Chuck Kourouklis

So as not to pull this conversation off course, item two at this link addresses anybody saying it's all up to the builder: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107 Let's forget the reissue angle for a minute. Simply isolating new tools, if we compare different genres of kits, the level of "awesomeness" among current military kits is rather more consistent than it is in current auto tooling. This is a truth irrespective of anybody's personal philosophy on "fixing" kit problems, and it's more responsive to the initial post to point out that things are this way because the AFV guys will tolerate higher prices vastly over mediocrity, whereas it's usually the exact opposite with car modelers. Forget detail and just focus on accurate proportions for a moment: a car body shell accurate in all three dimensions is now essentially a 3D scan away. But while the cost of that technology is dropping, it might not be dropping fast enough to suit your cost-benefit analysis when you know your prospects will only spend so much, and that most of them might not even notice where you're wide of the target anyway. Not to be Duff's broken record, but there we are.

Blows the Enzo and F50 clean outta the water, far as I'm concerned. AWESOME.

Long promised from Hawk, would be cool....

You can blame this very model for getting me started in kit reviews. I read one appraisal of this kit looking for the reviewer - I forget who - to say something, ANYTHING, about whether or not AMT actually tooled up a new longbox for the kit instead of just recycling their '94 short bed, 'cause a new bed would justify a purchase but the same bed wouldn't. Not a word. I harrumphed to myself that I would at LEAST have pointed that out one way or another if I were reviewing the kit. Then I thought well, we have all these new-tool kits for '95 - how would I review those? And the rest is sad, sordid history.

You just made me bray like a jackass laughing! I did that too! Was a bit more careful with the second one, offered a show 'n tell in high school driver's ed and they accepted.

They do an 87, they can sign me right up.

X2. I'm familiar enough with the Camaro and Nova, particularly, to appreciate how subtle and effective your corrections are. You've got a VERY good eye for proportioning.

http://ia600501.us.archive.org/13/items/Revell_Visible_V8/RevellVisibleV8.pdf Haven't bothered with the hand-crank version, but I can tell you the Revell kit from '75 had all the Renwal features, and it stayed that way up till Revell dumbed it down. Judging from pics and the assembly manual posted on line, I am just about positive that it is the Renwal kit bereft of the electrical features. I was pretty surprised to see from the instructions, though, that the distributor drive isn't acknowledged. I'd have guessed it'd be cheaper to leave the parts on the trees even if they aren't delivering actual current, but I can't verify that for you. The Testors 1:4 Hemi also delivers pretty much everything the Revell kit now demonstrates, and it's motorized, fwiw.

Moebius, yes. They should give that Bullet-nose a good hard look. As for ICM, though, as it's been pointed out, they don't generally know from yanks; they're all about late '30s/early '40s stuff, European and linked to WWII. Besides the odd workhorse truck or two, the Packard's an exception only 'cause it was Stalin's. And I wouldn't be looking for any Revell USA price points, either; the 1:35 cars are in the $40-$50 range stateside. But man, are they worth it. The Admiral Sedan I have is so detailed, it can be upsized without anything added and still blow most biscales into the weeds. Outside of the Japanese renaissance in 1/20 F1 kits, Hasegawa's Jeep and Kubelwagen, and those increasingly rare occasions when Tamiya gets serious with a new car model, it's hard not to notice the ever-widening gap between automotive and AFV kits in precision and detail. I've long wondered what would happen if the same design discipline currently used in military subjects were applied to a mainstream automotive subject, and it's ICM that's come closest to answering that question, far as I'm concerned. Only things I'd ask for are chrome parts and rubber tires, and lo and behold, looks like they're addressing that. Excited about the Admiral and six-wheeler as it is; if the Packard and the "Leader" car cross over, I'll be ecstatic. Maybe a '42 Ford staff sedan would fit in ICM's mandate, and if such a thing ever sees the light of day, watch out. Prob'ly won't sell to the WalMart crowd, but it'll be unlike any preceding model of a Ford from that era.

'62 and '66 Impalas have been covered recently by Revell, and AMT did a newer-tool '62 Impala convertible 'round '98 or so. Pretty sure AMT and MPC had annuals for the '69 as well - imagine those will be a bit spendy.

Here's something else I'll be curious about: I think AMT's '94 Mustang GT (possibly thru the '96) came with Gatorbacks that were distinct from the ones that debuted on their '89 promo-based line. AMT was still in the habit of doing every wheel in a scale 15-inch diameter at that point, so I distinctly recall these tires being rather too high-profile for the 17-inch 6-spoke design - bu-ut, maybe not for an earlier car...

The ones on my '93 were 225/55VR16 Gatorbacks - never heard of a GS-C factory-available on a standard FOX 5.0, as they were brand-new for '92. The tires could easily plus-size to 245/50, though, and they'd look pretty bad when you did. I think the gatorbacks even carried over to the SN95 Mustangs. But yes, the VR60 Eagles you speak of were available from '85, as I recall.

I distinctly recall Gatorbacks and Michelins with what I thought was a TRX-looking tread in 1993, when I went shopping for a new one. Mine had the gators. I was under the impression the gatorback was the most frequently used tire for 5.0 ten-holes from '85 on. What's a '93 225/55-16 got to do with a '90 225/60-15? Well, when you check what was oem Michelin for '93 (recall the kit was nominally a '92 at the start), you find a Pilot XGTZ4. Got no idea whether this is truly accurate to what was available 20 years ago, but it sure seems to have tread and sidewall properties similar to what's in this kit:

Yup, true. You could be onto something there.

Funny, I don't remember 'em tires to be so tall in the pics from October. Eh, well, I'll do my part buying a few to encourage the rumored drag release. Think a fair amount of the funkiness could be diminished just by shimming the rear end up a wee...

Ah, okay then. Tooling isn't always final for those.

OH YEAH!

Now that this is all cleared up, perhaps you might like some help finding it, Andy? Courtesy of Casey earlier in the thread: Or were you actually talking about the boxcover model? 'Cause to be fair, those are often from earlier production samples, and they have omissions all the time.

The Victoria's been a long-standing rumor, right? A trad Vic? Seems counterintuitive we might actually get some more traditional pieces the next go-round, but it wouldn't be the first time Revell's done something like that (cf Yenko/COPO Nova). If Revell does push in the traditional direction, they may already have a decent set of big 'n little rubber between the '50 Oldsmobile's tires and the '62 'Vette's. Think a phaeton would look good on the Roaster running gear, maybe another possibility.

Yup. Azers got the sequence exactly right.

*laughing*, yeah, 17 years baby! "Donut boxes", sheesh, ya had to remind us. I 'member doing the fit-assessment review like it was yesterday, one of the best-building kits I'd ever experienced. Fwiw, it was the three-window the guy was carping over. Guess I'll have a look tonight...

Y'know, I remember somebody having posted notes at the '97 GSL about the Revell '32, saying it was nice but not accurate, with one of the less strident notes about the cowl claiming "2 inches to narrow". For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out if he was trying to say the infinitive form of "narrow" - as in, you have to narrow the cowl by two inches - or if he really meant "TOO narrow". Heh. Maybe the Roaster's finally provided an answer on that...

Yup. Don't look now, but I've been kinda with it all along. The maturity in this post is certainly a breath of fresh air...

Yeah, Bill, but I had to keep mine box-stock for the review. Turns out the Duplicolor approach worked so well, I'm using it on a less-stock variation, too. Now as for the Roaster, it's got not just the ring, but those ribs on the back ones - I'd say knocking those down a bit is just about a mandate.

Hey Michael - have you tried white Duplicolor upholstery dye in a spray can? Revell's '50 Oldsmobile tires were giving me the exact problem you described. After finding the decals useless and realizing I would have to use paint of some kind, I gave this stuff a try and it's very flexible and opaque - not to mention, formulated specifically for vinyl. I found the best masking method to be using a compass blade to cut a circular stencil out of a piece of card stock, putting that card stock in a set of "extra hands" clips, and simply holding the tire at the right position behind the stencil as you airbrush the decanted dye onto the tire, building thin coats to a pure white. To block the dye from getting on the backside of the tire, I also cut small card stock fillets to put inside the tire, slightly larger than the diameter of the wheel. Then, if you just make sure to push the wheel in from behind, the whitewall you have on the front should be plenty flexible enough to take the necessary bending and stretching till you get the wheel home. Worked like a charm on the Olds tires; I know Revell has since supplied tampo prints on request from the parts department, but I like the way mine turned out.