Chuck Kourouklis

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it? John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions. Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans. Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda. Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you. You'd be far from the only one making reference to it. I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them. And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about. It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place. That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again. Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107 For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad. But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples: Now there's a big difference in the angle of the model versus the varying angles of the 1:1 profile shots, but where the differences in the 1:1 can just about be accounted for in factors like camera lens distortion, subject angle and focus, you can't say the same about where the model goes off course. Every single example you use points to a front wheel arch that's flattish and over-prounounced, and an upper fender-door-quarter surface that's a bit beefy relative to the surface just below the crease (the black one, less so, thanks to the same focus and lighting issues creating the illusion of a blending rear wheel arch). And the top two shots only bludgeon Ron's and Bill's points about the two-scoop hood home. By the way, there's room to point this out and still acknowledge that the new model overall is just stupid better than any previous Revell/Monogram 'Cuda. It's probably good enough (straight down to chromed taillights which can be done-in-one with a fine-tip red Sharpie). Thing is, we're just coming off a '57 Ford that's everything you could want out of a Revell model - way better than "good enough"- and a '50 Olds only a little shy of that standard. Revell can be more consistent than this, and they have been in the recent past. But nobody's gonna encourage them to do so by rationalizing every little instance they go wide of the target.

Oh, don't I friggin' know it - my '93 LX bit me on more than one occasion. One time I let my ex drive it, about a tinkle's worth of water on the ground had her shrieking in panic as she gently squeezed the throttle around a corner. Seriously. The water she lost in that 90-degree spin was about three times what there was outside.

Gotta say, these mock-ups are striking me initially as a huge improvement in general proportions over the Chrysler and Hudson. Very, very nice!

Not the impression I meant to give. I only got confused earlier 'cause you're credible enough that I've been taking you at your word.

Alright then, Brett - it's just that with the particular way you brought them up in the 2014 Camaro thread, it was easy to confuse those tuners for a failure from the start. I'm still stuck agreeing on one thing, though - two years late ain't viable. Long as Revell can't get that stuff out as quickly as they used to or as the Japanese continue to do, current releases are iffy at best.

I'm a little confused now, Brett - I thought earlier you had some of those Revell tuners listed in the context of a mistake. When Monogram announced its '59 Cadillac was gonna be 1/25, it actually gave me pause. I'd have liked having that car match the scales of all my international stuff and my favorite Monogram muscle. If I had my druthers, the standard scale would be 1/24 'n that would be that. But I got over that pause quickly, because in the end, I figured not having things in my exact scale would be one of the more imbecilic reasons I could come up with to screw myself out of some great new tooling. I'll stop, teetering, a gentle breeze shy of tossing "old codger" around. And Monday morning quarterbacking with those 20/20 hindsight specs is an easy indulgence for sure. But these tuners were not muscle cars. They were never going to be geared for the traditional 1/25-or-die crowd, as the great majority here delights in pointing out over and over again. And while we'll never know for sure, many of us can't help wondering what would have happened if Revell waded into the field a little earlier, matching the typical Japanese scale for these mostly Japanese subjects, and offered their powertrain detail edge in that context. Sell well, did they? Mighta sold even better. What a pity they apparently felt so badgered into 1/25 they may have missed a key forest for the trees here. And while we're at it, what a crying shame a pretty magnificent piece like the 1/12 GT500 should apparently turn out to be such a pearls-before-swine exercise, if their current stance on big scales is any indication.

Well. If they come right in at the meat of a hot trend instead of waiting till it nearly dies out, and then mold the kits in a scale the target builder gives a gen-u-ine solid spit about, it might all play out better next time. I could relate the anecdote about our little Petaluma Hobbytown build-'n-bull - where of all the finished bits I had on display, it was the Aoshima Evo X that managed to get any admiration from people in the store under forty - and try to quote that as "evidence" of some kind. Makes no less sense than trying to vindicate my opinion with sales figures that might ultimately fail to tell the whole story.

Well yeah, Tom's article spelled out the biggest problems with the bodies, so I went into this knowing just what to expect there; and without any nasty surprises, it was easy to be blown away by the rest. It's also interesting that there's something to the engraving "flavor" that seems similar to the MPC big-scales of the time - don't know why a shared molding facility would bring that about if different artisans handled the tooling, but there does seem to be a certain subtle kinship there.

