1964 Ford Falcon Sprint Hardtop

[MrObsessive]

Hmmm............there are some things I see right, and yet some others I see quite wrong!

I think I'll pass on this one too...............Better to find the original '64-'65 (I had one but sold it on eBay! ) and detail the heck out of that one.

Hey! Where did the little ninja emoticon go? This kit really earned one! But it's ... MIA. Censors again? Did the little ninja face offend someone? Sheeeesh!

[CENSORED]

Interesting! I always thought that was supposed to represent a flame retardant suit!

Edited April 12, 2011 by MrObsessive

[Guest]

Thanks to Ebay I have my '64 builder waiting in the wings...

I paid $32 for this three years ago. Complete but missing the front bumper. Modelhaus to the rescue. Perhaps I should bring this one to the bench...

The Trumpeter body looks a lot closer to a real Falcon than this does,sorry. This looks like a convertible that's had the roof added later (pretty sure that's how it happened) and the chrome spear looks to be a good 3-4 scale inches too far back from the front when it should be nestled into the indentation at the front of the fender. Plus the inaccurate interior quarters (from the convertible),inaccurate underhood detail,one piece chassis etc.etc. All of a sudden,the Trumpeter Falcon looks to be a way better deal for $39! You probably couldn't touch an old AMT gluebomb for $39 now.

[Danno]

Hmmm............there are some things I see right, and yet some others I see quite wrong!

I think I'll pass on this one too...............Better to find the original '64-'65 (I had one but sold it on eBay! ) and detail the heck out of that one.

Interesting! I always thought that was supposed to represent a flame retardant suit!

That's it. That's it! The little flame retardant-suited emoticon! I like that. (Probably more PC than 'ninja emoticon.')

Anyway, he seems to have disappeared ~~ and not likely voluntarily!

We seem to be drifting back into the No Fun Zone.

[Jon Cole]

This just shouldn’t be happening in this day and age of computerized scanning and mapping. Is this the way Trumpeter operates? Because to me, it seems like at least some of the industry employees on that side of the pond still think the way to engineer model kits is to copy the Otaki / Arii / Edai design philosophy. In other words, they need to start understanding who their market is… or better yet, who their market is NOT. Adult builders should not buy these. After the Bonneville & Nova fiascoes, they should have learned their lessons. This is the fault of their staffing and management.

[Chuck Most]

Shaping up to be a typical Trumpeter kit, then. Fresh thinking and good execution here, joined by some ham-fisted bungles and forehead-slapping foul-ups there...

Kind of like the twilight years of RC2, only not as hillarious.

[Danno]

So you think because a stupid emote is gone this place is no fun, if thats the case you really have no idea what this place is about then.

First of all, Donnie, the word is 'emoticon.'

Secondly, my comments were entirely tongue-in-check humorous, ironic, and sardonic. I certainly possess a very excellent idea what this place is all about.

Chill. Relax and enjoy. Your reaction was similar to and symbolic of the kind of knee-jerk over-reactions by some thin-skinned humorless people (not saying you) that lead to silly little emoticons being purged from the board. It is endemic political correctness run amok. I was just poking a little fun at it.

Now, let's get back to the real work at hand ...

{Insert missing emoticon here.}

.

[Danno]

At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable to completely give up the possibility of Trumpeter ever producing an accurate, well-done model car kit that comes close to justifying its premium price because it sure doesn't look like it's ever gonna happen. They have now had five at-bats (Pontiac, Nova, Monte Carlo, 1/12 scale GT-40, Falcon) and, at best, they've managed a weak grounder to left.

Oh, don't forget the American LaFrance Eagle pumper kit. I must say, it was clearly an over-the-deep-fence home run.

I've marvelled at how they managed to get it so right in juxtaposition with the Bonneville, Nova, Monte Carlo and now ~ apparently ~ the Falcon.

I possess and have examined the BVille, MC, Nova and ALF; I've heard contradictory commentary regarding the GT-40 and won't be owning it; and the Falcon-in-the-flesh is yet to be seen; but I have to say the ALF is pure winner. I'd just like to see them get consistent with its level of quality throughout their automotive line.

