Revell 2019

[MrObsessive]

Oh yeah Steve! Looking at your pics I can see exactly where the changes need to be made on the Revell body. I would start by shortening the distance from the beltline to the rockers as to my eyes it's simply too tall. At the same time, lower the beltline just a touch to increase the DLO as that to me appears 'pinched'. That would also mean knocking down the tops of the fenders somewhat to go with the lowered beltline.

Some may not see this, but I'd increase the overhang on the front end perhaps a scale inch or so. That might mean lengthening the hood, but that would fix the bluntness that the front end has to me. Now some may say why not just use a Johan or MPC body? Well I happen to have all three of these bodies, and I tried to cram Revell's chassis underneath the others. A VERY tight fit if not impossible to get in without some somewhat extensive work.

If I were to ever build the others.....one thing that's always bugged me about the MPC and Johan bodies is the rear window. The sides of the backlite are just too rounded and need to be squared up just a bit.

Others may see some other gaffes to fix.

[Can-Con]

What's "DLO" ?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

DayLight Opening. The greenhouse openings on each side of a car that encompass the side windows

[Can-Con]

1 minute ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

DayLight Opening. The greenhouse openings on each side of a car that encompass the side windows

OK, thanks. I've never heard that term before this week.

[Motor City]

I don't work in the model car industry and would never pass myself off as an expert.  With the availability of 3D computer technology, digital photography, and actual cars to measure, you have to wonder how so many inaccuracies keep occurring.  The body looks passable for a "Cuda except for the wheel arches.  The decals look to be way off and no amount of work will make them look right.  As stated earlier, you have to question the accuracy of the body creases, too.  It's another kit that had a lot of potential that I will not buy.  As a designer said many years ago, "it takes as much effort to design a pretty car as it does to make an ugly one" - or something like that.  If the body dimensions and decals were scanned properly in the first place, we seemingly wouldn't have these issues to complain about.  It probably comes down to an attitude of "good enough" for the mass market these are intended for, children not yet old enough to drive. 

[Mr mopar]

OK I see the Johan & MPC have a higher roof line ,Revells looks like it's been chopped and the Revell cuda also is shorter on the bottom of the side window to the front of c pillar  .easy fix just shave the c pillar back to make the lower part of the side a bit longer ?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mr mopar

[stavanzer]

Now that is funny. All three bodies look the same to me except for the colour.

What in Blazes do you guys see? There are no differences in the pics that Steve posted. How can there be any "Right or Wrong" when there in nothing about the bodies that changes.

Bill G, I truly respect your Model Building, and Tim Boyd as well, but you guys (and others) go on and on and on, about how "Bad" or "Good" these bodies are. I truly can't tell just what the heck all of the other folks go on about.

As I said. I SEE NO DIFFERENCE in the three kits.

[CapSat 6]

1 hour ago, alexis said:

Now that is funny. All three bodies look the same to me except for the colour.

What in Blazes do you guys see? There are no differences in the pics that Steve posted. How can there be any "Right or Wrong" when there in nothing about the bodies that changes.

Bill G, I truly respect your Model Building, and Tim Boyd as well, but you guys (and others) go on and on and on, about how "Bad" or "Good" these bodies are. I truly can't tell just what the heck all of the other folks go on about.

As I said. I SEE NO DIFFERENCE in the three kits.

Everybody literally sees things differently. I used to work as a color technician at a dyehouse. That job was a real education. Some people see colors very differently than others. Color blindness, or course, is a thing. We had a guy who would work overnights, and “correct” formulas by adding yellow pretty regularly. That meant that the day guy, our boss, would often have to correct those corrections- by stripping (bleaching) that cotton completely, then rerunning the original formula. Yellow happened to be very tough to strip. Joe was well known to EVERYBODY ELSE that he had a thing for adding yellow. I was always told that in that business, you either had eyes that could see color properly enough to do it, or you didn’t. Joe just about lost his mind when one night we had locked up the yellow before his shift. 

My point is: some people see shapes differently, too. And other things. None of the senses are entirely consistent among humans. It’s simply a fact, and there is nothing wrong with that, unless you have a job at Revell trying to sculpt model masters. I wouldn’t let poor Night Guy Joe mix colors for me if my life depended on it. There are things I’m probably politely kept from, too.  My wife tells me that I’m “hard of smellin’“ all the time. 

I did read on another board recently that a new, small company (not Revell) has been designing a new car kit, and while an unpaid outside expert was communicating with some of the design staff, it was revealed that a body line was being included in the tool that the president of the company is insisting is there on the real car, while the designer and the expert believe (rightly, it seems) that it is not there. So, that kind of thing seems to happen, too.

