'53 Hudson Hornet is coming....

[Chuck Most]

The new tool Ala Kart was no turkey- turkeys have grace and sophistication! The Ala Kart was just a substandard surrogate for the original kit. If the Moebius Hudson were somehow approaching THAT level of 'non-goodness', I wouldn't be nearly as excited about it as I am! Never having touched the actual kit, I'll say again I'll reserve my final judgement until I've got one in front of me.

In the meantime- here's a REAL turkey!

Edited December 15, 2010 by Count Chuckula

[sjordan2]

What? You don't recognize the greatness of Barney Fife???!!!

Man, he totally carried Andy... and Thelma Lou was hotter than Helen Crump any day...

The rewards of greatness.

[jbwelda]

so since this thread has already gone off into goofy land, what exactly makes the ala-kart reissue such a dog? the offtone decals? the possibly maybe could be could not be too small hemi V8? more? i have two of them and never really looked at them all that close except that im using the motor in a build right now. it was always one of my favorite kits as a kid and i bought them without prejudice when they were reissued.

[Chuck Most]

Regarding the Ala Kart- The new kit is Ok. The old one is just better!

[Art Anderson]

so since this thread has already gone off into goofy land, what exactly makes the ala-kart reissue such a dog? the offtone decals? the possibly maybe could be could not be too small hemi V8? more? i have two of them and never really looked at them all that close except that im using the motor in a build right now. it was always one of my favorite kits as a kid and i bought them without prejudice when they were reissued.

Actually, the Hemi in the Ala Kart is smaller than most modelers realize: It's the 241cid DODGE Red Ram Hemi, much smaller than the 354/392 Chrysler Hemi.

Other than that, there are some fairly minor bodywork contour issues, that any modeler can fix, but that some of the "kit assemblers" in this thread cannot handle (apparently!).

Art

Edited December 18, 2010 by Art Anderson

[Jairus]

:lol:

[S. Svendsen]

Wow, I hadn't looked at this thread in a week or so. It really went off the rails. At any rate... the pics I posted were of a kit still in the development stages, not a finished product. Dave Metzner tells me changes are already being made. Moebius knows that this is their first real car kit and they are going to great lengths to get it the best they can.

[Harry P.]

Wow, I hadn't looked at this thread in a week or so. It really went off the rails. At any rate... the pics I posted were of a kit still in the development stages, not a finished product. Dave Metzner tells me changes are already being made. Moebius knows that this is their first real car kit and they are going to great lengths to get it the best they can.

Now that's the best post here so far! Great news.

[jbwelda]

so, re: ala kart, its just as i thought: a lot of people talk ###### but when called on it really havent got anything to back it up.

figures.

its especially funny when the replies are on the order of:

>I don't know a single person who liked the 1:1 or the original kit that was happy with that model.

because, gee whiz, i dont know a single person who liked the 1:1 or the original kit either.

and its too bad you dont "know" me because then you couldnt say that at all.

the kit looks pretty good to me and always has. so maybe it hasnt got the same number of rivits as the original or something, try to get over it.

and to get back to the subject at hand...i have a feeling it is bound to be a parallel situation.

[Randytheroadrunner]

I posted a pic of a Hudson and nobody even noticed, they were too busy bickering. What a friendly place.

[jbwelda]

oh you aint even seen friendly yet.

[Harry P.]

You guys might want to start an Ala Kart thread...

[Art Anderson]

I would respectfully disagree with that last statement, Art. The incorrectly shaped hood and grill (both too flat at the top) were problems that were not easily fixed. Also, on the kit I had, at least, the underside of the running board/fender unit was riddled with ejector pin parks, which couldn't be removed without destroying the engraved ribs that area. That problem in and of itself relegated the model to "curbside only" status, in my mind.

Also, regarding the proportioning of the kit's Red Ram Hemi _ if the one in the new-tool kit was correctly sized, the one in the original kit was far too large, because the newer kit's engine was substantially smaller. Based on the photos I've seen, the one in the original kit looks far more correct.

