Casey

That's what I think the body should be re-done-- the rest of the kit appears to be well done, but it's the body shell specifically which contains most of the errors, and the most glaring error, the roof height. I'm also factoring in future version of this kit when I say I think Revell should correct the body. We know there's another notchback kit coming, and I'd like to think an LX hatch has been considered for the future, too, so this isn't a one-and-done kit. I also think this kit could be a bridge between the late '60s/early '70s musclecars and current (modern if you like) performance cars, so to me, that factors in, too. Revell is re-doing several kits which they already have a (very similar or the same) version of in their tooling bank, so if these LX kits are successful, maybe all new 1/25 '85 IROC-Z and '87 Buick GNX kits will be produced, too. We know they are working on an '83 Hurst/Olds Cutlass in 1/25, so a GN/GNX based on the same G-body platform isn't that wild of a dream anymore.

That's true, and I think most of us realize we are among the .005% who do notice, do care, and do want to see the body corrected.

The instruction sheet is up and viewable as a .pdf file on Round2's website, too: http://www.round2models.com/files/instructions/amt841.pdf

If you agree that the roof is at a minimum 1.5" too short, then we are all in agreement that the roof is too short. Yes, the underpinnings appear to be top notch (pun intended), and this is very nice kit when viewed in its entirety, but it has a HUGE, glaring error-- the body. As Dennis pointed out, maybe people didn't catch the roof issue on the built ups for many reasons, but why nobody noticed (or noticed and didn't say anything) has no bearing on the fact that the roof is too low now. The kit is in our hands, many people have noticed the error, and we want to see it corrected. If Revell corrects the roof, I have no doubt this kit will be one of Revell's go-to kits, much like their '69 Charger R/T which also had the exact same body issue.

I didn't ask if the 14" Goodyear Eagle ST tires and 14" Goodyear rear slicks are going to be included (in addition to the larger diameter Foose wheels and matching tires and the stock 15" Rally wheels and skinny tires) but even if they aren't, the STs are still easily to found on eBay or from other sources. The optional 14" Cragar 5-spokes the original 3'n'1 kit included are pretty outdated by now, and the 14" Centerline two-piece-look wheels included with the '67 Vette kit also scream 1980's, so I can understand Revell adding a new set of wheels and tires to freshen up this kit. The wide whitewalls from the '57 Chevy Bel Air kit are one of the only other commonly available kit tires in 1/12 scale, and they look out of place on a late '60 ponycar, so tire options sourced from kits are quite limited. The Camaro's 15" Rally wheels are very basic, too, with the wheel, trim ring, and center cap all molded as one piece. You could source the Goodyear Gatorback 16" tires from either the 1/12 Testarossa or F40 kits, but again you're limited to the 5-star Ferrari wheels unless you want to make or modify your own. I hope this kit leads to the 1/12 '67 Vette being reissued with similar, larger diameter wheels and tires, too.

I agree with Luc. We know what the 1:1 measurements are thanks to Brad, so it's irrelevant what the previous Monogram, MPC, and Revell kits measured out to or looked like when discussing the accuracies of Revell's 1/25 '90 LX. If the 1:1 car(s) is(are) true and consistent, that should be the standard or control by which the scale models are compared and judged.

There are always other people and places to buy from.

Nice pics of the Billy Carter kit's contents via an eBay listing: The bed floor insert piece caught my eye as I don't think it was included in subsequent modified reissues. I know the Ice Patrol kit didn't have it, nor the four tire halves (which don't appear on the box but are mentioned), the stakesides. and the floor jack piece.

Nice pics, Gerry. Nooooooow, we're talkin'! We have a local, late evening cruise-in Monday nights, with plenty of late sunshine which leads to some long shadows.

They look to have been sourced from a European car. Not sure what the Canadian DOT (or Bureau of Vehicles?) laws were in the past, but IIRC '75 was the first year rectangular sealed beam headlamps were legal for use in the U.S.

They have no gloss clear product in their lineup anymore? I don't use Tamiya sprays, so I made my suggestion to stick with the same paint line, which IMHO is always a baseline suggestion.

I would stick with Tamiya Gloss Clear since you used their paint for the color coats.

