Casey

I think only an extreme few expect 100% accuracy-- perfection, essentially. Most people are realistic enough to realize perfection is a nearly unachievable goal. Passing the eye test, with nothing which stands out as not quite right, is a good baseline for accuracy. You mentioned in an image caption: "Moebius made some changes to the tool from earlier test shot runs to address the view of some (including this writer) that the roof/greenhouse had a non-factory, slightly “chopped” appearance." What exactly was changed? Is is accurate to say that you believed the earlier version, images of which Dave shared here on the forum, had an inaccurate greenhouse area? Your statement doesn't specifically say exactly what was changed, and maybe you can't or are are unwilling to share what changes were made-- both fine-- but I think it would be good to know if the window trim was thinned, the cavity for the roof section in the mold deepened, etc. Again, not required, but providing that info would end some (though I doubt all) speculation regarding what changes were made. I remain doubtful any finished model is somehow going to sway what people see on the unfinished body. You mentioning that some areas (presumably thinning the window surround trim which is too thick, and admittedly, a likely concession to molding limitations, such as the vertical vent window trim) need to be thinned down makes me even more concerned the real issue was never truly addressed.

if you are talking '64+ 330, it will be nearly the same as any of the '64 up Olds V8s, other than the deck height. For a '64 330 V8, it would have the lower deck height. Olds didn't use "big block" nor "small block" to differentiate back then. Bores, strokes, and two different deck heights are the main factors. Valve covers, intake manifolds, etc. may vary by year and usage, so some mixing and matching will be required for a specific application.

The Revell '72 Olds Cutlass convertible kit has an excellent (my #1 choice) modern Olds V8, and both automatic and 4-speed manual (with the correct B-O-P pattern bellhousing), but the AMT (MPC) '69 Olds Cutlass' V8 is nice, too, as mentioned above:

Next up, AMT 1289:

I'm not suggesting, at all, that you are compromising your integrity, just to be clear. I guess it boils down to what I, you and everyone else sees on the model. If we chose to use images or the real car, or the real car itself if we have direct access to one, to compare to the model, I feel that's a fair tool to use for comparison. 1:1 vehicles may have some subtle differences between each other, even the same year, make and model, but to disregard them as a basis for comparison to a 1.25 scale version seems bizarre. The 1:1 version is exactly what the 1/25 version is based upon. I understand there is distortion in images, parallax, etc. involved when viewing things with our own eyes, so while I agree and admit there will be some variance between what different people see, I don't think Lee and others are wrong. YMMV, and that's fine. So, anyone who looks at the bare plastic body and makes a critique without seeing the finished, built model built by you is uninformed? Come on, Tim. That statement is just...no, I'm not going there. No need. The raw, plastic body is there for people to see with their eyes, and you're right, we all have to decide for ourselves if we feel it's accurate or not. I don't think a finished model, built one particular way, by one person, is going to make people change their mind, but we can all agree to disagree. Many of us have spent decades around 1:1 vehicles, and while very few are experts in one particular make and model, many of us have a very good "feel" for design subtleties, and we recognize when things are slightly off. To discount or dismiss that, IMHO, would be a mistake. Here's the earlier test shot posted by Dave Metzner, and a real '65. Look carefully at the top edge of the windshield on both: I'd be happy if that were the cause of the "too low" looking roofline, as that could be rectified without major surgery, much like the new-tool AMT '67 Fairlane. Why would this be necessary if the body is accurate?

