Chuck Kourouklis

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.

Yup, I’ll back up what Brett has already confirmed: the tires are just as we’ve seen ‘em these last nearly 20 years, complete with Goodrich Silvertown scripts. White plastic is very welcome, too, as are the more complete decal markings. Is it Revell’s lack of tire brand markings that brought on the rant? ‘Cause that has nothing to do with Hobbico. In light of an era not long past, in which car manufacturers recognized a certain equity in having their brands promoted by miniatures, it’s galling enough to see them charging model manufacturers for the privilege of promoting their brands in this day and age. And those who don’t agree can just forget that retarded little liability angle. If someone is moronic enough to sue Cadillac because his toddler swallowed a Revell-Monogram part, just what kind of correspondence-school flunky would it take NOT to be able to make that distinction in court? But when some scum-sucking bottom-feeder from a TIRE manufacturer comes looking to get his hands in Revell’s tiller too, then as far as I’m concerned, it’s a MORAL IMPERATIVE for Revell to obliterate their trademarks from any of their kits. Not only am I just fine with that, I’m making sure never to patronize that tire manufacturer again myself – and with what I drive, they’d have made a reasonable profit off of me. What’s the difference between up to twenty years ago, when manufacturers were willing to recognize the promotional value they got for granting licenses to model manufacturers, and now, when they get that same promotion and charge for it? Basest, beady-eyed greed. No point in anybody pretending otherwise. And the manufacturer no longer represented on Revell’s tires can burn straight through the ground to their waiting fate, for all I care.

Just... wow. Mike, as luck would have it, I shot the one you want a while back (the Revell kit as mentioned above): As for something close to current Torq-Thrust specs, you can find 18s in either Revell's '06 Hertz Shelby, or their '08 Bullitt Mustang. I'm pretty sure Revell offers bigger rims close to that style as custom wheels in some kit or another, but I'm not positive where to steer you there. ATI Procharger is a centrifugal blower, driven by a belt, hanging off an accessory bracket, right? Only one of those I can think of is in Revell's '98 Saleen Mustang convertible kit - think it's nominally a Vortech, though you might be able to fudge it to look like a Procharger.

Hmm. Well, can't speak much to either of these concerns, because I went to Wet Look One-Coat mostly after I stopped shipping review models and started shooting them digitally myself, and the climate here in the Bay Area is pretty mild. Interestingly enough, my last marred clear coat did happen with TS13 - but it was under stupid conditions, over a Testors Lacquer color coat, wrapped in a shopping bag and stored where the weather was hotter. Meh, if I'd taken that project more seriously, I'da stored it more carefully. Under the conditions I'm working in, though, the stuff pays HUGE dividends over the Wet Look. And interestingly enough, the Testors paint reacts in such a way that there's a subtle but appreciable difference with the finish compound. Go figger.

I find it really effective on the Testors One-Coat Lacquer system too. After knocking whatever texture there is out of the clear coat with a light 3600-grit wetsanding, I go straight to all three compounds to finish it (rather like the white one, myself). Current project has a contest-ready shine thanks to this method.

+1, Mark. Very well put. People who are disappointed by what they hear in advance about new Revell kits will somehow be less disappointed if they have to wait till they lay out their 25 bucks first and then open their kit? I don't quite follow that math. Far better that people be informed first and choose to pass; seems to me they'd be more likely to give future Revell kits a chance than would those who drop their ducats only to get burned...

Yeah - if they follow the usual pattern, I think you're supposed to trim the webbing at the "spokes" but leave that inner rim. The Hustler wheel halves are certainly designed for this arrangement. Thanks again for the shots!

WOW! Thanks for all the trouble, Ben! But if you look at the inner circumference on both sides of the slicks, there's a little lip on the trademarked side which forms the outer border of the webbing you're supposed to remove, where there's no such lip on the inside wall - that's what I was referring to by the "bead". And with that, I'm now 99% certain the Hustler tires are the Blue Max tires minus trademarks (and the inner webbing which Revell lately goes to the trouble to remove). Only stands to reason; it's a whole new set of tires that's only seen complete use in the Blue Max and half-use in the Jegs Oldsmobile pro-stock. Might as well remove the offending trademarks and get a bit more use out of 'em, since they've been largely idle for more than a decade...

Kool! I'm just about positive the Hustler tires are at most lightly modified from the Blue Max tires you're looking at right now. You've confirmed the trademarks that seemed to jive with my memory. What I'm curious about is the inner circumference bead that locates the tire against the wheel rim. The Hustler tires only have that bead on the outer side of the tire; do the Blue Max tires have one on both sides?

Fairly certain, Ken - although that first Blue Max set may have some trademarks on 'em that have since been removed. And now that you bring it up, I am trying to remember if the Blue Max slicks had a one-sided bead like these latest Hustler/Mongoose slicks do. I'm almost positive the fronts are a straight carry-over, though, and that they can't really qualify as muscle-car tires.

Just for clarification, the tire set in this kit is the one that debuted in the Blue Max Mustang. Maybe the fronts are a tiny bit wide, then again depending on the race, maybe not; they seem pretty clearly designed as direct replacements for Revell's old two-piece fronts and rears as seen in their older 1/25 funny cars - to such a degree that the front tires at least come across as one-piece conversions of the old two-piece tool. Gotta echo the comments about material quality, though. For tooling refinement and design standards, this really is one of the prettiest 1/25 floppers ever.

Yeah, and I'm trying to recall if any of Revell's most recent dragsters have something close to those valve covers...

