Revell 2019

[niteowl7710]

So Revell posted this picture of Ed at NIMCON (IPMS) Show with his now venerable traveling show. If you take a look at the back drop you'll notice the Buick Grand National is added to it above the Monte Carlo in the place of the Sprint Car (which is now in a sealed box on the table) Also "missing" from the board is the '70 Firebird and '76 Chevy P/U which are also in boxes.

Where the Chevy P/U was is an intriguing place holder. Now when I was at NNL East Ed told me that they were that week (back in April) planning to present a project to the German office about merging two existing kits from the same tooling family into a third heretofore unreleased kit. Maybe someone from the show can confirm with a better picture, but call me crazy...that Impala convertible doesn't appear to have bumper guards.  So was that project in fact the creation of a '66 Impala Convertible? I know it probably won't set the world in here on fire, but it's a nifty set of tooling amortization if that's what that is...

[Rob Hall]

Hmmm. You talking about the mock up box art to the right of the tractor, blue 60s looking car with palm trees in the background? 

[niteowl7710]

31 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

Hmmm. You talking about the mock up box art to the right of the tractor, blue 60s looking car with palm trees in the background? 

Yup

[Rob Hall]

5 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

Yup

Unfortunately with that angle, it’s hard to tell what it is...though it looks like it has a black roof.  Though it does look like a 66 Impala grill if I blow up the pic. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Rob Hall

[Khils]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

So Revell posted this picture of Ed

Very interesting James...I'm liking the way your thinking!

   Can you tell me more about this portion of the picture?  I got something I'd like to write in that notebook!

[gtx6970]

12 hours ago, highway said:

I can't help but laugh at 2 full pages of complaining about a rear end in a kit that most of the time it will never be seen when the model is sitting on the shelf!  I would also guess most everyone complaining about the Cuda having a Dana rear end would also be the same ones that would misidentify the rear end in the Monogram/Revell Ford F250 and F350 kits as a Dana rear end when it is not! 

Laugh all you want.

But IMO

to go thru the trouble to tool up the AAR specific hood, a complete 340 six pack engine and decals. How much would it have possibly cost to make the correct rear axle , I mean really . the 2 Could have just as easily been all put on the same tree

 

MY personal opinion I was actually more disappointed they didn't fix the exaggerated wheel opening flairs . Those you CAN see in anyones case  and HAS stopped me from buying several .

Ive bought 2 of the stock issues, 1 of the Sox and Martin kit, I have the body painted for one and thats as far as it got.

I just MIGHT buy the AAR ,,,but just as easily might not

Im just glad I didnt sell off the few original MPC 1970 annuals I have

[Chuck Kourouklis]

6 hours ago, Vince Nemanic said:

Chuck, I don't think that there is a rational explanation for either viewpoint, since it is a matter of personal preference. Mark Gustafson and Hank Borger went round and round on this in Scale Auto Enthusiast about 40 years ago.

The builder that does a nice paint job on the body and paints the rest black will have one opinion, while the person concerned with the firing order on the distributor will have another. If they are both enjoying their own builds, then they shouldn't have to agree.

But you see, Vince, I'm not even beginning to suggest anyone should have to agree.  I'm merely pointing out from thread to thread the unending demonstrations of which side is so pointedly less tolerant of the other's viewpoints.

The more critical modelers criticize objects, mostly making observations of where a purportedly scale miniature falls short of its purpose, going wide of the 1:1 it's there to represent in the first place.  Some certainly go to extremes, but as far as rationality goes, the very definition of ratio and proportion is often at the heart of what they point out.

And the less critical ones attack the more critical persons for saying so.  It's really that simple. One behavior is unmistakably more ad-hominem and belligerent than the other, and there's no point pretending any moral equivalency between the two.  It's only when the more critical modelers start serving the less critical ones their own game back that their conduct devolves and sinks to the same level.  

