Quick Overview: Revell Starsky & Hutch Torino

[Chuck Kourouklis]

...Back to the kit, it looks like the frame rails are a bit shallow, but perhaps that's not the case? I keep getting an "It looks close, but we didn't exactly go all out getting the out-of-sight bits totally correct" vibe from this kit. Still bummed about the messed up rear wheels, especially since they front wheel bolt circle was correctly registered.

I'd say that's just about right.  Some things grabbed you right from the previews, like muffler dimension, suspension simplification, is-that-really-how-the-frame/floorpan-looks, those sorts of things.  The exhaust pipes still seem a bit wispy to me, but I say that with the caveat that my observation is based on pipe diameters in other kits, and not a good 1:1 look at whatever was strangling Fords in the mid-'70s.

The flip side, though, is that what is here - little warts like the front axle pin issue aside - should be pretty easy to work with.  You can hack that rear end right down lickety-split; you're gonna spend more time measuring twice than cutting once on that.  The intake-molded distributor ain't optimal, but it does provide a stable base for wiring.  Got big, honking pins on the bumpers, trunk trim and grille, so those should cinch right in and stay where they're put.

Thinking about it with all that in mind, Scott, I'm also coming around a bit more decisively to the idea that you should just go for one of these.  What's the worst that can happen? Revell comes out with a stock version after all, you'll either

A ) have done something you like with the S & H, or

B ) be able to flip that S & H right around on evilbay.  Hold onto it long enough in that case, you might even clear a profit.

[Brett Barrow]

Hear ya, Andy.

Wonder how the movie cars played into Revell's research, though - 'cause if you follow the starskytorino.com link Dave posted earlier to the 2004 cars, what do you find but that the two hero rides had built Windsors in 'em. Not quite outfitted the way Revell has it, but it seems the W found its way into a few striped tomatoes, anyway.

I spoke to Ed Sexton waaaaaay back at a show in 2014 about it and he said the car they used was one of the 1976 "Limited Production" cars.  If I understood him correctly it's the car of the folks that run that site, and if you look closely at their car, you'll notice the similarity in the "mistakes" Revell made in the slot mags - (similar dish, lugs aligned with slots). http://www.starskytorino.com/johnpennyq/johnpennyq.html 

And then there's the Wikipedia article - 

Originally, Blinn was to have Starsky drive a Chevrolet Camaro convertible because he fondly remembered a green and white one that he owned. However, when production started on the pilot episode, Ford Motor Company's Studio-TV Car Loan Program was the lease supplier for Spelling-Goldberg. They looked at lease stock and chose two 1975 351 Windsor V8-powered (VIN code "H") "Bright Red" (paint code 2B) 2-door Gran Torinos. Both cars had a 'role' in the pilot movie, one being "Starsky's" car, and the other being a similar car which is mistaken for Starsky's car by the film's villains. They each had body-side mouldings along with a black interior with vinyl bench seats. Interestingly, one of the 'pilot' cars had the 'luxury' remote-control chrome mirrors installed, while the other 'pilot' car had the cheaper, entry-level manual chrome mirrors installed; in editing the film, Starsky and Hutch are shown to be driving around in each of the two cars at different times during the film.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Brett Barrow
edited to add wikipedia quote

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well I'll be.  Looks like it has a Windsor too.

[unclescott58]

Despite my displeasure with a few minor things I've all ready pointed out. I more than likely will buy the S&H version of this kit. And other than paint, I'll probably build it straight out of the box. With the jacked up rear end, the slotted wheels, and the dual carb set up. And in general, be happy with it. And as soon as I've done that, Revell will announce the version I really want, and I'll end up buying a second on

[blubaja]

Welcome back to 2004! That looks mighty awful. Not in proportions, or whatever issues it might have in accuracy. But the engineering. Oof....This gets approved, but they continue to ditch the Cutlass of similar build quality? Good job revell, once again. 

 

Edited September 22, 2015 by blubaja

[mike 51]

Based on the comments on that "other" board...

.it seems everybody  thinks the hood fits very well.  

[Chuck Kourouklis]

One almost hates to clear that up - 

maybe shoulda left it to Robbie.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis

[wrecker388]

RUMOR has it........the pre-orders are way up on this kit....so there is a demand for American 70's era cars.....hope we get a 77 Thunderbird out of this tool.......it'd sell even better.

Nah. We need a 78 Thunderbird. There are no real differences except for some emblems and trim packages, but the 78s are better because i have one. lol

[Dave Van]

Nah. We need a 78 Thunderbird. There are no real differences except for some emblems and trim packages, but the 78s are better because i have one. lolIIf 

If it means we get either I'll  vot with you on the 78!!!   Same logic....I had a real 77!! 

