Spring Surprise from Round 2....AMT 1988 Mustang GT (revised reissue of old MPC tool)

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, Rob Hall said:

I doubt if an engine and engine compartment would make much difference.  Most racing car kits today are curbside, it’s all about the livery, paint scheme and body details.  

Not to mention, never ending grudge aside, the whole engine/no engine thing is inherently a builder-centric problem field.  It's sorta like over complicated, over engineered chassis assemblies. Sure the 27 part rear end of Round2 '17 Camaro has at least as many pieces as the real car, but after you spend a couple of hours slogging through assembling it - are you ever going to look at it again. Most people I know don't display their models with the hood open unless they're competing at a show to keep the dust out. I know some people live and breath engine assembly, it's their favorite thing about modeling -which is totally cool and all. But costs are what costs are and if you want a project done and something has to get cut...the engine is the least needed thing in the mix. What the other choice...ship it with an engine, but a flat plate for the chassis with no engraved detail? Delete the interior and sell it as a slammer?

[Plowboy]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

Not to mention, never ending grudge aside, the whole engine/no engine thing is inherently a builder-centric problem field.  It's sorta like over complicated, over engineered chassis assemblies. Sure the 27 part rear end of Round2 '17 Camaro has at least as many pieces as the real car, but after you spend a couple of hours slogging through assembling it - are you ever going to look at it again. Most people I know don't display their models with the hood open unless they're competing at a show to keep the dust out. I know some people live and breath engine assembly, it's their favorite thing about modeling -which is totally cool and all. But costs are what costs are and if you want a project done and something has to get cut...the engine is the least needed thing in the mix. What the other choice...ship it with an engine, but a flat plate for the chassis with no engraved detail? Delete the interior and sell it as a slammer?

Very true. There isn't a single model in my display cases that have the hood open. I also have several models with no engine. They look the same on the shelf as those with an engine. 

The Tamiya GT+4 will be my first Tamiya kit purchase. I don't think they'll have any issues selling the GT+4 at all.

[Justin Porter]

13 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

I doubt if an engine and engine compartment would make much difference.  Most racing car kits today are curbside, it’s all about the livery, paint scheme and body details.  

This is quite true. Tamiya has had huge success with their AMG GT3 kit which has similar engineering. Offer an accurate body, a complete interior, and choose a subject that has a ton of attractive liveries then let the aftermarket decal producers like Shunko or Indycals or Studio 27 do your sales work for you. 

[niteowl7710]

5 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

This is quite true. Tamiya has had huge success with their AMG GT3 kit which has similar engineering. Offer an accurate body, a complete interior, and choose a subject that has a ton of attractive liveries then let the aftermarket decal producers like Shunko or Indycals or Studio 27 do your sales work for you. 

Tamiya laid the ground work for all of this in the mid-2000s when they stopped putting engines into their race cars kits - initially packaging them with diecast metal floors to give the model the "heft" it lacked being a curbside.  Fujimi then put that idea on steroids when they did their line of GT3 kits in 2010-2016 that aside from a few (now unobtanium) Asian liveries were produced as "blanks" and the aftermarket did all the heavy lifting. 

Since then there have been very few race car kits of ANY genre - aside from F1 - that have had engine detail unless it's something like the Lancia Delta S4 or Rover Metro 6R4 where the engine is in the back easily visible through the hatchback glass.  I think the only two modern race car toolings that actually have engines, but arguably don't need them are the Aoshima Murcielago R-SV and McLaren F1 GTR Longtail.  Revell's Ford GT is a great example of a huge waste of money where they give you all that engine that not only will you never see again, they don't give you ENOUGH of the engine to display it outside of the car, or go through all the work of making the body work removable.  They could have taken that $20k worth of investment and put it to work in making the body assemble in a better engineered way - compare it to the Tamiya Ford GT and get back to me that the "full engine" vs. the 4 part "all you see engine" is worth it when you compare the overall models and their comparative ease of assembly.

[tim boyd]

Guys, you can dismiss it and/or rationalize it all you want (and let me say, I fully acknowledge and respect your right to do so), but the fact remains, it's an incomplete effort as currently presented.   Shame too, as from what I have seen so far, this could have easily been kit of the year had it had the full engine included.

If there were other S550 generation Mustang full detail kits on the market, this would really not be an issue.  But we are where we are.  And yes, there are many modelers out there who still expect - and demand - a model kit to represent a complete miniaturization of the real thing, and for the construction of same to represent (within reason) what one would experience if he/she were doing a build of the real car. 