[Chuck Most]

Thing is, though, there's NEVER, EVER been a kit which is totally accurate. Yes, I think it will happen, but I don't think the technology has been around long enough for the model companies to utilize it to its full extent. Look at he Moebius Lonestar- based on International's own CAD drawings, and the finished model, built well and photographed in a realistic setting, is indistinguishable from the real deal. But the Lonestar is a new design. They weren't using CAD in '64, and while you can certainly scan and computerize a '64 Falcon (or what have you), it seems like something gets scrambled in the translation. Remember all the messups noted in the Moebius Hudson test shots? Seems to me there's still a bit of a learning curve going on. Yes, I'm well aware of Trumpeter's boo-boos in the past (hey, I actually LIKED the Bonnie Hardtop...), this looks to be at least a mild improvement, and it would be way, way better than trying to rework an AMT AWB kit and (in most cases) quite a bit cheaper, and perhaps a bit easier, than trying to rework an original annual kit. Not that either of those two options would be a bad idea, just saying!

[Chuck Most]

The Monte is the guy on the bench who never gets played... pretty much useless unless you plan to slide a pro street chassis under it.

[Chuck Most]

Could be worse... http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=revell+aar+cuda&channel=linkdoctor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=9562979408641196430&sa=X&ei=Eq6kTYCjCqXSiAKCzpXOCA&ved=0CCMQ8wIwAg#

Though, at that price, I couldn't gripe too much!

[Janne Herajärvi]

I think i buy one, even its not perfect.

I just want to build something like this...

or pro street or touring or something else. Or maybe it sits next to my Monte...with out doing nothing....

[Jairus]

Wow, with the negative posts here, I am sure glad my name is not on the box art....

Just saying!

[RancheroSteve]

I'd be feeling more positive if I knew these were test shots and that (like Moebius) they were going to listen to the criticisms and make corrections, but this is the finished version, right? I'd love to see the Falcon modeled, but this is just a disappointment. I have no reason to plunk down $40 for something of this quality when I have more than enough kits to keep me busy.

[Chuck Most]

Could be worse...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carhobby.com/56f7602r34.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.carhobby.com/page1956.htm&usg=__XP4-dbdeMCSOsWpWQHbOWTH7WF4=&h=331&w=487&sz=19&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=4HkZIr3eD8hKTM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=159&ei=0e-kTY3nAcjn0QHciLHQBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRevell%2B%252756%2BFord%2BPickup%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4SNNT_enUS412US412%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D539%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=443&vpy=217&dur=266&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=108&ty=89&oei=0e-kTY3nAcjn0QHciLHQBQ&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0

[Guest]

I'm not sure where you're seeing the top looking like it was grafted onto a convertible body in the AMT kit. I'm not saying it's not there, but I don't see it. Especially in the backlight area, the AMT roof has a better & more accurate looking transition to the tulip panel than the Trumpeter kit does.

Look at the top of the windshield and you'll see that it looks like it has two seperate pieces of chrome. One for the windshield and one for the drip rails. That's a dead giveaway.

On the accuracy issues regarding the detail, (or lack of it in this case), in that old AMT annual kit. AMT was indeed know for recycling the convertible interior tubs into their hardtop annual kits, which is a shortcoming. Also, those older annual kits were indeed crude compared to advances in today's design & tooling. But, therein lies the flaw in your thoughts: Shouldn't we expect a newly designed & tooled kit to be better detailed & more accurate than one designed & tooled up forty-seven years ago? While it may be more detailed, (& for the MSRP & the fact that it's a forty-seven year newer design & tooling, it very well should be), more accurate it isn't. That body is just wrong from every angle. being somewhat close, but not close enough, at least for what will be charged for it.

That's not my thinking Mark. In fact, I feel the same way. A new kit should be more accurate. I remember saying almost the exact same thing regarding the Revell Nova when it came out,but was shouted down by the "we're modelers,we can fix it!") crowd. BTW,wonder where they are? To me,the Trumpeter Falcon is still better than the AMT in terms of accuracy especially when you consider the whole kit. Yeah,it does have problems,but to me it still looks better than the AMT kit. As always, I will buy one to judge for myself. If I like it,I'll buy more. If not,it will be the only one.

Will it be cheaper than an original issue AMT annual kit of the same subject? Of course, it will likely be about as cheap or cheaper than a gluebomb of that annual kit, as you mentioned. The real questions are however; is it more accurate in appearance than that old kit & is it worth what will be charged for it? The answer for me in both counts is no.

I plan on buying mine with the old trusty Hobby Lobby 40% off coupon. As always,"buy it if like it,don't if you don't." That statement is not aimed solely at you BTW. There are several new releases that I haven't bought simply because I didn't have enough interest in them. I don't buy kits to support the hobby or a manufacturer, I buy them to build them.

