Tamiya Ford Mustang GT4

[Zoom Zoom]

16 minutes ago, jchrisf said:

As a newb, I've finally figured out that Tamiya is the way to go until I get enough skill and experience to fix what's wrong with the other's kits.  For a newb, a lot of the headache's I run into for fit, etc. gets frustrating and makes me want to give up.  Tamiya kits are fun to build.

Excellent path to take. You'll likely appreciate the quality long after you've gained more experience. Ask questions before buying to make sure you know what you're getting into, as Tamiya has had some ups and downs along the way to the point today if all someone can complain about is that the latest kit doesn't fit their very personal, very narrow ideals/demands, that's not on Tamiya, it's on them.

When I was younger and found it difficult to afford/justify Tamiya kits vs. domestics that were much more budget-friendly I didn't understand at that time (early 80's) that Tamiya kits were worth it to younger builders until I finally took the plunge. The owners of my LHS carried everything, they knew their products and customers, they even tried to sell younger builders on the true value of Tamiya kits (I was buying the new AMT Datsun 280 ZX that day, I did and I built it, even with their friendly/offhand comment on how Mr. Tamiya was going to be very sad that day  LOL). I questioned the logic at first thinking all those guys wanted was more $ per kit sold. Later when I bought/built a couple Tamiya kits, saw their 280 ZX's & other kits built the light finally went off in my thick skull.

[StevieB]

5 hours ago, Darin Bastedo said:

Of course every company has it's stand outs and lets face it with something as simple as the Lotus Seven you would have to work hard to screw that up. But to all those who say it's unfair to bring up kits from 30 years ago, I'm 54 years old> people have been gushing over how much better Tamiya is than American kits for 30+ years. in that amount of time american model companies have put out some really great kits as well as some bad ones. So has Tamiya, My point was that Calling Tim a hypocrite for being willing to buy a vintage screw bottom curbside while passing on this because it has no engine, is simply uncalled for. You buy what you but and Tim, like me, prefers race cars with engines. I didn't care that the Lindberg Chrysler Atlantic was curbside because the body was the star of that show. Buy what you like, but please stop pushing the myth that Tamiya can do no wrong while Revell and the other are pushing overpriced junk. It simply isn't true. Each company has different design priorities, Tamiya chose "easy to build" over detail, and the others went the opposite and offer more detail and more challenging kits.

 

 "Tamiya chose "easy to build" over detail, and the others went the opposite and offer more detail and more challenging kits."

What!?! Are you serious!?! Have you ever actually looked at a Tamiya kit, let alone built one!?! Engine or not, Tamiya makes very detailed kits, as evidenced by Chuck's comments on parts count compared to domestic kit & Daddyfink's Enzo pics.

I'm sorry, & no offense meant nor intended, but from that very comment I have the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about. You had to have just pulled that out of thin air, with no proof to back it up. News flash! A kit doesn't have to be challenging to be detailed. The Moebius 65 Plymouth I gave up on was a challenge all right, but lacked the detail of any Tamiya kit I've ever built, even curbsides. The amount of work it required to even get it reasonably presentable was an insult to every modeler there is, and I've built vintage Revell & IMC kits. If more of their subject matter appealed to me, (& a lot of it does), I'd build nothing but Tamiya kits. There simply is no comparison.

Edited April 2, 2020 by StevieB

[Justin Porter]

1 hour ago, StevieB said:

 "Tamiya chose "easy to build" over detail, and the others went the opposite and offer more detail and more challenging kits."

What!?! Are you serious!?! Have you ever actually looked at a Tamiya kit, let alone built one!?! Engine or not, Tamiya makes very detailed kits, as evidenced by Chuck's comments on parts count compared to domestic kit & Daddyfink's Enzo pics.

I'm sorry, & no offense meant nor intended, but from that very comment I have the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about. You had to have just pulled that out of thin air, with no proof to back it up. News flash! A kit doesn't have to be challenging to be detailed. The Moebius 65 Plymouth I gave up on was a challenge all right, but lacked the detail of any Tamiya kit I've ever built, even curbsides. The amount of work it required to even get it reasonably presentable was an insult to every modeler there is, and I've built vintage Revell & IMC kits. If more of their subject matter appealed to me, (& a lot of it does), I'd build nothing but Tamiya kits. There simply is no comparison.