It is very evident from this and other conversations on this board that most of you feel otherwise, but trust me, out there in the broad word of model car kit buyers and builders, there are many that feel my way even - if they are not present here.  

Bottom line, huge missed opportunity from my point of view.  Most of you here feel otherwise.  I get it.  But I'm not changing my view on this, nor do I expect you to.   TIM 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

And I absolutely respect your right to demand an engine and what's more, I even appreciate it, and the weight you put behind it - 'cause if you convince the right people, the resulting kits will certainly suit my preferences better too!

Do I feel in my gut that all other things being equal,  a car model kit with engine is more complete than one without?  Absolutely.  Tamiya's second releases with engines, Gunze Sangyo's High-Tech 250GTO with engine versus the one without, YES; I'd agree they're more complete, beyond any subjective doubt.  Long as the added GS pot metal doesn't bring a gratuitous new headache in building that GTO, I might even allow they're objectively more complete.

But "all other things being equal" is a circumstance rarely encountered between kits.  It's a good thing to include "within reason" to squeeze the brakes a bit, but it also begs a deeply subjective question: whose standard of "within reason", exactly?  'Cause on the one hand, you might have a 1300+-piece MFH 1/12 250GTO with individual wheel spokes and an iron mine's worth of photoetch and yes, more than 200 parts of glorious Colombo V12 in miniature, including reciprocating mass that actually reciprocates(!)

On the other, you've got a 1/12 488 GTB "proportion" kit that's essentially a few big hunks of resin, flat chassis, metal wheels, rubber tires, and just the engine and interior accoutrements necessary to make it look very accurate and complete as it sits there all closed up and stationary on your shelf. 

I sure know which I'd rather, even if I also know which is more likely to find its way to literal completion.  And in purely objective terms, I find myself hard-pressed to call one kit more complete than the other.  I've got really strong feelings favoring the 250, but those feelings are SUBJECTIVE, a PERSONAL PREFERENCE however iron-clad it feels to me.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's views either, but I do have a thought experiment to throw out there: I submit that there is no argument anyone can pose for the OBJECTIVE necessity of a full kit engine that doesn't make poseable steering and opening doors even MORE important to a complete car model. 

C'mon, now. You see those features in the wild an order of magnitude more frequently than you do engines and open hoods.  Building a 1:1? You'd better believe you'll be hanging doors on nearly all of 'em, and your finished ride will be less than useless if you haven't built the steering to guide it - even without an engine, the thing can at least coast downhill under control long as you can influence its direction.  We could get into brakes, too, but the rabbit hole's inevitable enough as it is.  Examine rigorously this question: just WHAT IS IT that puts a full engine "within reason" as an objective requirement for a complete car model - such that you can call a kit without one incomplete with logical infallibility - to the exclusion of steering, opening doors, or any number of other car model features?

To pursue this line of reasoning completely and honestly will be to confront a steep slope that really does slide - and I mean like banana peels on melting ice in the middle of an oil slick dead center of the karousel at the 'Ring.

Would I have SO much preferred the full Voodoo treatment from Tamiya? A thousand times, yes!

Will I call the kit incomplete without it?

A thousand times a thousand times, NO.

[mikemodeler]

11 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Guys, you can dismiss it and/or rationalize it all you want (and let me say, I fully acknowledge and respect your right to do so), but the fact remains, it's an incomplete effort as currently presented.   Shame too, as from what I have seen so far, this could have easily been kit of the year had it had the full engine included.

If there were other S550 generation Mustang full detail kits on the market, this would really not be an issue.  But we are where we are.  And yes, there are many modelers out there who still expect - and demand - a model kit to represent a complete miniaturization of the real thing, and for the construction of same to represent (within reason) what one would experience if he/she were doing a build of the real car. 

It is very evident from this and other conversations on this board that most of you feel otherwise, but trust me, out there in the broad word of model car kit buyers and builders, there are many that feel my way even - if they are not present here.  

Bottom line, huge missed opportunity from my point of view.  Most of you here feel otherwise.  I get it.  But I'm not changing my view on this, nor do I expect you to.   TIM 

So, based on this logic, the Revell snap kit versions of the Mustang are incomplete? Why not call out Revell over their lack of a full detail kit WITH AN ENGINE ? Why is it that Tamiya brings out a kit that accurately represents a race car and has a lot of detail sans engine and you blast them, but give Revell a pass for a very simple snap kit of the same vehicle? Both companies sell their products worldwide so it stands to reason they are trying to reach similar consumers, no?

