WARNING! Not all 1/25 scale is equal.

[OldNYJim]

I always assumed that Palmer’s management described what the car should look like over the phone to a guy who never saw a car before, and voila! 

Edited February 24 by OldNYJim

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 2/24/2025 at 5:05 AM, OldNYJim said:

I always assumed that Palmer’s management described what the car should look like over the phone to a guy who never saw a car before, and voila! 

Expand  

Which proves beyond doubt that neither managers nor the foot-soldiers doing the grunt-work need to be talented, skilled, or have any knowledge whatsoever of the product or anything remotely related to it.

Yup. Today's predominant business model was started by Palmer. Who wooda thunk it.

And certainly no one can question the excellence such a business philosophy turns out.

                                  

Edited February 27 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY

[Wickersham Humble]

Gees, and I'm 1/4 Palmer!  Not the kit mal-practicer family, tho.  Maybe Dave Deal or even Big Daddy should have put their stamp on this one?  Wick

[oldcarfan]

A long time ago there was an article in a magazine, probably Scale Modeler or something. I think it was an interview with a designer for MPC or AMT, maybe. The guy commented on the differences between models of the same car. He said something about how you could a model exactly to scale or you could make it look like the prototype. He said it was more of an art form. He also said they tend to make the engine fifteen percent larger and the tires wider than on the real vehicles because it looked better to the builder.

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 3/3/2025 at 1:16 AM, oldcarfan said:

A long time ago there was an article in a magazine, probably Scale Modeler or something. I think it was an interview with a designer for MPC or AMT, maybe. The guy commented on the differences between models of the same car. He said something about how you could a model exactly to scale or you could make it look like the prototype. He said it was more of an art form...

Expand  

This is baloney that's been circulating for decades, attributed to various people.

If it's true, explain to me why a small photograph of a real car looks just exactly like the real car (assuming there's no weird lens effects like extra-long focal lengths or fisheyes).

A perfectly-scaled model looks right when viewed from a similar angle and scale distance as the real one.

Subjective oogie boogie "artistic interpretation" doesn't cut it.

 

[stavanzer]

  On 3/3/2025 at 1:16 AM, oldcarfan said:

A long time ago there was an article in a magazine, probably Scale Modeler or something. I think it was an interview with a designer for MPC or AMT, maybe. The guy commented on the differences between models of the same car. He said something about how you could a model exactly to scale or you could make it look like the prototype. He said it was more of an art form. He also said they tend to make the engine fifteen percent larger and the tires wider than on the real vehicles because it looked better to the builder.

Expand  

It was a designer for Monogram, IIRC. In am article in SAE about 30 Years ago. It might be Horseapples to you Ace, but I remember the quote. It made sense to me then, as he was referring to Models designed in the 1970's. Artistic License, made a great explanation for all the Scorn heaped on the Body Shapes of the 1956-57 Chevies tooled back then.

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 3/3/2025 at 3:25 AM, stavanzer said:

It was a designer for Monogram, IIRC. In am article in SAE about 30 Years ago. It might be Horseapples to you Ace, but I remember the quote. It made sense to me then, as he was referring to Models designed in the 1970's. Artistic License, made a great explanation for all the Scorn heaped on the Body Shapes of the 1956-57 Chevies tooled back then.

Expand  

Here's the thing. I have pretty well calibrated eyeballs from decades of doing what I do.

For example: lotsa people have dumped on all the '34 Fords in the model-car-kit world, and for good reason. Not a one of 'em looks 100% right to somebody who's been looking at the real ones for 50 odd years.

Some years back, I had access to a nekkid '34 3W over several months. I measured it quite accurately (+ or- 1/8") and took extensive notes and photos. Without exception, what looked wrong to me on the various models looked wrong because the actual measurements were not scaled from a real car correctly on to the models. Some things on some of the models were too narrow. Almost none of the hoods were long enough, though the closest looked the best. Some of the grilles were not tall enough. Lines and curves of fenders and other panels were wonky, and in incorrect relationships to each other. Etc. etc. etc.

In the final analysis, the ancient 1/24 scale Monogram '34 Ford kit is by far the most accurate of any '34 Ford ever kitted, from a hard numbers standpoint.

And it's pretty much universally accepted that that old, old kit just flat looks more like a real '34 Ford than any other '34 Ford kit ever marketed.

There's a reason for that.

Numbers don't lie.

                            

EDIT: That's also the reason the AMT and Johan annual models derived from dealer promos that were scaled from factory blueprints look so very very good from a proportion and line standpoint.

They are numerically accurate scaled-down representations of the real cars, not subjectively "artistically interpreted" by well-meaning but misguided designers.

 

 

Edited March 3 by Ace-Garageguy

[alan barton]

I am in full agreement with Bill in regards the seriously undersized Red Ram Dodge in the modern tool Ala Kart.

To back up my beliefs I give you my recent hot rod build based on a previously glue bombed Aurora Scat Kat, in 1/32 scale.