Finally, given how much of the original kit tooling still exists, one has to wonder why RC2 chose to do the new AK kit in the first place. Seems to me that restoring the old tool to its original status would've been the smarter play.

Ken, ejection pins can be adjusted to be flush, and unfortunately, they are a necessary evil sometimes, especially on highly detailed parts with little or no "draft angle" to them. Also, more than likely, AMT/Ertl did look at restoring the old tooling, and discovered that the cost to do so was high enough to be very close to that of making a new tool. In addition, the old tooling was "ganged up with the '29 Model A roadster as a double kit, if you recall--and that also creates production, logistics, and even public perception problems. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Art

[Harry P.]

Ok... you guys really need to open a new Ala kart topic.

We were talking Moebius Hudson here... remember???

[Danno]

You know, I really hope Moebius gets that Hudson kit out soon, because the more discussion there is, the more kits I decide to buy. Before long, I'm gonna have to add on to the garage to hold them all!

Did I ever mention my grandfather had a Hornet police car in the early 50's when he was 'on the job'? Yep, another project!!

C'mon, Hornet!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Can't say I disagree, Danno - but what, did I see a challenge on some fact-checking earlier in this thread?

Oh, the whole Ala-Kart flap is pretty germane to this discussion, alright, for reasons which will be plain shortly.

Now I don't know if anybody was keeping track, but it wasn't Mark Taylor who first brought the subject up in here. And anyone who troubles himself to examine the photo album of the guy who did bring it up may find his precious little preconceptions upset just a bit.

Going from the premise that a millimeter is very nearly a 1/25 scale inch, anybody who measures old-tool Ala Kart valve covers and the pieces from the new one will find dimensions of just about 20mm and 15mm respectively. Now have a gander at this pic from Dave Darby's album:

Factoring in parallax from the angle this picture was taken, John Mueller appears to measure this valve cover, from an engine of the same series as the Ala-Kart's, at 17.5". Even if we round it down to 17, the valve cover dimensions would indicate that the new engine is very nearly as underscale as the old one was overscale, in length at least. A more-than-ten-percent discrepancy either way - and to try and reduce that to "rivet-counting" is only to make an even bigger fool of yourself than anyone who uses that phrase already does.

And then there's Dave's comprehensive analysis of just how badly awry the sectional curvatures go. His pics tell the story:

Compare both to the top pic of the actual Ala Kart in this article page:

So much for anyone's "nothing to back it up".

The point of all this? A modeler's unwillingness to acknowledge discrepancies in a kit doesn't mean they don't exist. And that certainly doesn't give him any entitlement to ridicule those who do notice those discrepancies - and that notion, more than any other, brings us right back 'round to this discussion of the Moebius Hudson.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Danno]

Can a more accurate Ala Kart be built out of the Moebius Hudson Hornet??

[charlie8575]

Wow, I hadn't looked at this thread in a week or so. It really went off the rails. At any rate... the pics I posted were of a kit still in the development stages, not a finished product. Dave Metzner tells me changes are already being made. Moebius knows that this is their first real car kit and they are going to great lengths to get it the best they can.

This says, if nothing else, "we care." Even if there are a couple of small flubs, I'm buying at least one of these simply out of appreciation for the monumental effort put into making this a great kit and thanking Moebius for something different!

I posted a pic of a Hudson and nobody even noticed, they were too busy bickering. What a friendly place.

I noticed. And it had confirmed we have a Hudson, not what I saw described as a "Mercury knock-off." I'd like to remind all of you that the Step-Down was introduced for the 1948 model year. While there is some similarity, you'll see a little bit of similarity in a lot of the cars of that vintage, although, unlike today, they're readily distiguishable from one another.

I been trying very hard not to bicker, but I've been reading this thread with great interest.

I'll just say my opinion: I've been a member of the Hudson-Essex-Terreplane club for ten years, until a few months ago when I had to let my membership lapse due to lack of income; I'll be renewing it next year. I've been around Hudsons for a little longer, stemming from my senior capstone research project in college, dealing with the Hudson Jet, and from that, was introduced to the wonderful world of Hudsons and the people that own them- by far the friendliest bunch in the hobby next to perhaps Rambler/A.M.C. folk.

