tim boyd Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Anoyone got an answer????????????????? Led....sorry for the delay....just read your original post. There are no armrests. But I will say that the Tuck'n'roll on the door panels looks more realistic (more three dimensional) than the door panels on the sedan kit, and it matches the seats nicely. Door and window handles are nicely engreaved and easy to detail. TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Mark...thanks.... BTW that Challenger trio sounds pretty darn cool....can't wait to see that one finished...TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hey Tim...You gonna paint it Red??? Mike...actually lthinking of Testors 2 part lacquer AMC "Big Bad Blue", perhpas with an overcoast of Tamiya Pearl Clear. Body is ready for the paint booth so I'll have to decide shortly! TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Led....sorry for the delay....just read your original post. There are no armrests. But I will say that the Tuck'n'roll on the door panels looks more realistic (more three dimensional) than the door panels on the sedan kit, and it matches the seats nicely. Door and window handles are nicely engreaved and easy to detail. TIM Will just have to scratchbuild the armrests and cup holders.. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 did the '32 Ford come stock with cup holders? oh, wait this IS a street rod kit, it better have cup holders! Dave No '32 Ford ever came with cupholders. That was back in the day, before the "wussification" of America... when men were still men and didn't have to "stay hydrated" whenever they drove somewhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 No '32 Ford ever came with cupholders. That was back in the day, before the "wussification" of America... when men were still men and didn't have to "stay hydrated" whenever they drove somewhere... Well, in AZ, you always have to stay hydrated... I always have a bottle of water w/ me (and a cup of coffee in the mornings). I couldn't imagine driving a car w/o cupholders.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 something i just thought about here and i don't see it in Tim's post of the interior. is there the right amount of pedals for the Hemi powered stick shift version? can you just imagine the fire over the '37 Ford sedan if we'd had internet back then Dave Hmmm... good question. About the '37 Ford, I'm sure there was debate about it back in the day on the Usenet newsgroup rec.models.scale, I used to be a regular there. I've been on the internet since '88, back before the WWW...back when when 'archie', 'gopher', and 'telnet' were some of the main programs to access resources on the text-only internet. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Rob, I apologize for my harsh words to you. I was running on 3 hours of sleep. It was uncalled for. I still say they could give us a kit with parts for both. That would be a good way to appease all builders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's a safe bet that in today's competitive battle for the ever shrinking modeling audience, that one sure way to create a financial loss is to offer a kit in a factory stock only version. No, no, no!!!! Nobody ever said "factory stock ONLY"!!! What was said was, it would be nice if the kits included the parts necessary to build the car factory stock. So if Revell or whoever wants to issue a '32 Ford "street rod" kit... fine! Great! No problem! But would it have killed them to include a factory stock option??? That's the point us "factory stock guys" have tried to make here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Gentlemen, I'm also primarily a factory stock builder, and I have to say, we're starting to come across like this: Seriously. Where else can this discussion go? The premise has been offered that it would have been nice if Revell had stock variations of these '32 kits. Mmm-hmm. Does anybody DISAGREE? And if nobody's disagreeing, then what's left to do with that premise but pout? Far as I can tell, nobody's saying it would have been terrible if Revell did a stock variation. Of course, to compare the tooling costs for rod variations to tooling costs for a stock variation leaves one hugely important variable out of the analysis: how many of us would there have been to help Revell AMORTIZE that tooling in the same way those rod variations apparently were? Past IS prologue on that one, and far as I can tell, we can either accept it, or we can ignore all the realities and exigencies of Revell's product planning, drop to one knee, and bawl like little girl scouts robbed of their cookie sales. Edited June 19, 2009 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Would it have killed them? Probably not. Would it have killed the kit? Most assuredly. How in the world do you figure that? A '32 Ford street rod kit that also included the parts to build the car stock would "most assuredly" have killed the kit? Huh??? Man, I don't know what Kool-aid you're drinking, but I flat out DO NOT see how the option of a stock build would have "killed" a '32 Ford street rod kit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 something i just thought about here and i don't see it in Tim's post of the interior. is there the right amount of pedals for the Hemi powered stick shift version? can you just imagine the fire over the '37 Ford sedan if we'd had internet back then Dave Dave...they've got you covered. Still have the two pedals from previous versions and they have now engraved a "spoon" type pedal to the right of those....and they've amended the instructions to show the use of only one of the two pedals when you build the 5.0L with comes an automatic tranny....you might be able to see the engraved gas pedal on the interiors parts post I did on Sunday night....TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 ...far as I can tell, we can either accept it, or we can ignore all the realities and exigencies of Revell's product planning, drop to one knee, and bawl like little girl scouts robbed of their cookie sales. Excuse me, but I assume we all still have the right to post our opinions here. I hardly equate stating my opinion to "bawling like a girl scout." You have your opinion, I have mine... and neither is "better" or more valid than the other. So how about you can the wise cracks? I believe that I have every right to opine on the "exigencies of Revell's product planning." That's what a forum is all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 How in the world do you figure that? A '32 Ford street rod kit that also included the parts to build the car stock would "most assuredly" have killed the kit? Huh??? Man, I don't know what Kool-aid you're drinking, but I flat out DO NOT see how the option of a stock build would have "killed" a '32 Ford street rod kit... The problems probably would have been how to fit all the parts in a standard box, plus the fact it would literally be two complete kits--other than the body, dash, and some trim (lights, grille), nothing else