Moebius 1965 Chevy II Sedan Gasser - First Look Inside the Final Kit Release

[Casey]

10 hours ago, Plowboy said:

This photo shows how the bottom of the backlight and the DLO are the exact same plane. It also shows that the lip above the beltline is pretty substantial. 

It's disappointing to see, but we knew this was coming as the "correction" all along. Moebius' simply removed material above the beltline (now making that area incorrect) in an attempt gain more DLO area, while leaving the incorrect greenhouse untouched, meaning the roof is still the incorrect height. Moebius was aware of this major design flaw, yet tried to employ a cheap sleight of hand trick to fool the willing into believing they actually care about accuracy, instead of taking the time and going through the expense of fixing it properly.

[Plowboy]

1 hour ago, RDean58 said:

What we need on this board is a complaint section, where everyone can post their dislikes or opinions on how bad model kits are. That way people who just want to see the kits contents and get a feel for it will not be subject to all the negative comments. I am so tired about hearing the defects and errors or omissions or "lousy, lazy, mediocre," kit comments. 

Off my soapbox now. The Nova kits have a lot of good things going for them and like it has been said at least 10,000 times before, no kit is accurate down to the .000001 of an inch. Can't be done, we don't have the technology to shrink a real car down to 1/25th size. Sorry about that, maybe next century 🙂

We do have the technology to get the body shapes right. It's called 3-D scanning. Revell used it on the Foose Cadillac and FD-100. Those kits look exactly like the real deals. Every shape and contour were exactly right. They also used it on their upcoming '71 Mustang. We'll see how that turns out.

I'm willing to bet Moebius spent more money on the "fix" they had to have done to fool the eye than it would have cost them to scan a '65 Nova. When a backlight is over eight scale inches too narrow, that's a huge blunder by anyone's standard.  

[1972coronet]

It'll be interesting to see the fixes to the roof & backlight areas by anyone who wishes to address them.

On this iteration, I'm not terribly concerned with the inaccuracies as it's not a stock '65 anyhow. Certainly, if stock '65 sedans are going to be released with this body, then that's a different story.

My main focus is going to be:

- Correct brake master cylinder (e.g., 1966 & earlier stye)

- Sourcing brake drums for the front

- Eliminating the electric fan

I'm aiming for an era-correct representation (aforementioned inaccuracies not-with-standing), with, hopefully, either Dana , Nickey, or Bill Thomas livery.

[Jack L]

12 hours ago, Plowboy said:

I noticed it. But, for myself, I see it as an advantage. Does the stock '64 have the same floorpan? 

yes same  floorpan

[tim boyd]

8 hours ago, Casey said:

It's disappointing to see, but we knew this was coming as the "correction" all along. Moebius' simply removed material above the beltline (now making that area incorrect) in an attempt gain more DLO area, while leaving the incorrect greenhouse untouched, meaning the roof is still the incorrect height. Moebius was aware of this major design flaw, yet tried to employ a cheap sleight of hand trick to fool the willing into believing they actually care about accuracy, instead of taking the time and going through the expense of fixing it properly.

My views here are somewhat different. 

While the roof may not be 100% correct, the excess material atop the door panel was incorrect to begin with for a low-series two door sedan.  So, to remove it was a correction to something that was not right to begin with.  The changes made to the tool go a long way, in my view, to correct the DLO (side view daylight opening) which was my biggest concern, but I would not go as far to suggest that the result is 1000% correct to the original.   Secondly, most of the evidence I've seen says the overall roof height, both in its original and final form, is correct. 

Also, while I was not present for the internal discussions on the late changes to the production-ready tool, the decision to go ahead with the changes was a significant financial and operational investment by Moebius.  Casey, I think your assessment of that decision does not represent the actual intent of the company's management in making that decision.   

Bottom line, each person questioning the roof treatment should review the evidence on both sides of this subject before accepting one or the other view as being the overall correct conclusion.  And once reaching that conclusion, then decide whether the result is significant enough one way or the other to affect your decision about whether or not to invest your time in building the kit. 

I do not expect my views on the subject to be the final word here, so anyone with a view, please feel free to express it here.  My only wish (request?) is that we try our best to keep the conversation respectful. 

Thanks all... TIM 

 

[Snake45]

8 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Bottom line, each person questioning the roof treatment should review the evidence on both sides of this subject before accepting one or the other view as being the overall correct conclusion.  And once reaching that conclusion, then decide whether the result is significant enough one way or the other to affect your decision about whether or not to invest your time in building the kit. 