In short, I've been around plenty of Hornets, and other Step-Downs. I was a little unsure about the rear window, but not enough so that I would refuse to buy the model over that. What was there looked like it was pretty easy to fix. I saw none of the roof-line and door issues some people have pointed out.

In other words, I saw nothing that wouldn't require, at most, more than a thin strip of styrene you could probably get off a sprue to fix. And that's if the minor revisions don't fix what needs to be fixed.

The pictures I have seen have satisfied me that this is a good kit. Perfect? Maybe not, but certainly very good.

No product of man is perfect, perhaps we as modelers will someday understand that. By no means does that intend to suggest we should have to suffer with totally unacceptable or poorly-done. We do not have this here. We have an excellent representation of a car that should've been kitted years ago.

I'm satisfied that is a faithful representation of a great American automobile. With the small tweaks that will be made to the mold as Dave has suggested, I think it will be even better.

While I'll reserve my final pronouncement until I can actually see one of these in plastic, I like what I'm seeing well-enough to be ready to purchase one, which, considering how limited my income has been this year, and looks like, barring some positive cash-flow, it's going to be for the foreseeable future, should say how I think on this. Seriously, if I buy one kit next year (which may be more reality than not,) it will be this. My reservation has already been placed with my hobby shop.

Charlie Larkin

[charlie8575]

I got to ride in this old girl a few years ago, the inside seemed huge.

The interior of these cars is very roomy. The Step-Down design has a lot to do with that.

With the frame outrigging the perimeter of the car, including being outboard of the rear wheels, a great deal of extra room was created, especially when compared to most of its contemporaries.

The Step-Down was essentially a unit-bodied car, although built in a way like a conventional chassis, as the mock-ups of the model have shown, the frame members were bolted and welded into a roll-cage, much like a Volvo, with the sheet-metal either bolted or welded on to the roll-cage. The rear quarters on the 1948-'53 cars were actually bolted on, making them very easy to replace when needed. The floor and roof were were welded and bolted to the cage, partially for security, partially to re-inforce the cage. The frames can be removed from the upper part of the cage, enabling what is seen as a frame-off restoration.

Step-Down Hudsons are genreally acknowledged, even now, as a very safe car. Unfortunately, some inconsiderate driver in a modern Brand X will hit a Hudson even today. And usually, the Brand X, even "safety cars," like Volvos and Saabs, loose the battle far worse than the Hudson because it's so grossly overbuilt.

Yet, most body styles still weigh under two tons.

Charlie Larkin

[Harry P.]

A modeler's unwillingness to acknowledge discrepancies in a kit doesn't mean they don't exist. And that certainly doesn't give him any entitlement to ridicule those who do notice those discrepancies...

Amen, ditto, hallelujah and I'll second that!

The people who have pointed out the obvious flaws in the Hudson are not insane, they're not "anti-hobby" and they're certainly not out to personally embarrass or bash anyone... they have simply seen the various inaccuracies of the Hudson and commented on that (not on the people behind the project) as is their right to do so on a model-car forum without being labeled as nit-pickers, malcontents, whiners or "kit assemblers."

As others have said before, if you are among those who either don't see the flaws, see them but pretend they don't exist, or just don't care one way or the other, more power to you! Build the model with carefree abandon and have a blast. Heck, build a couple of 'em. But don't try and tell those who DO see the problems that they are in some way guilty of bad intentions or causing trouble.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Thanks, Harry. Alas, I'm gonna push it a bit now, and you indicate you've seen exactly why. Trust me when I say I wouldn't if the situation didn't demand it.

Absolutely ... if you're a MODELER and not just a "kit assembler!" :)

Well then, despite all my best intentions I'm a mere "kit assembler", as such a conversion is far beyound my talents or abilities!!!!!

