Scale auto renaissance?

[Bernard Kron]

Like I said, it's really very simple: NO FAT FRONTS!!!

And yes, as I mentioned earlier, they do have some in the form of the front tires on the Orange Crate, a kit they are due to re-release as part of their Fall 2011 schedule.

Oops, looks like our posts crossed each other, Casey!

So.. repeat after me: NO FAT FRONTS!!!

Edited October 24, 2011 by Bernard Kron

[Casey]

Like I said, it's really very simple: NO FAT FRONTS!!!

And yes, as I mentioned earlier, they do have some in the form of the front tires on the Orange Crate, a kit they are due to re-release as part of their Fall 2011 schedule.

Oops, looks like our posts crossed each other, Casey!

So.. repeat after me: NO FAT FRONTS!!!

I think the Orange Crate tires are actually soft plastic, though, aren't they? I'm going on memory from the Street Demon's "Chopped Deuce" kit from the '80s here.

[Bernard Kron]

I actually don't know since the kit was after/before my time (I was away from the hobby for several decades and never have owned the kit). Betcha Chuck knows, though.

But it seems to me it's somewhat irrelevant, since the Rat Roaster's fronts are pretty crucial to its look and omitting something closely resembling them would be a gross embarassment to both Revell and Stacey David. Hence my mantra.... NO FA.... (I'm sure you now it by now)...

[Chuck Most]

I actually don't know since the kit was after/before my time (I was away from the hobby for several decades and never have owned the kit). Betcha Chuck knows, though.

But it seems to me it's somewhat irrelevant, since the Rat Roaster's fronts are pretty crucial to its look and omitting something closely resembling them would be a gross embarassment to both Revell and Stacey David. Hence my mantra.... NO FA.... (I'm sure you now it by now)...

No, sorry- its been years since I've looked at an Orange Crate kit. Thats the one Deuce kit I don't have an abundant supply of on hand.

That's another thing the good old days did have over today- I get that tire markings are a thorny subject, but could we at least get something that kinda/sorta looks realistic? Pleeeeze?

[charlie8575]

I suppose I'm a younger modeler, being 28 and all, but all of the cars I like to build came out way before I was born and I'm real happy they are releasing the olds and other non gm products.

So I hope they keep releasing new hot rods and customs because I will keep buying them.

I'm very similar. Very few cars made during my lifetime (I'm 36) truly interest me. While there plenty of cars that are nice enough and I would drive, there aren't a lot that really scream "plastic!"

I have some odd tastes- I love GM B/RWD C/D-Bodies and Ford Panthers. I also like K-Cars and their derivatives. I like AMCs. I like cars people don't normally think about, because all too often, they are actually forgotten, and they're still a part of the history of motoring. I never really got into sports cars or performance cars, even when I was a kid.

But I find the cars of the early-mid 1970s and back much more intriguing generally. They had character, style, and distinct personalities. As the crash barrier, wind-tunnel and central-planning windbags became more and more of a force, that went away, and not just with American cars, but all over the world.

I do think, though, it would be nice to have a wider availability and a wider variety of newer cars. While many of the everyday cars are the uninteresting, boring snoozers to most of us (the aforementioned forces have all conspired to make our cars not only look like, but drive alike,) models of the everyday car should be kitted- part of preserving the history of the progress of automotive design. Yes, cars like a Taurus, Lumina, Dodge Stratus, and yes, as much as I personally dislike them- perhaps even a Toyota Camry. The cars that most younger kids can relate to. While it's great to fuel dreams with Ferraris and BMWs, we sometimes forget that for many years, regardless of the source of the money came from, all those great classic 3-in-1 kits, were of the everyday car, too. I think we really need to return to that type of product to keep interest. I'd buy them partially to support the effort, and because I can still make an interesting model, even if the 1:1 subject may be less than interesting.

Charlie Larkin

[fumi]

Anybody remember American Satco? That's exactly what they did, they sold JDM kits with resin LHD dashboards, and they gave up on it right in the middle of the boom days of the 90's.

There is a problem with American SATCO's business model: they made resin LHD dashboards for Aoshima kits, whose subject matters by the mid-to-late 90's have turned to primarily cars that were only sold in Japan, hence no LHD version to speak of. Of the few ones that also had export version (like the Lexus GS and the Miata), Aoshima produced a special LHD edition with the correct badges in-house.

[Darin Bastedo]

I do see your point on the Chevelle, but really- the 150/Black Widow? Can't imagine that one being a big seller for Walmart, '57 or no. And I can imagine quite a bit.

