'53 Hudson Hornet is coming....

[Jairus]

Why is it that SOMEONE has to be the "Paul Revere" and scream INACCURATE!

Seems like this syndrome started with the AMT 1955 Chevrolet pickup kits and has been exacerbated by the Internet in my opinion.

No model kit is perfect and few cast in Asia (A region that's never seen a Hudson in person by the way) manage to catch the essence of the design.

When I was doing the artwork for the Nova kits Michael Bass suggested it might be cheaper to buy a used car and pop it into a container'n sent to China for the mold makers to look at and measure. Rather than spend the money for the constant revisions that go on "fixing" after test shots.

I think the test shots look remarkable considering the hurdles and regardless I have a few ideas brewing down deep in my black styrene heart...

[Rob Hall]

One thing I was surprised is that the side trim looks to be molded on rather than separate..I would think some of should be separate chrome parts like the dirigible.

Looks like it's going to be a cool kit.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, ain't seein' too much outside my personal tolerances just yet - though when I actually have it in my hands, that may change.

I do think a 1:1 that matches trim and year a little closer might make a more helpful comparison (or a more positive confirmation of any errors made), so let's see how long these links work:

[Chuck Most]

I don't see anything TOO untoward going on... I look at it, and I see a Hudson. I really don't understand how anyone can possibly expect any model kit, even one engineered with today's technology, can be 100% accurate and true to the 1:1 in every way. Hasn't happened yet, doesn't happen now, probably never will happen until we've developed some type of Star-Trek-like miniature replicator technology.

Am I absolutely, positively, 100% confident that this kit is totally accurate? Nope. And I don't care. No kit is perfect. The rest of the kit looks up to snuff, and besides, I haven't seen the Hudson built up yet, so I really don't want to judge any inaccuracies it may have until everything is painted, detailed, and assembled. I've cracked open a few kits and thought "Man, that looks terrible", only to be proven wrong once the model was done.

[Chuck Most]

Will this kit come with options or stock only?? I can see a lot of customs being built with this kit.

Mine will be a full-on Kustom sled.

[Chuck Most]

To be totally fair, the Moebius body does not appear to have the ding in the decklid, which the 1:1 The Other Chucker posted does.

But if I may be serious for just a moment, I do like what I see with the new kit!

[Luc Janssens]

Michael Bass suggested it might be cheaper to buy a used car and pop it into a container'n sent to China for the mold makers to look at and measure. Rather than spend the money for the constant revisions that go on "fixing" after test shots.

Interesting.

[Dave Metzner]

Here are some pics of an assembled test shot -

This is not quite complete - the clear lenses are missing - back-up light are not installed yet no side mirrors - radio antenna or windshield wipers yet. this still ought to give a good idea of the general appearance of a finished model..

http://dmetzner.smugmug.com/Cars/Hudson-Hornet-test-shot/14975993_Attw4

Dave

[Chuck Most]

Thanks Dave- seeing the model in a closer to completed form helps. Still don't see much I take issue with, as far as accuracy goes.

[Eshaver]

I dunno, looking at someones photos of a Hudson and remembering a Hudson I used to maintain back about twenty years ago, I feel safe in saying, sign me up for a Model Hudson , oh at 30.00 of course !Ed Shaver

[Foxer]

I love that engine with the big, honking cans on top of it!

[S. Svendsen]

i'm not trying to pick at it by asking the question of the front of the hood and grille, it just looks pushed back to me. the earlier mock-up before the test shots don't have that appearance so it makes me wonder if something happened along the way somehow? maybe it's just the photography playing tricks?

our local county landfill at one point ran through an old junkyard that was not a part of the landfill. traveling on that road as it passed through there were cars on both sides from the 40's and 50's and right up against the chain link fence on the right was a Hudson Hornet. i well knew what it was as i'd seen it countless times when we went there and my dad had told me what it was and all about them. i thought they looked different and a bit cooler than the '49-'50 Mercury's and wondered why you didn't see them modified in the same ways. i'm looking forward to the model kit so i can live out some of those ideas i have had for a long, long time. i don't see any factory stock Hornet's in my future, but i do see a few modified ones at least.

The photos aren't the greatest. I didn't spend anytime to light them properly. I just sat the kit down and snapped some pictures. Also it should be noted, that I didn't actually glue the bumpers and grill on for the photos and because of a loose fit they were sitting just a little crooked.

