Chuck Kourouklis

Woops, okay, I didn't quite remember it right - there are two small tabs behind the fender arches, and if you press the chassis straight down on 'em, you risk breaking them. But you may be able to spread the rear quarters enough to get the rear floorpan in past 'em, so that they trap the floorpan like they're supposed to: The thing I realized about those front struts is that they have different mounts top and bottom. I think that if you get the round pins into the splitter first, the flat pins on top of each strut have a bit more wiggle room going into their slots in the front fascia. This shot's a bit blurry, but I think it gives you the basic idea:

Ay yo Chuck - the rear of the body will trap the chassis if you find the right points. I think there are some pretty bold pins and bosses over the rear wheel wells; more important than that are the small detents and tabs molded behind the rear wheel arches inside the body shell. If you press gently at the rear of the floorpan, you may snap it in. If it doesn't go in any too willingly, you might wanna take the front splitter back off and unscrew the chassis just to see those bits inside the rear quarters, and then put the chassis back in with those in mind - rear-first maybe, if it allows that.

Alright, that's my second favorite post ever, here - and just barely.

Thanks, Big Joe! I thought there were more of you guys out there. William, Craig, and the rest - I'm one of you, and things have just gotten to such a state that I'm compelled to say sorry, we're just gettin' ours on this one. It doesn't serve much purpose in the conversation to go on about how you personally don't like something, but hell, at least that's just a straight-out personal opinion, impossible to contradict as such. Where things get contentious is in the attempt to rationalize your opinion into some kind of argument that Revell is making a mistake with the way they're focusing this kit. History just doesn't support us on this, and this thread alone is rife with examples of how easily those rationalizations are totally dismantled; houses of cards have had more stability than some of the arguments for stock that we've seen here. And until more of the custom/rodder contingent comes along puling and whinging about how our favorite factory stock cars don't cater to them, or about how THEIR INDIVIDUAL REFUSALS to buy a given kit prove what a mistake it was to offer that kit in a style that didn't suit them, they're perfectly entitled to serve a bit of our garbage back to us.

Yup, everybody's covered the painting-over-foil method pretty thoroughly, and I'd just add that I have a personal preference for this method. The Trumpeter Monte Carlo had some faint scripts, but I got 'em looking sharp as photo etch using this method, if not more so - particularly with paint removal between each coat. A true master of painted-foil scripts is Tom Miller, who goes by the handle "Bluemoose" on this and other forums. His work is so phenomenal, he sold me on this technique for good.

Wow, lookit this crowd! Don't know when I'll next be in y'all'z neck of the woods, but I'll be sure to look ya up when I am...

It's the coolest throwing/disposal maneuver on the books, the most important part of a drill, and the business end of a prized martial arts weapon. Hell, even the cuts of beef are three times as appealing as anything else in the deli section. And of course, it's the only name bad enough for this guy: www.chucknorrisfacts.com Fact is, you're either a Chuck, or an apparatchuck. As for that Fire Truck, might one of the spare Ford smallblocks from a Revell Deuce kit build a base?

Dude. This is my favorite post, like, EVER, here. Where do I get some of that stuff?

Oh, and for the record, yes: 5.0 and Boss variants of the new Mustang tool should be seen as mandatory updates by Revell.

Heh. One of the reasons I can kinda take or leave a stock '48 coupe - especially after a fine stock woody and a fine stock convertible - is that the '40 is really my be-all-end-all of this particular decade, and I'm so delighted with my stock standard kit. I'm also pretty confident that when I finally get to it, it'll be the only one on any contest table I take it to... Thanks, Mark, but I'm the first to admit that while I try to stick to a rational framework, I'm often deliberately short of graciousness. As for lumping myself in, I'm just mostly a factory stock builder. What can I say? Just hope it's clear that I prize consistency over sticking to the party line.

I appreciate your fairness, Ken - but honestly, I'm having great difficulty recalling the last time y'all custom/rodder guys were so bound and determined to open your flies all over the parade for a given factory stock release, as we rep-stockers have incessantly been over kits like Revell's '32 Fords and this upcoming '48.

Oh my God... After I got over my hurt feelings, there came a case of the giggles I haven't been able to shake yet. It looks like they were working from Pinto photos for that "Mustang II", to realize their goof only by the time they got to the front grille! And that '70 Celicastang - the headlight hash marks are on the sides... bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... *sniff* Sorry. That's just rad - and to give 'em such nice finishing standards, that's somehow funniest of all...

First, James, it looks like I have to cede your point on “juevos”. The “J”-spelling is at least legitimate enough to bring up a ton of references to the predominant “H”-spelling in an online search, and on those grounds, I stand corrected. As far as the rest of point 1, point 2, and point 3 go, um, yeah – when did I offer the first hint of a disagreement with those? My dispute wasn't with those premises, but with the notion that they somehow led to the conclusion that serious custom guys weren't going to be happy with this kit (and I see that you were modifying your approach on this point before another poster came and crushed it flat). Regarding assumptions, we only have what you say to go on. And as it’s now been demonstrated conclusively in this thread, I’ve mentioned repeatedly that it’s not about MY reaction, but about what you said in the first place: "I also can't believe the truly innovative and hard-core custom guys are really happy either since they're stuck with the obligatory level and design of the chop…" (emphasis is mine, and yes – technically, you did not use the exact word “innovation”.) An entirely consistent inference to be drawn from this statement is that those who are happy with the kit aren’t truly innovative and hard-core - and that's irrespective of any marketing considerations. Couple this with notions of lacking the talent and manhood to do a chop, toss in a reference to "cookie-cutter 'customs'", and that language begins to indicate a certain attitude very strongly. You may have since shown that's not what you meant, but that’s the way it definitely looked at first; and if my interpretation were so far off base, I doubt we would have seen this: You're welcome, Mark. I had a number of builders in mind as I wrote that, but you were foremost among them.

