Chuck Kourouklis

Oh, meeeeeeee neither! There are those who quibble about the looks of the truck, but I'm as eager for it as I am just because it looks so aggressive - the subject might just generate cross-genre appeal among modelers that way. So the next question is how we might cajole, sweet-talk, or bribe(?) Dave into flippin' up some pics of the Hudson and Chrysler mock-ups once they hit the same stage as the Navistar...

Which gets me thinking - there are four risers, two short "stock" ones, and two taller "drag" ones. Because of the difference in height, I'm guessing they weren't actually intended by Revell for the four attachment points of the front suspension piece. I still gotta wonder how they might work, though...

Absolutely. That's by far the quickest and most pragmatic way to do it. Heck, if you really wanna rock that sucker back, you might consider using Revell's own raising blocks for the front instead of the rear. I listed the methods I did because they will also articulate poses for the front suspension arms.

Here are some peripheral notes, a few of which address some questions in this thread. If it gets too dull for anyone, I'm sure the next post will be more interesting. The following notes come from a quick side-by-side comparison between the Revell body shell and a 1:1 '62 Impala SS hardtop: the more critical among you may wish to examine the cowl curvature, the drip moldings, the overall roof profile at the windshield header, and the much-discussed wheel arches; I’m just going to point out those areas and leave 'em to you to judge when you get a chance. I might be able to supply direct photo comparisons this weekend. The wheel arches present the most obvious deviations; put another way, if you look at the profile shot on the side of the box, and you can deal with the wheel arches, you probably won't find the rest of the body objectionable. Beyond the body: you're likely to find cross-pollination between this kit and AMT's '62 Bel Air a little tricky, because there are surprising dimensional differences between the two; the Revell kit is enough wider and longer that it almost reads as a 1/24 kit to AMT's 1/25. I was willing to bet the AMT kit was undersize, but this body shell looks a little massive even next to Revell's own ’64 from 2000, arguably still the finest Impala kit ever (and not to be confused with their cruder ’63 Impala from the same year). It looks as if Revell missed the lens engraving on the signal lights just under the headlights; otherwise, Revell’s front grille and bumper parts are far enough superior to AMT’s that you might want to use them to improve your Bel Air, and the size discrepancies will make this difficult. If you just wanted a sharper set of tires for the Bel Air, however, Revell's all-new rubber looks like it'll slip on the AMT wheels after you trim the locator ring from the inside. Those of you who have always thought AMT’s dog-dish caps were a bit large might want to have a look at the Revell caps, which are notably smaller in diameter. You may notice from the profile shot on the side of the box that the front axle center line sits too far to the rear; don't worry about that, because it looks as if Revell caught the problem and adjusted the pin bosses forward on the front suspension piece to correct it. I'm betting Len's and Bill's cars will bear this out when they're finished. For those of you who might want to go this route, RC2's nice new pie crust slicks will fit in the rear wheel wells, and you won't have to use the larger-diameter wheels Revell supplies for its slicks. Take the factory steel wheels instead, and push the back halves about 1/8 inch into the RC2 slicks, and that will compensate for the width of the axle. The fastidious among you will want to trim the rims off another set of wheels to finish the inside surfaces (and grind the grease caps off the outside halves if you're not using the dog dish caps), but otherwise, it's a simple operation. As for getting the nose of the drag version properly in the air, though, it depends on the level of detail you want and how far you’re willing to go. You might try pirating AMT’s raised suspension from its Bel Air drag cars, then maybe grafting on Revell’s more complete tie rod system if you want to keep that level of detail. If you’re more ambitious, you could also look at the separate suspension arms and raised springs from Revell’s ’64 – probably the most realistic option; but since the new kit lacks the ‘64’s separate frame, you’ll need to either graft in the ’64 crossmember or rework the ‘62’s. The simplest option may be the raised front suspension piece from a lowrider version of Revell’s ’63 Impala, if you can dig one of those up. Get that in place, and the ’62 wheels should pin right in. If I find anything else of interest bashing around with other Impala kits, I'll drop another line.

