Chuck Kourouklis

oh, just caught this - no, what was suggested is that Sean's model, built from a test shot, may have been short-shot relative to the resin patterns with the wider door frames that look better. But yeah - I'd expect a lot more of a mess around the window perimeter from a short shot.

Yup. Saw that.

Just trying to give back a little ground after all the grillin'...

Well if I read Brett right, it ain't just the material but the injection machine - which on test shots is usually smaller, older, not quite up to full production line standards. So the pressure maybe isn't quite fully calibrated and the mold doesn't fill completely. The window perimeter edges look pretty clean for such a scenario as that. On the other hand, one would certainly hope the upper border isn't as wavy as it appears...

I'd love it if you were right on that, Brett - it was one of the key gobs to smack me on that first plastic body shell pic, like "where did those curves come from?"

Here's the comparison that really has me wondering what happened: That's a pretty agreeable side day light opening on the pattern. WIndow frame and radii seem pretty good for scale there too. So how did we get to this DLO (side window outline) from those patterns?

Went after some of the more overhead shots I could find of 1:1s - the red one particularly goes some modest length to vindicating the Moebius curvature as seen on Sean's model, but the bottom one, not quite so much... pretty angle-dependent.

Absence of the crest ain't a problem at all. But the spacing of the vertical grille bars is off, and the headlight nacelles seem pretty large for scale, with a more deeply tunneled late '70s look. On Sean's model, they give the impression of either lining right up or even possibly overlapping inside the edges of the raised hood section, where they're pretty well outside those lines in the two 1:1 pics above. Off-putting as it is for its absence of finesse and precision, the Motormax nacelles actually seem somewhat closer - for size and relative depth anyway, though they have some problems of their own.

I've seen that exchange, Brett. The Moebius rep did NOT acquit herself (himself?) well.

But that's the exact thing of it all, Mike. As Bob T2 said above, there's a lot of stuff lately so far off that you don't need to be any kind of "expert" to see that it's off. And I have some understanding of the process, thanks, and the reason it turns out to be irrelevant to this discussion is that this process also produces good kits. Why can't the results be more consistent? And I'm sorry, but unless there are significant changes from preview shots, you can judge from pictures. In all my critiquing, I have found some time, shock and surprise, not only to get some stuff built, but reviewed for national publication. Saw one preview shot of a kit hiked up in the front driver's side with a wheel off center, thought to myself, surely that's a pre-production problem - and don'cha know, wound up evaluating the final version of that very kit with that very issue. Headlights too far out and rear quarters too truncated and wheel arches too flat and roofs too low and upper fenders too broad are all things you only need a fair set of eyes connected to a fairly functioning brain to see in pictures, and there have been too many times in my experience that this stuff came out in 3D exactly the way it looked in 2D previews. Sure, there's engineering you can't see in photos that'll make a kit more seductive once you have it in your hands; the latest drag version of a certain kit is compelling enough almost to overcome its problems, but in the end, it's another case of great design done in by an inaccurate body. And this is a forum dedicated to discussions of kits. Why shouldn't this stuff come up? *sigh* I've had this false dichotomy and irrelevant challenge covered in items 2 and 3 in that same blog for how long now? Suuure, we never build, and we certainly never FIX anything we complain about. It's amazing that no matter how many times the handle snaps right up and thwacks you guys between the eyes, some o' y'all just WON'T STOP STEPPING on that rake. Even the fact that somebody fashioned a rake specifically for you to step on doesn't seem to slow you down. Post script - oh, and until any of you guys produce masters for Ed Fluck, I'd kinda stifle this sort of tripe around plowboy, too.

Really, Mike? "Decency", to wait to have the thing in your hands? I have had that whole angle, along with a host of other tired old tropes, torn to pieces for more than a year now. Yours is item 4 at the April 2013 blog linked in my signature below. That's how predictable, rote, and constantly regurgitated all these canards are. So without any sort of RATIONAL argument, try to make it a matter of "decency", I guess. Okay, then how exactly is it INDECENT to judge a kit on pictures - most particularly, when you've done it before, and things have turned out in your hands exactly the way they looked in those pictures, time and time again? This fluff about gratitude is a fine little warm-and-fuzzy, but Moebius doesn't RUN on gratitude and they don't CLOSE DOWN on criticism. Moebius runs on SALES, and I'd have to think making sure the side window opening and the door frame around it don't actually get worse from tooling pattern to production certainly wouldn't hurt. Then again, considering all who are willing to lap up "good enough" and browbeat anybody who asks for better, maybe US manufacturers indeed know the market better than I do. But people who constantly make criticism of inanimate objects grounds for personal attacks are on distinctly shaky ground, daring to bring up topics like "decency".