As you can see, the engine I used is the very same undersized Red Ram Dodge. It fits the 1/32 scale Deuce like it was made for it!

I rest my case!

[ChrisBcritter]

Jo-Han made some beautiful Caddys, but they were stuck having to fit a standard promo box. Thus we get a short but not narrow '60 Fleetwood:

[Kenmojr]

Ouch and in the day, I really liked Jo-Han kits...

[Wickersham Humble]

Some of my best repair/rebuld/restore kits are early JoHan MoPars.  Sometimes the styrene was very brittle, tho.  Used to find them (curbside promos, oc) at the local 88-Cent Store!  Cheaper than AMT/MPC, back -- c. 1960 -- when pennies were worth something!  Wish I'd bought more, or saved more of 'em.      Wick

[Bugatti Fan]

Same scale interpretation by different manufacturers is bound to have slight differences, particularly on older kits defined by how measured and tooled up for ease of manufacture originally.

No such thing as laser scanning of a prototype back then.

As for after market, check that the parts are actually for the kit from a particular manufacturer to avoid discrepancy.

[T-Ray]

I can't help but wonder if the Stranger Things Blazer was scanned off a real truck, hence the differences between that and the Deserter. Maybe I'm wrong on that one. If that is how the industry is working these days, models become more and more exact could be an issue when kit bashing with older and less perfect models of the same car. 

Edited March 14 by T-Ray
Forgotten information

[Wickersham Humble]

Tom, et al: think the kitbashing issue already has manifested itself.  I recall the MoPar kits c. 1962 with JoHan and Revell both releasing promo type kits, and the latter had severly underscale B-blocks (still have some) that were wierd.  As you note, it progresses. Wick

[ZTony8]

Tamiya was a victim of someone doing inaccurate math. Their Ferrari F189 kits are the usual 1/20 scale but the engine/transaxle in those kits scales out to 1/24th scale. At least it makes a good replacement for the less detailed pieces in the 1/24th scale Hasegawa kit of the same car.

Edited March 15 by ZTony8

[Magician]

  On 2/18/2025 at 1:16 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Or no math at all, AKA the Palmer method.

Expand  

The box says 98 cents…seems about a dollar high…if one is considering the proportionality of that thing. BTW, is that a cowl mounted tach?

[obs.caleb]

I did a kitbash of the amt 1996 dually c3500 and amt c1500 sportside. When I opened the box for the c1500 I thought Wow this looks really small! It actually scales out to 1/26th scale. 

[Wickersham Humble]

It's always a bit shocking (if that's apt) when major and trusted firms slip out-of-scale parts in, or like was reported in one the mags, use the molds for an SBC for a MoPar truck motor.  (Of course, the old B-block looked a lot like a big Chevy, in fact!) 

I bought/built the Mono 'Sling Shot' dragster last year, supposedly at 1.24 (yes?) and posed it next to one of the Model A phaeton kits I made into a drag car sixty years ago -- so like eras -- and they are not comparable, to my eye.  Is it true that some Mono kits were 1/20 scale?  Funny: I wanted to but a GMC huffer under the six 97's on the dragster kit, and got one from my parts box that looks exactly right -- and it's AMT!  I used the ARE five-spokers from the old Sizzler kit, and they're good to go.  Don't notice that they are too recent ('63 intro) for a late-fifties digger!

Being iffy scale is one reason I don't attempt to do figures for my kits, even the dioramas.  Maybe I'll find someone who'll do some as a paid service (giving credit at shows. OC!) as nowadays I can't see well enough to do face detail, etc. Oh well...   Wick

 

[peteski]

  On 4/30/2025 at 12:25 AM, Wickersham Humble said:

Being iffy scale is one reason I don't attempt to do figures for my kits, even the dioramas.

Expand  

Why the iffy scale stops you from adding figures to your dioramas?  1:1 scale people come in many different sizes (both height-wise and weight). There are short and tall people, fat and skinny.   Even if the figure is not the same exact scale as the model, if it's close enough, it will still look right.

[Wickersham Humble]

Pete; the other reason was decisive, my skills at almost eighty -- can't see, or use a one-hair brush well enough to do a credible job.  And I know how critical I invariably am of figures in dioramas at shows... almost to the detriment of really enjoying the plane, tank, or car shown.  As I 've often said: people who don't get old never have old people's problems!  Wick

[styromaniac]

  On 3/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, alan barton said:

I am in full agreement with Bill in regards the seriously undersized Red Ram Dodge in the modern tool Ala Kart.

To back up my beliefs I give you my recent hot rod build based on a previously glue bombed Aurora Scat Kat, in 1/32 scale.

As you can see, the engine I used is the very same undersized Red Ram Dodge. It fits the 1/32 scale Deuce like it was made for it!

I rest my case!

Expand  

Exactly...I tried the same thing with an ancient Aurora "Wolf Wagon" kit. ( trophies look out of scale...but the motor dropped right in...)