Tim B has ever been affable and agreeable over the decades, and his observations in this thread serve as a fine example of a counterpoint that's not only civil but hard to dispute.  John S, after agreeing there's a problem with the 'Cuda's Dana axle, went leagues out of his way to show more graciousness to the less critical faction than any of them have shown him.

Honestly, now.  One side literally says "shame", "tough to swallow".  The other aggressively infers "evil machinations" by the manufacturer in response.

Where's the balance in that?

[Vince Nemanic]

I guess people have forgotten the Golden Rule. 

 

[1972coronet]

I feel ridiculous and petty for publicising my disappointment in the lack of a correct differential ; however , I must make a point regarding the whole "The finished model is displayed chassis-side-down..." or "No one will notice nor care..." (neither are verbatim quotes) contention . 

I know that the Dana is 'there' .

I cannot live with the incorrect Dana .

I will change the Dana out for a proper differential .

Oddly (or not) I take less *offence* to the chided rear wheel wells' exaggerated lip than I do an incorrect differential . There've been enough tutorials on fixing that wheel lip --- total non-issue to me . I was just hoping that Revell would've seen fit to tool-up an 8 3/4 for their 1970 'Cuda , if for nothing else , for potential future releases :

- 340 'Cuda (non-AAR)

- 383 'Cuda

- 440 / auto 'Cuda

- 440+6 / auto 'Cuda  (note that I'm not going to delve-into a correct exhaust system for that combo as seen with N97 Noise Reduction Package ) 

There are my opinions , nothing more . That's what a forum is supposed to invite : discussions , sharing of opinions , and respectful debate .

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, Khils said:

Very interesting James...I'm liking the way your thinking!

   Can you tell me more about this portion of the picture?  I got something I'd like to write in that notebook!

That's a standard issue legal pad that Ed puts out at shows. I couldn't even tell you if it gets read, or just the written sheets torn off and pitched. I frankly wouldn't blame him if it were the latter. I've looked through those "Wishlists" 2 or 3 times and it's pretty much a written replay of any wishlist thread we have here. 10-15% good viable ideas, the rest is crazy fantasy requests that have no basis in the reality that Revell is a business and needs to make money, not lose it by the bucket load.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

14 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

...There are my opinions , nothing more . That's what a forum is supposed to invite : discussions , sharing of opinions , and respectful debate .

...and that's exactly why it's so ridiculous for you to feel ridiculous.  That's an objective FACT you've discussed, whether anybody likes it or not, and you get to be a little disappointed about it if you want to.

It's not as if you've declared the entire kit garbage, no matter how convenient it would be for anyone to interpret you that way.

And with that. I'm now off to get mine. 

[niteowl7710]

6 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

Unfortunately with that angle, it’s hard to tell what it is...though it looks like it has a black roof.  Though it does look like a 66 Impala grill if I blow up the pic. 

To me that pretty much only looks like an Impala, and also that black area to me looks like something in the background behind the car, it doesn't really line up with where the roof would be on an Impala, nor have I ever seen a factory car two-toned that way.  I suppose it could be the '66 Coupe just being reissued, it's been 9 years since that came out, and that was the old recycle rate of the pre-bankruptcy Revell.  But if it is a Convertible it would almost have to be a new cross-bred '66, since all of the '65s including the Foose kit have the same chrome tree which has bumperette/bumper guards on the front bumper.

[MrObsessive]

FWIW, I'll add my 2¢.

Until it was mentioned, I hadn't paid attention to the Dana rear end on the AAR 'Cuda when I saw the kit being built by Chris on YouTube. Having said that, I am one of those that like things to be as correct as I can and yes.........I do display my builds particularly at a show with a mirrored base (most of the time). As Bill mentioned and as I mentioned in another thread, I would have liked to have seen Revell fix the wheel wells as well as a couple other foibles but again, to me those are easy fixes and something that I won't get crazed over.

