Chuck Kourouklis

Hereya go: You can always count on Revell for a good decal sheet these days. Hood hinge design (which actually does look like it'd work for a die cast):

Sure thing! One bit I'd have to note is that a feature the die casts always seemed to have was the engine bay molded with the interior floor, where this one is more like a straight reversion back to '80s design practice with the engine bay molded to the body. The chassis/body interface would also have to have been radically different, 'cause you really need to flex those rear quarters out to get the rear floor pan in place, thanks to the way it locks in under the rear bumper fill panel. Stranger things have happened, though...

How 'bout now? Just hammered them in thru the source code, 'cause I can't get the more straightforward linking feature to work.

Well, this is "what-you-got-today" and not the review section over here, I obviously haven't built the thing yet, and Revell does have this nifty little device called a website where they list the parts count (88, and correct). But hey, since you asked so nicely...

Normally I'm not so ahead of the curve on picking up new releases, but it looks like my local RPP pusher got 'em in early this time: And what I find most fascinating about this is the distinctly retro-Monogram flavor about the design, straight down to the colored parts: So we're back to molded stanchions instead of coil springs for the front and rear suspensions, upper radiator hose only, engine bay/battery/partial firewall molded to the body shell, distributor molded to the intake manifold, two-piece wheels (with the old Goodyear Speedway tires first developed for a variant of Monogram's 427 Cobra and more recently shorn of their license-bilkable logos), that sort of thing. Two key characteristics of current Revell kits still retained are separate interior door panels and metal pin axles. The strobe light is part of the transparent red parts tree. The empty space in the top-most red tree is for the hood, which has huge hinge shanks settling into oversized cowl slots, but fits pretty nicely. 21-piece 351 looks fair; one-piece oil pan is separate. Mocking up the interior shows very positive location between it, the body, and the chassis, although the way the rear of the chassis inserts is so tricky and tight, you might be advised to leave the foil off the lower rear-quarter moldings till you get it in place. Chassis needs tweaking to settle in fully (as always), but the locating surfaces front and rear are generous and well-defined. Proportions and details like the exhaust system and wheels are exactly as you've seen in previews, and I'm going to stop my commentary right there, until I've had more of a chance to research and compare. Parts count is 88 as the website and box cover describe, and the decal sheet is comprehensive down to the front marker lights, dash gauges and woodgrain, steering wheel spoke graphics, under hood markings, all body scripts (also in raised detail on the body shell), and of course, those iconic stripes. Q & A, if you like...

Is there supposed to be something else?

Oh wow, so I'm the first to report on this? The ghost of Monogram vintage design rises, as if they dusted off plans from the early '80s and updated them a bit with separate interior door panels and Revell's current pin axle m o. Yes, that's red plastic you see, with a tiny hint of the black chassis visible under the front left corner (and for those who haven't worked out priming/sealing against red pigment, recall the white plastic in the '29 A and don't worry too much about this becoming standard Revell practice just yet). Proportions look dead unchanged from the preview shots you've seen. Finally scored the nice little RoG BMW i8 and the pre-finished C7 'Vette. The latter is solid red clear-coated or lacquer-washed instead of the metallic look in previews, with complete tempo detailing for scripts, vents, and the rear fascia. The window piece from the snap kit seems superior enough for a transplant, but otherwise, this version presents surprisingly well for such a drastic cut-down in separate parts. The rear suspension is molded in, but the exhaust is separate and the power train has gotten some attention, and I think Revell would be well-advised to give this kit the same white plastic/decals treatment they're doing with the ZL-1… *cough* OR MAYBE JUST PRODUCE A FULL-DETAIL Z06.

Well, just did some more digging on the Round 2 Batmobile, and I gotta stand corrected - despite the initial insistence of several Batmobile fans in the know, Jamie Hood from Round 2 has gone on record saying they did not in fact lease the Mattel scans (even though the P/L body shell breaks down in just about the same way). They managed to get that one with photo reference, through the language and cultural barriers, etc. Still looks really good, except for the beacon. That said, of course, there's still the matter of Mattel's 1/18 die cast that looks just like the 1:1 it was scanned from. And one might also be curious about exactly what Ford has done to "fudge" these into looking "right" in scale: 3d.ford.com.

At the risk of overplaying it, here's one of my favorite recent ones to point out: - 'cause it's documented as based on 3D SCANS of a 1:1, and older scans at that. Sho' 'nuff, it ain't obviously wrong in any gross proportion I can make out. How that jives with "accurate scaling doesn't always look like the real thing", I dunno. Also think Aoshima's Countach series represents the most accurate ever of those in body shape (LP400 most particularly). AMT's 2010 Camaro is a trainwreck to build relative to the Revell kit, but it sits there and looks more like the 1:1 once you've beaten the parts together. Revell's 2nd-gen 197 Mustangs look more accurate than their '06 - '09 kits, Moebius's big rigs are generally more accurate than their vintage cars. Current C7 'Vette snapper? Looking really good so far. Wonder what all the better examples might have in common...

