niteowl7710

I guess my "line in the sand" when it comes to inaccuracies for the "bottom line" is the corner cutting we've seen in the past. Examples would be the Rat Roaster which has a number of problems that keep it from being an excellent kit that all revolve around the fact that they cut some corners to keep from tooling up all of the parts that would have made a 95%+ accurate version of the 1:1 car. Things like the wrong cross-member, wrong suspension, etc Another would be the 2010 Mustang which I think we all can agree considering the car came out in 2011 should have been a 2011, but was kept a 2010 so the corner could be cut to use the older 4.6 engine rather than cutting a new engine tool for the 5.0 Coyote motor. HOWEVER when we have a brand new, from scratch tool - that share not parts with ANYTHING else - then I do not find it acceptable in any way, shape or form for a kit to have a body as out of whack as this one.

Well that might be the case had the Pro Modeler series lasted more than what was it a half-dozen kits if you don't factor in the Airplanes...The Charger body got pulled - according to people who are in the know that I've spoken to - because Chrysler's P.R. & Licensing Departments laid a cow over it and threatened to pull permission to do another run of the Charger, and the subsequent Daytona kit (which would have also killed the '68 Charger kit and irreparably harmed their relationship with Chrysler). The same case for the Lindberg '61 Impala, it wasn't indignant hobbyists, but rather GM's Licensing Dept that made them go back and fix the body. Perhaps we should direct our ire at Ford for letting them trot out this body shell... Also while Revell may have never fixed the taillight kicker panel, they sure did re-tool the gas tank so it was mounted in the correct direction lickity-split. It does make you wonder if the COPO Nova was actually something planned all along - a model of a non-existent car - or if it was something they wound up having to do to justify tooling up all the CORRECT parts so you could actually build a Yenko Nova, then tossed in the 396SS decals so people wouldn't lay their own cows about having two kits with 96% of the parts they'd need to complete the left over one once they swapped interior and exterior parts around. With the way Revell operates in forcing you to either buy two kits or wait around hoping there's a second kit forthcoming to get the up-top option of their convertible kits it makes you wonder, since the only people who know the truth about the Yenko/COPO Nova debacle have non-disclosure forms and want to keep their jobs at Hobbico.

Japan has a new PM who's "devalued" the Yen as part of an attempt to spur their economy. That beneficial Dollar to Yen ratio has knocked a good $10-15 off prices over the past few months. It's something like the 2nd or 3rd best (well for us) exchange rate in the past decade.

Can we all just pause a second and consider what this section is called? Kit Reviews. Now I will grant you that perhaps the language and the "strength" of the opinions about the kits here is perhaps a bit much for some people who expect a sedate, polite magazine style going-over. But the entire point of a review is the point out the high and low points of the kit in question. The people reading the review then have to decide to the pros outweigh the cons. If the fact the roof and all sorts of other things about this kit are wrong doesn't bother you enough to ruin your enjoyment of this kit, then go ahead and buy a case load. But heck even the door lock is so ashamed of being on this kit it's trying to sneak right off the door. I bet if Erik takes another picture of the kit he has, the key hole is back by the filler door with a little hobo pack over it's shoulder. We can be far more blatant about what is right and wrong on this forum than any magazine can be, because none of us here have to worry about Revell (or anyone else) pulling it's advertising. I do find it ironic that when Moebius delays a kit a lot of people will extol the waiting game. "Just get it right, we can wait. I'd rather wait and have a correct kit, than have a rushed incorrect one", blah blah blah. Yet if people are critical of a Revell kit - well that's some sort of blasphemy and the people involved are called complainers, we're going to drive Revell to pull a Linus - we'll find it wandering the streets of Elk Grove Village sucking it's thumb with a blanket, and some people will defend Revell more than they would their own family. Look y'all can't have it both ways. Either a kit is worth getting right and not being rushed. Or in the overall scheme of the hobby business it doesn't matter what gets trotted out since it's all just plastic toys and we just need to shut up and go take massage classes.