would be common. These Revell street rod kits go a lot further than the old AMTs which had the stock kit chassis and suspension with street rod engine and wheel/tire choices. Would have been nice, but was not to be. I'm a replica stock fanatic myself, but more with '50s-present cars..though I've built the AMT and Monogram stock '20s-30s Fords. But I also enjoy these street rod kits, if no other reason that they are a great source of parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Tim, i havent see it mentioned or in the pics you've posted. is there the right amount of pedals included for the "stick shift" version? it would seem kind of funny if Revell took the time to add the tuck-n-roll pleating to the back of the firewall but not give us a clutch, brake and gas pedals! Dave Dave....see me response to your post in the other chain of notes on this subject. Short answer here is "yes" they have the right amount of pedals for both transmisisions. Although I see the angle I photographed does not show the answer (my other post suggeested it might show it). Best regards...TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Harry, one question, and I don't mean this in a negative way ... have you ever built, or even examined, one of Revell's '32 Ford kits? I seriously tend to think think the answer to that question is no, because if you had, you'd realize just how unfeasible it would be for Revell to add a factory-stock building option. To repeat, though ... it would require the addition of almost a second entire kit! There is nothing about the kits' chassis or running gear that is stock spec. All of that would have to be newly tooled. It would been a stretch to expect Revell to do that even in 1996, when the 3-window kit was first released! Seriously ... ragging on Revell for not offering factory-stock building option for its '32s is kind of like ragging on AMT for not offering a factory-stock building version of its Phantom Vicki ... or on Revell for not including the parts in its Corvette C6R to allow it to be built stock. It's an utterly pointless exercise. I'm just expressing my opinion, exactly as you have done. Pointless? Maybe so, in the overall scheme of things. Obviously my opinion isn't going to change any minds at Revell, especially after the fact... and maybe I won't even change anyone's mind here on the forum. But my opinion on the subject is no more or less pointless than yours... no? You get your say, I get mine... that's how we do things here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Excuse me, but I assume we all still have the right to post our opinions here. I hardly equate stating my opinion to "bawling like a girl scout." You have your opinion, I have mine... and neither is "better" or more valid than the other. So how about you can the wise cracks? I believe that I have every right to opine on the "exigencies of Revell's product planning." That's what a forum is all about. Ee-a-asy, Jefe. Now that you've blown off some steam, why don't you re-examine the post and see where I denied you any right to your opinion, or even stated that one was superior to the other. You oughtta be able to quote a section that supports your contention - if there is one. I mean, for defending your right to post opinions, you seem to have a real problem with the one I posted. Don't you? And now - coming from the SAME GENERAL STANCE, that YES, a stock version WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE - I'm going to explain WHY posts like these are a downer in a thread like this. Tim's coming in here with something he's enthused about, and a good-faith effort to share his enthusiasm. It takes some time to set up those shots and report on the details. And sure enough, there's quite a bit to get enthused about. There's a nice little parade setting up here. To harp on the lack of a stock version is to RAIN on that parade. Taken in a certain light - though I doubt Tim himself sees it this way - it's actually a pretty flippin' RUDE thing to do. People can maintain that Revell SHOULD have done a stocker. History frankly DOES NOT SUPPORT that contention, but who can say for sure till Revell releases one? So no, there's nothing inherently deficient in such an opinion. And there's nothing to deny anyone their right to express it ad infinitum nauseamque. But to continue to point that out in a thread like this in all likelihood won't goad Revell into producing a stock kit, it WON'T improve the mood of the thread, it WON'T accomplish anything except to make the poster look petulant. But hey, that's what y'all wanna do, knock yourselves out. Edited June 19, 2009 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I mean, for defending your right to post opinions, you seem to have a real problem with the one I posted. Don't you? You are obviously totally unfamiliar with me, and have no idea what I believe, or how I believe this forum should operate. I have no problem with anyone posting their opinions here, whether I agree with them or not. This is an open forum, and all opinions are welcome, hell, even encouraged. There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion, but I do take offense when a forum member belittles another forum member's opinion as "crying like a girl scout." You have every right to post your thought here, as do I. You don't like my opinion? No problem... please feel free to offer your counterpoint any time. In fact, I would hope that you do so, and encourage you to add your thoughts any time. But let's keep things adult here, and skip the name calling, ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Just imagine the fracas we would have had here if Revell had put an SBC in these kits instead of a Ford 5.0! The heresy!! AUUGGGGHHHH!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ken, I agree... this is getting a little silly. (Chuck, I call a truce with you too). I've stated my opinion, everyone else has stated theirs. End of "discussion." Thanks to Tim for his efforts on this subject. I'll just keep the old trap shut on this topic from now on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ken covered it, so there's no point in me following up. Truce agreed upon - for whatever fight we really had, Harry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Thank you, gentlemen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Wow Tim your buildup is coming along really good,But Geez couldnt you have snagged a few extra kits to pass them out to your friends out here on the Forum HUH ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Good lord. All I was trying to do was apologize to Rob, who has seemed to ignore that, and state MY OPINION that kits like this should be engineered for both types of builders, not start WWIII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Good lord. All I was trying to do was apologize to Rob, who has seemed to ignore that, and state MY OPINION that kits like this should be engineered for both types of builders, not start WWIII. Apology accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.