And yes, I'm the one that went through the trouble of fixing that (to me) woefully misshapen rear end on the '68 Road Runner. That's one area that has bugged me ever since that kit debuted. One reason was the car is very fresh in my memory as they were once all over the roads when I was a teen and then I had the Johan kit which to me is dead on nuts accurate. The AMT kit to my eyes appeared to have been a car that was in an accident and not fixed properly.

Soooo.......I went ahead and took the time to see if number one, could I fix it and number two, could it be done in a way that if someone else wanted to attempt it with a modicum of skills, they could do so. BTW, I see the same issue with Revell's '67 Dodge Coronet. I have a fix in mind for that, but have no idea when I'd ever get around to tackling it.

I understand if some don't want to attempt this-----or don't really care, that's OK. But I'm just one of those that like something in scale to be as close to the 1:1 as possible....ESPECIALLY body shapes.

Edited June 27, 2019 by MrObsessive

[Mr mopar]

2 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

FWIW, I'll add my 2¢.

Until it was mentioned, I hadn't paid attention to the Dana rear end on the AAR 'Cuda when I saw the kit being built by Chris on YouTube. Having said that, I am one of those that like things to be as correct as I can and yes.........I do display my builds particularly at a show with a mirrored base (most of the time). As Bill mentioned and as I mentioned in another thread, I would have liked to have seen Revell fix the wheel wells as well as a couple other foibles but again, to me those are easy fixes and something that I won't get crazed over.

And yes, I'm the one that went through the trouble of fixing that (to me) woefully misshapen rear end on the '68 Road Runner. That's one area that has bugged me ever since that kit debuted. One reason was the car is very fresh in my memory as they were once all over the roads when I was a teen and then I had the Johan kit which to me is dead on nuts accurate. The AMT kit to my eyes appeared to have been a car that was in an accident and not fixed properly.

Soooo.......I went ahead and took the time to see if number one, could I fix it and number two, could it be done in a way that if someone else wanted to attempt it with a modicum of skills. they could do so. BTW, I see the same issue with Revell's '67 Dodge Coronet. I have a fix in mind for that, but have no idea when I'd ever get around to tackling it.

I understand if some don't want to attempt this-----or don't really care, that's OK. But I'm just one of those that like something in scale to be as close to the 1:1 as possible....ESPECIALLY body shapes.

Bill I tried your method for the 68' RR and it turned out Awesome !  I like you Bill like your model cars to be really close to 1:1 shape ,for the money we pay for a kit ,you would think the model Co would get it right . I love my Mopar's but Revell /Monogram have done the worst inner fenders in 1/24th scale like the Superbird  & GTX  all have bad looking inner fenders .

[Tommy124]

2 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

And yes, I'm the one that went through the trouble of fixing that (to me) woefully misshapen rear end on the '68 Road Runner. That's one area that has bugged me ever since that kit debuted. One reason was the car is very fresh in my memory as they were once all over the roads when I was a teen and then I had the Johan kit which to me is dead on nuts accurate. The AMT kit to my eyes appeared to have been a car that was in an accident and not fixed properly.

If you don't mind, Bill, could you post some pictures to show the "rear end dilemma" one of these days? Not being a "native observator" of real US cars, let alone from that glorious era, I mostly get my input on flaws like this from this forum. 

[MrObsessive]

1 minute ago, Tommy124 said:

If you don't mind, Bill, could you post some pictures to show the "rear end dilemma" one of these days? Not being a "native observator" of real US cars, let alone from that glorious era, I mostly get my input on flaws like this from this forum. 

Tommy, the thread to that Road Runner is here. Thanks for asking!

[MrObsessive]

15 minutes ago, Mr mopar said:

Bill I tried your method for the 68' RR and it turned out Awesome !  I like you Bill like your model cars to be really close to 1:1 shape ,for the money we pay for a kit ,you would think the model Co would get it right . I love my Mopar's but Revell /Monogram have done the worst inner fenders in 1/24th scale like the Superbird  & GTX  all have bad looking inner fenders .