That's not an accurate statement. Those of us who were interesting in this kit have been complaining directly to Revell, although perhaps not as vocally in public, about the inaccuracies presented in this kit since we saw the test shots last October. As Bradley said we were told it was "too late" to do anything other than shrink the size of the 5.0 badge. The complaints died down for awhile until the kit came out because I think a lot of us were secretly hoping Revell would come to their collective sense and fix the body before issuing it. They didn't, and now yes the complaint level is at "howling". To be fair after the '50 Olds, '57 Ford & '62 Corvette which while not perfect were 95% or above in "getting it close" why would we expect a sudden backslide into "obviously inaccurate"? Actually both of Revell's newest tools serve the function of "parts donor" rather than an actual model kit. With some trimming and fiddling you can get the chassis up into an old MPC kit. The Rat Roaster has a lot of nice separate parts, but as a whole it's glaringly obvious what corners were cut in how accurate, or rather lack thereof the model is compared to the real car.

I suppose since this kit was issued in the mid-1990's along with it's factory stock cousin, the chorus of complaints has never been loud enough to make Ertl, RC2 or Round 2 go back and fix it over the past 20 years. Both kits have always had the note to trim off the bottom corner of the vent glass, which as was mentioned earlier is a result of mixing the original MPC annual body, glass & interior with the later AMT/Ertl chassis and running gear.

All great information for dealing with the vinyl seats in these new "Craftsmen" style kits. However if you're building a factory stock ZL-1 no matter what color your order it in, the interior is black leather with black alcantara inserts.

That animation is neat, it's like it's riding a little Merry-Go-Round...Up n Down, Up n Down, Up n Down, the roof 2 scale inches too short the entire time.

No I don't mean thick like deep, I understand the windows mount from outside. I guess I should have phrased it as "tall" as in the part that's above the windshield is taller (aka thicker) than the real thing's rather minimal trim. But shoot considering the half foot of scale window trim frosted onto the windshield itself, the external window trim is the least of that entire assembly point's problem.

Oh I have no doubt there are a pile of classic and modern VIP style cars planned for that joint new tool. The existing generation of Cedric/Gloria tooling is based off an old motorized chassis, so a brand new kit with a real chassis, up to date body and interior were overdue considering the variety of similar style classic 4 door cars that have passed in and out of the catalogs at Aoshima & Fujimi. Heck one of the modified re-issues for next month is a Toyota Crown Majestica that is a very minor tweak to the existing tool they already had that seems to be bumpers, rims and a few other very minor details to make a "late version" of that car's styling. It'd be like Revell offering the '69 Camaro as not only several option/builder packages like they do now, but then making random tweaks to make it a '67 and '68, and then offering them in a base model with base engines.

Look how overly thick, and yet lightly engraved the top windshield trim is - that is a feat in itself. Why does that bottom window trim not stop where the mirror is supposed to go? I presume that means the mirror isn't going to sit correctly. Why oh why is the rear "vent" window opening the wrong shape (although that's the easiest fix of the maladies)? Oh and while we're picking nits, the door handle isn't right - seems to wide, there's no indent around the door handle and where the sam heck is the keyhole going? Why is it listing lazly towards the NE when it's perfectly in-line with the door handle on the 1:1?

The Gloria and it's sister car the Cedric are both new tools - well it's one tool for the both of them as they differences are the grills, mirrors and a few other details. The Sambar is all new. The other major Aoshima releases are the Toyota 86/Scion & Subaru BRZ with engine kits (those are due out next month actually - the Sambars & Nissans are tentatively July). Along with the McLaren F-1 GTR Long Tail and Toyota Celica Rally Car. If you want a Hi-Ace better get a pre-order in somewhere because it's a Spot Production run (read limited edition) so when it's gone, it's gone. The other two automotive announcements from Tamiya were "Full View" (clear body) versions of the Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren & Porsche Carerra GT.