Edited May 1 by styromaniac

[Wickersham Humble]

But, the original 241 Red Ram hemi was smaller than the Chrysler/Imperial-DeSoto block, in 1/1.  Drove a '54 with overdrive stick for a while, really nice mill! Ole' Wick

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 5/1/2025 at 8:16 PM, Wickersham Humble said:

But, the original 241 Red Ram hemi was smaller than the Chrysler/Imperial-DeSoto block, in 1/1.  Drove a '54 with overdrive stick for a while, really nice mill! Ole' Wick

Expand  

I've been flogging this dead horse for years.

I've been building, restoring, modifying, and race prepping real cars for decades.

I have had access to most old American engines.

I have measured and scaled most 1950s engines, including Mopar's Chrysler Firepower, Dodge Red Ram, and DeSoto Firedome hemis.

The Red Ram in the original Ala Kart and all its derivatives is very, very close to being correctly scaled, as is the Firedome in the AMT '53 pickup, and the majority of Firepower hemi engines from all manufacturers in 1/25 scale.

The Red Ram in the "new tool" AMT Ala Kart is an underscaled joke.

And just FYI, the Chrysler, Dodge, and DeSoto engines are entirely different, though similar, designs.

Edited May 1 by Ace-Garageguy

[Wickersham Humble]

Bill, Yep; the first gen hemi (I can't bring myself to capitalize the 'h', because Chrysler didn't invent the design, by fifty years or so) made an enviable place for itself in competition history, unmatched by any other in it's day.  Well, Mickey Thompson won the '63 Winternationals in a Pontiac 'hemi' that used some MoPar valve gear components, but...   As a child of the 'fifties, it still amazes me how very few hemis of any family (Dodge, DeSoto, and Chizler) were actually seen in cars back then; the various Dodges were super-scarce (I worked in a Texaco station, and at the local Pontiac/Buick/GMC +Rambler dealer, back then), DeSoto's were becoming low-sellers leading to their demise in '61 powered by B-blocks, and in N CA Chryslers/Imperials weren't plentiful anyway.  They were expensive to hop-up, nothing like a Chebbie at all, and besides were closed out by 1959 until the 2nd Gen came out in '64.  Finding a hemi even in a junk-yard hulk was a notable event.  One of my college roomies in '65 was a MoPar fanatic (he loved math, too!) and almost bought a '56 DeSoto 2-dr HT with (no kidding) a hemi and stick-shift!  Almost; he found a cherry '59 Dodge at a better price -- the first guy I knew who ever ran radial tires, no less.  Was sideswiped by a flat-bed trailer truck, but the truck lines repaired it.  I was a A-block car, not fast at all, but rakish -- he loved it!

We were given a Chrysler Industrial 354 in a swap with the local Ford dealer, but after investigating the cost of speed goodies for it, flipped it for a B-block 361.  Cool valve covers, said 'Chrysler Industrial' stamped right in 'em!  The little '54 Dodge was smooth as a turbine, and a great lugger for being only a skosh larger than a Chevy six!  Still, I could build two 283's for the price of a hemi engine kit and machine work, so...  

I saved my Dodge Red Ram from the Ala Kart kit I bought in '62 (?) for years, as it was so unique; still have it in a Model A rod kit.  Early hemis I still have were also gratefully accepted in the AMT Double Dragster kit, and the Buick Spl station wagon - the latter I'm just now finishing as a panel delivery two-door, with naturally a nailhead!  (Boy, don't get me started!)

Wick 

[Straightliner59]

  On 4/30/2025 at 12:25 AM, Wickersham Humble said:

It's always a bit shocking (if that's apt) when major and trusted firms slip out-of-scale parts in, or like was reported in one the mags, use the molds for an SBC for a MoPar truck motor.  (Of course, the old B-block looked a lot like a big Chevy, in fact!) 

I bought/built the Mono 'Sling Shot' dragster last year, supposedly at 1.24 (yes?) and posed it next to one of the Model A phaeton kits I made into a drag car sixty years ago -- so like eras -- and they are not comparable, to my eye.  Is it true that some Mono kits were 1/20 scale?  Funny: I wanted to but a GMC huffer under the six 97's on the dragster kit, and got one from my parts box that looks exactly right -- and it's AMT!  I used the ARE five-spokers from the old Sizzler kit, and they're good to go.  Don't notice that they are too recent ('63 intro) for a late-fifties digger!

Being iffy scale is one reason I don't attempt to do figures for my kits, even the dioramas.  Maybe I'll find someone who'll do some as a paid service (giving credit at shows. OC!) as nowadays I can't see well enough to do face detail, etc. Oh well...   Wick

 

Expand  

We did some figuring over the old Sizzler once, and determined it to be about 1:22.5. The Long John is likely about the same. I built a Slingshot as the Cook and Bedwell dragster. I'd say it's closer to 1/24, but, likely on the big side.