I've never understood the "Moebius = Tamiya" comparison. For certain, Moebius has lovely detail and engraving, but at the same time I want to grab their tooling staff by the shirt and scream at them "UNDERGATES!!!" 

[Darin Bastedo]

1 hour ago, StevieB said:

 "Tamiya chose "easy to build" over detail, and the others went the opposite and offer more detail and more challenging kits."

What!?! Are you serious!?! Have you ever actually looked at a Tamiya kit, let alone built one!?! Engine or not, Tamiya makes very detailed kits, as evidenced by Chuck's comments on parts count compared to domestic kit & Daddyfink's Enzo pics.

I'm sorry, & no offense meant nor intended, but from that very comment I have the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about. You had to have just pulled that out of thin air, with no proof to back it up. News flash! A kit doesn't have to be challenging to be detailed. The Moebius 65 Plymouth I gave up on was a challenge all right, but lacked the detail of any Tamiya kit I've ever built, even curbsides. The amount of work it required to even get it reasonably presentable was an insult to every modeler there is, and I've built vintage Revell & IMC kits. If more of their subject matter appealed to me, (& a lot of it does), I'd build nothing but Tamiya kits. There simply is no comparison.

I'm 54 years old, started building model kits back in 1974 and it has been a life long hobby. I've run a hobby shop and for years sold vintage model kits at swap meets. So I would say I have a fair Idea what I'm talking about. While there are a few stand out kits that Tamiya has produced, like The Mercedes 300SL or the Ferrari Enzo, most are very simplified, which is OK. The American companies have some stand outs too like the Monogram 1959 Cadillacs and Impala, The Revell C5 Corvettes are great and go together well. The AMT 66 Nova, 67 Impala, and 62 Pontiac are really nice. My point is to Personally attack Tim as a hypocrite for simply expressing his opinion that the Tamiya mustang would be a better kit if it were full detail is just wrong. I literally have several hundred kits in my stash all were bought for different reasons with full knowledge of their pluses and minuses. Like I said before buy what you like but don't get your panties in a bunch if not everyone likes it. Personally I'm going to pass on the Mustang, simply because without the engine, it doesn't excite me. There are so many other kits both new and vintage that I'd rather spend my money on.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

4 minutes ago, Darin Bastedo said:

...While there are a few stand out kits that Tamiya has produced, like The Mercedes 300SL or the Ferrari Enzo, most are very simplified, which is OK.

Except that they're not that simplified any more.  That curbside Mitsu IX from 2002 had 135 parts with scads more detail in its interior than its 92-piece domestic contemporary had in the engine bay.  Anybody with a frame of reference newer than 30+ years old can appreciate how far Tamiya kits have come in that regard.

4 minutes ago, Darin Bastedo said:

...Like I said before buy what you like but don't get your panties in a bunch if not everyone likes it.

Not liking it or wanting to get it is one thing, a consideration entirely independent of right and wrong. Where a modeler puts himself on shaky ground is to suggest a kit is deficient somehow because it doesn't include a feature he wants, independent of any consideration how well the rest of the kit is executed.

[jchrisf]

3 hours ago, Zoom Zoom said:

When I was younger and found it difficult to afford/justify Tamiya kits vs. domestics that were much more budget-friendly I didn't understand at that time (early 80's) that Tamiya kits were worth it to younger builders until I finally took the plunge. The owners of my LHS carried everything, they knew their products and customers, they even tried to sell younger builders on the true value of Tamiya kits (I was buying the new AMT Datsun 280 ZX that day, I did and I built it, even with their friendly/offhand comment on how Mr. Tamiya was going to be very sad that day  LOL). I questioned the logic at first thinking all those guys wanted was more $ per kit sold. Later when I bought/built a couple Tamiya kits, saw their 280 ZX's & other kits built the light finally went off in my thick skull.