 

[niteowl7710]

35 minutes ago, mikemodeler said:

So, based on this logic, the Revell snap kit versions of the Mustang are incomplete? Why not call out Revell over their lack of a full detail kit WITH AN ENGINE ? Why is it that Tamiya brings out a kit that accurately represents a race car and has a lot of detail sans engine and you blast them, but give Revell a pass for a very simple snap kit of the same vehicle? Both companies sell their products worldwide so it stands to reason they are trying to reach similar consumers, no?

 

No this whole argument comes up with Tim only when it involves Tamiya and a Ford product.  You see a DECADE ago Tamiya made the grave error of producing the Aston Martin DBS with only a partial engine insert.  Mr. Boyd Is personally connected to the engine that powers the DBS from his time at Ford.  So every...single...time Tamiya dares release a Ford product that doesn't have a full detail engine inside of it, we get this beating of a dead horse that's been going on so long now that there's no molecule of the horse left, nor even a stained spot on the ground.  Just Tim slapping the dirt with his "bad Tamiya" stick. 

I have to say Tim I respect your opinion to have an opinion, and lord knows nobody will (or should) change it.  BUT at the same time, I'd have a lot more respect for your position if you carried this torch for EVERY model kit produced, not just one company and one product line.  I fail to remember a single muttered comment about the lack of engine in the AMG GT3, TS-050, or either of the Mazda MX-5 kits, or either 370Z, or the new Supra, or Toyoda AA, or the partial lousy inserts in the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ, or ANY kit from ANY other manufacturer when it comes down to it..  We get it, we understand it, we comprehend it.  But at the same time when you lambast kits that people enjoy - regardless of your subjective opinion of their degree of completeness or disqualification from yearly awards presentations - you come across as talking down to everyone else here.  Because somehow your personal opinion is seemingly more important and/or relevant than that of any of the thousands of modelers who've purchased this kit in the past two weeks.

Edited May 22, 2020 by niteowl7710

[Luc Janssens]

44 minutes ago, mikemodeler said:

So, based on this logic, the Revell snap kit versions of the Mustang are incomplete? Why not call out Revell over their lack of a full detail kit WITH AN ENGINE ? Why is it that Tamiya brings out a kit that accurately represents a race car and has a lot of detail sans engine and you blast them, but give Revell a pass for a very simple snap kit of the same vehicle? Both companies sell their products worldwide so it stands to reason they are trying to reach similar consumers, no?

 

That isn't a kit, just an un-assembled promotional kids toy.

For the rest I like engines, but sometimes sadly one can't have it all, my Tamiya kit is on order, but passing on the ex Mpc kit as it's not representing the subject matter to my liking.

 

 

[StevieB]

5 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

That isn't a kit, just an un-assembled promotional kids toy.

For the rest I like engines, but sometimes sadly one can't have it all, my Tamiya kit is on order, but passing on the ex Mpc kit as it's not representing the subject matter to my liking.

 

 

Lemme see, AMT's reign as a model kit manufacturer started with marketing & selling unassembled promos, (with a few added customizing extras), as kits in 1958, & by & large they were considered toys at the time. And, Revell marketed that Mustang as a kit. as right on the box art, it reads "1 Plastic Kit". Now, we can argue the semantics of that all we desire, but it is an unassembled model kit, simplistic as it may be.

Either way, the question as to why Revell, (& for that matter Round2, as they marketed a full detail Camaro glue kit & not a whimper on the Mustang), gets a pass on this generation of the Stang sans engine & Tamiya does not is still a valid one.

[mikemodeler]

16 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

That isn't a kit, just an un-assembled promotional kids toy.

For the rest I like engines, but sometimes sadly one can't have it all, my Tamiya kit is on order, but passing on the ex Mpc kit as it's not representing the subject matter to my liking.

 

 

I know what you are inferring, but the point is that Revell chooses to offer a kit of a subject matter identical to the Tamiya kit and it gets a pass while the Tamiya kit is crucified. Similar enough that both are considered models in the eyes of most hobbyists.

 

[Luc Janssens]

2 hours ago, StevieB said:

Lemme see, AMT's reign as a model kit manufacturer started with marketing & selling unassembled promos, (with a few added customizing extras), as kits in 1958, & by & large they were considered toys at the time. And, Revell marketed that Mustang as a kit. as right on the box art, it reads "1 Plastic Kit". Now, we can argue the semantics of that all we desire, but it is an unassembled model kit, simplistic as it may be.

Either way, the question as to why Revell, (& for that matter Round2, as they marketed a full detail Camaro glue kit & not a whimper on the Mustang), gets a pass on this generation of the Stang sans engine & Tamiya does not is still a valid one.

No matter what the box says, to me the Revell kit is a  just a toy, made from the OEM 3D files of the car's skin, think lower price die-casts have more detail than that.

