Chuck Kourouklis

My thought was to see about popping a resin cap mold from the '67 GTX or '68-9 Charger hemis, say, and grafting it onto the 'Cuda's shaft...

Top man! If you don't mind, let me commend you on that, Lee!

My personal favorites of the year from Revell are the 'Cuda and the Merc Woody, but I'd argue that this rare new tooling for Monogram is really R/M's most successful of the year. It doesn't have to trouble itself so much with dialing in specific 1:1 prototypes, and as a tribute to an older kit optimized for scale, they just slam their objectives out of the park on this one. For only having a bit over 100 parts, the number of possible combinations is staggering - I lost count somewhere past 280. For a keen balance between fun and authenticity, this looks like Revell/Monogram's sleeper of 2013. If you're into the concept, I'm betting you could buy a case and not regret it.

I think this one is reeaally solid. It's a comprehensive leveraging of the Mercury custom, it goes further in the modifications than strictly necessary, the parts that do carry over make absolute sense considering the way many 1:1s are outfitted, and the body looks far and away the closest of anything Revell executed to a specific prototype in 2013. The imagination fairly reels at the cross-pollination prospects between this, Revell's custom, and AMT's '49 Merc.

As ever, thanks for that, Harry. I know I've sure posed that question time and time again to be met with deafening silence. Maybe you'll have better luck. I'm of a mind that you can see very plainly how passionately Revell invested itself in this kit from examining the parts. Thing is, as galling as the 7-point distributor must have been to them, that doesn't make it any less galling to me as a consumer. And I'm sorry, but if anyone is going to object to the snark headed Revell's way, then the only consistent thing to do is also to repudiate the far sharper, more frequent and personally directed variety of snark as Harry quoted above. Meantime, everybody continue moving along from the link below. Nothing to see there.

Well, for my part, I wasn't suggesting Brits change their pronunciation - just that the columnist in question shouldn't have been so smug as to insist the British pronunciation was the ONLY correct way. They wanna change their icon to something else but keep the name, they can redefine the pronunciation any way they like - that sort of "fictionalizing" would make it much more akin to a family name, where no one can challenge their role as the sole arbiter of how it's said correctly. But as long as it refers to a big cat, there'll be a pronunciation regional to the actual animal to conflict with their notions of how the brand should be pronounced. I'd be interested in the Italian slant on "Murcielago", personally. Authentic to the Spanish bull, I understand the "c" should be lisped slightly, and it's the "el" that should take the accent, as I believe you actually see in the spelling of the bull's name. But danm near everyone says "mur-see-eh-LA-go".

Thanks, Gregg! (my commentary was directed at the columnist, in case that wasn't clear - wonder if I can find that piece posted some place...)

Well I read one British columnist ridiculing the American "JAG-war" pronunciation, insisting that "JAG-yew-er" is the only correct way to say it... Uh, 'scuse me there, Nigel St Lime? You are aware that the car is named after a LATIN AMERICAN cat, aren't you? I've yet to hear a native Nicaraguan call his country "Nic-a-RAG-yew-a" as they do in Old Blighty...

Yup, and that might be a practical workaround for the Hazmat issue, too - assuming that polymer science makes no progress from here on out. A hand-held device with untold multiples of computing power over a 1952 UNIVAC would never happen - in the age of vacuum tubes. I have some difficulty with concepts like the absolute "never" (as opposed to maybe never). This thread is kind of making a mockery of absolute "never", in fact. And then there's that shell you've all kicked up on screen, which oddly enough looks exactly like a Porsche Cayman. Gee - anybody think they "fudged" it some? Little selective compression on the roof maybe? Don't see that they flattened the wheel arches any, so I guess that's out...

Yup. Boxcover looks like the big draw, and the new Polyglas tires are included along with the old compact Firestone skinnies as used in the stock '66 Nova. No new webbing to reinforce the windshield frame, but all looked to be in good order on a very cursory glance.

Yup, roger that by three. So Bernard (and anybody else with any interest), question for ya - we don't know the width yet, but otherwise, whatcha think of the possible applications of that beam axle for one of the Deuces?

Yeah, looks like poor ol' Harry was so-o far off - The print-it-yourself model hasn't arrived from a kit manufacturer, but from an actual car company. Yeah yeah yeah. It ain't a complete kit... YET. Mr P. might have the actual good taste not to crow a bit. But I sure wouldn't.

And did anybody see this one? http://wot.motortrend.com/1312_porsche_provides_3d_printer_blueprints_for_scale_model_cayman.html Yup, no way this tech'll ever catch on for car models in the foreseeable future. And I wonder what kind of "fudging" was necessary to get that one looking so accurate...

And btw, those ain't the Shelby tires. They look newly tooled.

Seems to be - an awful lot of the bellhousing visible there - but I'm not having an easy time finding the 1:1 shots to say fer sure one way or the other. Thing is, jacking with that stuff will also affect the alignment of the shaker scoop in the stock hemi, and that may ultimately prove more trouble than it's worth.

Two here too. Best I can make out, only chrome problems occur in one kit, along the sprue and not the actual parts. More me looky, more me likey. Getting ever more convinced the slight body deviations can be dispatched in pretty short order; only real headache'll be confirming the engine location and shoving it back against the cowl if necessary.

"The risk of offense is the price of clarity", or so they say - but the squealing has come so close to splitting my eardrums on enough occasions, I'ma just leave this one ambiguous.

'Cuda's okay, certainly better than the Kit That Must Not Be Named - but this one strikes me as likely Revell's runaway best of 2013. Just plays closest to the company's strengths.

You may be in luck, John - it appears the '07 kit's taillights are very close in size, actually a touch smaller. Looks as if they'll go in with some clearance, actually, and the shape is about right: Pardon the rush cellphone pic, but the '07 1/24 lens looks as close to a drop-in fit as anyone can reasonably expect for a 1/25 body developed five years later. Personally, I think a fine-tip red Sharpie will make very short work of the chrome pieces. But if you just gotta have a clear lens, that last attempt at an AAR might at least have this use, anyway.

lol, what, .2%? .3? Low. In my defense, there's some major work in this last one I'm trying to get over the line for the year. And I ain't particularly bothered, 'cause simply examining and admiring the parts is a major part of the draw...

Well and good, Tim, but Rob's black example above looks pretty bad-a$$...

WHAT!! Heresy, H E R E S Y I tell you! You guys are digging' the automotive stuff comin' out - and ya should - just follow the aircraft scene for a while! I dismiss armor outright to keep my head from exploding, but the ICM vehicle kits give you some idea what's going on there. Overwhelmed... and lovin' it.

Oh, and even then ya got some clods who either can't read or take the signs as a challenge...

Fuggeddabouddit. I just lose track. Is the bank balance still positive? Copacetic.

A very interesting prop, Matt; the only question I'd have is if homologating a bleeding-edge F1 V6 is somehow less practical today than it was in the late '60s...