Comparing Ferrari 250 swb ESCI/AMT and Italeri kits. Is the ESCI\AMT kit a lost cause?

[Pierre Rivard]

Perhaps my favorite Ferrari. Lucky to have landed  an Italeri kit thanks to Helmut (Scudetto1959) but I also have the ESCI/AMT and wondering if it can be made into something decent.

The chassis/interior/engine pieces are fairly decent and comparable but I think the challenge lies with the AMT body (not that the Italery is without a few issues too). Here are some comparison pictures.

Questions builders who may have a better eye than me for body design and proportions. Is the AMT kit workable and where/how would you make changes to make it into a better replica?

 

[MrObsessive]

I was never a fan of the Esci kit, as I swear whoever had a part in tooling that up, they must of worked off their (bad) memory, and not the actual car or blueprints.

I built the Italeri kit many years ago which I still have, and IMO it's faaaar superior to the Esci kit in many ways, especially with the body shape. The one I did I tried to make a reasonable facsimile of Sterling Moss's 1961 car, and to date it's always been in a case away from my nosy cats. 😁

[peteski]

How about the Gunze Sangyo kit? I read it had some problems too.

Edited January 26 by peteski

[MrObsessive]

33 minutes ago, peteski said:

How about the Gunze Sangyo kit? I read it had some problems too.

While a bit nicer than the Esci, that one always seemed too "wide" to my eyes. MFH made an EXCELLENT 250 SWB a while back, but they're pretty much unobtainium, and if you come across one, you can betcha they'll fetch a mighty pretty penny.

Other than 3D files of the car which I have, there really have been no other good 1/24-25 scale glue kits of this car sadly.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think the Esci kit gets a worse rap than it really deserves.

I don't have the kits handy, but I once did extensive notes as to what corrections I'd make to get it "good enough", and it really wasn't all that extensive...and I'm one critical old geezer far as line and proportion go.

I think the comparison shots pretty well bear that out. It's not terrible.

Thing is though, jus' 'bout every Ferrari kit I've looked at closely has at least one glaring error, so either you fix them right, compromise on "good enough" if you can capture the general "look" of a real one, throw them out, sell them on, or build an OOB wonky looking model and live with it.

Other thing...most people just don't notice there's anything wrong with lotsa models anyway.

Edited January 27 by Ace-Garageguy

[Pierre Rivard]

16 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

While a bit nicer than the Esci, that one always seemed too "wide" to my eyes. MFH made an EXCELLENT 250 SWB a while back, but they're pretty much unobtainium, and if you come across one, you can betcha they'll fetch a mighty pretty penny.

Other than 3D files of the car which I have, there really have been no other good 1/24-25 scale glue kits of this car sadly.

Thanks for the help Bill. Your 250SWB build is great and shows that the Italeri body have good lines and proportions. Those kits are very hard to find and I'm happy to have one.

[Pierre Rivard]

15 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I think the Esci kit gets a worse rap than it really deserves.

I don't have the kits handy, but I once did extensive notes as to what corrections I'd make to get it "good enough", and it really wasn't all that extensive...and I'm one critical old geezer far as line and proportion go.

I think the comparison shots pretty well bear that out. It's not terrible.

Thing is though, jus' 'bout every Ferrari kit I've looked at closely has at least one glaring error, so either you fix them right, compromise on "good enough" if you can capture the general "look" of a real one, throw them out, sell them on, or build an OOB wonky looking model and live with it.

Other thing...most people just don't notice there's anything wrong with lotsa models anyway.

Thanks Ace, I was hoping you would provide input because you have a very good eye for body lines and proportions. The Italeri looks pretty close, happy to have that one kit in my possession. If I was ever to take on the AMT/ESCI it appears that surgery to the wide/ bulgy back end would be needed, and perhaps some work on the nose opening. Definitely re-profile the side glass opening as well. I think it may be doable.

[Matt Bacon]

The 250SWB is a sturdy, muscular car in the flesh, and for me the Italeri captures that much better than the AMT.

 

 

 

For completeness, this is the Gunze Sangyo kit:

 

best,

M.