I'm not an authority on Hudsons, but I've spent a fair amount of time studying photos and comparing them to the test shot. In person I think the body looks pretty spot on.

[Harry P.]

As some of you may know, I'm not shy at all when it comes to pointing out flaws or mistakes in kits... in fact when I commented on the fact that the roofline on the Moebius 300 was way off, I caught a lot of flak from some people who were absolutely outraged that I had the nerve to say anything negative (and I have the PMs to prove it! )

Turns out my comments were correct, Moebius agreed, and the roofline was fixed. Take that, outraged people!!!

That being said... I do see some very minor inaccuracies on the Hornet body, but what I see is very minor. Overall, I think the body is quite well done and whatever "flaws" I see are so minor that they're not worth mentioning. There's nothing I can see that looks obviously wrong or out of whack. The only thing I would have preferred being done differently is that more of the chrome trim be separate plated pieces, but that's just personal preference.

[charlie8575]

Dave,

Thanks for putting those assembled mock-up pictures on. After taking a look at them and the black coupe that was posted, I really saw no issues at all, and I think you've done an excellent job on this. Having spent quite a bit of time around real Hudsons, I can honestly say that you've done this great car and the people who love them, proud. We thank you.

Please accept nothing less than my most earnest congratulations on your achievement. My order from my local shop will be forthcoming.

Charlie Larkin

[Dr. Cranky]

Since it's obvious I don't know zilch about cars, I always react with my guts, and my reaction to this one is that I would want to have it as is than not at all . . . besides, once the Dr. puts it on the slab and brings out the electric turkey slicer . . . who knows what will happen.

What I am saying it that I'm already Cuckoo for Hornet Puffs!

[Danno]

Dave! OMG!! That is one awesome new tool!

Congratulations to you and your team for a fantastic job well done. Even as it sits in your pix, sans decaling and final detailing, that is unquestionably one of the finest new models to come along in a long time. And the courage it took to kit an out-of-the-mainstream, orphan car of the fabulous 50's! It's off the charts, especially for a first effort (at cars).

Whew! You guys are da man! Or, da mans. Or, da men. Or, ... well you get it.

Now, I'm gonna go ... I gotta start beatin' on the piggy bank so that dude'll cough up the coin for SEVERAL of these. Hurry up, Christmas season, get outta da way! 'Early 2011' comin' through!

[Chuck Most]

Overall, I think the body is quite well done and whatever "flaws" I see are so minor that they're not worth mentioning. There's nothing I can see that looks obviously wrong or out of whack. The only thing I would have preferred being done differently is that more of the chrome trim be separate plated pieces, but that's just personal preference.

Pretty much my verdict from what I see, but I'll reserve my final judgement until I actually get my hands on one of the kits. I am a bit surprised they didn't go with separate plated side trim, but all in all, I'd consider that a tolerable oversight.

[Eshaver]

Well put there Ken................ Harry, dont worry , read Phillipians chapter3 uh about verse 5........ loosely translated ,it reads Thou shalt not sweat the small s......... Ed Shaver

[Darin Bastedo]

Looking at the photos of the 1:1 and comparing it to the Model I see no grievous errors. That said There is a real one near by, so when I get mine I'll compare it to the real car in person. The camara distort proportion greatly, and even more so when dealing with a scale model. I will reserve my final judgement until then. But either way I think it will build into a fine model.

Thank you Mobius crew, for going out on a limb to bring us something so truly different.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well, if nobody minds me going off on a tangent, I will say this:

I'm really starting to get antsy for a car model that I know was developed from a 3D scan of its subject - for the body, if nothing else. The occasional analyses we see about perspective and tricking the eye are convincing and eminently credible, but for once I wanna see something the math tells me is spot-on - not just in every 2D linear dimension, but perfectly to scale in every 3D radius, curve, and proportion - and see just how much I need to convince myself it looks right.

James Cameron once went off on the "less-than-brilliant" visual effects artists who cringed at the advent of digital image manipulation, in some making-of featurette or another. What I think is going on here is actually more ridiculous than that: some true geniuses and luminaries in this industry appear needlessly fearful of working what's essentially a fancy pantograph straight from the source. I really think all that brainpower and creativity would be better spent on the actual breakdown of a kit than on taking endless measurements and photos when a roughly $40,000 hand-held apparatus promises to do the job more accurately and efficiently.

Just let the scanner and a computer handle the drudgery of reduction. A clever, imaginative human touch will always be absolutely required to interpret that data into the best possible kit breakdown for a given scale, so let's not bother with that classic straw man canard about a machine doing all the work this time, please. That's NOT the way it's worked out in other industries, and that's certainly NOT the way it would work out here.