Here's a bit more to chew on- can you see the big box store people wanting to stock a Hudson Hornet? Or a '50 Olds? A cheapo die cast, maybe, but a full-detail kit? Doubt it. I can guarantee no big box retailer would have carried Model King or Dirt Track Racecars dual-branded kits (among others). Sheesh, Dave Burket pretty much makes a living by catering specifically to the 'enthusiast market'. No, those mostly terrible 'Fast And Furious', 'Rides Magazine', and 'American Hot Rod' releases are what the big retailers wanted to have on hand.

My point is that there are only about 10,000 -15,000 of us car modelers cruising the various forums. we are literally the tip of the iceberg. unless every last one of us buy about 500 new model kits in addition to any old kits we pick up, we do not represent the bulk of kit sales. that is why kits that we shoot down as inaccurate or ill proportioned etc. still l sell well. It's because the bulk of their customers simply aren't experts. These are not people who go home with their new model kit, and get out the reference pictures and the dial calipers and start measuring. These are the guys who twist the parts of the sprue and supply us with the seemingly endless supply of glue bombs on ebay and swap meets. Yes the Black widow is an obscure option on the 57 chevy, but to the glue bomb crowd it's a 57 chevy. they might not even notice that it has different side trim.

[Junkman]

I'm very similar. Very few cars made during my lifetime (I'm 36) truly interest me. While there plenty of cars that are nice enough and I would drive, there aren't a lot that really scream "plastic!"

I have some odd tastes- I love GM B/RWD C/D-Bodies and Ford Panthers. I also like K-Cars and their derivatives. I like AMCs. I like cars people don't normally think about, because all too often, they are actually forgotten, and they're still a part of the history of motoring. I never really got into sports cars or performance cars, even when I was a kid.

But I find the cars of the early-mid 1970s and back much more intriguing generally. They had character, style, and distinct personalities. As the crash barrier, wind-tunnel and central-planning windbags became more and more of a force, that went away, and not just with American cars, but all over the world.

I do think, though, it would be nice to have a wider availability and a wider variety of newer cars. While many of the everyday cars are the uninteresting, boring snoozers to most of us (the aforementioned forces have all conspired to make our cars not only look like, but drive alike,) models of the everyday car should be kitted- part of preserving the history of the progress of automotive design. Yes, cars like a Taurus, Lumina, Dodge Stratus, and yes, as much as I personally dislike them- perhaps even a Toyota Camry. The cars that most younger kids can relate to. While it's great to fuel dreams with Ferraris and BMWs, we sometimes forget that for many years, regardless of the source of the money came from, all those great classic 3-in-1 kits, were of the everyday car, too. I think we really need to return to that type of product to keep interest. I'd buy them partially to support the effort, and because I can still make an interesting model, even if the 1:1 subject may be less than interesting.

Charlie Larkin

X2.

Also, I find the echo we get from the industry on this rather mixed. On one hand, they say "modern" CAD design and tooling technologies led to significantly reduced costs to create a new kit, on the other hand they want to play it safe and only do what sold well in the past. Well. How long do they think things sold well in the past will continue to sell well? They will have to take some risks. Where there is no risk, there is no gain.

And yes, even if people for some odd reason don't find 70s cars particularly exciting (with which I wholeheartedly disagree, but that's personal), the kits are needed just to enable us to continue modelling automotive history. A 1976 car is a 35 year old machine by now and if you think they aren't collectible, just think again.

Now, at least a Continental Mark III and a '71 Riv, please. Or is America ashamed of those, too?

[charlie8575]

X2.

Also, I find the echo we get from the industry on this rather mixed. On one hand, they say "modern" CAD design and tooling technologies led to significantly reduced costs to create a new kit, on the other hand they want to play it safe and only do what sold well in the past. Well. How long do they think things sold well in the past will continue to sell well? They will have to take some risks. Where there is no risk, there is no gain.

And yes, even if people for some odd reason don't find 70s cars particularly exciting (with which I wholeheartedly disagree, but that's personal), the kits are needed just to enable us to continue modelling automotive history. A 1976 car is a 35 year old machine by now and if you think they aren't collectible, just think again.

Now, at least a Continental Mark III and a '71 Riv, please. Or is America ashamed of those, too?

I agree. Many here have derided 1970s cars as badly-built luxobarges. Well.... to a degree, yes. But, everything suffered from a malaise- the European cars weren't much better, and the Japanese hadn't really figure out rust-proofing, in addition to having steel that, for whatever reason, was more prone to rust (one of the reasons why Chrysler products of the 1970s rusted so badly was their use of a large quantity of Japanese steel.)