I'm just fine with the 1/20, pretty excited! Don't mean I wouldn't get a 1/25 if they got around to it...

Well, if nothing else, at least we're now seeing the tires the rear fender arches were sized for from the start... That angle and even that book have come up several times in discussion 'round here before, Ken. And Tamiya certainly got their approach to work - but I'd argue that's because they'd mastered the sorts of distortions to flatter a subject, and I've long held we're less likely to notice deviations of that variety. Far as the Mustang goes, you're not alone in thinking the model looks better. But implicit in the definition of a "model" is something that represents a subject as closely and accurately as possible, and the body shell in this kit is an objective failure in that regard. I'd go so far as to say the mode of thinking expressed in Master Modeler is no longer entirely current. It was conceived at a time when scaling techniques stopped well short of assuring you scale accuracy not just in linear dimension, but in every angle and every change of curve radius. So while their masters might have been bang-on in every linear dimension (as the old Monogram 1/24 '69 Camaro is purported to be), two factors may have contributed to a master not "looking right": 1) 3D curvatures, much less straightforward to scale accurately, were probably off, and 2) the paradigm of holding a miniature up and standing right next to the 1:1 to compare it may have played a part. That latter has been used as a justification for all sorts of "shape-teasing" and it practically guarantees a distorted result. Unless you constantly view your model at a distance proportional in scale to that from which you'd closely examine the 1:1 - if it's 3 to 4 feet from a 1:1, that'd mandate your eyeballs around 1.5 to 2 inches from your 1/25 model - it just won't add up. Your actual working distance from a model is more like what, 1 to 2 feet depending on how you hold it? Which puts your perspective of the model around the equivalent of viewing the 1:1 from around 25 to 50 feet away. This is why I'd argue that photographs, for all their distortions from perspective and focal length, are probably a somewhat more reliable comparison standard than standing feet away from the 1:1. What do I have to buttress my point of view? The Polar Lights '66 Batmobile - very publicly documented as patterned after 3D scanning of the subject - looks right. It may not have the correct number of apertures in its strobe, it may not have been possible to mold aerials and gadgets perfectly in scale, but in gross proportioning it looks ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. And it is gross proportioning we're talking about - off by close to ten percent in this LX's roof height, very noticeable to many - before anybody starts greasin' this "perfect model" slope that just don't slip. Then there's Moebius, and Revell itself. Both have developed kits from traditional scaling methods and from CAD data. Guess which efforts reliably look more like their subjects. Revell's 2nd-gen 197 Mustangs and the '15 are in an entirely different league for proportional accuracy than this LX, and unless there's been any "teasing" that we don't know about in those examples, I'll have to guess there's more accurate data gathered by more contemporary means playing a part.

Hey, Rob - only posted pics of stuff changed or new from previous version. Chassis is still stock, no tubs. Sox & Martin 'Cuda is missing stock hoods and two stock tires at a minimum, far as I can reckon after a skim... (edit - as Brett posted above, re 'Cuda...)

Sure, Marcos, I've actually gotten a great deal of personal satisfaction out of doing just what you describe. For those who'd say that you're less of a modeler for pointing out kit problems, though, or assuming you're just automatically incapable of fixing stuff if you do - well, that's the endlessly-reshoveled pile of horse dung where I draw the line.

Icing.

See, Harry, that's why this forum needs "LIKE" buttons.

No, photo artifact I think - chrome's pretty shiny, Jonathan.

Hey, man, no reflection on you. It's thems what refuse to evolve in their thinking need the crow...

WOOOPS, forgot one! Off-road exhaust, crossmember brackets for the new front suspension, heavy duty diff cover. 26 new parts in all - account for the cop car bits in the Special Ed and you get close to Revell's 12-piece spread between it and this one.