TIM 

And there it is, right there. For some time now, I've said that when I come across a noticeable shape flaw in any model (not just this one, and not saying this one IS flawed), I have three choices: 

1. Live with it. 

2. Fix it, either myself or with an aftermarket correction (if available). 

3. Put the model back in the box (or leave it on the hobby shop shelf) and build something else. 

As far as this one goes, I don't care for the '65 2DS body (in general, not just the kit). I'm gonna try to turn it into a '64 2DS and if that doesn't work to my satisfaction, I'll bash the body with a Rat Packer/Twister and do it as a '65 HT. I'll do SOMETHING with it, at any rate. 

Model on! 

[Casey]

1 minute ago, tim boyd said:

Also, while I was not present for the internal discussions on the late changes to the production-ready tool, the decision to go ahead with the changes was a significant financial and operational investment by Moebius.

To be blunt, so what? They screwed up their first try, and made half-hearted attempt at fixing it, so now we should be giving them credit for spending even more money? Sure, they could've pulled a Revell and said "Nope, the roof on the Mustang LX is correct, and nothing needs to be changed. We won't be changing anything.", but they chose to make changes (hopefully?) in an attempt to get the body closer to the real thing. That's great, but not only does the end result not achieve that goal, it made other areas incorrect now, too.

9 minutes ago, tim boyd said:

Casey, I think your assessment of that decision does not represent the actual intent of the company's management in making that decision.   

Maybe not, but as a neutral observer and someone who can be impartial, how else am I to judge a company's merits other than by the finished products they sell? Nobody forced nor coerced Moebius into creating two all new early Nova kits. I love that they made an attempt to correct things, but they had to have been aware the roofline was too low (which also caused the DLO to appear too small in area) and fixing it would require significant tooling changes and considerable expense.  They chose not to make those changes. I am not privy to the reasons why, but the end result is the roof is still the same incorrect height, and now the top of the beltline has an abrupt step in it, which is also incorrect.

I understand the mere fact that an early Nova is available to purchase for $30 is enough to pacify most who will buy this kit, so it appears that's good enough for the folks at Moebius, too.

[SteveG]

9 hours ago, Casey said:

It's disappointing to see, but we knew this was coming as the "correction" all along. Moebius' simply removed material above the beltline (now making that area incorrect) in an attempt gain more DLO area, while leaving the incorrect greenhouse untouched, meaning the roof is still the incorrect height. Moebius was aware of this major design flaw, yet tried to employ a cheap sleight of hand trick to fool the willing into believing they actually care about accuracy, instead of taking the time and going through the expense of fixing it properly.

Without getting too technical into body tooling design, I can tell you that the tooling changes that were made were done within the limitations of what was already cut.  The cost of doing that was not cheap by any means.  The alternative would a have been scrapping that body tool and making another which would have added around 50K to the cost and would have set the project back many months or they could have just done nothing and went forward with it as it was.   While not perfect by any means,  I think they made the right call.   

As for 3D scanning all the new projects, I think we'll get there eventually but were not there yet.  I can tell you that the early development of the Moebius Chevy II kits goes back a whole lot farther than most people know.  Long before the new ownership OK'd moving forward on the project.  I doubt they would have approved it if they had to start from scratch.  

-Steve

 

[stavanzer]

12 minutes ago, SteveG said:

I can tell you that the early development of the Moebius Chevy II kits goes back a whole lot farther than most people know.  Long before the new ownership OK'd moving forward on the project.  I doubt they would have approved it if they had to start from scratch. 

There you have it, folks. There would not have been a kit at all, if the new owners had not been already in possession of an already started project that just required more investment to finish. 

32 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

For some time now, I've said that when I come across a noticeable shape flaw in any model (not just this one, and not saying this one IS flawed), I have three choices: 

1. Live with it. 

2. Fix it, either myself or with an aftermarket correction (if available). 

3. Put the model back in the box (or leave it on the hobby shop shelf) and build something else.

Here again is where the rubber hits the road. There are no other choices. Pick one. Trumpeter is Famous for having one Major Shape Flaw in almost every Airplane they kit. It has become a joke on most Airplane kit forums. Yet, many of their kits sell very well, and lots of them get built, flaws and all. And the Airplane Guys are IPMS Flashlight Inspectors, especially compared to Car Guys.

I get it. You wanted "A". You got "A-".  You are back to Snake's "Three Options"....... 

P.S. Looks like now is the time to start 3D printing a 'corrected' Body for this kit! Market is wide open. Sales numbers of a 'corrected' body should be respectable. 