Why Revell didn't do a full detail kit, maybe you have to ask a company rep, next time you see one at some hobby venue, but the last Corvette kit was also going the simplistic route, so I guess without OEM backing  the ROI on modern factory stock cars isn't there anymore, most likely one of the reason Tamiya chose to do the GT4, as well as other oriental company's renewed interest in racing subject matter.

Why Round2 did make a full kit from this gen Camaro, and not the Mustang, good question, which only Tom Lowe can answer,

 

1 hour ago, mikemodeler said:

I know what you are inferring, but the point is that Revell chooses to offer a kit of a subject matter identical to the Tamiya kit and it gets a pass while the Tamiya kit is crucified. Similar enough that both are considered models in the eyes of most hobbyists.

 

personally I don't give the Revell toy a pass, cuz I passed

The Tamiya kit, even without an engine, as built by Sascha Müller, looks ready to race

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Luc Janssens
added oriental

[Tom Geiger]

Wow! A lot of American opinion here!

Note that Tamiya creates kits primarily for their own domestic market where curbside kits are a norm. This kit’s content and assembly follows that program. 

I had mentioned in a thread earlier they the only US cars modeled by Tamiya were those of interest to the International market, primarily what would sell in Japan. 

Criticizing it to US standard is like screaming that the steering wheel is on the wrong side and mirrors in the wrong place on a Japan market 1:1 car.

It would be nice if we had some Japanese modelers who could weigh in and explain their market as well as their own thoughts on this kit.

[RickyD]

2 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

No this whole argument comes up with Tim only when it involves Tamiya and a Ford product.  You see a DECADE ago Tamiya made the grave error of producing the Aston Martin DBS with only a partial engine insert.  Mr. Boyd Is personally connected to the engine that powers the DBS from his time at Ford.  So every...single...time Tamiya dares release a Ford product that doesn't have a full detail engine inside of it, we get this beating of a dead horse that's been going on so long now that there's no molecule of the horse left, nor even a stained spot on the ground.  Just Tim slapping the dirt with his "bad Tamiya" stick. 

I have to say Tim I respect your opinion to have an opinion, and lord knows nobody will (or should) change it.  BUT at the same time, I'd have a lot more respect for your position if you carried this torch for EVERY model kit produced, not just one company and one product line.  I fail to remember a single muttered comment about the lack of engine in the AMG GT3, TS-050, or either of the Mazda MX-5 kits, or either 370Z, or the new Supra, or Toyoda AA, or the partial lousy inserts in the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ, or ANY kit from ANY other manufacturer when it comes down to it..  We get it, we understand it, we comprehend it.  But at the same time when you lambast kits that people enjoy - regardless of your subjective opinion of their degree of completeness or disqualification from yearly awards presentations - you come across as talking down to everyone else here.  Because somehow your personal opinion is seemingly more important and/or relevant than that of any of the thousands of modelers who've purchased this kit in the past two weeks.

And, as others have correctly noted, not one mumbling word from Tim, publicly, ay least, about Revell's only representations of the current-generation Mustang being a pair of unassembled toys that, oh, by the way, also do not have opening hoods and engines. Hell, those "kits" do not even have acceptable headlight detail! Sorry, but there's more than a tinge of hypocrisy in that stance.

Which is a greater disservice to the hobby, Revell's pathetic "efforts" or Tamiya producing a beautifully detailed, state-of-the-art kit that happens to not have an engine? 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by RickyD

[RickyD]

On 5/20/2020 at 8:52 PM, Rob Hall said:

I doubt if an engine and engine compartment would make much difference.  Most racing car kits today are curbside, it’s all about the livery, paint scheme and body details.  

I seriously doubt sales would be as good if the kit had an engine because it would likely be priced in the $70-$80 range.

[Justin Porter]

12 minutes ago, RickyD said:

I seriously doubt sales would be as good if the kit had an engine because it would likely be priced in the $70-$80 range.

Not necessarily. The new NSX kit has excellent engine detail and an MSRP of $53. All the same, as has been pointed out, modern racing builders don't necessarily WANT engines for building. They want accurate bodies and well-fitting interiors that make for excellent decal canvases.  

[RickyD]

36 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

Not necessarily. The new NSX kit has excellent engine detail and an MSRP of $53. All the same, as has been pointed out, modern racing builders don't necessarily WANT engines for building. They want accurate bodies and well-fitting interiors that make for excellent decal canvases.  

You're absolutely correct. And if not including engine lowers the price point on a kit like the Mustang to make it more affordable for folks to buy more kits and build multiple versions of it, that's a win-win for Tamiya and for the hobby, imo.