In any case, it should be no reason for somebody to not enjoy the hobby. We all build and enjoy. Our comments about body shapes, etc. are not meant to ruin things for everybody, but I think we still have the right to point something out if we see it. And more than one of us sees these things. 

So - I won’t try to convince anybody that there is anything wrong with a given body, as long as nobody tries to convince me that there isn’t. I still will point out what I see however. I agree to disagree. 

Neither of us are wrong, but I can see that this could be becoming a buzzkill, so I apologize. I just simply see something here that does not meet my own personal standards. I happily built Monogram’s ‘71 Hemi Cuda and ‘70 T/A many times, they have their problems, too. It’s just at this point, I’m a little frustrated that some (but by no means all) new kits of subjects that I am really wild about, with modern design resources being used, for the kind of money they cost these days, are missing the mark so much for me in a very basic manner. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by CapSat 6

[CapSat 6]

5 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

Oh yeah Steve! Looking at your pics I can see exactly where the changes need to be made on the Revell body. I would start by shortening the distance from the beltline to the rockers as to my eyes it's simply too tall. At the same time, lower the beltline just a touch to increase the DLO as that to me appears 'pinched'. That would also mean knocking down the tops of the fenders somewhat to go with the lowered beltline.

Some may not see this, but I'd increase the overhang on the front end perhaps a scale inch or so. That might mean lengthening the hood, but that would fix the bluntness that the front end has to me. Now some may say why not just use a Johan or MPC body? Well I happen to have all three of these bodies, and I tried to cram Revell's chassis underneath the others. A VERY tight fit if not impossible to get in without some somewhat extensive work.

If I were to ever build the others.....one thing that's always bugged me about the MPC and Johan bodies is the rear window. The sides of the backlite are just too rounded and need to be squared up just a bit.

Others may see some other gaffes to fix.

One other thing I’m seeing now is that it looks like there is extra length in the body side between about the front 1/4 of the door and into the fender. A slightly “funny car” look for the Revell body if you will. I’m probably not very good at expressing this. The MPC & Jo Han bodies seem to be better there, too. 

Yes, the Jo Han-Revell Cram job is proving difficult for me, but that body work to correct the Revell body would probably just about break me.

And with that, I’ll stop. I promise.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by CapSat 6

[niteowl7710]

16 hours ago, Snake45 said:

Oh goodie. This means that when I get this kit, I'll have THREE different sets of AAR stripes that don't fit anything. 

Maybe one of the aftermarket decal makers will step up on this one. 

Amusingly that would require effectively drawing the decals incorrectly to the reference material to make it fit. To me it looks like Revell put the door handle too low which makes the entire drop of the stripes too low compared to the 1:1...again compare how close (within an inch or two) the stripe passes under the mirror compared to the kit decal as placed. You'd almost have to draw the decal somewhat taller towards the top than it is in real life, and I'm afraid that would effectively destroy the entire proportions if they were xyz% larger than the 1:1. 

[MrObsessive]

51 minutes ago, CapSat 6 said:

One other thing I’m seeing now is that it looks like there is extra length in the body side between about the front 1/4 of the door and into the fender. A slightly “funny car” look for the Revell body if you will. I’m probably not very good at expressing this. The MPC & Jo Han bodies seem to be better there, too. 

Yes, the Jo Han-Revell Cram job is proving difficult for me, but that body work to correct the Revell body would probably just about break me.

And with that, I’ll stop. I promise.

 

I see what you're saying. I wish I could 'draw' on the pics, but the issue that you're seeing may not be that the doors are too long, but that the 'hip' or swoop up on the doors is not quite long enough. It seems to me that hip area could extend forward (towards the front of the car) and stand to be a couple scale inches longer.

My Mom (and babysitters) used to tell me as a kid that I was "too observant". Not just visually, but also in sounds. I would pick up hearing things that no one else seemed to hear.......whether it was general sounds or in music. That can be a blessing or a curse depending on who's being affected I suppose.

I also stand by what I said about the rockers hanging down too low. On the Revell body I'm looking at how much lower the rockers are in relation to the quarter panels. MPC and Johan appear more correct and this could be what's contributes to the Revell 'Cuda's "chunky" appearance.

OK...........I'll stop "observing" now!

[highway]

38 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

I wish I could 'draw' on the pics,....

If you are using a Windows 10 PC, you can "draw" on the pics by simply saving them to your PC, click on the pic you want to draw on, and in the upper right hand corner you will see "Edit and Create". 

Then click on "Edit and Create" and you will see the "draw" option. 

That will give you this bar where you can select what type of "pen" you wish to use and color by clicking on the "pen" and draw what you want to add to the picture then save the pic with your lines drawn. 

