ugliest or worst fitting kit you ever built

[Modelmartin]

The Heller Porsche 917 is nasty!!! I have built two now and they are a total joke under the skin. I glued the entire body together and then cut out the bottom section to get even a resemblance of the body panels fitting. Thank goodness for the Fujimi coming out. My stack of Hellers will never be built and that is a good thing. And I like Heller kits!!

The Revell VW Beetles and variants had all kinds of sink marks in hard to get at areas like in the cowl area between the dors and front fenders. They had horrible panel lines, fading away drip rails and distorted windsheild trim. Yikes! Their buses were really no better. I don't think I have seen one built well ever!

Most of the Revell stuff from late 60s to early 70s are awful. The 914 has been mentioned but don't forget the 911 and the Carrera! The three gassers, Henry J, Willys PU, and Austin were just cr@p! All of the VW powered buggies and Dave Deal designed Moon Mixer, Meter Cheater, etc kits were terrible. The VW motors are ridiculous and the kits are engineered so badly. I am building a T-Bone Stake bed from the Deal line and a Cal-Look Beetle. I had to shave every detail off of the Beetle and fix the sink marks. Then I re-did all of the panel lines, added back new drip rails and trim. I am just perverse enough to want to make a model car out of it! Then there is the Gypsy and Gran Turismo Dune Buggies. They did turn out nice. I refused to even buy a Super Safari buggy. That is beyond fugly.

[junkman1153]

the johan 69 rambler american

[Railfreak78]

The worst fitting kit I've had to deal with so far was the one on the bottom. Chassis warped, Body warped, engine cage trashed. I think was a heat issue though not the kit. Then I messed it up trying to glue the bottom to the sides and it's kind of a stupid way to do the kit I thought.

[samm1970]

I would have to say that this kit and any of the other Eckler style Corvette kits by MPC are horrible in my opionion.They gave me fits as a kid and as an adult.Close runner ups would have to be the AMT Fire Fighter kit and The AMT Stingaree kit.

[modeler]

fujmia mercedes 190

[Doughnut]

For worst fitting, I would have to go with the original Revell 1957 Chevy Nomad and the 1974 Garlits dragster. Both are awful.

As for downright ugly, I passed on some Tamiya Lotus Europas for $2 because I dont even want that thing in my collection.

I saw someone mentioned fit issues on the Stingaree - mine went together like a glove. No issues what-so-ever.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Doughnut

[GrandpaMcGurk]

I guess I'm just an old and ignorant fart....but I can't figure out what the point of this thread is. Is it intended simply to bash manufacturers or just babble about ugly cars....what? I for one am grateful that these mentioned companies etc. have at least provided us the fodder to work with. Beats the heck out of the stuff that was available when I was buying models for 98 cents that had half a dozed parts.

Sure...some are better than others....but without them your only option would be a pocket knife and a block of wood.

Edited October 14, 2010 by GrandpaMcGurk

[junkman1153]

the point here is conversation just one builders opinion of a certain car or kit .no one bashing a certain company. i find it interesting that one persons experience with a kit can be so different from somebody else. could be level of experience or just the desire to add that car or truck to your collection. Don you just miss the point these are kits that what ever the problems we have had we still buy them ,buld them ,sometimes cussing all the way. but a bad kit is a bad kit and we all have built them. iam sure you have built some real gems. my problem has come from kits that have been re re released always glad to see them back ,it gives my son and grandson a shot at some of my favorite kits without breaking the bank. just a side note my grandson was glad to see that some problems he encountered on his 57 chevy were common not just him.

[Chuck Most]

If resin kits count. Anything that was made by R&R. I have friends that tell me that they have had some R&R kits that where nice. I have yet to see one. The ones I have are 40 Merc Nick Matranga style, 50 Olds , 54 Merc custom and stock,55 Lincoln, 71 Riviera, and a early 80's Chevy Dually. All ######. I will say there good if you have nothing else to start with.. But there still ######.

The best way to get a good R&R kit is to invent a time machine and buy one from, oh, ten or fifteen years ago. I've got more R&R resin than just about any other manufacturer, and the best (most 'buildable') one I have is an old, old casting of a '67 Galaxie. The stuff I've bought this year doesn't even come close.