That lack of an engine certainly doesn't seem.to have hurt the sales of Tamiya's AMG GT3 kits, either.

 

[Luc Janssens]

Hmm...maybe the moderators should move part of this tread to the Tamiya GT4 discussion

 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Maybe.  And for the record, I don't think the promo S550 kits have gotten off scott-free here.  When I see

"If there were other S550 generation Mustang full detail kits on the market, this would really not be an issue,"

it's all too easy to read that as,

"After six years of balls dropped by a lousy 'Build 'n Play' for the most deserving Mustang since the original, it is MILES beyond frustrating to see a manufacturer like Tamiya come soooooooo close to giving us an engine only to miss it by THAT MUCH."

Not to put words in anybody's mouth, but though the commentary isn't explicit, I think it's there pretty loud between the lines. 

Then again, that's probably just me. ?

3 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

Wow! A lot of American opinion here!

Note that Tamiya creates kits primarily for their own domestic market where curbside kits are a norm. This kit’s content and assembly follows that program. 

I had mentioned in a thread earlier they the only US cars modeled by Tamiya were those of interest to the International market, primarily what would sell in Japan. 

Criticizing it to US standard is like screaming that the steering wheel is on the wrong side and mirrors in the wrong place on a Japan market 1:1 car.

It would be nice if we had some Japanese modelers who could weigh in and explain their market as well as their own thoughts on this kit.

That's not only a valid point, it's a necessary one to make.  Two things to add to the mix:  Tamiya has actually delayed the domestic release of the kit relative to the global market, though as it was mentioned earlier, order stops and sales rankings portend big news when they finally cut it loose at home.

Second, for a bunch of Yanks conditioned to expect engines in kits over six decades, there seem to be quite a few of us here advocating the world view for that devil omission.

[tim boyd]

Keep those comments coming.....

I'm tied up right now and can't reply right at this moment, but I will tonight or tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, one thing we can all agree on is that Round 2 and Revell are both sorely lacking in their decision to forego development of S550 Mustang full detail kits (i have commented on this topic a number of times in the past, too).   Had they done so, we would not be having this disagreement on the Tamiya kit.  Also,  I do not consider the Revell S550 snap-toy to be a kit at all, which is why I have not commented negatively on it to date.  

TIM 

 

 

[stitchdup]

so ford dont let tamiya see or measure the engine in their racecar (obviously they dont want other teams to see whats been done for competition reasons) and somehow its tamiya to blame? makes perfect sense to me that engines in a current race car have secrets they dont want everyone to see

[Rob Hall]

35 minutes ago, stitchdup said:

so ford dont let tamiya see or measure the engine in their racecar (obviously they dont want other teams to see whats been done for competition reasons)  

I really don't believe that, though..this car has been out in racing for over 3 years now...there are plenty of photos of the engine bay out on the internet.   It's not anything new. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Rob Hall

[RickyD]

Whenever I hear someone puling about the lack of an engine in a model car kit, the first place my mind inevitably goes is "Wow, not once in my life have I ever heard an armor or aircraft modeler complain about one of their kits not having an engine. Never. Not one time." And we all know what a demanding bunch military builders are. Yes, some armor and aircraft kits do have engines, but it's not like there's some unwritten law that they have to have engines to be considered worthy of builders' time and attention.

Reason No. 9,534 why society at large tends to view military modelers as serious miniaturists and historical recreationosts and car modelers as arrested adolescents playing with toy cars.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

1 hour ago, Rob Hall said:

I really don't believe that, though..this car has been out in racing for over 3 years now...there are plenty of photos of the engine bay out on the internet.   It's not anything new. 

And ain't it a 5.2 Voodoo anyway?  Seems you pop the hood on any current GT350 'n ya get 95% of the picture.

[CapSat 6]

1 minute ago, RickyD said:

Reason No. 9,534 why society at large tends to view military modelers as serious miniaturists and historical recreationosts and car modelers as arrested adolescents playing with toy cars.

Well then - without an engine, a model car wouldn't go, now would it

Actually, if we were to get more subjects by bypassing engine room requirements, then I wouldn't mind not having engines sometimes. Case in point for me: the Revell '77 Monte Carlo. To me, it's fine without an engine, and it got us a much loved subject that otherwise might never have been done. Do a Blue Brothers Monaco, a Cordoba, a '71 Riviera, or any other semi-desirable '70's barge without an engine and I would be just fine with that.   

Some kits need an engine though. If we got a Hellcat Challenger or Charger without an engine, that would be a crime...