[spkgibson]

Personally , I think if you kitbashed it with the altered wheelbased falcon It could possibly be built in to a decent replica of a 64 falcon, I'd cut the rear quarters out of both bodys below the trim line, Toss this monstrosity in the trash. Or save the money you spent on both kits to find an old annual. Sorry but this car reminds me of 80's technology. With the types of stuff out there to make kits , This thing is horrific. I do however think that if you wanted to make an Aussie Ute out of it, That grill looks pretty close. If memory serves me. This thing is about as bad as the AMT 71 Duster, That was another one, When compared to the annual, Looked completely off.

[Zoom Zoom]

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying more for a kit if the quality justifies it. To that end, I've currently got a Tamiya Aston Martin DBS on layaway at my LHS.

Interesting to note also that the MSRPs of the Moebius Hudson and Chrysler will be about $10 less than those for this kit ...

MSRP on the Trumpeter kits is $50 vs. $30 for Moebius kits, both before any discounts. Let's just say Moebius is setting themselves up for accolades/attention/happy buyers in a way that Trumpeter doesn't seem to understand when it comes to car kits.

If Revell had done the Falcon people would be complaining about it, even for half the price charged by Trumpeter. I fully understand why people are turned off by the Falcon; there just is no justification for a model with so many "excuses" and carrying a 100% premium over kits made by a company that does it better. By comparison, Moebius seems fully capable of making the decisions necessary to improve the product greatly between test shot and store shelf, based on honest human input, not just a beancounter mentality.

As said before, the Falcon finished does look relatively attractive to my eyes, even less-than-perfect. It's not a grail, I just want one for some non-OOB fun. Overall I see it as a good improvement over an original...overall. The fact that it's so imperfect in many areas and sold as a premium item for a premium price, well...caveat emptor.

[Casey]

*snip* there just is no justification for a model with so many "excuses" and carrying a 100% premium over kits made by a company that does it better. *snip*

I won't even address the price issue, but the accuracy issue is what I have a serious problem with. Looking only at the floorpan and noticing how toy-like it looks with the "close enough to the real thing" ribs and other stamped details, I have to wonder why Trumpeter even bothers to make automotive subjects if they're putting such little effort into making thing look correct. Maybe they just don't care, I dunno, but I expect this type of accuracy when I build a circa '77 Monogram '69 Camaro Z/28, not when I open a newly tooled kit from 2011.

[Chuck Most]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the computer-designed tooling isn't getting the same scrutiny between the tooling being cut and the model's release that kits used to. Meaning that once the design work is done, it goes straight to mold tooling rather than checking a pattern to see if it looks right before the mold gets made. That's the only way I can see some of these things getting out looking as they do.

One other thing that cracks me up is the suggestion Chinese tooling doesn't look right because the people making the kits haven't seen the real cars. I boldly suggest that since the tooling for annual kits was often done before the real cars were being built, that's not a new situation at all...

I've wondered that myself. "Hey, Pete? Shouldn't we check out these CAD drawings before we send them out to have the molds made?" "Nah... we scanned the 1:1 car,they should be fine. Now let's hand this puppy in and go hit the bar!" That might be part of the 'learning curve' going on with the new technology. And of course, the computer is only as smart as the people who program and operate it...

As far as the "Chinese toolmakers haven't seen the car" side, I personally don't buy it. Is it possible none of Trumpeter's people have ever seen a '64 Falcon? Of course. But I'm pretty sure they have acess to Google, and can bring up thousands of images of one in half a second. When you quite literally have the world at your fingertips, finding images of something really isn't a big deal. I think the inaccuracies we're seeing in new releases are possibly because of over-reliance on CAD technology, and the good old 'human factor' being neglected. Still, could be worse...

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?rlz=1T4SNNT_enUS412US412&q=Lindberg+'48+Lincoln&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=6929950365982820897&sa=X&ei=dNqlTfn1HqW60QGt8LTqCA&ved=0CCUQ8wIwAg#

Edited April 13, 2011 by Chuck Most

[Casey]

...but why can't they at least match what was done a half-century ago. Not exceed it...just match it?

The answer lies in this thread. They don't need to make them perfect in order to sell them, and apparently, they sell enough of them (meaning previously inaccurate car kits) to have the money to pump out new kits which are of similar quality to their past offerings.

[spkgibson]

no idea where you are coming from with any of these statements. you are going to try and tell me that combining a non-stock AWB Falcon's body sides with this kit is going to "improve" it? is the Trumpeter kit worse than the old AMT annual? that seems to be subjective to what you expect from a model kit. those old annuals are crude monsters, you guys really want that mess, you can have it. few people make little master pieces out of those things, Mark Nellis is one of them.