[Snake45]

28 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

Here again is where the rubber hits the road. There are no other choices. Pick one. Trumpeter is Famous for having one Major Shape Flaw in almost every Airplane they kit. It has become a joke on most Airplane kit forums. Yet, many of their kits sell very well, and lots of them get built, flaws and all. And the Airplane Guys are IPMS Flashlight Inspectors, especially compared to Car Guys.

I recently bought a new 1/48 kit of an airplane that had never been done in that scale before, and that I wanted. The internet rivet counters found at least six or seven "major" errors with the kit. I looked carefully at their complaints and found that only one of them really bothered me, and that one will be easy to fix (and at no cost). I'm driving on with it. 

A couple of decades ago, when I was regularly attending !PMS meetings, my stuff would often be critiqued by the club's "sexual intellectuals." ("Sexual Intellectual": A guy who knows 93 exotic lovemaking techniques, but doesn't know any actual women.) I learned to listen quietly to what they were saying, and then respond, "I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Show me on your model." The SIs never had a model. Never. 

[stavanzer]

That is so true, Snake. I've seen that myself.

And, the guy who spends the most money on kits, and builds the most in our club, is an enthusiastic, but challenged builder. He builds tons of kits, has a dozen more he is working on, and builds like a 5 year old. (He is 65) But, he has more fun than any other two members combined. So, it is not always what (or even HOW) you build. Sometimes, it is how much you do.

 

P.S.

What did you buy?

And will you post pics of it when you finish?

Alan

Edited March 22, 2022 by stavanzer

[Plowboy]

2 hours ago, tim boyd said:

My views here are somewhat different. 

While the roof may not be 100% correct, the excess material atop the door panel was incorrect to begin with for a low-series two door sedan.  So, to remove it was a correction to something that was not right to begin with.  The changes made to the tool go a long way, in my view, to correct the DLO (side view daylight opening) which was my biggest concern, but I would not go as far to suggest that the result is 1000% correct to the original.   Secondly, most of the evidence I've seen says the overall roof height, both in its original and final form, is correct. 

Also, while I was not present for the internal discussions on the late changes to the production-ready tool, the decision to go ahead with the changes was a significant financial and operational investment by Moebius.  Casey, I think your assessment of that decision does not represent the actual intent of the company's management in making that decision.   

Bottom line, each person questioning the roof treatment should review the evidence on both sides of this subject before accepting one or the other view as being the overall correct conclusion.  And once reaching that conclusion, then decide whether the result is significant enough one way or the other to affect your decision about whether or not to invest your time in building the kit. 

I do not expect my views on the subject to be the final word here, so anyone with a view, please feel free to express it here.  My only wish (request?) is that we try our best to keep the conversation respectful. 

Thanks all... TIM 

 

I have to respectfully disagree Tim. There was no excess material at the top of the door panels. Please look at the photos that J C and I posted. Making the DLO the right height ruined the top of the door panels as well as the framing at the quarter windows and door. The framing under the drip rail is barely there. There's no denying it. 

The roof height is wrong. Measurements prove it. The AMT '63 Nova wagon has the correct roof height. It measures .6755 from the beltline to the bottom of the drip rail. The Moebius '65 Nova measures .6175. That's a difference of 1.45 scale inches.

The backlight measures 1.8665 inches. That scales out to 46.6625 inches. It should be 55 inches. That's a difference of 8.3375 inches. How can anyone explain that away?

I'm going to attempt to fix it and have began the process. It probably won't be 100% correct. But, it will be way better than it is out of the box.

 

 

[Snake45]

13 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

That is so true, Snake. I've seen that myself.

And, the guy who spends the most money on kits, and builds the most in our club, is an enthusiastic, but challenged builder. He builds tons of kits, has a dozen more he is working on, and builds like a 5 year old. (He is 65) But, he has more fun than any other two members combined. So, it is not always what (or even HOW) you build. Sometimes, it is how much you do.

 

P.S.

What did you buy?

And will you post pics of it when you finish?

Alan

There was a guy exactly like that in the IPMS club I attended, too. He had at least one thing on the contest table every month. Although he wasn't that good a modeler, I learned to have a lot of respect for his "heart" in the hobby. 

The airplane kit I bought is the Hobby Boss Lavochkin La-11. I decided that the only "major flaw" that really caught my eye was the juncture of the vertical fin and the fuselage, and I can fix that. No telling when I'll actually build the thing, though. 

