Chuck Kourouklis

I think we've had a preview of sorts - There's a lot of resolution lost when you blow this up from the flyer, but if that's representative, it's win enough imho.

Imho, as fine an Impala model as ever there was.

Christmas, 1973. That's when I got my first copy of that very kit. In an Entex box, I think. Sheesh, I think that might have been my very first car model kit. I was more into Aurora Prehistoric Scenes at that point.

Ah, Rusty, I am so sorry to have misled you. The last time I checked, online auction sites were lousy with Pocher Aventadors dropping into the 500s, but apparently not any more. You could still say they're not quite so pricey as a subscription model, but that argument has gotten a lot less substantial lately.

Welp, in case anyone wants to hear from a guy who's got both... Funny, my Pocher Aventador came out okay: Paint quality fluctuates a bit from one kit to the next, so that's where your mileage is most likely to vary; the white ones seemed to have more problems with the factory paint, whereas this arancia just needed a little extra clearcoat to level everything out and shine it up. Engineering and fit were pretty comprehensively developed for around 700 parts total, otherwise. The single issue, pretty much on its lonesome, is that the damped door hinges may stand a bit proud and push the leading edge of the doors to a slightly wider gap than you'll see in all the other body panels, and that could be down to paint/powdercoat interference at the bosses where they screw into the body shell. It was otherwise very agreeable to build. Something I really appreciated about this kit was its refinement of the whole Pocher "Prestige" concept that started with the diecast Ferraris, and the way it combined that improvement in concept with the architectural emphasis of the "Classics" line. Not only did the Aventador strike a better balance than the Ferraris for stressed and cosmetic parts and the materials used for them, it recalled the Classics' emphasis on the model building up in a fashion similar to the 1:1, with greater overall component accuracy than the Classics kits enjoyed. The Huracan only escalates this. Individual buttons for the console now. A U-jointed shaft driving rack and pinion for the steering, rather than the Aventador's dogleg. Could the detail hounds really up the stakes with aftermarket bits? Of course. But simple paint finishing hardly leaves you with an embarrassment in a current Pocher 1/8 model. DeAgostini models go for a comparable result, but they take a different route. (the comparison is kinda apples to half-apples since the Countach is still in progress) Where Pocher's m o might be characterized as classic kit design orthodoxy on steroids, the partswork subscription kits make it more of a stated objective to democratize the building process for non-modelers. As such, all parts are more comprehensively pre-finished where visible (in Kyosho's Countach, nearly enough to build without refinishing; in Altaya's GT500, less so), and perhaps not so representative where hidden. I've found the paint quality a little rough on the Countach diecast pieces, more so than the Aventador's for sure. The E-type Jag and the Shelby GT500 seem a bit smoother, but there may be stripe registration problems on the Shelby. Here you'll see more emphasis on little gizmos like working lights and engine sounds. The suspension will operate: but perhaps it's a bit less demure about its fasteners than Pocher's kits are. That peg poking out is there to raise the headlights. More direct engine comparisons: ANY kit will depend on what the builder does with it, but Pocher clearly leans a little harder on a modeler's interpretation. DeAgostini/Modelspace does offer a support forum, but I've found one caveat there: if modelers are known to get defensive about kit criticism in a more general forum like this one, it's taken to a sharper extreme in a sponsored forum like Modelspace. One of their featured kits frankly has a design problem, and because the more senior members and mods there are uptight about acknowledging that, they also miss the fact the manufacturer actually provides a part used later in the assembly sequence that will solve the problem if it's "borrowed" earlier to help other components line up the way they should. Instead, they've adopted the line that some people just don't have the mechanical inclination that others do, an approach that not only gets me sniffing for any odd limb in the water, but also runs counter to the apparent objective of making these kits accessible to anybody who wants to give one a try. I have a comprehensive answer, one that may actually help DeAgostini sell kits rather than drive people from the forum or leave them posting videos about how they gave up and canceled subscriptions in frustration - but I think I'll need to film a video of my own for it. One other consideration: Pocher's a $7-800 hit up front (cheaper depending on where you look). DeAgostini runs more 12-14 all in, but you take $60-70 bites over a couple years, and you get those funky little magazines with each installment.

Awww MAN, Bill. Just HADTA post this, didn'cha? See, my thing is, I went for their open-top P4 when I'd really rather have had the closed version, and beautiful as this is, I'd really rather have the hardtop. But I'd much rather have this than not at all. There's been some stuff about Ferrari licensing expiring with MFH in the past, and yet they kept producing Ferraris up till now...

I'm up for ANY Buick suggested in this thread. '67 GS the most, though.

It think it's a pretty canny thing, Round 2 cutting this loose with all the cute box art - right as Revell's '68 is around the corner for cross-pollination...

Wouldn't be surprised if it did, Tim. LANDMARK comparison article. So much so I felt obliged to refer back to it for the review of AMT's new-tool '57 back in '98.