Funny thing is, I can find Tamiya kits online for less money than other makers.  I am limited to what they are producing now but can get several kits for $22 shipped.  I have 14 kits now so I think I will not buy any more until these are completed.  It's an addiction

[Darin Bastedo]

26 minutes ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Except that they're not that simplified any more.  That curbside Mitsu IX from 2002 had 135 parts with scads more detail in its interior than its 92-piece domestic contemporary had in the engine bay.  Anybody with a frame of reference newer than 30+ years old can appreciate how far Tamiya kits have come in that regard.

Not liking it or wanting to get it is one thing, a consideration entirely independent of right and wrong. Where a modeler puts himself on shaky ground is to suggest a kit is deficient somehow because it doesn't include a feature he wants, independent of any consideration how well the rest of the kit is executed.

I have many newer Tamiya kits. When I say simplified I don't always mean parts count, but they do have a tendency to combine multiple parts into one and often texture detail is lacking. Either way people on this board constantly suggest a particular kit is deficient for any number of reasons. Why should this one get a pass? To me a race car without an engine is deficient. That is why I bought the Tamiya versions of the Mercedes Sauber, and Porsche 956 while leaving similar Hasegawa curbside kits on the shelf. It's why I have the Heller Renault R5 Turbo and not the Tamiya, It's why I have several of the Monogram IMSA Mustang and not one of the Tamiya Zakspeed Capris. Am I missing out on some nice kits and some easy builds because I want race cars with engines? yeah possibly, but I still have more model kits than I'll likely build in my lifetime so I'm ok with that. again build what you like, don't get upset with me because I like something different.

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Darin Bastedo

[Michael jones]

On the pricing difference, it depends where you live. If you don't live in USA or Japan, it is quite possible the Tamiya Kits might be cheaper, especially if you buy online.  

[Chuck Kourouklis]

"...don't get upset with me because I like something different" - ? I've addressed that already.  Right there in your quoted section.

Now as for "any number of reasons", I see where the line of thought is going and that's grinding to a halt right now: to quote my favorite line from a friend, a scale model's one overarching job is to sit there and look like the 1:1.  The single most objective failure a scale model can have is to be visibly off in proportions, and so by the very definition of a scale model, visible inaccuracies make a kit objectively deficient.  That's as hard and exact as the 3D mathematics involved to make it right that get violated when it's made wrong, and it's folly to draw any false equivalencies between that basic mandate and anybody's predilection to specific bells and whistles.

Pointed out that your 959 example isn't so representative of current Tamiya kits, but I didn't say it was wrong after all.

But there's an important distinction you make in saying kits without engines are deficient to you, and that's the difference.  It certainly beats more absolute statements for fairness.

[keyser]

Some resins eg FPP, Fisher (hope Paul and Suzie getting lives back together btw) have engines, one can go nuts, but get it built. And they look great, often for far less than a Hiro, that requires, umm, say, Herculean effort?

I'd rather have a sort of simplified kit, than no kit at all. Not an excuse, and not endorsing snaps that could be so much more since scaling and some tooling done. 

If no motor, aftermarket has tons of choices. I've had kits that had motors that I left out. Gett'er done. 

I'm pretty sure the 959 was based on the showcar, which differed quite a bit from production. Tamiya isn't infallible, but stuff gets out in timely fashion. And is remarkably good. Even for the average builder. We all have are likes, and I like engines. But modern cars (not race cars) have shielding, so what is point? 

We really need a like button. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by keyser
forgot

[Dave Van]

I feel like my Modelhaus Cheetah  is well worth the money....and it's curbside. 

Often depends on wants. 

[gasman]

For those looking take make this kit more of a street car, the motormax 1/24 2018 mustang gt is perfect for parts, the rear glass fits almost perfectly, and the interior would work, but it’s missing a lot of detail 

[Mike Chernecki]

Does anyone make a photoetch detail set for this Mustang?

[niteowl7710]

4 hours ago, Mike Chernecki said:

Does anyone make a photoetch detail set for this Mustang?

Not as of yet.