I'm struck by how many builders in this thread don't seem to understand that kits tooled 30-40 years ago won't be as user friendly as 2010-tooled kits in most cases. Or that kits with 300 parts are both more detailed, and generally harder to build, than ones with 60. Or that kits reissued countless times may have issues just due to mold wear, etc

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but comparing a 2010 $$ kit for adult hobby audiences to a pocket money kit sold at drug stores in the 1960s to kids will find a world of difference in the way those kits are produced.

In most cases, those relatively crude and underdetailed kits pretty much 'fall together' and look good- the same can't always be said for the newer, detailed mega-kits out there! I'll be the last guy to knock a kit for it's age or lack of finesse... unless, of course, it needs it! (Be it a worn out mold, the kit has been 'fixed' too many times over the decades, etc.)

Question, though- which is more satisfying- a kit that nearly assembles itself, a build that went so well you don't really remember anything about it, or the model that fought you every foot of the way, and now sits there all pretty on your shelf? For me, it seems like the harder the kit goes together, the better the final result.

[junkman1153]

i agree there are a lot of kits mentioned that i personally have not had trouble with and there are a few on here that are well known for poor fit. and as we all know the re re releases are being made with dated molds with wear problems, still like them. the technology that has developed has made for a much better kit. and as far as price goes , i can only imagine the expense in developing a new kit ,from concept,to production is long and expensive.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

You guys need to build more Palmer kits!

For the record the first one is a "1975 Mustang II" with some AMT/MPC hot rod parts, and the second one is a "1970 Mustang" according to Palmer, anyhow.

Oh my God...

After I got over my hurt feelings, there came a case of the giggles I haven't been able to shake yet.

It looks like they were working from Pinto photos for that "Mustang II", to realize their goof only by the time they got to the front grille! And that '70 Celicastang - the headlight hash marks are on the sides...

bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

*sniff*

Sorry.

That's just rad - and to give 'em such nice finishing standards, that's somehow funniest of all...

Edited October 14, 2010 by Chuck Kourouklis

[krow]

I'm struck by how many builders in this thread don't seem to understand that kits tooled 30-40 years ago won't be as user friendly as 2010-tooled kits in most cases. Or that kits with 300 parts are both more detailed, and generally harder to build, than ones with 60. Or that kits reissued countless times may have issues just due to mold wear, etc.

If you want a box-shaker get the latest Tamiya kits and never build anything else. There are less "bad" kits in this thread than there are "challenging" kits, and much of that relates to kit companies learning how to make things more user friendly over the years, and making dedicated hobby kits instead of using promos to run kits off of later in the year.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but comparing a 2010 $$ kit for adult hobby audiences to a pocket money kit sold at drug stores in the 1960s to kids will find a world of difference in the way those kits are produced.

Well said! Most of the kits mentioned are in my collection and I have built (or at least tried in vain to build) most of them. For all the faults we can find in them, they still have their charms. My attempts at most of these look awful, but I had fun working on them. I love the 53/54 Revell Chevy kits and now that I have seen the Palmer 75 Mustang II I have to find one, it looks like someone tried to recycle a Pinto mold with a fresh front treatment that was lifted from a Chevette and something faintly Mustanglike for the grille. A new FrankenFord model! Tamiya makes some great kits that are marvelously engineered, and I have some of those, but a trip to the "island of misfit toys" is kind of a nice diversion now and then too.

[Junkman]

Hubley/Entex/Academy/Minicraft Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. Nothing mentioned in this thread so far comes even remotely close in sheer atrocity. But all is still well when you compare it to the ITC Mercedes 300.

[Chuck Most]

Mark-

Every time I see this one I think "Jeesh... should really I be so critical about how Monogram messed up the grille on it's '70 Boss kits, when it COULD have been much, much worse?" (See above image...)

[Chuck Most]

The '70???? I don't know what was going on. I really don't.

It was the late '60's/early '70's, Mark. I'd call it "The Timothy Leary Effect"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid

[Chuck Most]

Timothy Leary's dead.