Harry tried to make this same argument here years ago. You can compare an image of a real car and a model, and still see they are not the same. The roof height was too short when the first test shot was publicly shown 18 months ago (or so), and it appears it's still the same now. Sorry, Lee and others are right now, and they were correct back then-- the greenhouse is too short. I think we all understand you probably can't give a brutally honest, no- holds barred critique, pointing out every flaw you see, and risk jeopardizing relationships, but others can, and honestly, they should. Honest critiques (should) lead to better, more accurate models, instead of "close enough". See Revell's 1/25 '70 'Cuda, '48 Ford Coupe, and the AMT '71 Plymouth Duster 340 for some modern era kits with "Oh, I see it." inaccuracies. I doubt many people will care if the sedan's greenhouse is not right, and I doubt Moebius cares to get it right, since they had plenty of time to do just that and elected not to. Does anyone know if the sedan and hardtop windshields are the same size? I'm thinking along the lines of the Tri-Five Chevies which have two different windshield heights, one for hardtops and convertibles (and Nomads), the other for sedans, wagons, and sedan deliveries. *edit*: info here which seems to state there is a difference between hardtop and sedan windshields for '62-'67 Chevy II/Novas: https://www.stevesnovasite.com/threads/coupe-vs-sedan-2dr-windshield.297489/#post-2788593 It will be interesting to see if both the Moebius '65 and '64 share the same clear parts, especially the windshield...

Hopefully they don't yellow over time and exposure to UV light. I doubt nail sealer was designed to be a long-term solution, but they do look much better than without the lenses.

They just collect old completed online auction type sales. They do not sell themselves AFAIK. They are useful for the images, though.

It appears to be aluminium tubing with end caps, hence the waviness and distortion visible on one of the end caps. You can still see the weld seam along the tank's longest axis, from when the tube was originally formed, so it doesn't appear the tube has been turned down at all, just polished.

Here's a link with images of the RMR Crew Cab version: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/55-57-chevy-coe-resin-cab-rmr-1799038775 Probably as close as you'll get: The 1/48 Revell Chevy Stakebed kit is the only COE in plastic from the major companies, AFAIK.

I would bet that mold is long gone. The few pieces from that mold/kit which remain are found in the Boss Nova drag wagon, and looking at where the A frame and floor jack pieces were located among all the parts, they probably never made it out, so to speak: Compare the above with the (not exactly all original) Boss Nova below, and you'll see even some of the parts which did carry over have been rearranged-- the four fuel can pieces, for example, are no longer directly across from the parachute, cylinder heads(?), and intake manifold: For future comparison, the original trailer parts:

To be fair, Peter V from Atlantis mentioned raw material prices had increased greatly over the last few months, and that kit prices would follow.

And now...: AMT-1291 1/25 Rat Fink International Transtar CO-4070A Tractor Hauler $78.95

To be fair, we have seen two AMT Pintos ('77 and the Popper version), the MPC Pinto Cruising Wagon, the MPC Grumpy Jenkins and Bruce Larson Pro Stocks, the AMT Vega Funny Car, and the Rat Trap Vega modified reissued since this topic was started in 2012. Who would have thought?

Atlantis Toy and Hobby M6710 1/24 Fireball slingshot dragster. This is a test shot with mock up decals added. Kit will be molded in white 18.99 MSRP. Due out end of the year. New artwork coming soon.

* * https://www.google.com/search?q=site:+modelcarsmag.com+paint+stand+site:www.modelcarsmag.com&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS915US915&sxsrf=AOaemvKOKL5fPg6JcLdhhswlrPKTRUWvgg:1632411228774&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyj6zbtZXzAhXNdN8KHZm2DwsQrQIoBHoECAUQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1

The L60-15(?) AMT Goodyear Polyglas GT tires would probably work in 1/24 scale, as the stock tires for a '70 Chevelle SS are only 14" anyway. The MRC tires are nowhere close to stock, no matter which (M/T Indy Profile, Firestones. etc.) you choose.

You are correct. I posted it in the wrong topic, and just corrected it.

Via Atlantis' facebook page: Atlantis Toy and Hobby "Here is our all new 1/25 scale tire tooling. This will be used on the Mooneyes kit and many others"

There was no engine in the first, curbside release, and I don't believe the parts layout for the full detail #1201 kit has been shown publicly yet, so I don't think anybody knows where the individual parts are located in the overall parts layout of the mold. No, that was a different trailer, the Service Trailer. The AMT #1202/1201 '63 Chevy II Nova kit(s) is (are) all new, with nothing carried over nor re-used from the original, thus, the trailer and accessory engine are also new. I agree, and would think this was planned early on is the kit's development. The trailer would be era appropriate for many kits in the Round2 tooling bank so it would be unwise to permanently twin it with the Chev II Nova 400 Wagon mold.