How 'bout a manufacturer you might have heard of - Airfix? For a while they indicated newer tooling with CG-illustrated gray prototypes on the sides of the box. They've now moved on from that to give you the specific year of the boxing and the year the kit was designed(!)

Sure thing, Mike! Caught a wild hare about some Bandai 1/16 a while back and hunted a few down. This one may be the best overall of the group.

Turns out none of us was even close on the parts count for the n/a version: 249 on a conservative, one-pass count thru the instructions sheet, inclusive of various tubes and wires in the engine bay. Here's what greets you on opening a Bandai box: though many of the ones you come across in auctions might be missing the inner box dividers. Here's the parts layout as seen in the instructions: The engine/exhaust tree is satin plated and the lens reflectors are chrome. The four suspension pieces at the bottom are die cast metal. Not pictured are non-functional suspension coil springs, fastener screws and rubber tires. Not much to say personally about fit, but a model seemed to go together decently for the instructions and box cover.

Well, there were a couple Bandai versions, right? I'm just trying to recall what made it to Entex packaging, because iIrc, the Turbo just had an engine bay insert while the n/a had complete engine detail. Got a clean Bandai 924 unassembled (and NOT for sale) if anyone wants pics. With all-opening panels, I'd put parts count at around 150+ for this one with a complete engine. Kinda par for the course between this, the Jag XJ and the Lotus Esprit, all Bandai-tooled at 1/16 and Entex-boxed at one point or another.

Pretty pleased about the 928. Been looking on evilbay for some of the originals. Nice bookend for the new-tool 356s, which I've been eagerly anticipating for a year now. And yeah, that Bussing is a monster.

Hmmph, so no NSU. 'Salright. I'll take the consolation prize.

Too true, Stu. Followed the maths all the way and it comes to something like 1/11.4. Seems there's some discrepancy between 1/10 and 1/8 depending on which preview pops up too.

While we're on that subject, some of us have been pining for a 250 Lusso how long now? 10 years? Since Hasegawa fired off their pontoon-fendered TR salvo and Fujimi answered with a GTO to beat all its plastic predecessors? Be great if Tamiya tossed their hat into the 250 ring. Liking the idea of the NSU better and better, though...

Welp, unapologetic Yank that I am, I had to google the NSU. What a funky, stunted love child of a Corvair and a BMW 1600 that thing is! Tamiya does it, I'll be shaking my head (and slapping one in my private warehouse host paste).

No Nissan GTR? Nothing else pop culture oriented? Maybe the English website has content differing from the States? https://en-us.eaglemoss.com/model-enthusiast

Man, I'm thinking how great some authentic Eagle GTs would look on Monogram's 1/8 '82 Z-28, but I don't know if those are even the right size. Eh, well. Rabbit-hole thinking anyway. Nice work and thanks for sharing, Dr Z! A question if I may: there's been some speculation on Eaglemoss's service elsewhere, and I'm trying to determine if it's a larger number of squeaky wheels on on their Facebook page or just a few really loud ones. Have your subscriptions issues generally been on time and to your satisfaction, or no? Any mystery charges from the company?

Hmm. Welp, guess I'll know better as the R35 sub starts up. As for the other 1/8 subjects, they put the jam your doughnut or they don't, and for the general audience here, it's not such a wild guess that the former might be more likely. No Dodges from anybody yet on 1/8 subscription, but that may change. Deagostini have had their hitches but they've made good on all of them so far, in my experience. If Eaglemoss meets that standard at least, they'll be fine with me.

Never picked that one up but I'm almost certain it's just the factory version of the '50. My recollection of the yellow "TRUCKS" reissue would back the notion that there are no stock heads, but if I can find mine, I might have another look to be sure.

Yup, if you've got the right interior, it should go together without much trouble.

Yeah, probably not. Brian, if you have the '67 interior and no other recourse, your best bet is to carve off any of the hinge positioning channels molded to the forward portion of each interior side panel (the Shelby hood hinges followed a different geometric arc than the '68 hood). Think that was how I solved both the hood positioning and the interior fit in the end for the review model I did years back. Had to restrain a little venom for that particular article.

I have things to say about this kit, but they're extremely unkind; what it is about Revell and certain vintage Mustangs I can't fathom, but it'll start a stream of invective from me that'll actually justify a few torches and pitchforks around here and won't help you any, Brian. This might: there was a run of these kits that had the wrong interior tub, and as a result, included useless locating channels for the hood hinges that ALSO interfered with positioning the interior correctly between body and chassis. Trust me, when the standard-pattern '68 Mustang interior is supplied instead of the deluxe interior from the considerably better Revell '67 GT500, the hood works as it should. Is it possible you have this mixup? As I recall, I think it was also considerably less of a headache to join the interior to the chassis first and finesse the hood as you brought the whole works inside the body (or at least, leave the interior loose as you put the three together). That was the sequence for the American Dreams '68 diecast, if I remember it right.