Thanks! I'm glad I could help! Yeah, kit prices aren't getting any cheaper.......I'm a bit more choosy these days on what I'll spend money on. Not enough hours in a day to fix all the changes some of them need!

[Tommy124]

2 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

Tommy, the thread to that Road Runner is here. Thanks for asking!

Thanks for the link, Bill. I actually saw this WIP some time ago, but did not remember now that it was related to the Road Runner. Impressive work, by the way! 

[CapSat 6]

I'm not going to knock anybody for their opinions, but, just a warning: I will most likely hold onto my own. To some extent, I agree with everybody! 

I'm glad we're seeing new product. I really do appreciate what the kit manufacturers do.

I'm more from the school of "it should be an accurate scale replica", as in- "it should look like what it's supposed to be". The most important thing to me is capturing the look of the item being replicated. If the body looks right, then generally, I am happy. Cue ominous music.  

Still- if provided with something we can work it, but might have a few flaws, fine, I have no problem correcting a few flaws.

Here's the thing with the Dana: sure, easy enough for me to replace. It's forgivable to me, but then again, if Revell had their eye on multiple versions of this car, then I too can see why this might be considered something they should have logically addressed, if they think to offer other versions in the future (340 4 barrel, 440 Six Pack, 70 Trans Am racer, or???). Most performance Mopars came with 8-3/4 rears. The Dana was mechanical overkill, reserved mostly for Hemis with 4-speeds.    

Would I replace the Dana when I go to build mine? If I were to do an out-of-the-box build, maybe not. Again, I don't flip 'em over too much.

Will I replace the Dana when I go to build mine? Yes. Definitely. The reason being: if (admittedly, my building pace is glacial) I ever get one of these built, it will have a Jo Han body. See my third paragraph. Myself, I can't stand the body on this one. I will be going to a LOT of effort to rebody it, so replacing the Dana will be minor in comparison to what else I will be doing.

Here's my own personal problem with this kit: TO ME, the body looks swollen, or bloated. Sort of like a bad counterfeit of a 'Cuda. I owned a real one for a long time. My car was by no means perfect, and it sat in the garage a LOT, but in that time, I got to see what one looked like. Even the back window of the Revell kit bothers me. Compare it to a Jo Han or MPC body, and to me, I can't unsee it. That's the real sin in all of this. BODY. SHAPES. MATTER. TO. ME. TO ME, this make the kit a collection of fantastic detail parts married to an awful body. It's not terrible, I have seen worse bodies (a few '69 Camaros come to mind, and of course: Hi Palmer!), but, it's nearly that bad. To me.        

Would I knock anybody else for building it box stock, or taking a different approach from mine? NO! As far as I'm concerned, it's not my time, money or effort going into it. I seem to remember this being a free country, so I'll go by that. A good friend of mine who posts on another board has built a few of the Revell Hemi Cudas, and they look really nice. I would take them off his hands in a minute. For that matter, I would love to have Tim Boyd's black one on my shelf. Any good build should be commended, and I would encourage anybody to enjoy the hobby as they see fit. Since I have the means (old Jo Han bodies in stock), that's just the approach I will take. It might be different if I were just starting out in the hobby. In that case, I might be more bent about it.     

I would care about the Dana even less if they got the body right on this one. 

Nobody needs to agree with me, and since nobody was asking, that's how I feel.  

[MrObsessive]

Bill, I see what you're saying about the body shape on this one. While it's a MUCH better effort this time around on Revell's part, there are some other changes I'd like to make that to my sight are glaring. Besides the wheel wells and quarter window shapes, yes.....the backlite itself could use some tweaking. In relation to the 1:1, it seems like it almost sits to 'high up' in the roofline and not level or maybe slightly lower than the side upper window line. Just an observation but it seems to me that the leading edge of the C pillar could stand to have a bit faster angle to it.