There was no viable reason with as many people as Revell had to work with that they couldn't and shouldn't have pulled the emergency brakes on the fail train that is the body in this kit. If that meant scrapping the body tool, then so be it. Get it right -- NOTE : I'm not saying perfect, I'm just saying not square, thick, blocky, with a chopped roof and wandering belt-line -- the first time and you don't have to go through the expense. After getting the three new tools from last year that all incrementally raised our expectations of what Revell could produce if they really put their minds to it, and then having this thing plop down onto the table it's like Revell spent 95% of the budget on the chassis, engine, drive train and interior and let someone in need of an appointment at Lens Crafters handle the body. It's a major disappointment, and it with the dearth of any subject matter from the past 30 years issued after the 2010 Mustangs, you begin to wonder if this whole kit was viewed in-house an eeeeevil modern subject and the faster the could get it out the door, the better. When else has Revell ever managed to get an entirely newly tooled kit from public announcement to sales floor in a mere 6 1/2 months before? EVER? For anyone who want to say it's unrealistic to scrap or severely modify the body tool, I'd like to point out that aside from the Moebius Hudson fiasco, Galaxy Limited had to scrap the body tool for their upcoming Chevrolet Coupe. If they, who you have to assume are on a relative shoe-string budget seeing as they haven't released a new kit in 20+ years and are surviving on selling to people who realize they can order directly from their website, can afford to junk a tool. Well folks then Revell certainly can considering how much money they're going to lose from the people who are passionate about these cars and how much overall financial resources exist within the world of Hobbico. Come to think of it Lindberg during the Craft House days had to re-tool/modify the tool to make the body of the '61 Impala SS correct, and Revell did it as mentioned with the Charger. The precedent exists and needs to be followed here.

I haven't even been signed in here or looked at this place in a blissful week of headache & bickeringfree web-surfing, and then have it pointed out someone is invoking my name to make a lame argument. I get the cost thing, there are people on non-existent budgets, fixed incomes, retired or unemployed. But for the rest of the people here, they're cheap. Not frugal...CHEAP! Revell could make the most perfect Cuda and include P/E in it, and charge $10 and there would still be 8 dozen people here complaining it's not $9.99. It goes hand in hand with the idea that some sort of Mixed Martial Arts competition is desirable. Rather than pay for a better kit, they'd rather go 3 rounds in the Octagon with their model kits. It's not a matter of the hack "kit assembler" vs. "model builder" snoozefest, but why even if you were going to modify, plumb, and detail out a model kit do some people insist that the experience should be as taxing and painful as possible? I purchase a lot of Tamiya, Aoshima, Fujimi & Revell AG kits not only because (at least the first two on that list) are better models in quality & engineering, leading to a much more enjoyable building experience. But because of the subject matter. I'd take 5 Halo/Supercar kits for every '50 Olds I'd buy... Casey you might be surprised how many Revell Muscle Car kits are currently on "Order Stop" on HobbyLink Japan. Meaning they have more pre-orders than they expect to be able to fill from what Revell has promised to send them. I don't know where this fallacy comes from that Japanese don't build American - any more or any less than Americans want no part of Japanese subject matter. I you look at photos from the major model shows there you would see that the American cars are at least as prominent as the JDM stuff. In the process they're over-paying for Revell & Round 2 kits - the exchange rate & import costs work in reverse (heck the Moebius truck kits work out to nearly $150US) and not being scale or subject matter bigots along the way. The vast majority of people here (in addition to being cheap) are also old - or as Brett proves young - codgers that believe anything manufactured after 1971 isn't fit to be licensed as use as a motor vehicle, making the majority of the catalogs at the "Big 3" Japanese companies as appealing to some here as self-imposed exploratory rectal surgery with a spork. I had to see exactly why this thread was "starred" to me, as I didn't remember commenting on it. Turns out it was a one-liner about Tower Hobbies release date for this kit. Because frankly if you called me on Halloween Night and told me a giant wave had washed the entire container of Cudas into the South China Sea a few minutes after a giant sink hole ate the injection molding machine holding the molds to this kit...I.COULD.NOT.CARE.LESS. This is one of those kits you couldn't pay me to build, zero appeal to me for some reason, and what's more it now appears that Revell has had THREE swings and nearly 4 YEARS to make this one right and...well look at that it's still wrong. Is it more right that the AAR, sure it'd be hard not to be. Is it actually right...No. I'd still prefer Revell sell 50,000 units of it to the people who couldn't care if it was a hunk of plywood and an orbital sander in the box however, so they can fund something I'd actually purchase.