Edited January 27 by Matt Bacon

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Pierre Rivard said:

Thanks Ace, I was hoping you would provide input because you have a very good eye for body lines and proportions. The Italeri looks pretty close, happy to have that one kit in my possession. If I was ever to take on the AMT/ESCI it appears that surgery to the wide/ bulgy back end would be needed, and perhaps some work on the nose opening. Definitely re-profile the side glass opening as well. I think it may be doable.

Turned out I still have one of the AMT/Ertl kits here after all.

Comparing to Matt's pix of a real car, the most jarring problem on the AMT kit is the overall roof profile, followed by the windshield opening, and then the shape of the front wheel arches. The nose / grille opening could use a little work too...particularly the lower apron.

Unfortunately, there's an anti-squash-while-in-the-box reinforcement molded into the center of the windshield opening, and its effect is to pull the center of the upper line of the windshield down somewhat, spoiling the opening entirely.

There's a problem with how the top of the rear fender line falls away too. It's too high at the rear, and as I look at it more critically, it almost looks like whoever did the pre-tooling master started with a Cobra body, and kinda massaged it into a rough approximation of the Ferrari, rather than scaling from a real car, or carefully interpolating from photos.

Another problem with the AMT offering is that the molding of the whole thing is kinda "soft", and some aggressive block sanding, followed by re-scribing most everything, would help too.

It's all doable, no single mod is a deal breaker, and the guts are reasonably OK...so as far as I'm concerned, it's a worthwhile project.

The Gunze kit has errors too, one very obvious one being the distance from the top of the front wheel-arch to the top of the fender. The center of the top of the Gunze windshield opening is pulled down too.

As I've said, there are significant errors on most every Ferrari kit I've ever looked at carefully. I have every 250 GTO kit there is, and not one of them is really right as far as I recall.

Edited January 27 by Ace-Garageguy

[Matt Bacon]

 

Yep… the Gunze kit has, if anything a slight “peak” or hump over the front wheel arch, whereas on the real car the top of the fender falls away downwards from pretty much the base of the windscreen…

best,

M.

[Ace-Garageguy]

48 minutes ago, Matt Bacon said:

Yep… the Gunze kit has, if anything a slight “peak” or hump over the front wheel arch, whereas on the real car the top of the fender falls away downwards from pretty much the base of the windscreen…

Good eye, excellent points, and the Italeri version does the same thing but to a somewhat lesser degree.

It's as though all the tooling designers "interpreted" the car through their idea of what a sports car was "supposed" to look like, rather than really trying hard to represent what's actually there.

It's often the subtle design elements that make iconic cars as striking as they are, and it's also very often the subtleties that ham-handed kit designers miss...making the model look somehow "off".

Edited January 27 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[1959scudetto]

21 hours ago, Pierre Rivard said:

Perhaps my favorite Ferrari. Lucky to have landed  an Italeri kit thanks to Helmut (Scudetto1959) but I also have the ESCI/AMT and wondering if it can be made into something decent.

The chassis/interior/engine pieces are fairly decent and comparable but I think the challenge lies with the AMT body (not that the Italery is without a few issues too). Here are some comparison pictures.

Questions builders who may have a better eye than me for body design and proportions. Is the AMT kit workable and where/how would you make changes to make it into a better replica?

 

Pierre, I have not yet built any of my Italeri SWB's - only the  Esci (before the Italeri has been released) and I only did the absolute minimum: replacing the ugly wheel/tire combo with Italeri's (now we have the option of Jason's Borranis with Dunlops) and modifying the window lines (for a 1960 and a 1961 version)l - the 1960 also had the fuel filler cap repositioned:

 

Edited January 27 by 1959scudetto

[Matt Bacon]

3 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

It's as though all the tooling designers "interpreted" the car through their idea of what a sports car was "supposed" to look like, rather than really trying hard to represent what's actually there.