If the whole notion is still cost-prohibitive, technological history dictates it won't remain that way much longer. And it's only by doing something like this that kit manufacturers will be offered any prospect of the inevitable scale controversy dying down a little in future releases.

[Rob Hall]

Considering it's an obscure subject from almost 60 years ago that I've only seen maybe 2 of in person in my lifetime, I think it looks pretty good at first glance.

[Harry P.]

Well, if nobody minds me going off on a tangent, I will say this:

I'm really starting to get antsy for a car model that I know was developed from a 3D scan of its subject - for the body, if nothing else. The occasional analyses we see about perspective and tricking the eye are convincing and eminently credible, but for once I wanna see something the math tells me is spot-on - not just in every 2D linear dimension, but perfectly to scale in every 3D radius, curve, and proportion - and see just how much I need to convince myself it looks right.

James Cameron once went off on the "less-than-brilliant" visual effects artists who cringed at the advent of digital image manipulation, in some making-of featurette or another. What I think is going on here is actually more ridiculous than that: some true geniuses and luminaries in this industry appear needlessly fearful of working what's essentially a fancy pantograph straight from the source. I really think all that brainpower and creativity would be better spent on the actual breakdown of a kit than on taking endless measurements and photos when a roughly $40,000 hand-held apparatus promises to do the job more accurately and efficiently.

Just let the scanner and a computer handle the drudgery of reduction. A clever, imaginative human touch will always be absolutely required to interpret that data into the best possible kit breakdown for a given scale, so let's not bother with that classic straw man canard about a machine doing all the work this time, please. That's NOT the way it's worked out in other industries, and that's certainly NOT the way it would work out here.

If the whole notion is still cost-prohibitive, technological history dictates it won't remain that way much longer. And it's only by doing something like this that kit manufacturers will be offered any prospect of the inevitable scale controversy dying down a little in future releases.

Huh???

Can you put that in plain English for us slower types? I read your post several times and still don't quite get what it is you're trying to say.

[Art Anderson]

As some of you may know, I'm not shy at all when it comes to pointing out flaws or mistakes in kits... in fact when I commented on the fact that the roofline on the Moebius 300 was way off, I caught a lot of flak from some people who were absolutely outraged that I had the nerve to say anything negative (and I have the PMs to prove it! )

Turns out my comments were correct, Moebius agreed, and the roofline was fixed. Take that, outraged people!!!

That being said... I do see some very minor inaccuracies on the Hornet body, but what I see is very minor. Overall, I think the body is quite well done and whatever "flaws" I see are so minor that they're not worth mentioning. There's nothing I can see that looks obviously wrong or out of whack. The only thing I would have preferred being done differently is that more of the chrome trim be separate plated pieces, but that's just personal preference.

Yeah,

Separate chrome trim would be so cool--and sooo very delicate as well. Consider that the trim spears will be 1.5mm wide (high) and about .5mm thick--does anyone REALLY think this would be an advantage? I, for one, do not--given the necessity for some manner of positively locating the spears--either a 'trench" down the side of the body shell, or a series of locating holes, which wouldn't likely correspond with those on the actual car. Additionally, with the parts count already in this tooling, I'm more than willing to foil my own trim.

Art

[Art Anderson]

While I must admit, the people taking pictures of the test shots made this very, very hard because the angles are mostly ones that 1:1 cars never get photos taken, I just see some pretty big differences...People keep talking about not "sweating the little stuff" but to me there are some pretty obvious shape differences in the body itself...not little trim or window-shape (or whatever) gaffes that every model has, as does this one.

Does this:

Look like this?

Does this:

Look like this?

Does this:

Look like this?

Again, apologies as the years aren't all the same, and it wasn't easy to find photos taken from anywhere near the angles any of these test shot pictures were.

What I'm seeing is a body that is much less rounded and flowing, with much more severe angles and less tapered curves than the real car, which also appears taller, skinnier side-to-side and as a result boxier to my eyes. That coupled with the less-gentle than the 1:1 curves...especially right around the front and rear of the car...make it appear like an early 50s Ford with Hudson trim on it.

I see more "shoebox" than "bathtub."

I'm sure this will get the "you're just complaining blah-blah-blah" responses that are a requirement to maintain your board membership here when test shots are shown. Not that some others don't, but unlike the vast majority of builders out there, I really do buy most of the new issue kits as they come out...with my own money. It is a shame when you can see one shaping up to be a lot less than it could have been.