No, no, no, no, he's outside....

Looking in...

Creepy... but still, it's kind of comforting to know I'm not the only guy here who even knows who he is...

[krow]

Creepy... but still, it's kind of comforting to know I'm not the only guy here who even knows who he is...

Now that you mention it, do you suppose Tim or one of his accolytes was designing kits for Pyro back then? It could explain a few things. All kidding aside, I am going to be on the lookout for the Pyro "Pustang" or "Minto", however it can be described and do a build. It probably won't look as nice as Marks' but it will resemble the 1/1 almost as well.

[exakto]

MPC & Model King.

[bajaboy5b]

Tamiya VW bug notting would fit right and now i have TWO!of them doing notting.

[Big Jay]

I would have to say the AMT 69 Dodge Daytona, poor detail all around and nothing fits properly - awful, awful kit.

[Deckerz]

Top of the list is the AMT 1970 fast and furious charger (basically the 1969 dukes of hazard charger kit with a few extra bumpers and grills), the chassis is awful, has no engine mounts, the engine is awful, supercharger doesn't line up properly, bumpers don't fit, roll cage doesn't fit, badly moulded kit!

After that is the 87 mnte carlo by revell, the bumpers don't line up properly and the front of the chassis is too high, it stick out the bottom of the body when it should be hidden, minor things but its a good moulded kit.

Hate to say it but the 06 mustang gt, sure everything fits on this kit pretty much perfectly but they messed up the front suspension and the rear part of the chassis, you guys know the story of the front suspension being too high but the rear is not exactly accurate, the wheels are so thin on this kit, they are as thin as old muscle car wheels and the problem is you can't fit anything wider or they rub on the inside fenders. The only way i see to fit wider wheels is to widen the rear arches but correct me if im wrong.

[Modelmartin]

That is EXACTLY what it is. The Pinto kit with some slight alterations to the side panels, and a "Mustang" grille that actually looks more like a Monza. This was pretty late in the game for Palmer, so they started recycling molds into other things...this is Pinto rehash tooling all the way.

The '70 Mustang???? I don't know what was going on. I really don't.

It looks like a 65-66 Mustang that was "up-dated" to a 70. The front end shape and windshield look like a 65-66.

Talking about sh!tty Mustangs reminds me of the Ohio George Malco Gasser kit and it's later variants. That was a 66 Mustang re-tooled to look like a 67. One look and you can see how off it is. The rest of the kit is great but you need to toss the body and modify an actual 67 to make an accurate model.

[Craig Irwin]

The Monogram 1/24 69 Camaro, looks like a cartoon caracture it's so bad.

[robertw]

Aside from Harold , not too many folks here actually built old I M C kits I bet .Industriomotive Corperation was actually a company that started doing some interior parts for G M and Chrysler . i'm also told that they also did Butter dishes at one time too. Regardless, Mr. budd Anderson was somehow tapped for a deal tobring about wanted , uh er , desired kits of subjects then popular in 1963 , one being the Lil Red Wagon Dodge A-100 Pick-Up.

Now I M C also did both the Ford Gt prototype and then , the G T 40. Anyone who couls assemble either kit and actually have the gall to want to display such a monstrosity might have wished to commit suicide first . The doorgaps in the tops of the doors alone was a good 1/16th of an inch . The mis-shapped rear was enough to make Mr. Obsessive throw in the towel ! Uh Bill, the Cougar was buildable when compared to a Ford G T .

Ed Shaver

I agree with you on the abysmal build quality of the IMC G40 kit kit. I built it back in my youth, long before I had anything else to compare it with so at that time thought, "ain't this great, opening doors etc". Somehow the thing survived all these years so I don't have the heart to throw it out but it does sit at the back of a model shelf, all but out of view. The most poorly fitting kit that I ever built was not a car but the AModel kit of the Rutan Voyager aircraft. A pound of putty, multiple sheets of sandpaper and a whole can of primer before it was ready for paint.

robw

[Casey]

Sadly, one of my all-time favorite 1:1 vehicles is also my most frustrating build to date: