Chuck Kourouklis

I don't hate the concept at all, woulda been plenty happy with a productionized version, actually. But it is un. de. NIABLY retro. And the C7 crew said they were very purposefully against that. Prob'ly why they didn't go with it in the end.

Oh, did you nail the be-jabbers out of that or what? Dave Hill was rightly proud of the new standard in performance and structural dynamics created with that car, the blueprint of which carries through the C7. He was also rightly defensive about the styling, which was pure RX-7 pablum with a basket handle and a billboard butt, and not nearly as pretty as any of its antecedents. Thing I appreciated best about about the C6 is that I thought it had the styling and dimensions the C5 should have had all along. Of course, the C5 wasn't the first time a 'Vette had been derivative. The '56 gained a lot of presence over the '53-'55 by adopting Italianesque side coves and the hood ribs and forward-thrusting headlights from the Mercedes SL. The C4 may still hold the standard for pure, uncluttered beauty, and it had the Ferrari 308 horizontal break line. The Corvettes that were most purely their own cars were the C2 (the ultimate for me) and the C3 (for a more, ahem, debatable effect). For the C7 to have actively copped the F12 would have been quite the hat trick, seeing as how Jalopnik was leaking the basically locked C7 form months before the F12 broke cover - and even absent that, to suppose that GM could have ripped off styling cues and applied them to a model less than a year off debut is to betray an incomplete understanding of the time frames involved in vehicle development. As for reaction to the C7, count me among the yay-sayers, most especially the taillights. The assumption that all those vents were tacked on for styling cues is patently mistaken; each one has a function, derived from the C6 racing program. The way this new one amps up the precision, the passion, and the drama is all winner-winner-filet-dinner for me; it's got eye-yanking presence in the photos, so I can only imagine its magnetism in the actual carbon and SMC. The fact that it's a little off-putting at first only portends the best for its boldness and impact, far as I'm concerned.

Yup. There weren't many of these late '80s-'00 AMT kits that fully rose to the level of crispness you'd see in a typical Revell/Monogram, but this is one of 'em. Unlike the '67 Chevelle or the '70 Corvette which pale in comparison to their R/M counterparts, this kit doesn't have to run and hide in the presence of a Revell '69 Charger.

Like I said at NNL West, you're a mad genius, Ira...

Well, seems to me that if you felt up to it, maybe you could offer two versions, the functional one you've already developed, and maybe the static one with all the details in scale. Of course, the more enterprising builders probably won't have much trouble working up things like their own fixed springs or suspension arm mounts, so you arguably have a fine base model just as it stands. As for the argument on how the eye perceives scale, and why a perfect reduction doesn't look right (except for all the ones that DO, yours notably among them), I think what you're seeing is really more an aggregate reaction to a number of forums in which this subject comes up. 'Round here, I guess, you're more likely to find it when new kits are discussed and proportion problems come up. The Revell '70 'Cuda discussion in "Kit Reviews" doesn't hit on it dead-center, but kind of runs closely parallel.

Well, Norm, there are proportioning problems in many off-the-shelf plastic car model kits, and there are those of us who've maintained that it's way beyond time for the manufacturers of said kits to start adopting the 3D scanning techniques they so obviously are not using at the mastering stage. And then there are those who insist that 3D scanning is not the answer, that a proportionally precise reduction won't really look like the 1:1 subject. Except that every time we see an example, it kind of... um... DOES. (main point being, it's nothing like a slam on your work - and what's more, thank you!)

Very cool subject! And oooh, LOOKY - another scanned subject that looks just like the 1:1. . . (Y'know, the novelty of hammering that message home just doesn't seem to wear off)

True dat! Stoked about the convertible, though, and I'ma start screamin' for a new Nomad next. Revell's most of the way there, but if Round2 could get off the thumb and do a variation on the new-tool AMT '57, that might be nice to see. The restored parts in the '49 Merc and Avanti are of a distinctly high molding caliber, and a new body and interior done to that standard would be quite impressive.

Well, I prefer to be a bit careful about that whole challenging-somebody's-skills thing, but yeah, I too found my TR workable. There was an instance of thread-stripping in one of the rear bumper bosses, but drizzling some CA glue in there and letting it set gave the screw something to bite into again. Given another go, I'd strip the body and paint it myself this time - exactly why I'm keen on having another go.

You bet! I'm jonesin' for some big kits now...

No sir. You have a look at that video, it says of the 1966 - Fiat 130hp - and I quote - "... the first 1/8 car model-kit ever." Now, I can't guarantee they didn't MEAN their first 1/8 car model-kit ever, but that ain't the caption.

Well, comes to that, they're claiming the Fiat from '66 was the first 1/8 kit ever, when Monogram had them beaten to that punch by a few years. Nevertheless, this is great to see! Got visions of sub-$1900 Rolls Ambassadors and Bugatti Surprofiles dancing in my head, and I might like another swing at the F40 and TR...

Well, register me as another emphatic vote for the Lusso - though I'd be plenty pleased to see Revell AG's own take on a GTO, if they were so inclined. The Fujimi 250GTO pretty much crushed all its predecessors in my book... but that doesn't mean it left no room for improvement.

Bear in mind I'm telling you this as someone who's test-fitted pretty deeply into both kits but hasn't finished either one: If you prize ease of assembly and you don't mind the higher price, the Fujimi may work better for you. It controls body sink marks a bit better, uses sliding molds to greater effect, includes photoetch in the standard version, and has fewer parts and that extra unplated set of wheels you mention (believe both sets are up-sized a scale inch as Fujimi likes to do). By nearly any other measure, the Aoshima kit is apt to be more to your liking. Even the version with the one-piece insert has more depth and detail in the engine bay area, the door hinges actually function, the tires are good P-zero representations, and the detail just pops more all around. Aoshima's separate detail-up kit is a sweetheart, with photoetch, adhesive metal transfers, and floor mats. And in those tiny, barely noticeable areas where the Fujimi and Aoshima bodies diverge, it's Aoshima that seems a wee bit closer. Realllly like my Fujimi, love my Aoshima - I'm guessing Aoshima's will be the kit with greater general appeal.

Kool! I'll be interested in how it works for you.

Yep, forgot that - I was under the impression that Revell went a little further than to plop a blower on their 4.6, but we are talking 13 years since the last one I went thru. And while we're at it, the Polar Lights Ford GT had a 5.4 32v supercharged - again, that "presentable" thing rears its head, 'specially compared to Revell's engine.

See, one of the things I dig best about those is the sound, man - rumpety-rump from a factory '32 all the way thru the wild ones like your link. They just growl like hairy, spitting beasts.

Yup, I sure did! Although if we're talking presentable engines, only the Magnum really counts. Escalade had a decent engine cover, but otherwise, it's as bad as you've heard.

Speaking as a guy who owns both, the DOHC is silky smooth and a winder, overjoyed to sing right into its rev limiter. The OHV is also a zinger by classic small block standards, but asthmatic and coarse next to the 32V - yet, also torquier from down low, and since it runs against higher gears, it actually has a prospect of high 20s mpg on the highway (actually hit 32 once under 60 mph drafting conditions). Don't think the cammer will ever get close, and that's the trade-off for squeezing 100 more hp out of 15% less displacement against a performance axle. I'll repeat and maybe embellish some of what's been listed (and this is probably partial 'cause it's off the top of my head): GM LS-series and derivatives: Revell/Monogram 1997+ C5 Corvette AMT 1997+ C5 Corvette Revell/Monogram 1999 Silverado Revell/Monogram Chevy SSR Revell/Monogram 2005+ C6 Corvette (LS7 - Z06, LS9 supercharged - ZR-1) Revell/Monogram 2010 Camaro GM 5th-gen LT-series: Revell/Monogram 2014 Corvette, available some time in 2017 GM/Lotus LT5: Revell/Monogram 1989+ C4 Corvette ZR-1 (1/24) AMT 1989+ C4 Corvette ZR-1 AMT Wagon Rod Ford Modular and derivatives: Revell/Monogram 1996 Mustang Cobra AMT 1997 Mustang GT (SOHC) AMT 1997 Mustang Cobra (DOHC) AMT 1997 Ford F-150 Revell 1997 Ford F-150 Lindberg 1997 Ford F-150 AMT Phantom Vicky Revell/Monogram 1999 Ford Lightning (just reissued, 5.4 DOHC supercharged) Revell/Monogram 1999 Mustang Cobra (DOHC, just reissued) Revell/Monogram 2005+, 2010 Mustang GT (3-valve) Revell/Monogram 2007+, 2010 Shelby GT500 (5.4 DOHC supercharged - also available in Revell 1/12) Coyote: waiting and waiting Chrysler late hemi: Revell/Monogram 2009 Dodge Challenger Testors/Lindberg 2006+ Charger (1/24) Chrysler V10: Revell 1992+ Dodge Viper and GTS (snap) Revell Dodge Ram VTS (simplified glue) AMT 1992+ Dodge Viper and GTS Revell Dodge Sidewinder Concept (simplified?) Revell 2003+ Dodge Viper and GTS

So Roger, you've got a replacement coming whichever way, right? You might take this opportunity to play around with just-off-boiling water, see if that helps you any with the warped one. You just take a saucepan or pot big enough to accept the frame and fill it with enough water to immerse the part. Bring that water to a rolling boil, then take it off the heat. Grab some tongs and drop in the part before the water cools, say maybe for three seconds at the start. You want to start off with short times and then work your way up as needed, so you don't immediately distort the part. If you get it to a point where you get the faintest whiff of hot plastic fume, it'll probably be ready to hold the shape you twist it into. I'd start by undoing the diamond first, then get it all on one plane. Of course, all the usual disclaimers about being careful not to burn yourself, blablabla. I've had good success straightening stuff out, eliminating body warps, and closing floorpan-to-rocker panel gaps this way.

Okay, so you can take a more straight-on profile shot like this: note that it's a bit elongated by the lens, and still correctly reckon that the upper surfaces look a bit disproportionate. You don't really need to take measurements to note that the top surface seems close in height to the surface directly below it, as defined by the mid-body crease and the one just above the rocker panel. Whereas in a side profile of the 1:1 - the difference between the upper and lower expanses is a little clearer. Though if you DID take measurements based on photographs - right at the midpoint between the fender and the front door line - you'd find that the upper surface on the model is about 80% the height of the surface just below it, where the 1:1 hovers around 70% - not a huge difference, but noticeable. Any number of factors can lead to this (is the center crease too low, is the rocker crease too high), you can point out that we won't know for sure until you take a tape to the car and the model, and you'd be right - but the two-dimensional analysis from photographs is close enough to start drawing conclusions. Now if we were talking deviations of hundredths, the "perfect model" concept might enter the discussion. But no, we're talking tenths - subtle, but visible to the unassisted eye. And nowhere is it in dispute that even with this deviation, it still blows the carp out of any 'Cuda Revell/Monogram has done before.

You can account for the fisheye effect and still find those upper surfaces a bit broad. This isn't the only angle which appears that way, and the obvious excess and flatness of the wheel arch lip stands no matter what the angle and lens distortion. Which isn't to say that there isn't a whole lot about this body shell that's much, much closer than the last two attempts - the last AAR took those same areas and made them way narrower for scale than these are wide. But as for "winners", my vote goes to Stu from page 9, who made a visual adjustment that resulted in an actual improvement.

Mmm, I dunno - I think some of the problems actually get louder as the wheel diameter goes down: Actually, the rear ain't lookin' so bad, but man, that front... One of the photo manipulations I've wanted to try (brace yourself for the irony: I've been too busy on an ACTUAL BUILD) is to sneak the shadow of that mid-body crease up just a smidge, just marginally.

And then the version AFTER that release will have the up-top.

Excellent! Thanks, Art!