What I trying to explain was, Cut both rear quarters below the trim line, Graft in the stock wheelbased ones out of this kit, And use whatever else you could out of the Trumpeter kit, That way atleast you would have a somewhat accurate body. But in my eyes they both look wrong, But for the price you would pay for both kits to chop up, You would be better off trying to find a resin body .

[Darin Bastedo]

I will take the devil's advocate view that it doesn't seem any worse to me than several recent Revel kits...but that's not a compliment

I will repeat my oft-mentioned disappointment that most manufacturers in 2011 can't cut a body tool as well as they did it in the 60s...before the cars actually came out, before computers, and when the standards of the buyers would seemingly be lower. It's a shame whatever black art mold design is, that the knowledge didn't translate forward so that they could do with modern technology what they seemingly did with ease 40-50 years ago.

Don't forget, in the W's these cars were new and the models were commissioned first as promos for the automakers, thus, they had the full support of the automakers wick included access to the blueprints and such. Flash forward to today, Of is doubtful that even ford has the original blueprints for a 40+ year old car

[Darin Bastedo]

While that's true...the OEMs did commission most of the cars that came out as kit as promos first...I can't accept for a second that back in the day, when AMT/MPC et. al. were up against hard time deadlines, often did not have 1:1 cars they could use for reference because the real thing didn't exist yet, and without today's technology had some massive advantage over kit designers today.

Actually, the cars did exist, and often according to bud anderson AMT often got access to early poroction cars. Plus the dedlines were not hard to meet as the money flow from the big three was enough to pay for plenty of workers. Back then Model production was big money, and they were selling millions of promos, and kits every year.

Flash forward to today, the total design staff of MPC, AMT, and Revell, would barely be enough to adequately staff a McDonalds. I'm not defendinding Trupeter as much of there stuff has had serios flaws, and the falcon may be the worst of the bunch, but financial resources are what made the sixties models better. They had the dough to hire enough eyes to spot the mistakes.

Now today model companies don't have "all the time they need" to get it right. Once they assign a new project to their staff the money clock starts ticking. The longer the project takes the more it costs, not just in the wages they pay the designers but also in opputunity cost in what those designers could be doing instead. If a new tool takes twice as long to tool than usual then they could have had two new tools for the same payroll spent. These days just a few pennies per unit cost overun can kill a project. They have very tough deadlines and and much stricter finacial limits than AMT did in the 60's. That is why you see many more comprimises today. it's because when the money clock runs out, you either put the model in the box or forget it. That's why Revell has done so many special editions, and "California wheels" and other releases that take an older tool and update it with newer parts. It freshens up their product line with much less expedature than tooling a new kit, or making magor changes to an old one.

[Guest]

Neither of my planned builds will involve the stock chassis or engine anyway,so those aren't a big deal to me. They should be a lot better,but unfortunately they're not. In this day and age,there's no excuse for any kit manufacturor to put out inaccurate kits. Yet,they still do it with alarming frequency. There aren't many kits out there that doesn't have some sort of accuracy issue. It's up to each individual builder to decide whether to buy it and fix it,buy it and build it or just don't buy it at all. There are several kits by other companies that I haven't bought and never intend to. Some I have bought one,but will never buy another no matter how many different versions they come up with. This Falcon though,I gotta have at least two of them.

[Darin Bastedo]

Good to know the hobby is doomed, then.

The audience today are adult modelers that want quality product and won't accept less. The fact that (apparently) that's impossible means that the hobby won't survive. Selling shoddy and expensive inferior-to-50-years-ago merchandise is not a viable business model.

If there was a sarcasm font, the above would be typed in it. I think that the reality is that we have people designing kits today that don't really grasp the potential of the computer tools they're using, and we see kits that are as accurate as Play Station renderings as a result. I would have to think as time goes on that the people staring at the computer screens will figure out how to do their jobs properly. At least I hope so. Each sub-standard slabby diecasty kit like this Falcon that comes out is another tick on the "money clock," to use your term, as the ever shrinking audience starts to lose interest.

Again, I don't think any company that expects customers to shell out $40+ for a newly tooled model has the luxury of excuses. Tamiya/Fujimi/Hasegawa turn out excellent kits regularly. Are they expensive? Yes. Are they worth it? Yes. Are Trumpter kits expensive? Yes...are they worth it? The market will decide that one. I know what my opinion is...

I don't think they are doomed so much as there has to be a cuture change to meet the new challenges. The importance of getting it right the first time has to be stressed. look at the new Revell Midget cars. they were done under the new cuture, and were fantastic. Excellence can be achieved the companies just have to want it bad enough.