Tamiya 1/24 Aston Martin DBS

[Daddyfink]

Well, this I do know, they make a lot less correction type kits for Tamiya products than they do for American Kits. Most aftermarket kits for Tamiya models are just to add more detail, not to correct the body, tires,wheels, engine and so on....

Even a Tamiya kit with sparse engine details can out shine most other kits with some proper detailing. 

[Merkur XR4Ti]

This discussion led me to pull my DBS model off the shelf and take a closer look at it. I was thrilled with the way it came out, and the beauty of engineering that led to its release. I don't exaggerate when I say my opinion is that the kit is a stunning triumph. The engine in the kit is nearly completely covered up by shields and such; what is visible is extremely well executed.

 

I respect Tim Boyd as a model pioneer and builder more than I can possibly express, but in this case I must say I can't agree with him. I think the DBS kit is nearly perfect, and the lack of a full engine in it in no way detracts from it, as on the 1:1 car so much of the engine simply isn't able to be seen. When I put this model down on a shelf and open up the hood, it looks just like the real thing.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Merkur XR4Ti

[Luc Janssens]

I have this kit and was thrilled with how much engine was there. Truth is [and said above], the engine is largely covered and what is there is well represented. if even 200 builders used the engine for other purposes that wouldn't represent a reason to develop the engine in totality. But were it complete how many would use it in other builds? All supposition of course.

 

Aoshima is going to release a full engine detail Pagani Huayra this fall. The intervening years will show how many of those engines get used for other purposes. THAT engine [AMG Built BMW] is not only very powerful but has turbos and the whole nine. Time will have to pass in order to see what Hot Rodding is done with that engine. But from the test shot many of us saw it is state of the art.

 

So lack of a TOTAL engine didn't stop me from buying this kit. It was the name on the box that sold me. I knew I was getting a serious kit that was accurate and would build straight and true. This will allow my finishing skills to produce what should be a stellar build. I have seen quite a few here and almost without exception they have been beauties.

AMG built BMW engine?

[Dragline]

Perhaps it's a Benz then.

[Rob Hall]

The Huayra has a twin turbo Mercedes-AMG V12. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Rob Hall

[tim boyd]

I should have addressed this before.  My objection to how Tamiya treated the so-called engine in the Aston kit had NOTHING to do with the idea of using it in other models, such as street rods or the like.  

My concern was that they gypped me of a complete engine in what was the only "full detail" kit of an Aston Martin that had been tooled in the last 40 years.  

For a good ten years of my career, among my various assignments and responsibilities I worked closely with members of the 1/1 scale Aston Martin team on various projects.  With great dedication and spirit, they achieved wonders with relatively constrained resources vs. other 1/1 scale exotic car makers.  And a great deal of the character of their cars derived from that wondrous V-12 engine.  

I was so looking forward to building a model of the 1/1 scale cars I had seen in development, in their design studio, on their assembly line, and on their showstands at the top motor shows around the world.  To open that kit and see what they did (actually, did not do) with the engine was a bitter disappointment to me, and in my view highly inappropriate for a "full detail" kit of one of the premier exotic car makers in the world.  It has nothing to do with how the finished model appears; it has everything to do with the completeness of the entire model including all the parts that are not seen at the end.  I know those parts are there (or not there).   This treatment seemed incredibly disrespectful to the Aston brand in my view, and as a result graded as an "incomplete" on my kit evaluation matrix given the scope of the rest of the kit and the cost of it.  

That was my view then, and it's still 100% my view now.  I understand others see it differently; I respect their point of view, and I don't expect to change their (or your) minds. 

Cheers.....TIM .  

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by tim boyd

[maltsr]

This treatment seemed incredibly disrespectful to the Aston brand in my view, and as a result graded as an "incomplete" on my kit evaluation matrix given the scope of the rest of the kit and the cost of it.  

 

Cheers.....TIM .  

 

I too have long admired your work, Tim, dating back to your column in Street Rodder.

Whilst I don't share your views in this instance, because this is one of my all-time favourite kits, I must agree with your comment above.  The kit comes in left hand drive - as a Brit I find this deplorable as the car in question is quintessentially English .  If Tamiya could have improved this kit, I would prefer to have seen a right hand drive option rather than a full engine.

I still think the final product is an excellent display piece and a joy to build, despite its 'shortcomings'.