To be fair, the Italeri designers had the best hope of having access to the real thing. We're spoilt today... not only is there the internet to provide extraordinary quantities of information and quality pictures (how many of my builds are informed by detailed high-resolution picture galleries from top-end auction houses..?), but the historic racing scene is thriving. In the late-70s or early 80s when these things were being tooled up, the chances of the designers having spent time up close and personal with what at the time was just an old, out-of-date, superseded race-car must have been pretty small. Even now, a 250SWB is not a $30m. treasure like a GTO, but they're pretty special collector cars in the $5m. range, and I was bloody lucky to be able to go to a relaxed Historics race meeting and just wander into a pit-lane garage with one in...

Those Gunze designers probably only had a good handful of 10"x8" prints and their instincts to go on.

A trip (via The Wayback Machine) to the UK Model Cars Magazine Plans archive is instructive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211013214/http://vsrnonline.com/Mags/MC/MC_Plans.htm

Lots of well-drawn 1/24 three-view plans. But the articles accompanying them have what's probably a good sample of the pictures available to the guys who were drawing the plans. And they were in England, with access to see the real things race, and they were (often) contemporary. And yet there are "interpretations" all over the place. And all they are trying to produce is a set of 3-view plans.

These days, you could LIDAR-scan a real one, as Airfix do for a lot of their new-tool aircraft models. Or you can get 3D CAD data from the manufacturers (as Airfix does for its new series of 1/43 supercars).

Now, many Historic cars _are_ scanned by the restorers or auctioneers to make it easier to recreate unique parts if they are damaged. I'm sure there's an opportunity for the right company to partner with RS Williams or Ferrari Classiche or Eagle to create new-tool kits based on comprehensive and accurate data.

But let's not forget what those enthusiast designers decades ago were working with...

best,

M.

Edited January 27 by Matt Bacon

[Matt Bacon]

I'm probably thinking about this more than it deserves, but...

We know there's a fair bit of not-strictly-accurate reuse of parts between the Italeri 1/24 Ferrari 250 kits: chassis, doorcards and air-cleaner mix and matched between the 250GTO and 250 SWB, for example. I just took a close look at the 250 California Spyder and 250SWB that I have to hand next to the desk. It looks to me like the designers assumed that the front end of the Cali Spyder and the Berlinetta were basically the same, and it was just the roof and haunches that were different. The Spyder looks like this in real life:

My guess is that the Italeri 250 kits were all based off the same masters, because they thought that Ferrari and Pininfarina had done the same... (or thought it would be OK from a maximising return on investment perspective)

best,

M.

 

 

[Pierre Rivard]

Thank you guys for your input.

Matt, your build of the Gunze kit is wonderful. yes perhaps the lines are not all accurate but you made it work. You make a good point that designers did not have modern technology or even access to these vehicles and they did what they could...some with more success than others. I would rather have an imperfect model to work with than none at all.

Ace, thanks for the detailed input on what could be done on making the AMT body better. It does answer my initial question. I think I'll take a stab at it after I'm done with the 300 SLR.

[Classicgas]

I have the AMT kit. I plan on doing it as a what if kit car. Haven't decided on the engine yet. That way the inaccuracies don't matter.

[martsky]

There will never be a perfectly accurate kit of an early Ferrari.  I used to know a guy who's son had a 250 GTO and one side had three of the front gills downstream of the front wheels and the other side had two.  Depends on which panel beating craftsman was working on which side on which day.

I did get to sit in it once and was amazed at how uncomfortable it was for this non Italian male.

[oldcarfan]

Not to get shouted down but didn't Bburago make a diecast Ferrari 250 as well? Anyone know if it's even close to accurate?

[Ace-Garageguy]

13 minutes ago, oldcarfan said:

Not to get shouted down but didn't Bburago make a diecast Ferrari 250 as well? Anyone know if it's even close to accurate?

Looks pretty good...

[1959scudetto]

If you are unable to obtain a Italeri SWB, the Burago diecast will be a good starting point - body shape looks really good; a little TLC  for some toylike details (intereior, wipers, etc.) and voila: 

 

Edited February 1 by 1959scudetto

[Hoffman]

On 1/26/2024 at 3:14 PM, Pierre Rivard said:

Perhaps my favorite Ferrari. Lucky to have landed  an Italeri kit thanks to Helmut (Scudetto1959) but I also have the ESCI/AMT and wondering if it can be made into something decent.