Ask yourself this: How many reissues did the Polar Lights '65 Coronet see? What about the Trumpeter kits? Speaking as someone that bought the Trumpeter kits-all of them but the Monte Carlo, all of the Polar Lights kits, and has built several of them, they were largely disappointments. It was funny...when the Polar Lights '64 GTO was being shown in test shots, anyone that said anything was run out of town on a rail...but when I posted my built one here in April? All it got were "gee that thing looks off! What's with the banana shape and smooshed front end???" comments. Some of the same people breathlessly praising this one savaged the Trumpeter '60 Pontiac...after praising the test shots as the model gods' gift to the hobby. Maybe saying something now can get some changes made that will help this kit look better.

If you guys think this looks great, then I hope you buy a lot of them. I was pretty sure I was going to want at least one of every variation they came up with, and probably more. Based on this, I'll get one...maybe build it, maybe not. I'd be tempted to wait on the NASCAR version to see if the decals disguise some of the shape issues, but I'll probably jump on the first issue to ensure I get one if later versions fail to materialize.

Well Mark,

Sorry if you are disappointed, but this Hudson kit is anything BUT an angular, boxy, sharp edged shoebox. Like Charlie Larkin, I've spent a lot of hours around Hudsons of this era (Dad owned three of them when I was growing up), and it captures the look as well as anyone ever has.

As for that "resin" Hudson mentioned above, not bad for a "putty custom" done off an AMT '49 Mercury (yeah, that is what it is, folks!), well I'll let that one sink or swim on its own.

Art

[Darin Bastedo]

While I must admit, the people taking pictures of the test shots made this very, very hard because the angles are mostly ones that 1:1 cars never get photos taken, I just see some pretty big differences...People keep talking about not "sweating the little stuff" but to me there are some pretty obvious shape differences in the body itself...not little trim or window-shape (or whatever) gaffes that every model has, as does this one.

Again, apologies as the years aren't all the same, and it wasn't easy to find photos taken from anywhere near the angles any of these test shot pictures were.

What I'm seeing is a body that is much less rounded and flowing, with much more severe angles and less tapered curves than the real car, which also appears taller, skinnier side-to-side and as a result boxier to my eyes. That coupled with the less-gentle than the 1:1 curves...especially right around the front and rear of the car...make it appear like an early 50s Ford with Hudson trim on it.

I see more "shoebox" than "bathtub."

I'm sure this will get the "you're just complaining blah-blah-blah" responses that are a requirement to maintain your board membership here when test shots are shown. Not that some others don't, but unlike the vast majority of builders out there, I really do buy most of the new issue kits as they come out...with my own money. It is a shame when you can see one shaping up to be a lot less than it could have been.

Ask yourself this: How many reissues did the Polar Lights '65 Coronet see? What about the Trumpeter kits? Speaking as someone that bought the Trumpeter kits-all of them but the Monte Carlo, all of the Polar Lights kits, and has built several of them, they were largely disappointments. It was funny...when the Polar Lights '64 GTO was being shown in test shots, anyone that said anything was run out of town on a rail...but when I posted my built one here in April? All it got were "gee that thing looks off! What's with the banana shape and smooshed front end???" comments. Some of the same people breathlessly praising this one savaged the Trumpeter '60 Pontiac...after praising the test shots as the model gods' gift to the hobby. Maybe saying something now can get some changes made that will help this kit look better.

If you guys think this looks great, then I hope you buy a lot of them. I was pretty sure I was going to want at least one of every variation they came up with, and probably more. Based on this, I'll get one...maybe build it, maybe not. I'd be tempted to wait on the NASCAR version to see if the decals disguise some of the shape issues, but I'll probably jump on the first issue to ensure I get one if later versions fail to materialize.

I think I'm seeing what you are seeing. The sides look a bit too flat, and the windshield shape does look a bit off to me, in these photos, but at the same time I know that the camera eye, has a distorting effect, as well as the fact that the chrome being body color on the model can also trick the eye as the crome trim on cars are often designed to make the car look more sleek. That said you may be right, it may be off in a few critical areas, but I will still reserve my final judgement until I see the model in the plastic. If the flaws I see are the only ones, I'll still me happy with it, and I still think it's great to have this legenday car available. It's doubtful AMT or Revell would have stepped up and offered us this.