[Zoom Zoom]

Tim, I appreciate your feedback and I need to mention that might not be clear in regards to the discussions we've been having since the Camaro appeared is that I have tons of respect for you and all the great models you build and your well-respected and well-earned place in the hobby! No matter what your personal feelings about any model are for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine since there are all kinds of ways that we get enjoyment and/or frustrations from the hobby. Everyone is free to have their opinions, popular or not! Especially if the subject is something that hits close to home, or is near and dear to you. Perhaps that's why I have issue w/Revell's Mustang LX. I owned the real car, and the instant I saw Revell's model it looked "off" in several ways. Really not happy about that one. Glad I have my replica built years ago from 5 different kits. Even though it's not perfect, at least it manages to look like the car w/o instantly making you wince.

When it comes to my vision of "Tamiya-like", Moebius isn't there. That's from direct personal building experience. Not that they need to be, either. They're a different animal, and they have a very happy customer base. Their niche is very well taken care of by what they make. Can they be better? Absolutely. Are they trying to improve? Sure seems like it. They're a tiny team, hungry, and have a good presence and "approachability". I bitterly griped about the Ventura w/in my personal local circle of friends, having learned of the difficulties with glass and other fit after I had it all painted. So much of it fell together, but just enough pieces were difficult to assemble, had terrible feed tags causing damage to the parts when removing from the trees, that it's almost unfair to compare it to the trouble-free Tamiya kit that was an utter joy to build from start to finish. The Ventura makes me look bad...it looks good, makes my griping seem like a lie! But it tried my patience. I like solving problems but get lazy sometimes.

As for domestic stuff that I think approaches Tamiya-like qualities, Revell often hits reasonably close. That said, it's with the vintage stuff that they seem especially proud of. The '57 Del Rio and the '62 Impala I built, along w/the '32 Ford and Integra, they all exuded a quality that made me think the kit designers loved what they were doing. Sadly that's not the case in the past 2-3 years with domestic subjects. Snap kits with stickers instead of decals, snap kits with no stickers or decals or even headlight detail, and "full detail" kits where the hood opens, a very simplified engine, wire axles and most all the chassis is molded in one piece. That's troubling and anything but Tamiya-like, with no hope in sight that they'll ever do another modern car to a higher level. And yet the Bronco coming out, I can't wait for it to hit my bench. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yup, AMG-Benz in the Pagani and that doesn't impact Bob F's point in the least.

Oh Tim - disrespectful? Highly inappropriate?  At least there's a really pretty and refined DBS model around this half-engine - you wanna talk Tamiya treating a subject with out-and-out scorn, you'll find something MUCH more convincing in their '94-'95 Mustang kits.  Maybe those kits still gave AMT and Revell a cold thrashing in material quality, but as accurate depictions of an SN95? They were downright comical - squashed, foreshortened, and something rare from Tamiya - a big mistake. 

And as operatic as that Aston V12 is, it's essentially the architecture of two Duratec V6s, right?  'Tween that and those Mustang excrescences, maybe it's not  s t r i c t l y  Aston-Martin getting dissed here...

 

...What I've learned is that eventually Tamiya became absolutely top-tier with their models; while they might have been curbside instead of full-detail, or having fewer parts at times vs. full-detail American kits, they ooze quality. The parts are more precisely molded. Far less body prep, far fewer lumpy/wavy surfaces, smaller mold lines, less or non-existent flash, precise parts fit. There's less fuss getting the subject to look right. And if you like the subject matter, icing on the cake. Decals printed with far more precision. Chrome transfer emblems. Sometimes even opening sunroofs. They offered things that we just don't see in domestic kits. Nearly universal love from me from the actual build experience. Other Japanese models followed, but still cannot match the precision of Tamiya in many cases. The ones that do, namely Ebbro, are run by people formerly involved with Tamiya. Fujimi Enthusiast kits...tons of detail, tons of imprecise parts, but most like some of the best vintage domestic kits in the "detail trumps all" mindset.

None of the above takes away my enthusiasm for domestic kits (subject matter trumps all as the first consideration), but domestic kits are a different animal. They're built to a different mindset, for generally a different audience, they're not as precise, and often very obvious about being built to a price point as the very first objective. Sure, that extremely detailed engine and engine compartment can look great when finished, but more often than not it's more work with imprecise parts with sloppy mold lines, flash, and sloppy locating pins/receivers...  I find stuff like that far more aggravating than a few missing parts on an otherwise superbly engineered kit. Yet if the subject sways me, I still buy/build. And then I'll build a Tamiya kit to get my perspective and sanity back 

 

Downie's got the plot - in fact, he's describing my exact experience of that yearly comparison review some 14 years back.  A domestic kit has its engine, but for its @ 90s parts count depending on the version, it fights me at several stages of assembly.