This might be a good time to remind us all to stick to commenting about the kit, and not each other's personal opinions, as those aren't likely to change. What's good enough for one person may not be acceptable to another, so let's not waste our energy on things we can't change. If the kit is acceptable to you, buy as many as you want. If it's unacceptable to you, I suggest you put your efforts toward making it better. E-mail Revell directly, as that is the best way to make direct contact with someone. I don't think Brad is alone is hoping his efforts to point out the phsyical shortcoming of the kit's roof lead to better, more accurate models, and I agree with him 100%. I compared it to the Revell-Monogram Pro Modeler '69 Charger R/T from 1996, which had a very similar, "chopped" roof. Revell fixed the body and sent replacements to those who requested one, and I sincerely hope that is what will that is what I think should happen with this kit, too.

Take the real dimension (12", 1/4", 37-3/4", etc.) and divide by the scale (12 for 1/12 scale).

The Sambar and Gloria are definitely 3D printed, so I'd say the Gloria is all-new, too.

I would ask Keith Marks. His contact info is in the pinned Aftermarket Directory post in the Resin & Aftermarket section.

Jose, This is the exact same kit as the Tomb Raider kit which had a die-cast body.

I did a quick greenhouse sectioning, taking out 2 scale inches or so: I think some of the B-pillar angle differences can be accounted for by the angle and distance the pics were taken at, but the body proportions don't lie.

I think that's exactly the case with most of the show rod type kits, including the two you mentioned. RC2 flooded the market with reissues like these, and you can still find them for $10 or less, almost ten years later. I also think your words "a copy" were quite accurate, in that people who do buy these are likely to only buy one kit, not multiple copies. I know I did exactly that with the Piranha and Barris Buggy since they both were cheap and I was willing to take a chance on some parts inside both. Revell is going to continue to release show rods, but you really have to put some effort into letting them know what you want if it's not a kit in the regular rotation so to speak. Get the word out, post on their faceook page and ask others if they'd also like to see the Uncertain T return. You'll need to do most of the legwork yourself, but if you want it bad enough and can show Revell (or Round2, Moebius, etc.) that there is legitimate demand in sufficient numbers, you will at least get their attention.

Agreed. It appears the greenhouse was sectioned 2-3" just below the roof:

Another box variation for the "Demolisher":

Buy the Revell '68 and '69 Charger R/T kits. The '68 has the body without the vinyl top (smooth roof), and the '69 has the bulk of the '69 specific parts you'll need. Pics of the '69 R/T kit here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61511&hl=charger The American Racing Vector wheels and General Lee decals are easy to find on eBay or here in the Trade section, and as Kevin suggested, scratchbulding a better grille guard and roll bar would be better than buying the MPC kit just for those parts. The rest of the MPC kit is pretty bad, so I would suggest you avoid it entirely. I've even seen resin Bo and Luke Duke figures on eBay if you want a driver and co-pilot. You're outta luck if you're a fan of Coy and Vance, though.

Try looking here, Amith: http://www.goodvibesracing.com/Hat_Components.htm

Thanks, Brett. Hard to tell, but the roof does look like it might be a bit too low as Rob mentioned. I like how the trans tunnel was handled, and adding the copyright info on the bottom of the gas tank will make removal a breeze. The 5.0 looks very nice, too, and it looks like the upper half of the intake manifold and throttle body have some nice detail. Ejector pin marks on the bottom of the floor pan, where they'll be hidden? Nice. What are the hood-tach shaped lumps on the package tray?

It's up to whoever makes and markets the kit to decide if they're worth the effort. I have my opinions, and they're just that, but I did speak with someone from Revell who provided some insight as to which kits are perennial good sellers and why, so I factored that in when I formed my opinion. Up until two months or so ago the Aqua Rod was $4.99 in Round2's own AutoWorld store, and the Royal Rail is still there for $4.99. Not exactly a sign of a sales success IMHO if you're dumping your own kits out the back door for a few pennies more than they cost to make. I think the whole retro reissue subject is very complex, with many factors contributing to sales success and/or failure, but I just don't see the Uncertain T having a wide ranging appeal. I can't explain why some show rods are timeless and others aren't, but I do see multiple vehicles and designs from Daniel, Roth, Starbird, Barris, Casper, etc.-- all of whom have enjoyed successful working relationships with Revell, Monogram, MPC, and AMT over the last 50 years.