If you're interested, here's the thread with the rivet-counting. I'm the star of Page 2. 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/hobby-boss-1-48th-scale-lavochkin-la-11-fang-box-i-t527054.html

[Snake45]

2 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

I'm going to attempt to fix it and have began the process. It probably won't be 100% correct. But, it will be way better than it is out of the box.

Good for you. That's the spirit! Drive on! 

[stavanzer]

Thanks, Snake.

An La-11 is not my first choice. Mine would be a MIG 3.

Or the Execrable, but Hated LaGG 3. Or as the Soviets called it.   Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob, or "guaranteed varnished coffin"

[Khils]

Right, Wrong, ...& even indifferent!

I'm happy we are getting these kits!!

[keyser]

My ocd is fairly severe, but 4 places past decimal point is beyond. Hog that pup out like the other great stuff you build Roger. 63 Fairlane and a Falcon come to mind. 
Show us please, I’d expect you’ll nail it. 👍🏼
And yes, all you girls are pretty 🤣

SI. New one, comedy gold Snake. 
Varnished coffin. Pilots have great gallows humor. 🤣💀

Edited March 22, 2022 by keyser

[afx]

I’m thankful we have members on the forum with the knowledge and dedication to critique kits – particularly new tool kits.   We should appreciate those that put forth the effort to document and describe issues/discrepancies.  This allows us the make informed purchases.  I would hope the manufacturers appreciate the feedback as well even if it isn’t all rainbows and lollipops. 

That being said the kit has some good points and I will likely purchase one when I run across one.  It is the basis of a very nice gasser kit bash if nothing else.  

Edited March 22, 2022 by afx

[bisc63]

Plowboy's right on target. It will take a little slicing and dicing to get it more prototypically correct, but there's a lot of good stuff here to work with. I'm just glad no one had the idea to turn the tool into a convertible when the original problem was found. I've got Monogram 55-57 Chevies in my collection, hellz, I've even got a Lindberg 48 Lincoln, so I'm no stranger to cutting plastic; that's part of the hobby to me. Some kits look good, some look really good, but all can be made better. I'll be getting one or two of these.

[slusher]

10 hours ago, Plowboy said:

I have to respectfully disagree Tim. There was no excess material at the top of the door panels. Please look at the photos that J C and I posted. Making the DLO the right height ruined the top of the door panels as well as the framing at the quarter windows and door. The framing under the drip rail is barely there. There's no denying it. 

The roof height is wrong. Measurements prove it. The AMT '63 Nova wagon has the correct roof height. It measures .6755 from the beltline to the bottom of the drip rail. The Moebius '65 Nova measures .6175. That's a difference of 1.45 scale inches.

The backlight measures 1.8665 inches. That scales out to 46.6625 inches. It should be 55 inches. That's a difference of 8.3375 inches. How can anyone explain that away?

I'm going to attempt to fix it and have began the process. It probably won't be 100% correct. But, it will be way better than it is out of the box.

 

 

I look forward to watching the build Roger, if you post it…
 

[Plowboy]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:33 PM, slusher said:

I look forward to watching the build Roger, if you post it…
 

I may do a build thread if I can get the roof fixed. I have begun the correction process. 

I'm actually farther along than these photos. I had to add more styrene to the rear of the C pillars as the roof is too round at the brow of the backlight both at the top and bottom. I've also replaced the lip above the beltline and the framing around the DLO. 

[stavanzer]

I read over on the other board, that some builders have had issues installing the taillights in this kit. Not sure what those issues are, but something to watch out for.

[slusher]

On 3/26/2022 at 6:55 PM, stavanzer said:

I read over on the other board, that some builders have had issues installing the taillights in this kit. Not sure what those issues are, but something to watch out for.

I really wonder what that could be…?

[slusher]

On 3/26/2022 at 1:43 PM, Plowboy said:

I may do a build thread if I can get the roof fixed. I have begun the correction process. 

I'm actually farther along than these photos. I had to add more styrene to the rear of the C pillars as the roof is too round at the brow of the backlight both at the top and bottom. I've also replaced the lip above the beltline and the framing around the DLO. 

i believe you can fix it!

[Plowboy]

10 hours ago, slusher said:

i believe you can fix it!

Thanx Carl! It's getting closer! But, it's been a battle! 

I think I have a happy medium on the side profile. It doesn't immediately look chopped. But, when you look closely, you can see that it is. It may look worse with primer on it or it may look better. I'm actually pretty close to being able to shoot a first coat.

I know this is a gasser. But, I don't understand why there's absolutely no badging molded into the body. No scripts. Nothing. I'm guessing they're on the decal sheet?