The chassis/interior/engine pieces are fairly decent and comparable but I think the challenge lies with the AMT body (not that the Italery is without a few issues too). Here are some comparison pictures.

Questions builders who may have a better eye than me for body design and proportions. Is the AMT kit workable and where/how would you make changes to make it into a better replica?

 

 

[Hoffman]

Pierre, I'm with you; seeing potential in the AMT/ESCI version and analyzing what it needs. The biggest differences between the AMT and Italeri versions is in the tail section. The rear fender hump is rendered taller with greater amount of material above the rear wheel lip on the AMT version. Compared to the full size example, it appears too tall. Notice how the height of the fender lips compare on the full size versus AMT. The rear lip should be slightly higher up on the body, compared to the front. The way the bottom of the rear fender angles down to the same level as the rocker panel looks off as well. Raising the rear fender lip slightly is the first step, I think. Taking much of the angle of the bottom of the rear fender out, leveling it out more, and raising it makes it look much better as well. In the final photo, comparing a modified AMT/ESCI body to an Italeri body, they now look much more alike and accurate.

 

[Pierre Rivard]

1 hour ago, Hoffman said:

Pierre, I'm with you; seeing potential in the AMT/ESCI version and analyzing what it needs. The biggest differences between the AMT and Italeri versions is in the tail section. The rear fender hump is rendered taller with greater amount of material above the rear wheel lip on the AMT version. Compared to the full size example, it appears too tall. Notice how the height of the fender lips compare on the full size versus AMT. The rear lip should be slightly higher up on the body, compared to the front. The way the bottom of the rear fender angles down to the same level as the rocker panel looks off as well. Raising the rear fender lip slightly is the first step, I think. Taking much of the angle of the bottom of the rear fender out, leveling it out more, and raising it makes it look much better as well. In the final photo, comparing a modified AMT/ESCI body to an Italeri body, they now look much more alike and accurate.

 

Thanks for the analysis Tim. I'm taking that in as I could not help myself and decided to give it a try.

Perhaps I should post the work in the w.i.p other racing section to get input as I go along

[Hoffman]

Pierre, we always love to see your work in progress. Your craftsmanship is top notch! 😃

Something else I notice, looking at the shape of the rear wheel openings themselves. On the ESCI rendition, towards the bottom of the openings at the rear, they begin to encircle the tires the farther down you go. On the fullsize GT SWB and the Italeri rendition, past mid point, the openings become larger as you go down the fender. The radius is expanding slightly. On some of the full size GT SWB's  that line almost becomes an angle leaning towards rear of the car at the bottom. The Burago diecast does this quite nicely and looks very authentic.

Anyway, modifying the openings on the ESCI/AMT rendition in this way would help as well. I plan to do that on mine. Larger diameter tires to fill up the expanded openings will look better too. 

[Matt Bacon]

It's a great project, Pierre. Your model body photos are taken from a higher relative position than the ones of the real thing so the relative positions of different features may appear different than they are in real life. On the real-life pictures, the lower sills of the door windows are almost lined up, but the model pictures have a discrepancy of almost 20% of the door height at that point. It doesn't seem like a big deal for the vertical height of features on the near side of the car, but it'll throw off the lower corner of the rear valance quite a lot. I know you're constrained by photographing it in front of your computer screen so it's not that easy.

Depends on your camera, but for a compact DSLR you want 45mm focal length lens and a 50mm on a full frame camera to get a view like the human eye. I think you need to drop the "horizon" on your model body profile pictures to more or less line up with the lower door window sills to get a truly comparable image. If you do that with the right focal length lens, and pull back as far as you need to get the framing of the body the same as the "real-thing" pictures then you can compare like for like... You're probably just wanting to make the point, which is absolutely fair, but even the best thought-out photos need to be treated with scepticism unless you know the exact details of the lens and geometry of the set-up...

best,

M.

Edited February 4 by Matt Bacon