Chuck Kourouklis

Yup. Don't have a full-on closeup at the spindles, but I seem to recall the T's front axle being right about the measure of the Renault piece above, complete with molded see-through spaces around each spindle. Taxi looks hella kool! Did NOT know it was available in 1/24, think I'ma get after one...

This has been going on a few years now, gents. The likelihood of a company going out of business before finishing your kit isn't zero (nor is it for anything else), but it's pretty low. And there are LOTS of these. Must've found a market, because frankly, there have been at least as many new $1600 subscription kits as there have been new domestic $30 plastic ones showing up lately, if not more.

Resin/multimedia, right? About 6,000 Euros / $8,000+ US? They're generally pre-built and finished, though a select few are available as kits without instructions. What are those, $4500 or so?

That's exactly why I'm not particularly inclined to sign up for this one myself. If you really want a 1/8 Charger, though, there's no other game in town, and you have around $60-70 disposable per month, you might find it worthwhile to give it the TLC needed to make something an order of magnitude better. There are all sorts of issues with that 1/8 GT500, but it's a 1/8 scale 1967 Mustang and the body looks right. You might guess why I couldn't resist that, and Bill might have been of a similar mindset.

heh heh heh, I hear those gears turning, Bill! It ain't fully stock, but it might give you 70% of what you need for a stock one... hmmm...

Oh yes. Among pricey four-figure subscription kits, that is a particularly pricey one. And while there's nothing guaranteeing a company will stay in business, the subscription kit concept has proven pretty successful outside the US market. I've been through four of these from DeAgostini/Modelspace, and while there are sometimes delays in installments, there's not yet been any failure in delivering a complete kit.

Not exactly the 1/8 Superbird he wished for... ...but maybe close enough. Info.

The tire issue might have been addressed after a fashion. There's an unboxing video that appears to show RevellAG went with the 16" Gatorbacks from the 1/16 '87 IROC/GTA kits for this release - a bit anachronistic for late '70s, but I'm guessing MUCH closer to scale size than the old rubber GT Radials.

Maybe it was those great mid-'90s sheets from Lindberg that prodded a change to something more competitive, I don't know - but ever since they changed carriers around 2000 or so, Revell has reliably turned out some great decals. The domestic-release Ford GT may be a little shorted relative to the German release, and yup, we got some deviations on the AAR sheet. The dashboard graphic for the '70 Charger R/T, on the other hand, is one of the best I've ever applied - dead in-register not just in itself, but also with the engraved plastic beneath.

lol, yup! I think I had to trim a bar just to get the '95 graphic to fit the 1/24 body.

Yup. From just under 16 cubic feet for the C7 to just under 13 for the C8. The same fitted luggage is supposed to work between the two. I'd be quite surprised if it were as light on its feet as the Alpine or the Lotus - the Huracan, the more garden-variety 488 Ferraris, a number of McLarens and maybe even the Aventador are probably closer benchmarks in size and mass - but the ride/handling balance is sure to be an order of magnitude beyond for a Corvette. After 60 years of coyness with prototypes, the time was finally right to do this for a few reasons. For whatever its future holds, the gen-6 Camaro actually seems to manage its power better and play to better press reviews. The Corvette needs to reach a younger audience. And if that audience doesn't have a Ferrari 812 budget, then yes, the C7 was beginning to show the ragged edge of what could be wrung out of a lighter daily-use front-engine coupe. The C8's sub-3-second 0-60 time is thanks mostly to newfound traction and uninterrupted torque from the dual-clutch transmission, and who knows what future performance models will bring. And it's not as if the mid-engine concept is new to the Corvette. This year marks the 60th since Duntov came up with the CERV1, and if he had been allowed to prosecute fully his notion of a Corvette, it might have beaten Ferrari and even Lamborghini to market with that layout. All I got to say is plastic. NOW. And something way beyond "Snap it"/"Build 'N Play" if you don't want torches and pitchforks at the door.

Never got it the first time so it's new to me! Diggin' it.

Heard that. Bill. The observation that can't be refuted: "Eh, except for the fender flares, the other issues aren't that big a deal to me". On the other hand, there's a profound distinction between "I can't see the differences" and declaring "there are no differences" as if that's some sort of objective fact. The notion that there are no objective deviations from the 1:1 has been eviscerated and beaten flat by proportions and illustrated math, which is something the less critical should bear in mind: the more critical modelers either have or can quickly find proof of their assertions. And whichever way, none of the more critical modelers seeing problems with this kit is trying to mandate or ridicule how the less critical should react to it - that kind of assault is only happening in the other direction. Most of us see this 'Cuda as worthy of rehabilitation at worst, so it only stands to reason that those who like it as it is should enjoy it to the fullest. Notice the difference in emotional maturity, by the way, between that attitude and hollering "if you don't like it DON'T BUY IT" just to try and kill the discussion.

x2. Fantastic, Stu!

DayLight Opening. The greenhouse openings on each side of a car that encompass the side windows

NICE WORK, btw, David! You may have shot that kit from the only angles that work for it, too.