Not only does everybody agree, but some of us have had the "no such thing as a perfect kit" angle called out as pretty obvious and inept misdirection for a few YEARS now. The Defense Brigade has to treat that concept as if people don't understand it in order to gain any traction for their arguments - and that's only one of a legion of false premises involved in these discussions. As for kids not appreciating proportioning and detail problems, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I recall being perplexed by the '65-'66 clip on front of the bastardized '67 Malco Mustang '70s reissue in yellow plastic, and the smooth 500-style backlight on the General Lee - both before I turned 12. On the other hand, I snapped Zingers and Tom Daniel kits right up; 'cause even at that age, I knew they weren't supposed to be serious.

And yet - what's one of the most recent releases to have the fewest gross proportioning issues? This one:

X2. Beautifully stated. Eubanks was funny, though.

Exactly, jb. And one's ability to see such a thing frankly has shag-all to with whether or not he can fix it. And maybe there are some who appreciate the heads-up on what they'll need to fix.

Yeah, well. I'm doing my level best to avoid name-calling, but some sort of shorthand is needed. And it kinda is what they do...

First: NIIIICE looking kit! Second: minimum threshold of accuracy is something that'll be almost impossible to hammer down. One man's "eh, it's barely a millimeter and a half!" is another's nearly 20% proportional error. It's too subjective and dependent on factors like a modeler's enthusiasm for the subject, his objectives, whether the deviation flatters the subject or not, and on and on. The heat in these discussions comes from intolerance of the variations between one modeler's personal threshold and another's. And I believe the record shows it's the Manufacturer Defense Brigade showing far greater intolerance than the actual rivet counters themselves - the very term "rivet counter" itself is in fact a vivid embodiment of that intolerance.

What do I think? The title of the thread asked for OUR thoughts, not skittles, rainbows and My Little Ponies. Garbage. Modeling junk food. Absolutely MY KIND of nonsense, just like the MPC Zingers. Lime green "street machine" version of the Pinto was actually my first focused attempt to duplicate the box cover as a kid. Nostalgia re-release would be a kick.

Your English is vastly superior to my Deutsch, Daniel. But all four of my B8 wheels seem to have a perfectly perpendicular shaft, and there's maybe just the slightest angle on B9's pin. Is that what you're talking about?

Revell SB is a converted diecast, Mont; pure Slab City in the body shell. If you look closely at the pics, you can make out how much tubbier the Revell kit is below the belt line. Ideally I'd look to mosh up the better bits between both kits. Gun to head for either-or? AMT has its problems, but even with the funky roof, it's the one I'd go with (yes, it is the "Yankee Challenge").

See, I took Mark to mean the MK VII, which I really love; think it's a bit stronger overall in proportion than the T-Bird. If so, I think more of the homework than you might expect has been done - sorta remember stock door panels, IP and steering wheel in that Pro Street. Think the wheelbase may need adjusting to stock, and while similar adjustments might be needed for the running gear from the '90 Mustang LX, this would be a chance to get the better parts of that kit up under something presentable for a body shell. Wheels may be a thing...

Gentlemen. The WHOLE PREMISE of the test is for rivet-counters to pick nits on an actual 1:1 car posing as a model. BY DEFINITION, they'd HAVE TO BE MISTAKEN to do so. And the behavior forecast for this photo test would have far greater credibility if more rivet counters had a track record of being mistaken in what they observe of models. So these nits would get picked based on a follow-the leader suggestion, then, and sod all comparative analysis? Alright, and I suppose there's a pattern of behavior in the discussions around here to support that notion? Cool ain't the word for it. It's BEAUTIFUL, Del. I am so ACHING for something like this to happen, perhaps to an extent you might not believe. Oh yes, you can bet it'd be quite the social experiment. And if somebody finds a way to set such a thing up, I just might. On the order of 5 to 1, say.

Yeah, about fools - Okay. So in order for this little test to have any basis in reality, it's really most advantageous to you if "rivet counters" have a pretty consistent track record of being WRONG about the errors they point out - otherwise, how likely are they to be mistaken in your 1:1 photo test? So I guess you all have this whole litany of rivet counter mistakes to lift your test scenario out of a fond little fever dream. Right?

YES, actually, I'd be very interested in an experiment like that too. I think the backfire on the anti-rivet counter types would be hysterical.

The RPP stunt with the Del Rio got me good 'n ready for this kit. Made sure to request one get set aside on what I thought was an early date - and nope, two of 'em had gone already. Nabbed the last just in time. Prob'ly gonna put in special orders from here out.

Actually, I ain't fer sure that it's in stock - thought I saw words to that effect in my billing email, but I can't find that confirmation after looking again. But I do know that I plowed through, placed my back-order, and immediately got billed.

HAH! Guess what - got billed for mine too. Seems like it's magically in stock now.