Meantime, the Tamiya curbside with a count in the 130s just flies together.  It's got a rally-oriented cockpit that routs the detail of the domestic's engine bay and interior combined, and I'm able to get it decently finished for photography in 3 days because it has NO. temperament. of ANY kind in the build.  And then injury follows the insult: A Fujimi curbside presents its advantages in a more comprehensive interior and an intricate chassis, also with no assembly problems of any kind, again at a significantly higher overall parts count. An Astro van.

An Astro Van??

YES.  And according to a significant number of readers, I should have penalized the Japanese curbsides - patently superior in design and engineering, obviously more detailed overall, and un-de-NIably more pleasurable to build - simply because the domestic had an engine and they didn't.  And you should have seen the contortions people put themselves through to rationalize that as an objective observation when it was anything but.  One reader went so far as to say a model car without an engine was like a human figure without a head - and if people don't IMMEDIATELY see what's so laughable about this analogy that nobody should even bother expressing it, I don't know if I can explain it to 'em.

If anything, the reaction to all this cemented for me just how absolutely subjective that viewpoint is.  And that's coming from the position of having the exact same opinion myself - usually I know what I'm getting into well in advance, but on those rare occasions I purchase a curbside unawares, I still feel that sinking pit of disappointment in my gut.

But that's NOT based on ANY inherent shortcoming of a curbside kit.  In the cold light of rationality, there is NO necessary design or engineering shortfall in a kit lacking an engine, particularly if every other aspect of the kit is executed well.

Like many, I was conditioned by domestic manufacturers to expect an engine.  It is THAT CONDITIONING which leaves me disappointed with a curbside.  There is NO RATIONAL WAY to mandate the lack of a fully replicated engine as an intrinsic fault in itself.  Without a full engine, the model has nothing to run on?  Well without opening doors, you have no way to get in one.  Without good suspension detail you've got nothing to smooth the scale bumps. And again, most importantly in my eyes - you may pull a Bo Duke through the window, you may man up to the rattling of teeth and kidneys, you may get the thing coasting downhill without an engine - but without poseable steering, you have no way to control its direction!

Classic slippery slope argument - but in this case, I defy anyone to show me the definitive logical stop on that slope.

Maybe the lack of an engine indicates other design shortcuts in the model.  Maybe the curbside nature of a kit heralds an overall lack of detail and development.  And in those cases, the kits have problems bigger than the omission of an engine.

But strictly in itself, the absence of a complete engine is NOTHING but a divergence from a prospective builder's preferences or expectations.  And there's no experience like having to hustle a problematic domestic together back-to-back with a well engineered Japanese kit to bring it all into focus.

(OH, and in case I need to explain it, that's just for the room here, maybe for those who haven't yet decided.  I know better than to try to change anybody's minds.)

 

 

 

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Hmmmm...guess I'll just hafta put an LS in the old Aston... 

[Zoom Zoom]

Hmmmm...guess I'll just hafta put an LS in the old Aston... 

Points for a idea. Deduct for the ubiquity of LS conversions in everything 

Why not siamese a pair of Taurus SHO V6's into it? Just like the real Aston, a Ford-derived V-12 from a copy/paste of V6 architecture. The SHO engine is the smoothest ever even before an extra 6 cylinders. Win!

Oh...yeah, that Yamaha thing.

It's always something. Carry on... 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Points for a idea. Deduct for the ubiquity of LS conversions in everything 

I agree...the LS swaps are getting to be like bellybuttons....just like smallblock Chebbys used to be.

But here's an interesting twist. There's an aftermarket classic smallblock Chebby bottom end available (special block casting) that will take the LS heads. This is possible because the bore spacing is the same on both engine architectures. Best of both worlds, old school and new school. Relatively inexpensive and bulletproof old Chebby guts, heads that flow and burn like a modern engine. 

A junkyard late-model Mopar Hemi would also make nice swap-fodder, or a 4-cam Ford V8. (I once put an old Hemi in a real Lusso, eons ago.)

I tend to build models of things that would be relatively easy to accomplish in reality, and all of these would fill the bill nicely. 

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Dragline]

A spirited conversation with NO Butt Hurt.....

 

I am pleased everyone took the high road, stayed on course and delivered their sides to this interesting kit.

 

If there is any shortcoming to this kit is that it's currently out of production.