I just come to a different conclusion, Casey. For the era, the bad parts aren't so far off, and the good parts are pretty unbelievable.

Not that I don't like 'em, but I'd guess the green and blue studies still look too much like the current car. Then again, allfordmustangs.com sent out this link, and there are some pretty heritage-looking touches in these purported clays: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/03/2015-ford-mustang-clay-models-reveal-fastback-design.html

Yeah, spent X on these - a big enough X, don't you worry - and I got no regrets at all: They're everything they've been cracked up to be. Not slapping 'em together any time soon, so if tech advances quick enough to make 'em re-doable, I may just have some usable masters.

Not quite so simple for those of us just starting to look into this, which is why I appreciate the response. Thanks!

So Frank, you're on the vanguard, man - got me wondering what it is about that heated plate.

See, first thing I thought when I saw the Evos on top was hey, there's some Mustang in that! Something around the front quarter, maybe in the fender flare/character line relation, or the countenance of a Mustang in the grille and headlights, if not the slavish recreation of detail. I'd agree that bottom concept looks good, but it seems a wee too retro yet. Don't think the headlight design is gonna transfer from this generation to the next...

Kool! Diggin' the ref! Wouldn'a guessed the metal finish on that pan. Meantime, I'm diggin' how well those factory robotic spray guns are just totally eliminating the body-color overspray... Y'know, if I just felt like sending in some horse-scat to an editor somewhere about how all modern factories are now using anodized steel floorpans just because I had a little wedgie about how other builders finished their models, I wonder how many people would buy it just because it was printed...

Oh, they very nearly had the better version without! This cinches it absolutely, in my humble estimation.

I'm guessing that they're starting from a marketing standpoint in a culture where curbsides are just generally better accepted all around, and then they deliver a little extra gravy for more enthusiastic modelers after the initial, primary release. Also, it just so happens that modern, under-trayed and over-stuffed engine bays forgive this approach more easily than the airier compartments of yore...

Well, if you look at the trees Jonathan has posted above, you'll see not only the separate undertray/front suspension lowers piece - which ain't really the issue blocking the engine bottom - but also that web of plastic molded to the same area of the chassis plate, which is. The various R35 kits have something similar going on, and Aoshima's Aventador bay is kind of a box into which either a one-piece insert, or a more-detailed-but-still-bottomless multi-piece engine drops. If you have a look at the top left corner of the top black tree in Jonathan's shots, you'll see between the front struts on the left and the rotors on the right a piece which encompasses the lower bell housing, crossmember, and bottom surface of the oil pan (the transmission is complete in 3 dimensions and very well engraved, btw). So I guess someone could separate the undertray from the lower suspension and have a fair representation of the engine bottom, long as he didn't mind black webbing filling the space on either side. A complete engine will require a layer of bridging work, though.

Seems to be - R35 GTR, Aventador, now this 86/BRZ all bear it out. Not atypical for Japanese manufacturers, though; up till this one, the most bewildering was Fujimi's insert for its R35, nearly 30 pieces with all the lines and doohickeys anybody could reasonably expect - but still not a complete engine with a proper bottom end, no matter how complete it looks from the top.

Thank you very much for that Eric, and yes, I have a few documented, anecdotal cases of people who saw that the AMT kit was more correct overall, and bought the Revell kit anyway because AMT's kit was not as much more correct than Revell's as Revell's was more detailed than AMT's. If that makes any sense. **edit** - I just realized, you were talking about the Revell '69 Camaro snapper, weren't you? L. O. L. My bad...

I really dislike the conclusion you come to, but I'm forced to agree. Course, there's the matter of where we core guys nearly drove them off a cliff, too. We'd holler and clamor for certain subjects, they'd listen to us, and we'd wind up buying not nearly what we promised to. How many of those hobbyist-oriented subjects blew out the first run, maybe, then sat on the shelves collecting dust thereafter. Little surprised to hear the '50 Olds has legs, but glad about it too.

An expanded review of the AMT Camaro, huh? Maybe even in a comparison with the Revell kit? With full building impressions, progress shots, clues what to watch out for? Good idea! I'll get right on it.

Well, comes to that, the chassis pan doesn't look as if it allows for the bottom third (more like fifth, really). Would have been obscured by an undertray whichever way. Far as engine inserts go, this'n is crazy engraved. Blows Tamiya's out of the water, recalls Fujimi Enthusiast more than anything else.