[MrObsessive]

Donnie, thanks for the tip! The laptop I'm on right now is running Windows 7 Professional. My other two PC's are running the Windows 10 OS so I'll give that a shot. I hate when I want to point out something and don't have a means to show folks what I'm talking about.

Thanks again!  

[MrObsessive]

Ok, just did some digging on this Windows 7 laptop and I see a similar feature here. Now if I can get it to draw a straight line, I'd be in business!

Stay tuned.............maybe.

[MrObsessive]

OK, make of this what you will, but here's my own take of what could be changed on the Revell if one wanted to. Just one man's opinion of what I see and things I'd do if I ever get the ambition to tackle this.

Below, I did some line drawings with the Revell and compared it to the Johan. To my sight, the MPC and Johan bodies are 'bout identical and it wouldn't surprise me if indeed they are from the same molds, just changed a bit for their particular model years.

OK.............take a look............

Johan Body

Revell body

As was said........not everyone will notice/see the difference. But to us model "autists" out here the differences are screaming at me like a fire engine siren. Just my observation and 2¢ worth.

Edited June 30, 2019 by MrObsessive

[dodgefever]

I see the difference, but to me, it looks like the Revell body doesn't come down far enough behind the rear wheel,rather than the lower body being too deep.  I'd bring the rear of the wheel opening down to match the Johan body.

However, the Revell body looks way too fat *above* the body crease, especially in the front fenders.   I'd be thinking about sectioning it between the body crease and the beltline.  The side window opening needs reshaping as well.  

[ranma]

Gee I'm glad I have no interest in that Cuda kit. Let me know when the '76 Chevy step side pickup is out.

[Classicgas]

I see the issues, just none of them are severe enough for me to warrant anything other than the fender flares. By all means I say fix em if you want, don't if you are ok with it. Both are legit. I really have a issue with the decals however.

[Hawk312]

I thought it might be good to highlight the problem areas, so instead of sleeping last night, I spent the last 12 hours in paint brush doing this:

 

Thoughts?

[Motor City]

sand down the wheel arches, skip the decals, and call it a day!

[Classicgas]

Not if you want a AAR. Those decals are a key part.

[MrObsessive]

David!

You're a better man than I! I took me a while to figure out where all the doodads were on my Windows 7 to do what I did. Stu's idea might not be a bad one after all of this...........make a straight cut right at the middle crease line and take a scale inch or so away from that. Reattach everything and work from there. That would solve the 'fat front fender' issue among other things. Just a while ago I did a "tape test" to show myself if indeed there's too much real estate between the beltline and rockers. Yup! Sure is, as the tape on the Revell body did not quite reach the tops of the doors compared to the '71 Johan body I have. I should've taken pics, but I didn't have my camera set up and this being Sunday, it's like a work day (night) for me as I'll soon have to turn in to head to work tonight.

Still baffles me with soooooo many pics of this car out there and 1:1 examples you can practically trip over that they still can't get this at least 95% right. As it stands to my eyes, Revell only gets a 75% in my book with this body, while I'd give MPC/Johan a 95.

This is reminding me of what I did with that '68 Road Runner so needless to say, it's gonna be some time before I get the ambition to take this on.

Edited June 30, 2019 by MrObsessive

[bobthehobbyguy]

Mt two cents. First this is why future kits need to be done with 3d scanning. Unfortunately when the previous variant was created scanning was not an option. With the low volumes for kits these days there is simply not the money to tweak a kit to get it right. This leads to the compromises in the final product. For those that feel the need to fix these issues great.  I'd rather just build it than agonizingly over things that a majority are never going to notice.

[ranma]

13 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

First this is why future kits need to be done with 3d scanning.

How then did Jo Han get their bodies of the cars they made look like the 1:1 Even the old smp/amt/ mpc kits were good at it in the 1960's! and that was without today's tech! No the model companies will "just put em out because they will buy them, and maybe complain some  BUT they will buy them!

Edited June 30, 2019 by ranma

[1972coronet]

I watched Chris' review / build of the new AAR and was largely impressed with the outcome --- but I didn't notice that the decals (graphics) are that far off !  Revised decals shouldn't --in theory-- cost that much for Revell (please correct me if I'm wrong) versus expen$ive tooling changes (Dana 60 notwithstanding  ) .

 

In spite of any proportional issues with the body , these much-welcomed 1970 'Cuda kits certainly look wonderful in-so-far-as the final build-up is concerned . Either that , or perhaps I'm not as 'picky' as others **

 

** =  I'm  not calling anyone out by making that statement ; just stating my opinion . If my fellow enthusiasts wish to address / modify any maladies , then by all means please do ! Additionally ; thank you to those of you whom have taken the time to exhibit the shortcomings and how to rectify them .