Chuck Most Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Thanks, Dave! Yeah, those rear wheel wells on the chassis do look... accomodating! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 To me the wheels look ok, However very shallow at the center cap. If you wanted to tubb it wider the AMT 66 nova would be really simple to adapt or possibly the AMT rat packer chassis rear half would be simple alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 here's a couple more of the slotted mags and supplied tires, At least there are two good parts in this kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Anderson Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Is it just me, or does the sidewall shape and siping make those tires look as though they came right out of about 1936? Art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'm NOT trying to convince anybody of anything, all I am saying is this kit is not worth what they are asking for it for ME personally. It is lacking in visual fidelity to MY eye, and that is no way to earn MY model car dollars. After seeing these photos and the kit itself with my own eyes at NNL East, it is MY feeling that this is more of the same from Trumpeter. A big box full of parts, most of which lack the look and feel of the real thing, at a price that simply does not make it worth MY effort to correct. I have emphasized that these are my personal opinions and that I am not trying to get anybody to change their mind. Trumpeter has disappointed me in the past and they continue to do so. This is a neat subject and would have been worth $50 to me if it looked like it was supposed to in my eye. On the bright side though it makes their Pontaic and nova kits look great in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) And yet there's that Ford licensing seal on the box. Didn't AMT's recent '56 Thunderbird have to go through a few rounds of correction before Ford granted the license? And if so, how did this thing make it through in its current... uh... condition? Edited April 18, 2011 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 And yet there's that Ford licensing seal on the box. Didn't AMT's recent '56 Thunderbird have to go through a few rounds of correction before Ford granted the license? And if so, how did this thing make it through in its current... uh... condition? The AMT '56 T-Bird? Man, that thing really, really, REALLY should have gone through a few more rounds before it got released... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yup, the very one first released in the American Graffiti series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It's good to be king I'll do a new thread so I don't hijack this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Nice to see that we can have rational discussion of the relative merits of a kit over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Darby Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Nice to see that we can have rational discussion of the relative merits of a kit over here. I'll say. Gotta love this intake. Only feeds the two cylinders, on the passenger side... What happened??? I hate to beat this thing up, but sheesh! The sad part is my very first car was JUST like that beautifully done build-up. I want to want 3 of them. Likely I'll buy maybe one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walt francis Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This is taking a thrashing everywhere, If you don't like the price or the kit don't buy it but if you like it buy it end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) "I'll say. Gotta love this intake. Only feeds the two cylinders, on the passenger side... What happened???" Thanks for pointing that out, Dave. That's one of the parts that caught my eye as being very poorly done - looks like it was sculpted by someone who's never even seen a photo of an intake manifold. In addition, the width looks way off to me. When people say they can use this kit for parts I have to wonder just which ones they're referring to. You don't have to take my word for it - do an image search for "Ford 289 2 barrel manifold" to see what a real one looks like. It keeps bringing me back to the AMT '67 Mustang GT-350 (which was done how many years ago?) as a great example of what this engine, unibody and running gear should look like. Edited April 19, 2011 by RancheroSteve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 The entire engine looks under-sized to me in those photos of the built model ... am I wrong about that? I don't want to make a call on that based on the photos alone, but if the intake is any indication, the proportions of the engine will be off. The 289 is one of the narrowest V8s around and the intake distinctively reflects that. I'm also now noticing that the kit's oil pan does a poor job of representing the real thing - it should be much more rounded off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 what interesting in regards to that 2-barrel intake is that it's not really any different than the inaccurate bi-level crossram intake in the Revell Hemi Dart kit, but 95% of the builders of that kit seem to be okay with such a discrepancy you guys, or "we" can pick this thing apart all day long but at the same time we could do the same really about every new kit that hits the market too. none of them are perfect and most are far from it. it's interesting though how some kits slide by with nary a notice while others, like this one get trashed from bumper to bumper. Actually there is a huge difference between this intake and the one in the Hemi Dart. The one in the dart is merely shaped slightly wrong, The one in the falcon is of a design that would never actually work. that is a big difference. It's like saying that a kit with square wheels is no less accurate than one with the wrong tread on the tires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 while Moebius took the time to try to correct some issues and inaccuracies, obviously Trumpeter didn't and isn't going to either. what you see is what you get and all this bitching and moaning isn't going to change that, not at this point. That's the part I find most unfortunate, in a way. I have no way of knowing if anyone from Trumpeter reads or cares about any of what's said here, but I have to feel like they're missing a golden opportunity here to get feedback on their products from potential consumers. So while it might be too late for the '64 Falcon coupe and convertible, is it too late for the Ranchero? Or is it too late for whatever automotive subject Trumpeter might turn their attentions to next? After all the debate over the Nova and Bonneville, would it have been too much to expect Trumpeter to see the light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancheroSteve Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm not a Nova expert, but I think I'd have been happy with the Falcon if it was of equal quality to the Nova hardtop. Instead it seems like a step or two backward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) And you know something else, people? If the kit is what it is, then the COMMENTARY on the kit will also be what IT is. If you don't like it, don't read it.. You know where that ignore button is by now. Use it. Now, for anyone who has a problem with my tone: how am I being any less reasonable, or any more belligerent, than YOU are? Edited April 19, 2011 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Judging from what I've seen, and the photos posted, I think I've come to the conclusions. 1- The kit is flawed, but it's not as monumentally bad as it could have been. 2- It's a bit pricey for how flawed it is. 3- I still want one. 4- If they're available at a discounted price... I want MORE than one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 To each they's own, I sez - but I do find it odd that I can't type a certain anagram of "carp", yet that word makes it thru... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 To each they's own, I sez - but I do find it odd that I can't type a certain anagram of "carp", yet that word makes it thru... You could always just say "feces"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 You could always just say "feces"... or poop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Oh, not to worry. I always make my meaning clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyBad Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Judging from what I've seen, and the photos posted, I think I've come to the conclusions. 1- The kit is flawed, but it's not as monumentally bad as it could have been. 2- It's a bit pricey for how flawed it is. 3- I still want one. 4- If they're available at a discounted price... I want MORE than one! Ditto. The motor can always be swapped Hubcaps Or wheels they call them can be swapped out. Body is Close enough for me. If I see it on Clearance, I'll be sure to get one or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 At what point does a discussion/critique go from just that, to a case study in OC(D) behavior? At what point does making observations over and over and over again become the entertainment value of modeling, vs. actually building and enjoying the hobby from that perspective? It is one thing to have a good discussion, but how much leftover horse puree can people handle? The new kit looks like fun. Compared the photos to a nicely built 65 in my collection, I just don't see why so much fuss and drama about the new kit. Yeah, a few gaffes. Nothing terrible. It's Trumpeter, it is what it is, they are what they are, life goes on. The original kit looks nice, but itself is very crude and inaccurate in many ways. Someone built the one I have very nicely and had fun with it. Others will do the same w/the new kit. It's only a Falcon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.