By the way, Monogram released its '59 Impala in 1993, so we've had a good idea how Revell/Monogram is gonna handle a w-series big block for what, 17 years? And as mentioned before, the '65 Impala convertible has had a 409 - for around 12 of those 17 years. The new one, shockingly, looks rather like those. It's got a separate oilpan and a dual-carb intake. Detail and parts breakdown are very similar otherwise. Oh, and the factory stock tires are new, for anyone who pays attention to that sort of thing. Similar to the now de-branded G@@& Y#@% Power Cushions that debuted in the '65 Impala hardtop and are now seen in the '66 Impala, but not the same. Bit narrower in the tread, raised rim for a whitewall on the sides.

Yep, Matt, I have my Spitfire 9, too. Also have one of the 1/32 Zekes, the 1/32 F-16CJ, plus a fair number of Revell AG, Monogram, Academy, and Trumpeter birds for comparison. The Spitfire is a truly wild opus of clever design - especially the cockpit breakdown, the powertrain and framework, and those paper-thin engine cover panels and magnets - even if the 16 remains my all-time favorite aircraft in scale. Though if Tamiya ups the ante yet again on a new 1/32 P-51D, I may have to reconsider that. "Almost as if" really has more to do with the pure conjecture on my part than it does with denying Tamiya their due. The only aspect of the Aston that mystifies me is the omission of any dividing, light-blocking partition where the radiator and core support should be. After all, Astons are Fords no longer, so it's not as if Tamiya was obliged to screw them up - meh, I take that back. At least there isn't any obvious disdain from Tamiya for this subject, as there certainly appeared to be for those SN95 Mustangs.

Funny that it's the one bit I've forgotten to mention, but that's the single piece that got me thinking Tamiya went out of their way to control sinkmarks in the body. If the entire ducktail as defined by that panel were a solid piece, I think we would have seen a fair number of divots there.

Actually, yeah. Looking over the body and considering it, it's almost as if the lines are presented for the most straightforward removal possible. That would seem perfectly consistent with the body shell sinkmark-control measures they've taken, which are unusual even for Tamiya.

Eeeyup! My pusher got theirs in yesterday too. Of course, my weekend schedule will prevent me from getting mine till Sunday...

Mmhmm. Decided to leave my HLJ order alone; got someone who kinda digs the car and might want a finished model of her own. Far as the radiator thing goes, I'm sure some strategically trimmed and applied black card stock would leave nobody the wiser. It's just that there are those who'd sourly maintain that a $65+ kit (or even %50+) should pass an IPMoscopy with flying colors - and I'd be a bit hard-pressed to dispute the point.

LHS paid, Mark. KILLER commentary on material envy elsewhere, btw. One of the best posts I've seen about anything.

I'm really diggin' mine, all told, but my biggest issue ultimately doesn't concern axles or complete engines so much. It has to do with the lack of any radiator/core support detail. How this pans out from the engine bay, I won't be able to determine till I've built mine or until Bob comments on that specifically. But have a look at the photo model on the instruction sheet, and you'll see for sure what you begin to suspect in your initial mock-up: that nice little little photoetched lower grille screen gives you a straight-on view of the boss you glue in to screw the front of the chassis down. After dealing with several recent Fujimi and Aoshima kits which are sure to back their see-thru screens with some kind of detail, that's the most serious letdown in this kit for me.

The '87 Olds and Buick kits never made it to the boxcover stage, OSL, or into a previewer's hands. This one looks ready to go.

There are a few nits yet, but I'm tellin' ya, I'm likin' this a LOT better than the '65. The windshield is laid ever so slightly back to a better-looking angle, and the c-pillar slope is ever so slightly more upright, making for a pretty big improvement overall. The rear window molding is almost comically superior to the girders on the '65, and the side contours/fender arches look quite a bit closer from a 3/4 view. You may be able to pick some of what I'm talking about out in this comparison photo I shot yesterday: Quite pleased with this kit, feeling an urge to get one going...