That was good for a laugh. It goes even deeper than that, Mr P - this latest version is actually a more effective 2-in-1 than the Special Ed squad car, which was really more like a 1+. I guess you're not totally bereft of clues - if you pay attention to parts count, you'll see that this one mysteriously has 12 more pieces by Revell's reckoning. But nope, nothing like the nice bold emblazoned graphic it deserves. Something it now occurs to me you might not yet have seen a lot of, Kevin, but which sort of explains my attitude: some guys around here so lose their mud at the sight of any kit criticism that in addition to insisting you're less of a modeler for pointing it out, they'll spout such helpful platitudes as "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT." Has not ever been, nor will it ever be, ANYTHING but rocket fuel for well-earned snark in forums like this, but you can still catch them flinging that chimp scat around as if it somehow gets less inane with repetition. Clearly, they'd rather some of us deny our contributions to Revell's bottom line than hear anything less than sunshine and rainbows about a kit, and as it happens, if I'd been stupid enough to take that seriously, I might not have these pictures to post. After ruminating for a minute on all that rocket surgery, though, I've decided to put 'em up anyway. Don't thank me, I'm a giver. New chrome: Wheels and a dash-mounted tach, I suppose - no boost to measure after all. Does have an option of gauge faces on the decal sheet. Here you see the gate opened for the tube crossmember/suspension on the axle tree. On the left is a new tree with Edlebrock intake parts, headers visibly wider than stock, and the exposed distributor. This new tree has the high-back racing seats, roll cage, cowl induction hood, and the decklid wing (mounts like a spoiler, seems a bit big to be called one, though). Might have seen these slicks before - Impala or Nova, perhaps? Need to check, might be new... Decal sheet, which in addition to all the cool aftermarket logos also includes rear quarter rubber spatter if you elect to go with something other than the provided 2-color body graphics.

Nope, nowhere, Harry. It's just a little "Wow!" left for you to find out on perusing the contents. Yeah, Kevin, that's exactly it - that "oh, soooo close" feeling you get taking the whole kit in. There are other little niggles - clamps on the stock tailpipes? - but with the right body, this kit would've been so bad-a$$. Such GREAT planning and design, to end up so undone by the body's execution. Couple things - you can indeed verify an Edelbrock Performer intake complete with engraved logo once you pull it from the baggie, and there's a set of race headers too. There's also an uncovered distributor. and as many have observed, the tires you run up front are the stock ones from the SSP. The Special Ed kit was essentially a stock car with a go at a light bar, a spot, and a radio - kinda "meh" more than compelling. THIS kit is so nicely conceived, it really makes you crave that MasterCaster body. Heck, more than anything, I wish I had the funds to cut some steel from Mike Schnur's pattern and run plastic shell replacements and windows at some ten-fifteen bucks a pop or so, since they ain't getting' off the thumb in Elk Grove Village. Wonder if Pegasus Models would ever consider a venture like that...

Yeah, it's got more parts and far more builder-determined variety than the SSP. It's enough to make you wonder why this one wasn't the Special Edition. It actually manages a decent amount of kool even with its funhouse-mirror body(!) Man, what this sucker coulda BEEN...

Yup, 2-in-1 at least. Totally stock, totally drag, and many points of your choice between - you want a stock-look sleeper that's got it where it counts, i halfway wonder if you can close the stock hood over the performance intake. Looks feasible.

Actually there are those who would say (and I might agree) that the greenhouse of the 1/24 Cobra is enough under scale that it's probably closer to 1/25. Be that as it may... One very nice surprise in this drag kit, for those who find the unchanged body agreeable enough, is that the entire stock car is also included, down to the stock hood, all four wheels and tires, stock interior, and the stock intake. So you can determine your own mix between street and strip if you like. Yup, no power adders as people have guessed from the bracket - got to raid your '98 Saleens for that. Roll cage, cowl hood, two slicks and four added five-spoke competition wheels, and a custom intake presenting a triangular upper surface - looks like the Edelbrock Performer if my guess is right. Deck-mounted wing, straight pipes and the tubular front suspension arms too.