Quick Overview: Revell Starsky & Hutch Torino

[Chuck Kourouklis]

More of a profile shot of the beacon:

and the base outline, which seems not quite there to me:

Area to the left is the rear, and it doesn't taper like Nick's.

[Sledsel]

'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.

Thank you Chuck, That is what I was afraid of, the fit being pretty tight.

Yes, the rocker area on the S&H needs rolled under quite a bit more. I am thinking on scribbing the inside of the body behind the lower beltline then moving the area in. Then comes the chassis fitment. Like a few other recent kits, the body is cast to flat.

Here is reference to see the 1:1 rolls in quite a bit, even the rear quarter (With Chucks photo for comparison) 

  

 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Sledsel

[Danno]

More of a profile shot of the beacon:

and the base outline, which seems not quite there to me:

Area to the left is the rear, and it doesn't taper like Nick's.

They swing . . . and it's a . . . foul ball!   

 

Yet another squandered opportunity.  Too bad.  It would be nice to have a Federal Fireball available, as it was the workhorse of the unmarked/undercover law enforcement vehicle community for at least a couple of decades.  

 

Couldn't tell from the pictures (too far and unfocused) but the "police radio" looks more like a CB.

 

Well, at least I can save money by not buying any of these kits.

 

Back to the wishing well.

 

(Thanks for the pix, Chuck.  Or, Robbie.  Whatever your name is!   )

   

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I ain't overjoyed with that radio shot either.  Might see to it again later with the Pentax.  I was wondering a bit about it too, but then I'm the guy calling rotating beacons "strobes", so there ya go. 

GREAT MATCHING SHOT, Andy!  That's as close as coincidence allows - all I can make out is that my perspective is a bit lower, but not enough to affect your observations at all.  The MPC '72 is closest (between it, Revell & Jo-Han) in the transition from mid-door to rocker, actually closer to your ref pic than the S & H.

 

 

[Travis T]

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!

Off topic, but if you find that weird, a 1980 Mustang with an "A" code engine could either be a 2.3 two barrel 88 HP engine or a 2.3 turbo 140 HP engine. Ford does some weird stuff.

Anyway, carry on with the Torino talk.

[Casey]

GREAT MATCHING SHOT, Andy!  That's as close as coincidence allows - all I can make out is that my perspective is a bit lower, but not enough to affect your observations at all.  The MPC '72 is closest (between it, Revell & Jo-Han) in the transition from mid-door to rocker, actually closer to your ref pic than the S & H.

The lack of tumblehome on the Revell body really does make a huge difference in this case, and the body fails the gut feeling eyeball test right off the bat because of it. That's another reason I get a major originally-designed-as-a-die-cast-kit vibe from this kit. Granted, I completely expected that based on the early shots, but still, it's going to be major work for anyone using this kit as a starting point for a stock build. 

Still like the front wheels, though.  

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Lock step with you, CL. Been holding back very deliberately, but now that we're approaching 2100 views, I'm hoping enough people have reached their own conclusions that nobody'll take it too personally if we turn the corner and start poring over the proportions.

[mike 51]

Well Chuck you've saved me from a $25 impluse buy...thanks.

(Actually I'd have been a bit embarrassed to bring the S&H labeled box up to the check stand....but that's just me.) 

Edited September 23, 2015 by mike 51

[Dave Van]

I see the issue in the lower body. I'd say once built I'll never notice it. Not an excuse if it's really that off.....need to see myself compared to JoHan....most of my builds will be race cars.......heavily modified any way.

I know this shot is dark....but the lower body is not as noticeable post build......we'll see.

 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And that's the thing I wish more people would remember as some of us delve into the inaccuracies:  who does your model have to please besides you?

If you like the kit, why should it matter what anybody else has to say about it?

I see the lower body problem too and quite a bit more.  Still probably gonna pick up another, cause I dunno, I just like it, problems or not.

[Sledsel]

Lock step with you, CL. Been holding back very deliberately, but now that we're approaching 2100 views, I'm hoping enough people have reached their own conclusions that nobody'll take it too personally if we turn the corner and start poring over the proportions.

Chuck, that primered car pic was a total stroke of luck. That's why I converted your pic to B&W for comparison.

I already marked up some B&W copies of your pics for my initial reference IF I buy this. I may share..... sometime.

The side window openings are a major issue in my eyes.

I'd like to see how they did the tail light panel. If one piece chrome, I see stripping, painting and foil.

Dave, that 72 looks great.  If next to this out of the box, the flaws would really jump at you.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Sledsel

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Four pieces - chrome backing panel, two taillight lenses, a body-color panel between - very first post, overview of all parts; the body-color panel is on the top right red sprue, the rectangular piece immediately left of the space where the hood was.

Pics later if you like.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis
clarification

[Sledsel]

Four pieces - chrome backing panel, two taillight lenses, a body-color panel between.

Pics later if you like.

It is okay, Interesting they made the body panel piece separate. That is good, makes things a bit easier.

[Dave Van]

 

I'd like to see how they did the tail light panel. If one piece chrome, I see stripping, painting and foil.

Dave, that 72 looks great.  If next to this out of the box, the flaws would really jump at you.

 

 

That really makes backdating it to a73 easy!! 

I may see the difference more when I get mine.....but sorry.....will not dull my excitement for the kit.

I really doubt that 99.999% of buyers will notice......and at the rate of sales....Revell will not loose sleep either.

Just  IMHO ONLY.....not a slam or general insult to any!!!!