Yeah, maybe you're getting at the root of what I suspect the problem really is: some prominent commentary over the '69 Nova and '72 Olds - essentially correct, I have to acknowledge - was also so unsparing that everybody else is hypersensitive now about Revell getting the wrong message. You bet the new one is closer than AMT's original. As for AMT's more recent '62s (a "new tool" now 17 years old), however... well, pics just speak for themselves. Nobody nails those arches outright, but it's clear which kit is closest. What we're not seeing yet is that Revell may have done the best job of getting that sharp profile peak at the leading edge of the front fender, or that the sides may have better sectional contours than the slightly slabby AMT kit. What we can see is that Revell's kit is much sharper overall, and likely the most accurate all around. Heh. Just makes me more eager to get mine...

Ken, am I just missing something here? Is there another forum somewhere where they're really unloading all over this model? The single person I've seen who's brought up the most problems is Bob Downie, who also very clearly says "big deal". I didn't see a lot of fur flying here or at Spotlight till someone essentially equated Terry Jessee with an IPMS rivet-counter for pointing out the small wheel arch deviations (which, forgive me, I'm betting will still be quite visible through the most award-winning finish imaginable - and that doesn't make me or any too many others slobber over the kit ANY LESS, if people could just get their freakin' heads around that for a minute). Nobody was saying that this emperor came out undressed, just that his cuffs were a little funky. And in the two forums I'm watching, I didn't see anything qualifying as a truly harsh observation on the kit till this morning. Maybe there are just great swaths of commentary I've skipped inadvertently, but from what I have seen, up till this morning anyway, words like "harsh", "trash", "bash", and "excoriate" withered quickly under even the most casual scrutiny.

Well Len and Bill aren't idiots - I think they know that kit criticism (and very MILD criticism at that) doesn't reflect in any way on their stellar efforts, or the fact that we all appreciate what they do.

That's what I'm gonna reserve judgment on till I have mine. It does look that way, but it would be a little curious were it so - that's one of the areas they really nailed on the '64 Impala.

Hear ya, Mr G. With any luck, they'll file down to something a little closer...

Huh! Well, the body looks a lot better from the angles you shot it at. Also miss the separate frame, but I'm liking the overall design and the Bel Air cross-pollination prospects. Full covers AND dog dishes? Very impressive! Here's hoping...

Sheesh. I'm halfway inclined to order an extra Prius for Billy myself, if we get to see that...

Well I love Academy's birds, and I don't think they're that notorious for announcing projects and pulling them back. A legitimate, somewhat mainstream Daytona kit - original or Superformance - would be most welcome to me. Based on their aircraft, I'd anticipate something at least on the order of the Accurate Miniatures GS Corvettes (with 15 years of progress in tooling refinement). Time will tell...

Huh. Alright, let's consider that for a minute. Using an online inflation calculator, you see a roughly 7:1 ratio in 1962:2010 spending power for the dollar. So I guess this double-dragster kit should be available for just under $14, then. And that 1962 price had to cover new tool amortization. Of course, it didnt have to cover that lovely new tin, or the added parts, or the expanded decal sheet. It did have the advantage of a much larger 1962 consumer base and distribution network, where you could find plastic model kits nearly anywhere. And it didnt have to contend with auto and tire manufacturers bilking licensing fees from AMT for the dubious privilege of promoting their brands (I swear the fires of eternal perdition will never burn hot enough for the scum-sucking shyster leeches who ever devised such a plan, but thats another story). Meh, well. Same inflation calculator dictates I should be able to get a new V8 Mustang for around $18,000, and a six-bedroom house in Virginia for around $150,000... come to think of it, Id like to take a minute to acknowledge those bottom-feeding licensing vampires again, because if it werent for that exact same beady-eyed mindset proliferating big business (The NFL owns "Who Dat"? Oh really?), maybe those figures above wouldnt seem so quaint. Thanks guys! Hey, from the bottom of my ever-loving heart, go pound it sideways, okay? Dang. That felt good.

Alas, Tim, it would also be par for the course in recent Tamiya automotive releases (c.f. Merc SLR & Nissan R35 GT-R), so that's what I'm betting on. I'd LOVE to LOSE that bet. Heck, I would have bet against ever seeing a DBS in the first place.

I'd say let's just expect an engine insert but hope for the whole deal...