[wrecker388]

If it means we get either I'll  vot with you on the 78!!!   Same logic....I had a real 77!! 

Heck, I'll let them come and measure mine! The only differences between 77 and 78 were the emblems on the headlight doors and the introduction of the Diamond Jubilee package in 78. They could about do a 2-in-1 kt of the 77 and 78 by just doing the headlight door emblems as decals. I would hope that they wouldn't  do a 79 just to mess with us both.

[Dave Toups]

Sorry about spreading misinformation regarding the available engines. Apparently the 351W was available in the 75/76 Torino. I seem to remember most of the ones I've seen as being 351M's. It's odd to me that Ford would use the same engine code, H, to denote both the 351W-2V and the 351M-2V despite them being completely different engines! I almost wonder if what you got was a function of the specific plant the cars were built in or if it possibly had something to do with emissions? Were "California Emissions" a thing back in those days? It doesn't really matter to me, though. I'm going to drop a 460 in mine. No substitute for cubic inches!

[mike 51]

 Were "California Emissions" a thing back in those days? 

Yes..and some engines were unavailable in California back then. 

Now pre 75 cars n trucks are exempt from testing,but that is fairly recent.

[kurth]

Could you please post a picture of the headlight bezels and the clear parts?

I have been waiting a long time for a new  Torino, so I am in for at least two.  Maybe these will also be good donors for Motor City Resin torino models. 

 

[Nick Winter]

I most likely will buy one just for the Replica of the Federal Signal Fireball I "Kojak" light, however that being said, does it include a base for the light? Also the radio included looks like a later Motorola Motran 70, not the Motorola Motrac shown in ,most shots on the show.

 

Below are two of my 3 Federal Signal Fireball I's.

 

Nick

[Chuck Kourouklis]

'Kay, let's see here:

And a closer look at the headlight lenses and quarter windows:

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I most likely will buy one just for the Replica of the Federal Signal Fireball I "Kojak" light, however that being said, does it include a base for the light? Also the radio included looks like a later Motorola Motran 70, not the Motorola Motrac shown in ,most shots on the show.

 

Below are two of my 3 Federal Signal Fireball I's.

Nick

 

Hmm. Revell beacon don't look too bad by comparison.

There's no separate base piece for it, though, just the hollow red dome.  There's a LI-I-I-TTLE BITTY lip 'round the bottom that you might be able to foil after every cuss word in the book and about fifty more you might invent.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis
missed a question first time

[Nick Winter]

 

Hmm. Revell beacon don't look too bad by comparison.

There's no separate base piece for it, though, just the hollow red dome.  There's a LI-I-I-TTLE BITTY lip 'round the bottom that you might be able to foil after every cuss word in the book and about fifty more you might invent.

That's a Shame, they got that far and sort of half rear-ended it if you catch my drift, I had hoped they would have done a chrome base with a flat orb in the middle, sort of like the old AMT lights.
Perhaps it's not worth buying the whole kit just for the only part  wanted if it really isn't complete.

 

Nick

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yeah, depends on how much trouble you wanna go to, I guess.  One good thing is that the molding is really thin, so it affords you about 4mmX2mmX@3mm height, maybe, to get something inside if you want. But this seems to come at some expense to the shape - the profile is very good, but the base and dome do not taper to the rear from a plan view.  The base is more pill-shaped than teardrop.

Aftermarket came to the rescue with vastly superior beacons for the P/L '66 Batmobile, so perhaps there's some fanatic who might consider such a thing for this car.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis
added description of beacon shape

[kurth]

Thanks for the pics Chuck.

[martinfan5]

Making a base for the beacon is a piece of cake.

[Jon Cole]

Making a base for the beacon is a piece of cake.

Got to agree with that. Cut a base out of scrap plastic. Add scrap widgets for the internals. Easy peasy.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Thanks for the pics Chuck.

Sure thing, Kurt.

[Danno]

Got to agree with that. Cut a base out of scrap plastic. Add scrap widgets for the internals. Easy peasy.

Hard to tell for certain from the pic, but it looks as though the beacon is a little too tall.  Also easy to fix by sanding it down a smidge.  It has the right profile, as long as it has the correct footprint it will be a heckuva lot easy to work with than raw plastic!  Nice.

[Sledsel]

The headlight bezels look better and more of the correct shape than originally thought. This is good.

Been looking at the pics in black and white figuring ways to tweak the body into shape. Right now the frame and floor are what I am wondering about. How tight is the fit at the rocker panel area?

A

[Chuck Kourouklis]

'bout a mm or two of play between rockers and frame rails.  Finally found the Jo-Han '72 stock car; it and the MPC roll far more sharply under in the rocker area, to such an extent that the Jo-Han frame is notably narrower.