[Ace-Garageguy]

In the B&W model / 1:1 comparo shots above, I see a problem with the height of the door top, base of the windshield pillar. Just a tick high, but looks correctable.

Also, the character line at the top of the door that sweeps up into the sail panel is too shallow a curve. The 1:1 curve has 3 defined segments...straight lines with curves between...where the model has the line as almost a continuous sweep, again a little too high. This puts just a little too much material above the door-handle recess as well.

Correcting these issues, I believe, would alleviate the side-window error noted in the test-shot thread.

Both the wheel-well lips appear a bit heavy handed, and a tick too tall.

As previously noted above, the lower body rolls under significantly more on the 1:1, and the lower body line is much sharper. I also believe the dimension from this line to the lower edge of the body is somewhat taller on the model.

I honestly think these difficulties could be dealt with relatively easily...depending primarily on how thick the body plastic is. Some careful sculpting may very well be able to hit the initial-impression sweet-spot that's currently missing.

All in all, it looks pretty good to me, and 90% of buyers probably won't ever notice the proportion and line flaws.

Still, it would have been nice to hit it a mite closer.

[martinfan5]

 

All in all, it looks pretty good to me, and 90% of buyers probably won't ever notice the proportion and line flaws.

 

The way it sounds, most wont probably even build it , or open the box

[Nick Winter]

 

 

They swing . . . and it's a . . . foul ball!   

 

Yet another squandered opportunity.  Too bad.  It would be nice to have a Federal Fireball available, as it was the workhorse of the unmarked/undercover law enforcement vehicle community for at least a couple of decades.  

 

Couldn't tell from the pictures (too far and unfocused) but the "police radio" looks more like a CB.

 

Well, at least I can save money by not buying any of these kits.

 

Back to the wishing well.

 

(Thanks for the pix, Chuck.  Or, Robbie.  Whatever your name is!   )

   

The radio appears to be more like a Motorola Maxar. mine is shown below.



Just noticed Season's 1-4 of Starksy & Hutch are under it in the photo.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Nick Winter

[Allen Wrench]

I think I'm going to spend the money I would have used to purchase this kit on another '29 roadster kit. With this one, I find the subject matter rather uninspiring and I'm a bit put off by what I perceive as its general clunkiness.

No knock against anyone who digs it; good on ya if ya do.  It's just not for me.

Now had it been it a '72, perhaps with a "Gran Torino" tie-in, done to a better standard ....

 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Allen Wrench

[gasman]

II picked this kit up today, and I think it looks ok. I'm no Torino expert but to my eye it looks ok. looks like it would be nice quick build. 

Doing some research this appears to a mix of the movie and TV show car. The Movie car had a heavily modified engine similer to the kit, but the Movie car had a bench seat. The TV show car had a bench like the kit

[Ron Hamilton]

Thank you Chuck, That is what I was afraid of, the fit being pretty tight.

Yes, the rocker area on the S&H needs rolled under quite a bit more. I am thinking on scribbing the inside of the body behind the lower beltline then moving the area in. Then comes the chassis fitment. Like a few other recent kits, the body is cast to flat.

Here is reference to see the 1:1 rolls in quite a bit, even the rear quarter (With Chucks photo for comparison) 

  

 

Thanks for posting this shot. It lets me know what I am in for if I decide to correct the body, Funny thing though, 99% of the people who will buy this kit could not care less, and 99% of the 1% will not bother to fix the sides of the car. 

When I built my '67 Fairlane gt, I cut the lower body sculpture into the car. Funny, AMT included the sculpture on the '66 Fairlane GT annual, and completely left it off of the '67.

It made all the difference in the world to me, and it was not too difficult to do.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ron Hamilton
did not include the picture image.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

The radio appears to be more like a Motorola Maxar. mine is shown below.



Just noticed Season's 1-4 of Starksy & Hutch are under it in the photo.

That's certainly closer...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And while we're at it, a look at the body-color rear bumper panel if anyone's interested...

Decal #5 is provided for the center.

[Danno]

That's certainly closer...

Okay.  Now that's a much better picture (at least for these old eyes!).  

 

That looks like a stab at replicating a Motorola Micor.  But the microphone cord does not emerge from the front panel.  But it's closer than I thought.

 

[Sledsel]

 

Thanks for posting this shot. It lets me know what I am in for if I decide to correct the body, Funny thing though, 99% of the people who will buy this kit could not care less, and 99% of the 1% will not bother to fix the sides of the car. 

When I built my '67 Fairlane gt, I cut the lower body sculpture into the car. Funny, AMT included the sculpture on the '66 Fairlane GT annual, and completely left it off of the '67.

It made all the difference in the world to me, and it was not too difficult to do

 Ron, it just gets frustrating with NEW kits when these things are done wrong. As I have said before, a few of my most anticipated kits needed major corrections. One I gave up on and pitched. 

Chuck, thanks for the rear body panel pic. That would be correct for the car. The Base Torino and Brougham were different. The base car did not have trim in the center connecting the tail lights, and the Brougham had a reflective center panel.  Pics are Base, Brougham, and Gran models.

Hopefully being multiple pieces does not make the trim look to thick/wide.  

By leaving the entire rear panel open, it does leave the option for future kits from the base mold. (Elite/Cougar/Montego) But I highly doubt it. 

 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Sledsel

[Bob Ellis]

Now that Revell has done the radio and red beacon, does that the Kojak '70s 4dr Regal is not far behind?