I'd hazard a guess that the greenhouse is much closer on the Revell car - it just seems to look more like the vintage body shells in that area than the Polar Lights cars did; slimmer C-pillars and a more obvious downward cant from rear to front. Actually looks as if Chuck blended the strongest areas of both body shells for the vintage style. It's also interesting that the front fender cut-outs of the Revell shell better match those of the vintage Hawaiian. The rears will need a much more angular cut, but conveniently enough, Revell has already hogged out this area some inside the body shell. I'm guessing this is primarily for a scale thickness effect in the body shell around the wheel arches, but it'll also make it easier to trim that gentle arc away from the rears if that's what we need to do. Once again, we have hiccups in the execution; but man, I'm so blown away by Revell's design work and the processing quality in this kit - especially the frame, which isn't as squared off for mold considerations as you'd expect. Really diggin' mine.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Aside from the, uh, impressionist body shell, I was pretty stoked about that Blue Max Mustang from years back. Thought it brought about some great improvements, all of which were plenty worthwhile for use in the Duster - in fact, I think the McEwen kit is far better than it would have been without them. Putting those parts in the Hawaiian woulda been way off, though, which is why if there's any cost-cutting to be done, it'd make more sense to me to have the Hustler and the Hawaiian as decal variations than it would to have a total anachronism under Leong's body shell. That said, the hood is separate, as you point out, and the instruction sheet makes some hay out of the offset chassis. So here's hopin'. Gotta say, the Hustler looks fantastic so far. If the Midgets live up to this promise...

Thanks for the straightening, Bob & Mark. Although I have to say, if the Hawaiian did come with the offset chassis, that would still be preferable to the digger under the Duster shell. Maybe that's where the money was truly being saved - but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong...

Maybe Utalski was a bit mixed up on exactly which kit, swapper? Because the McEwen Duster definitely has the one-piece digger frame and tires that debuted in the Blue Max Mustang. Seems to me the Hustler and the Hawaiian would largely be decal variations from the same kit, if I have my facts straight...

Yup, not only is the rubber new, it scales out to about the right size from the rough measurements I took, and it's got a reasonable representation of the proper Michelin tread pattern! Which means that it looks like you can mix 'n match a Z06 Carbon if you want to. You'll have to blend in the clear hood panel and paint it, and the quickest body mod seems to be to use the ZR1 body shell with the Z06 front-quarter scoops grafted in place. Of course, going to those lengths is probably the best way to guarantee Revell will come out with its own kit...

Custom interior from the '62 Cat... That's a pretty killer idea! Don't be surprised to see others doing it...

Not sure, Bob, but I think we done heard tell somewheres from Art about a NASCAR version and a convertible from this tooling - mebbe si, mebbe no...

AWESOME, Dave, and this more than anything shows how good are the hands in which this project lies. UNLIKE others who would presume to pule about the offense they take, you and Art actually HAVE personal investment in this, and therefore at least the vaguest business getting defensive about critiques. It's great to see you responding in the best possible way. It would be nice if the Anti-Critic Jihadists would see how superior your example is and follow it... but the rest of us know better than to hold our breaths. We'll hold 'em for these kits instead. KUDOS, Brother.

Oh sure as heck, I'll be voting a number of times with my wallet. Just hope enough others do too. MAN, I'd like to see a '48 Tucker done to this standard...

Well, we got the Lindberg Little Red Wagon for the buckets and the Revell '68 Charger for some steelies, right? Bit like the '57 Black Widow, not quite done all the way. But nothing we can't deal with either, if I read it right...

I believe my observation of that kit was something on the order of "AMT seems estranged from the very heritage it's trying to trade on"...

Boy howdy, Tamiya does a new P-51 at the level of the recent Zero and Spitfire kits, the cash'll be out of my wallet before I knew what happened...

It's funny you mention that, Ken, because it was just exactly this bias that was a major factor in getting me started on those kit rankings. People I knew at the time were like, "you know, the AMT '67 Chevelle is really more accurate than the Revell kit", and I was like, "WHAT??" They went Lady Gaga over that '55 Cameo; never mind the lower front window sweep they swept right under the rug (and AMT corrected later on), what about the absence of the ENTIRE FLOOR PAN? And let's not even get started on the hunchbacked '70 Corvette. The irony is, I got to cheerleading AMT pretty enthusiastically as they closed the gap in the late '90s, to such a degree that one person who claimed to have read the articles from the very git called me an AMT apologist - must have had a pretty serious reading comprehension problem, because I lay my agenda out pretty unmistakably in that very first Car Modeler article ranking the '95 kits. And for being such an alleged AM-Tard, it was in fact Revell/Monogram I awarded the most number one rankings, and that usually ranked highest among domestics when the Japanese manufacturers came in and started mopping up. In fact, Revell would have pulled the trick globally in 2007, against all comers with their '49 Mercury, had I done a ranking article then. That aside, I'm not sure I'm with everyone who thinks AMT's new-tool '57 Chevy is such a step backward in proportions over the old one. Not that the new one doesn't have obvious problems - it does, most notably in the front fender arches, the jowly front bumper, the corners at the beltline that should instead curve into the C-pillar drip moldings - but the old one has plenty of issues too; mislocated side trim, rear fins that seem to taper inward too far especially from a front 3/4 view, a greenhouse that appears ever so slightly low compared to the 1:1. I think the key difference, to pick up on an old favorite theme of mine, is that old model's discrepancies flatter the 1:1 more than the new model's do. Monogram's 1/12 coupe (and the Revell 1/25 snapper based on it) don't exactly have it down cold, either. Little too round in the front fender arches, not enough crown in the rear roof profile. And while the AMT kit's dimensions appeared a bit large at the time, they seem rather less so next to Revell's latest '57 sedans - the front bumpers just about interchange, in fact, and the AMT kit looks decidedly better with the new Revell bumper.