Chuck Kourouklis

Welp, speaking as someone nearly dragged under by the MFH Delta Integrale, I'm delighted about the Italeri kit. If past is prologue, there will be full engine detail at least. If it's like the Fiat 500, there'll be opening doors, operational steering, and working suspension too. Now MFH is also supposed to have a factory-stock 1/12 Ferrari 365 Daytona coupe on the way. If Italeri would kindly beat that to market with an announcement of their own... or nearly ANY 1/12 classic Ferrari really, assuming licensing isn't the issue. It's ALL of it looking decidedly not bad, though.

VER-RY nice. The Belvederes are far and away my favorite Moebius kits, and this looks to be my favorite version. ?

Thanks, Gents! Yeah, Mike, there's a much simpler way to handle the engine, though I'd need to dig out the review to refresh myself. FRONTY. Well, I do have the speedster...

Whatever it is, bummer. That mighta been fun.

Fwiw - and maybe this varies from body style to body style - but for needing a different order to install the engine than what the instructions mandated, mine went together precisely and without much difficulty.

Just recalled that the '68 Chevelle was tooled with a '69 variant in mind, so that one might not be unreasonable to anticipate.

Welp, guess all that cognitive dissonance over brand-new '66 Batmobile kits and 2016 Camaros has just been relieved then, eh? To say nothing of retooling the most expensive component of the '67 Impala or, for the third time, aaaaaaalllll that SF stuff.

^^????^^ This, oh, THIS right here. Still 'n all, I'll have one. Not like many others on my shelf...

Only thing I've seen to surprise me a bit is a domestic boxing of Revell AG's 1/32 P-51 Mustang (an early D without the vertical stabilizer fillet, good kit). Nothing else so far. Have to imagine the '30 coupe is coming with the Nailhead mill...

As I believe has been mentioned once or twice in this very thread, the dynamic somehow got tense enough between GM and Revell that the former did not permit the latter early access to data on the C7, so they had to measure a car at a dealership to produce the kits they did (making even the simplified result more impressive for all that). This is something I and a number of others have straight from Mr. Sexton himself. So if this factor hasn't changed, there's a pretty obvious scenario in which Revell's process on the C8 might be delayed without the company necessarily being in trouble, supposing there is such a process underway. ALSO, as Duke E pointed out earlier, Revell AG's preview pic of the E-Type is plainly that of the old Monogram 1/8. The tires alone should give that away on a gaudy silver platter.

THANK YOU! Based on recent history I don't think it should surprise anyone that Revell will need some time on this if they can manage it at all. Long as they move it a wee bit back down the field relative to the simplified C7 kits, I'm good with a wait. In the meantime, though, I'll take a block of C8-carved balsa wood if that's the first thing to come out.

Heh. As I'm fond of saying, idiot-proof something and they'll just make a better idiot.

Brother, you are telling me! I actually found a nice price on one of the semi-assembled display models and bought it to see if the usual here-comes-the-kit jinx would apply. No dice!

Oh, I was referring more to the "rarer built" thing - but sure, Aventadors are all over the place, since they were the most recently produced, selling well enough to allow Hornby/Pocher to go with the Huracan which is an even more impressive kit. Last I saw, the F40s were going for cubic dollars. May have to look at those again - they were a big step up from the Testarossas.

Considering Meng's P-51 Mustang, snap fit isn't automatically terrible news. I'm more concerned with the overall appearance than with how it goes together, and the engine mock-up looks very promising. Agree with the comments on the body, though.

Rarer. But not never.

Yup! At least a couple of those here, please and thank you.

I always thought the R/M '65 had an aspect to its greenhouse that was a bit too "forward-leaning" - a touch too vertical in the windshield and a smidge too "fast" in the C-pillars - and the '66 mostly corrected that to my eyes. They sabotaged that improvement a bit in the drip rails and perhaps a certain abruptness of transition where the C-pillars hit the deck, but those problems are easy to fix. Those of you who like the kit and don't see that, nobody's telling you not to enjoy the model. I might like to pick this one up to do the lowrider, m'self.

I'm absurdly happy about this - most especially if it's the (now nearly 20-year old) "new" tool.

Hmph. Think this new boxing is the first time the '66 is out with the '65 lowrider parts, anyway...

Didn't really wanna bump the thread for this reason, but I didn't want this to go without a thank-you either. The extent of my research was basically confined to the Google machine, but with LOTS of digging around on it. Pretty much wrung out anything I could find on a '30 Ford till I hit on a restoration with whitewalls and that color scheme - not only lovely in the way those cream-yellow wheels set off the two-tone body, but very like a '30 or '31 Tudor sedan a tire-dealing neighbor brought home one afternoon some 40 years ago. Left quite an impression on pre-teen me; sat there one afternoon and did a pencil drawing of it in profile. Appreciate it, John!

That's very kind of you Eric! I personally think it's beatable as a factory stock build, but I'll allow that somebody'll have his work cut out for him doing so. Chris D's take on it, though? To get that weathered bare metal finish, and a stance you can tell is dialed in from overhead, to add louvers and a steering pose, to get every detail from so many disparate kit sources so locked down and close to scale that the model looks as if it jumped straight from the pages of The Rodder's Journal - well that takes some doing. And that's why I agree with everyone else calling it a G O A T execution of this kit.

Why thanks, Chris! Ain't a patch on your little masterpiece, but for o o b, I like to think it came out okay. ?

Except possibly for yours, Dennis, I'm hard-pressed to disagree.

Comes to that, even I have one: And I would have understood the question perfectly... up till a few years ago. Don't we have Revell's new one in 1/25? Well. Maybe we don't technically have-it-have-it just now, but we should again just as soon as Revell can get off the thumb with the re-release, right?