Ah yes. That age-old mutual exclusivity between lowly critics and those high, exalted, rocket-surgeon modelers. It's a point that hasn't had any novelty in the last 50,000 times it's been brought up, and it's never had any logical merit. It's a straw man, a reduction to absurdity, a slippery slope that actually has much more traction than any of its proponents seem to realize. And good on you two for treating it with the seriousness it deserves. In my case, though, I can't help it. It's there thrashing about in the water, rolling my eyes back and drawing my fifty rows of teeth out for the kill before I even know it.

Imho, two of the most lurid pieces of garbage foisted on an unsuspecting car modeling public in the last 20 years have been AMT's '66 Fairlane and Revell's '95-issue AAR 'Cuda (and sadly, the new one ain't a whole lot better). There would have been no excuse for the horrid, mail-slot window treatments on either of these losers in the last fifty years, let alone since 1992.

Here are mine:

Not exactly world-beaters, but anyone who knows his anus from an anthill will see that there's a bit more than "kit assembly" going on here. The Fairlane in particular had its stance entirely redone, and there's a lot of resin under the hood for shock towers and a less pathetic air cleaner - that, in addition to the body work.

What's this? I've just savaged both kits before your eyes - then I've actually built them... and **gasp, well hush my mouth** actually fixed what I found wrong. Anybody about to have an aneurism over that? Sticking to the whole "kit assembler" canard would kind of mandate you check your pulse over this.

And then we have Mark Taylor, notorious for his dress-downs, such that much of this forum comes after him like something out of a George Romero movie every time he dares to post - and yet you've seen his tutorials. Check out that MPC '67 Charger piece again, and then come back here and try to sell anyone on the notion of him as a "kit assembler".

But the level of hysteria around here really made itself plain when a notable hobby veteran was called out as a "rivet-counter" for pointing out a fender arch flaw that Ray Charles could have spotted from beyond the grave. Before God gave him his eyes back. That veteran? None other than Terry Jessee. Go check out his resin columns and his three-decade body of work, and see how that "kit assembler" thing holds to him.

Seriously, where do any of these examples (and hundreds more just like 'em) fit in that retarded little fairyland false dichotomy between those craven, lowly "kit-assemblers" and those cancer-curing holy and haughty "real modelers"?

So. For those of you who soil your diapers over kit critiques, ya might wanna watch how you appeal to fact and logic and what's there to back up an argument. Personally, I'm hugely entertained by dismembering each of these pathetic little points as they arise, but for your sake, I'd advise against too many challenges based on logic and rationality. Because generally, that's just not where you're coming from.

[sjordan2]

So, according to the posts on this thread, Moebius is working to address as many of the issues as they can regarding concerns brought up here, but there are a few things that are too far past modifying that they can't do much about. Is that a bad deal? Isn't it time to see what we end up with in our hands when it's released, and then vent? Do the test pictures look so bad that the modelers on this forum can't do a few adaptations? Don't look nuthin' like Pyro to me.

[Harry P.]

So, according to the posts on this thread, Moebius is working to address as many of the issues as they can regarding concerns brought up here, but there are a few things that are too far past modifying that they can't do much about. Is that a bad deal? Isn't it time to see what we end up with in our hands when it's released, and then vent? Do the test pictures look so bad that the modelers on this forum can't do a few adaptations? Don't look nuthin' like Pyro to me.

I think by this point we're dealing with two separate but related issues.

First is the Hudson itself and the flaws and inaccuracies it either has or doesn't have, depending on how rosy your glasses are. I think we've all agreed to wait and see on this one.

Second is the issue concerning the fact that many of those who have dared to point out said flaws in the Hudson have been characterized as something less than assets to the hobby by those in the "gee, this kit is absolutely fabulous and it always rains lollipops and ponies" crowd.

[niteowl7710]

"...it always rains lollipops and ponies".

This sounds potentially sticky and disappointing.

[el Presidente]

Bart, your link to the pic wasn't working properly------here's the Hudson........very nice!

While this car is before my time I'd like to get one of these kits.............gotta love that body shape!

The Model King had test shots at the Jersey Shore meeting of the Hudson and the 55 Chrysler and I must say they are both fantastic. The Hudson was so nice that the club picked it as the kit bash model for our 2011 Christmas meeting