a frame of reference newer than 30+ years old can appreciate how far Tamiya kits have come in that regard. Not liking it or wanting to get it is one thing, a consideration entirely independent of right and wrong. Where a modeler puts himself on shaky ground is to suggest a kit is deficient somehow because it doesn't include a feature he wants, independent of any consideration how well the rest of the kit is executed.

I'm sorry - no, I'm really sorry - but I guess it all comes down to that same old thing: hanging an argument on straw-man distortions of reality more than on actual fact. So we're going along with this line again even though this very thread has covered some of Tamiya's less glorious moments, right? Of course it's a myth. It's also pretty grossly misrepresentative of anything anyone is actually saying. It's every bit as fair to claim you're asserting that there's no basis at all to appreciate Tamiya kits, that anybody who praises one does so more out of some fever dream than from an objective assessment of their unique qualities and some actual advantages they may have compared to other manufacturers. Uh huh. Like Tamiya's Enzo and LaFerrari, say? Like their Opel Calibra with opening gullwing doors, out a bit more than a decade before their actual Mercedes 300SL gullwing? Or the Lexus LFA substructure so comprehensive they came out with a clear-body version? I'll just spare the instant, face-planting humiliation Tamiya's 1/12 line brings to this premise and stick with 1/24. How about the headlight bucket design on the Tamiya Ford GT? Or the two-element solution to the new Supra's wheels so you don't have to spend untold hours of tedious masking to get the 1:1 effect? On average for current offerings, even the curbside Tamiya cars bring in a slightly higher parts count than than the domestics - in the 130s or so vs 120s for the US - which makes it all the more impressive when those parts go together without temperament. You make it a binary consideration between building ease and detail when the fact is that Tamiya derives building ease out of better design and engineering. They just choose to spend their detail efforts in areas other than the engine, for some but not all of their new releases. Again it's just as fair to assert you're dismissing any Tamiya curbside straight out of hand sight-unseen because it doesn't depict a complete engine - which in the end is nothing more than a personal preference. One which I enthusiastically share, btw, for the 105,632nd time. I just don't treat my preference as a design edict a manufacturer must satisfy or fail, is all.

Tamiya Evo IX flew together, intricate decals and all, in less than three days - enabling me to bring in a long article ahead of schedule - simply because it was well-designed and it fit. EIGHTEEN. Years. Ago. Even going back two decades is a less risible standard for comparison than cherry-picked kits relatively fresh out of Tamiya's motorization phase. I see we've conveniently left the Testarossa and the Peugeot 205 out of the argument when it comes to '80s releases.

That, and the fact that Tamiya's game may have moved on a wee in the past 30 years...

Bears repeating. ?

Brother, the choir can only say "amen" to your preaching. I've only hectored the domestics online and in print about LIDAR for the better part of a decade by now. Lookit that, two "amens" in one day. ?

All I can say is, this looks waaaayyy better than Tamiya's LAST attempt at a Mustang. Yup, said it: Tamiya is a manufacturer that at least occasionally does wrong. And even that horrid SN95 was retooled into a Cobra R with a mashed greenhouse and a rudimentary engine, so who knows? On the other hand, Tamiya kits have NEVER failed me on deadlines. There are just no excuses in the last 10 or so I've built; stuff fits as its supposed to fit, so yeah, I'm going to rate a 135-piece Tamiya rally car that both spends its parts count on a detailed interior and practically sucks itself together over a 92-piece domestic that can't get its hood around an optional blower. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no objective basis for panning a kit simply for omitting an engine; the more credible opinions on these matters are formed on a kit by kit basis. That said, is there a SUBJECTIVE basis for complaint? Particularly in light of what US domestic manufacturers - who were there first - have conditioned us to expect? Sure! That's why even though I part ways with Tim on his ultimate conclusion, I share nearly all of his disappointment. Comes to it, I'd really rather have a full engine too. And while the hypocrisy described in this thread is a real thing, I personally have yet to see where Tim is guilty of it.

I appreciated this kit belatedly when it first came out - was really more into current machines at the time - but when I got it a few months behind the curve, I very quickly grew enamored. The suspension arms have bosses to put the uprights at a bit of negative camber once they're installed, so I filled and redrilled mine, upper and lower, to put the front wheels more purely perpendicular to the surface and still fake some steering. There might have been some air cleaner clearance issues on mine, but I'm not positive about that 30+ years later. One thing I can advise everyone to do is not to slide the body forward to the stops on the engine bay side aprons at the cowl. Everyone who does that puts the body a bit forward of centering the wheels relative to the wheel arches, and the model happily allows you to fudge the body shell backward a bit till everything is properly aligned.

Who can forget it indeed! Of Monogram's long, storied line of 1/24 muscle covered in this thread, that Buick was arguably the finest and most accurate overall. Stands tall in the entire field of bi-scale plastic GM A-body kits to this very day.

B/M or '68 convertible? YES.

Yup! Mine's further back on the triage because I have a couple subscription models that won't need so much refinishing ahead of it, but there's no way that stock engine bay can stand as-is. Do like the wheel and tire package on the Agora version, though...

Serve 'em all up, far as I'm concerned. Bet there's something further up the sleeve for the Chevelle tooling - not an Elco but perhaps a vintage drag version - but that's a distinctly uneducated guess. '69 will be great in the meantime. Also glad the '29/'30 Fords are coming back, and it'll be fun to compare them with the ones I snatched up before the tooling mishap. I'll pile on with those who think the small block suits the roadster a wee better and the nailhead looks better in the coupe.

Guess it's a good thing straw men don't cry.

Was gonna say, I've had my eye on one or two of those Doyusha kits. You'd still be paying a couple hundred for a new-tool Italeri, but perhaps a smidge less. Yours, that one? Very nice!

One can only... Once upon a time, Tamiya released an FD RX-7 with engine lowers and a shut hood, and then followed up with an open-hood version and something to top the lowers. Then there was Tamiya's SN-95 Mustang convertible (otherwise best forgotten, thank Almighty God the GT4 looks so much better), initially closed-hood and lowers, then the R hardtop with opening hood and uppers. Hope springs eternal... and as David Lee Roth says, that's not just the name of three strippers in Jersey.

MIURA! Yes, Miura.. that'd be the ticket. ?

Beats the unholy snot out of what we've seen for the 550 so far. STOKED. One alone will not do. Tamiya-San, if I may direct your attention to another long-standing American marque that's just had the most consequential redesign in its storied history...