Oh, come on, James. Honestly now, how many ways are there to take "lacking the talent" or "juevos" (sic)? The real question has far less to do with how I'm taking things than it does with how you're dealing them. Nowhere did I even begin to suggest that hardcore custom builders were suddenly gonna change habits because Revell offers (likely a great deal more than) 16 combinations right in one box. That was to refute your contention of "cookie-cutter customs", and allow that maybe, just maybe, there are some serious custom modelers out there who don't exactly see it your way - a point that still awaits a legitimate response. Your anecdotes about what you find online are all well and good (I'll even stipulate to their accuracy) - but if you're going to bring up anecdotes, then I get to as well. And the first thing to go through MY mind was all those historic customs I've seen in The Rodder's Journal, the ones making inroads at Pebble Beach, the ones that just happen to have many of the goodies Revell is supplying in this kit. You question the model's appeal to people on message boards. Does it totally escape you that there's been some very enthusiastic response to it in this thread alone? To each his own, you can say it has no appeal to YOU till you're blue in the face. Others have done that, and there's nothing to add, really; as always, I'm writing more for the people silently reading along, and I've got no interest in changing anyone's mind. But your language gives every impression of slyly impugning the building credentials of anyone interested in this kit - and if that's the case, you're gonna get called on it.

So let me get this straight: the builders who will best appreciate Revell's new custom '48 Ford - if not the only ones who will appreciate it - lack innovation, skill, talent, and cojones, am I right? Based on what you said above, why would I be wrong? Now here's the middle ground so conveniently left out of that false absolute: "truly innovative and hard-core" customizers likely also have the wherewithal to tweak Revell's chop to their liking - and quite possibly, with less hassle than from a purely stock roofline(!) You check out the pics, you see what, two wheel options, fadeaway fenders or no, and four front grilles; that's sixteen combinations immediately from an incomplete look at the kit. So I'm afraid this whole notion of "cookie-cutter customs" is vaporized even from an out-of-the-box standpoint; and once builders start working their own tweaks in, forget about it. With all the impressive variations we've seen on Revell's '49 Mercury, that kit certainly doesn't support any cookie-cutter scenario.

Hellz YEAH, Rob! I'll take one or two of each and three of a new deuce please. Bring on the phaeton with some GOOD Ardun heads, baby! Also, here's a big "BS" to the too-many-shoeboxes crowd: a convertible '57 Bel Air. Please.

Asked and answered already, re '72 Olds and current Mustangs. Judging by the number of releases, there's more of a dynamic, engaged market - obviously so - for stock '60s-'70s muscle and current iron than there is for factory stock from 70-80 years ago. '66 Novas, '67 Chevelles, and current Mustangs and Corvettes fly off the shelves, along with hopped-up Deuces and '57 Chevrolets. State-of-the-art '37 Ford and '41 Chevy pickups, '48 Fords, and a number of other similar and very worthwhile offerings languish. That is a like-it-or-not fact, buy it or no. Though I have some fun blowing cobwebs out with the occasional rod, custom, or competition car, I'm mostly a factory-stocker myself - and I have to observe, our little group seems to have a bit more difficulty seeing past its self-interests than other car modeling factions...

I think Octane was talking about the Revell kit that came with its top already chopped. I also can't escape the feeling that Chuck just may have known about it already. As for Charlie, I'm hoping we didn't jump him too early; he came in promptly after a lovefest for Revell's concept saying he agreed, after all. Although I'd point out that based on market performance, "the rest of us" might far more fairly characterize the custom/rod contingent than it would the factory stock crowd. Boy, though - them fade-away fenders on the 'vert with its windshield chop and Carson-style top? Boo-YEAH...

"whizzes rainbows"... eeeyup! That was worth it.

Roger all o' yaz diggin' on the chopped '48. Inveterate stock builder here, could not be more excited about that '48 Ford! We've seen some sweet modfied reissues before, but that sucker is a whole new game. It looks so sweet it scats sugar. (yo, Most, where areya? Don't let me down... )

Injector scoop, offset escape hatch, and slightly overscale hood panel gaps sure make it look like the model to me. So le'z see: we can make out a distinct roll cage and some radius rods behind the left front wheel - so yep, looks like Revell did a solid with the chassis. Ain' no problem for me, hogging out wheel arches and filling in the hatch seams...

Yup, and not only has it got a bug catcher, but that bug catcher is dead in the center too - which in turn means that the Hawaiian has its own entirely distinct running gear after all. Major kudos to Revell, if that's the case. For those of you who have noticed the outline hogged out over the rear wheel arches inside the CTH body shell, that's what the Hawaiian's arches look like.

Yup, and with that engine, the Mustang GT went from "well, the handling's pretty good" to something Motor Trend could put up against a BMW M3 in all seriousness. It was less than a tenth of a second slower around Willow Springs, dead-even to slightly superior in acceleration, and marginally better in braking and cornering numbers, too. With any luck, Revell will furnish a '12 5.0, maybe. Since the '05 - '08 tooling has some serious mileage, the '10 is supposed to be all-new - and if they're going to that extent, hopefully everything will be properly updated.

Oh, nothing in particular, I don't think - in Revell's case, I'm guessing the cost-benefit analysis of retooling their tires and telling manufacturers where to go proved advantageous against playing ball with the lincensors, whereas the balance is simply different for the other manufacturers... or maybe Revell-Monogram just takes the whole thing too seriously too.

Far as the tire thing itself is concerned, manufacturer adopts an odious policy, I tell 'em to go pound sand, pretty straightforward. But what that conduct represents, how the same basic philosophy of undisciplined short-term gain has recently driven our economy to the brink, you ###### betcha I take that seriously.