Sir people were discussing models, which led a few of us who owned (or in my parent's case subjected to) VW Rabbits. The idea of having the kit back means I could make a model of the biggest most fetid pile of junk I've ever been exposed to...perhaps the New Stanton plant was good, maybe it was (and it was) awful. Does the fact the car I'd be replicating ought to be attached to a tow truck to truly replicate it have bearing on the kit itself. Probably not, but you don't need to come crashing into the thread like Debbie Downer because...ya know God FORBID people just have a natural conversation around here. You'd act like we're debating the pros & cons of Tatra importation after WWII. Lighten up Francis, if you can't handle that EVERY thread here meanders along, by all means start your own forum and I'm sure people will flock to it and it's heavily regimented conversation standards.

Well then you should look into any of the countless forums that are so much better than this one that rigidly moderate the content to adhere 100% to the original poster's thoughts. When you find that place, let us all know so we can bask in it's non-devolving thread excellence.

Consumers Union ranked the VWoA Westmoreland vehicles in 1977-79 had "worse than average maintenance record, including an oil burning problem."[An analyst with Drexel Burnham Lambert said in 1987 "the quality of the cars built in Pennsylvania wasn't up to the quality of the cars in Germany."[An analyst for Global Insight, John Wolkonowicz, said the Rabbit was "probably the most troublesome Volkswagen ever built."

Totally agree with you there. Dare I say I think we're "owed" those two kits to round out the Tri-5 series. I know that some people are tired of them, but at this point I have so much invested into the series The AMT '55 is long past due to be replaced, and the same with the old Monogram '57 Nomad.

Maybe Brett can enter into this debate, but they don't HAVE to make 50,000 pieces. I can't believe when they reissue say the '93 based off the Snap-Tite kit Viper they ran 50,000 copies of that kit. It was always my understanding the 50,000 kits total was the TOTAL of all of the kits for all of the tooling variations. I bet they have run that many kits from 1996 until now through the 8-10 different variations (counting California Wheels reissues) of the Tri-5 kits. The '56 Nomad must have sold well enough, it was just reissued again and it didn't kill the entire series back in 1998 when it was the 2nd tooling version.

They don't need to make 50,000 of them, the base tooling has been bought and paid for 5 times by now. Sure there's the cost of a body shell and some interior parts, but the vast majority of the parts would carry-over from existing tooling.

And worth each and every hand-made, individually customized penny. I said easy, I didn't say CHEAP! I'd have to look but I think only the NC, SC, GA Chimneyville set has more than one Mustang applicable set of markings.

It looks to me a generic attempt at a Code 3 Force 4LP bar. That'd be correct for Kansas and a few other departments. I've come to accept over the years that be it $$$, licensing, poor research, our just figuring police modelers will simply fall all over the idea of even being "catered to" no model company is ever going to produce accurate emergency lighting. Lindberg came closest with their Vector/Vision but it had no mounting feet, it just free floated on the roof - the police version of the bracketless alternator. Fortunately the Chimneyville series of decals is right from the end of the Mustang era and Dave Panek specializes in the lights used during the time to, so I don't believe there's any of the 33 departments that used this car that can't be reproduced relatively "easily". Now Revell, how about a B4C Camaro, it could piggie-back a new tool late 80's/early 90's car. One without the seemingly mandatory T-Tops of the AMT/MPC offerings.

Swapping in that AOD presumes that they aren't 10 miles apart in size like the Hemis in Magnum & Challenger. Besides it was a "in a perfect world" quibble. This is one I can actually side with the old "I'm a modeler, I can fix it" position. There's already a boat-load of fabricating just to make a correct CHP car (of either variant - with lights or without) sawing off the tranny is the easiest part.

Another minor quibble would be that at least a plurality of the SSP Mustangs were Automatics. It's probably pretty close to a 50/50 split in 1990, that leaned more and more towards automatics towards the end of the run. Simply because it's a bit of a juggling act to drive a stick while running the sirens and operating the radio(s). Obviously Revell did the 5 speed for the simple reason that other versions of this kit (and for a stock LX) nobody wants an automatic in a Mustang!

Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark thoughout most of the evening, with some widely scattered light towards morning. Still missing ya George...