Well, from about 2000 on, Revell/Monogram vastly improved the decal carriers over the cellophane-like stuff Monogram had before, much more pliant to curvature and reactive to solution. So there's an outside chance you can tease the strobes into line with some strategic prodding here and maybe a small relief cut there. Still 'n all, yup, they should be straighter on the sheet. *EDIT* - actually, scratch that. One thing Cady gets right that Revell blows is the rise in height of the stripes directly over the door handles. While you can almost certainly tease the rear of the graphics closer to the deck line of the rear quarters, it's going to be very difficult to get the Revell graphics to follow the beltline kink establishing the upper rear quarters at the front. I'm thinking black decal stock trimmed to extend those bars upward to meet that line... or maybe just the Cady sheet. As for body snafus, I think maybe the Hapsburg wheel arch lips might have been pulled back a bit without breaking the bank, using the existing side cavities, but the rest? Yeah, probably too expensive to correct in production and possibly not too hard to fix by the cognoscenti among end users.

Thanks, Tim, and AWESOME ALBUM! I couldn't have asked for any better angles than the ones you chose. That'll be immensely helpful.

Pretty sure it's a reissue, guessing Monogram by the 4x4 stance - though I don't know enough to rule out the old Revell tooling just yet. Re the 'Cuda: yeah, the body's the thing I've been very deliberately leaving alone up till now. For anyone wondering, there are no changes to the basic shell from Hemi to AAR that I've made out so far. Here's what I think gives the body a swollen impression: the first thing to grab my attention in those preview pics years ago was actually not the over-flared wheel arches (though those are obvious), but the sheer, billboard expanse of the front fender sheet metal just over the wheels. What comparison with 1:1 pics revealed to me was that previous kits were a little too lean in this area, but this looks over the line the other way, just a bit too tall. After knocking down the wheel arch flares, I would try to file the tops of the front fenders incrementally down, and if I could somehow cheat that midline crease just above the arches upward a bit by sanding it, maybe that would make that upper front fender expanse a bit less "thick" looking. And yes, the DLO seems pinched, bloating the expanses surrounding it - but again, incrementally. I'd redo the drip moldings upward by about the width of the molding that's on there now, less than 1mm, and after that I'd look to knock the doors down at the beltline ever so slightly if the first adjustment didn't fix the problem on its own. Which is not a knock on anyone who thinks the body is fine the way it is. Revell/Monogram's previous bars were pretty low, but this is still clearly the best they've done overall with a 'Cuda. You can take or leave the body and still appreciate the attention lavished on the other parts and options. The 340 trees make a very positive first impression.

...and that's exactly why it's so ridiculous for you to feel ridiculous. That's an objective FACT you've discussed, whether anybody likes it or not, and you get to be a little disappointed about it if you want to. It's not as if you've declared the entire kit garbage, no matter how convenient it would be for anyone to interpret you that way. And with that. I'm now off to get mine.

But you see, Vince, I'm not even beginning to suggest anyone should have to agree. I'm merely pointing out from thread to thread the unending demonstrations of which side is so pointedly less tolerant of the other's viewpoints. The more critical modelers criticize objects, mostly making observations of where a purportedly scale miniature falls short of its purpose, going wide of the 1:1 it's there to represent in the first place. Some certainly go to extremes, but as far as rationality goes, the very definition of ratio and proportion is often at the heart of what they point out. And the less critical ones attack the more critical persons for saying so. It's really that simple. One behavior is unmistakably more ad-hominem and belligerent than the other, and there's no point pretending any moral equivalency between the two. It's only when the more critical modelers start serving the less critical ones their own game back that their conduct devolves and sinks to the same level. Tim B has ever been affable and agreeable over the decades, and his observations in this thread serve as a fine example of a counterpoint that's not only civil but hard to dispute. John S, after agreeing there's a problem with the 'Cuda's Dana axle, went leagues out of his way to show more graciousness to the less critical faction than any of them have shown him. Honestly, now. One side literally says "shame", "tough to swallow". The other aggressively infers "evil machinations" by the manufacturer in response. Where's the balance in that?

The rear-facing cover is where the differentials differ most from one another. Catch it from a low enough angle without even picking up the model, and those who care about it will see it. So once again, rinse, wash, repeat. Certain modelers are annoyed by something they see that is objectively inaccurate, and because they DARE to point it out in a forum where that kind of thing is topical, they get ridiculed. I think I first sought a rational explanation of this kind of behavior more than a decade ago. Still waiting.

YEAH, you OUGHTTA. I recall being mightily impressed with that when you first broke it out. Might just follow your m o if I should decide to correct this one along with the new kit and the one I did in '95...

Ayuh, in fact that box art blows its contents back into the stone age. Might like to print and photochop the Revell logo in there, 'cause that's the cover Revell's kit deserves!

All I can say to that is there must be a difference, or Revell wouldn't have spent the money and resources on three distinct attempts to get it right.