Also on the DLO, that could stand to be a bit larger as to my eyes, the beltline appears a touch too high, or the upper window line too low. I can't decide if it's one or the other, or both-----I'm leaning towards the latter. If it wasn't for some other projects I'd like to get out of the way, I'd be on this one, but the bug to build this one has hasn't bitten hard enough..............yet.

Others may not see what we see and by no means does that take away the absolutely very sharp builds I've seen. For my tastes though, I'd have to do some body tweaks as I'd have to live with it well...............forever!

[Ben]

What’s up with that 76 Chevy stepside? New tooling or just a reissue on the Monogram Kit?

[Mr mopar]

17 minutes ago, Ben said:

What’s up with that 76 Chevy stepside? New tooling or just a reissue on the Monogram Kit?

reissue

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Pretty sure it's a reissue, guessing Monogram by the 4x4 stance - though I don't know enough to rule out the old Revell tooling just yet.

Re the 'Cuda: yeah, the body's the thing I've been very deliberately leaving alone up till now.  For anyone wondering, there are no changes to the basic shell from Hemi to AAR that I've made out so far.

Here's what I think gives the body a swollen impression: the first thing to grab my attention in those preview pics years ago was actually not the over-flared wheel arches (though those are obvious), but the sheer, billboard expanse of the front fender sheet metal just over the wheels.  What comparison with 1:1 pics revealed to me was that previous kits were a little too lean in this area, but this looks over the line the other way, just a bit too tall.  After knocking down the wheel arch flares, I would try to file the tops of the front fenders incrementally down, and if I could somehow cheat that midline crease just above the arches upward a bit by sanding it, maybe that would make that upper front fender expanse a bit less "thick" looking.

And yes, the DLO seems pinched, bloating the expanses surrounding it - but again, incrementally.  I'd redo the drip moldings upward by about the width of the molding that's on there now, less than 1mm, and after that I'd look to knock the doors down at the beltline ever so slightly if the first adjustment didn't fix the problem on its own.

Which is not a knock on anyone who thinks the body is fine the way it is.   Revell/Monogram's previous bars were pretty low, but this is still clearly the best they've done overall with a 'Cuda. You can take or leave the body and still appreciate the attention lavished on the other parts and options.  The 340 trees make a very positive first impression.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Chuck Kourouklis
term correction

[High octane]

On 5/28/2019 at 3:10 PM, Snake45 said:

Those look like steel wheels with hubcaps. 

They are.

[CapSat 6]

19 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Re the 'Cuda: yeah, the body's the thing I've been very deliberately leaving alone up till now.  For anyone wondering, there are no changes to the basic shell from Hemi to AAR that I've made out so far.

 Sorry for bringing that up (maybe)...I just feel pretty strongly about this one!

19 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Which is not a knock on anyone who thinks the body is fine the way it is.   Revell/Monogram's previous bars were pretty low, but this is still clearly the best they've done overall with a 'Cuda. You can take or leave the body and still appreciate the attention lavished on the other parts and options.  The 340 trees make a very positive first impression.

Agree 100% - if you like it, build it! I will not judge anybody on that. I'll judge the product, the design, but NOT what anybody wants to do with it. I WILL however share my opinions. I do look forward to using the parts from these to enhance a Jo Han bodied build. The interior & separate body bits are gorgeous.

I have a Revell Hemi Cuda interior and chassis under a Jo Han body now. I was using a Revell AAR hood with it, and was going to use an AMT '71 Duster 340 engine with it. I'm a little judgy on that Duster 340 engine too, since I think it's shrunken in some odd places and misshaped. I have spent a LOT of time with 1:1 LA engines, and I feel almost the same way about that Duster 340 engine as I do about the Revell '70 Cuda body, but, it's literally the best we have right now. I'm holding hope out that this new Revell 340 will be better.