But I like the "luxobarge" exactly for that reason- they're comfortable. Their seats don't force my back into funny positions or irritate my sciatic nerve. I actually fit in the car. And, when trimmed out with tasteful paint and soft-trim selections, they do look nice. I was heading into class yesterday to take my final (compressed-schedule weekend course,) and driving by, I saw a beautiful 1975-'78 Mercury Grand Marquis. Champagne with a dark red vinyl top, interior and vinyl body-side mouldings. No tape stripe "decor" packages (which I never liked,) and no Avocado Green, bright blue or Harvest Gold in sight. A nice break from cars that now come in one of 38 shades of silver, gray or black, with the occasional other color thrown in for supposed "variety."

I see the 1970s as an effort made to maintain true individuality in the face of growing outside interests, in automobile design; the decline of car design as an art-form, and evolving into more of a regulatory mimic and lawsuit-avoidance tool, thanks to cadres of lawyers, government windbags, the "greenie goblin" as I call them, and other private interests, most notably the insurance industry. Most of the safety and pollution control we now have would have evolved naturally with market demand, instead, having it forced on us has, in the long term, compromised the end product.

Oh, and for the record, my 1970s GM cars were among the most rock-solid, reliable cars I ever owned.

And I must agree with Dr. Pamp- I would really like a new Continental Mk. III or boat-tail Rivera, as well as a 1977-'79 full-size Chevy, especially one of the coupes.

I've seen some other calls for cars I would like to see, too. And perhaps we will someday. There are engineering and design techniques out there can make this happen, and at substantially less money. I know- I'm looking into them now. The manufacturers, to borrow and slight re-word a phrase from an old UPS ad, need to think outside the box to get neat stuff to put in the box.

Charlie Larkin

[Chuck Most]

X2.

Also, I find the echo we get from the industry on this rather mixed. On one hand, they say "modern" CAD design and tooling technologies led to significantly reduced costs to create a new kit, on the other hand they want to play it safe and only do what sold well in the past. Well. How long do they think things sold well in the past will continue to sell well? They will have to take some risks. Where there is no risk, there is no gain.

And yes, even if people for some odd reason don't find 70s cars particularly exciting (with which I wholeheartedly disagree, but that's personal), the kits are needed just to enable us to continue modelling automotive history. A 1976 car is a 35 year old machine by now and if you think they aren't collectible, just think again.

Now, at least a Continental Mark III and a '71 Riv, please. Or is America ashamed of those, too?

x3

Can't say my heart is aflutter for a '71 Riv, but a Connie Mk III I can totally get behind. And again- I'd be happy to see reissues of existing kits. Wasn't there a Volare Road Runner at one point, and a late '70's Pontiac Lemans? Heck, what ever happened to the Pontiac Ventura based on the AMT '69 Nova tool?

As far as as 'safe' subject goes, I do see the logic there, but still there will come a point when every possible first-gen Camaro, tri-five Chevy, Mustang, Corvette, and Deuce that can be kitted, will be kitted. Where do you go from there? Now, as far as I'm concerned, subjects like the '50 Olds are fantastic choices. I really think that kit will do well, and if it's sucessful it could open the door to all sorts of other possible early '50's GM products based on that kits tooling. Then again, it might just mean a few variations on the '50 Olds kit. There's certainly room on my self for several variants of a '50 Olds, that I can tell you. Moebius could spin quite a few late '50's kits off their upcoming Chrysler tool, given that kit does well. I think it will.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have a kit like the Hudson Hornet by Moebius. Using that tooling means you can only make more Hudson variants (which Moebius is already set up to do with the upcoming Tim Flock '52 stock car and the convetible version of the '53). I'm still not as convinced as some that selecting a Hornet as a kit subject was as bold and brash as some think. For a newcomer to the car kit industry, perhaps, but the fact is the Hornet has been on the most wanted lists of a lot of modelers for a long time.

So I guess I see the good and the bad. I'm glad to see that the kit manufacurers are taking a few chances. I'm glad to see that the new tool stuff coming out isn't all muscle cars, and the rest isn't barely-rehashed reissues. But I do hope the manufacurers don't stay stuck in a pre''73 world forever. There's still quite a bit of earlier stuff that would do well in kit form, but ignoring entire genres and generations of vehicles because those subjects haven't done well in the past does not seem like a great idea to me.

[Junkman]

I see the 1970s as an effort made to maintain true individuality in the face of growing outside interests...

There you nailed it! I see the Seventies cars as the last ones where the manufacturers spent a huge effort on making them truly distinctive and they probably succeeded more than in any other decade in automotive history. I just wasn't able to express it as good as you did. You may not like my beloved 73 Monaco, but it is impossible to mistake it for anything else, including it's stable-mates.

Indirectly, the opponents of the Seventies cars confirm this, without realizing it. It was said repeatedly, that model kits of those cars wouldn't allow for a lot spin-offs, i.e. milking a tool. See how unique they were? And since the all-out performance days were over, it was all about looks. The cars may not have been as 'good' as the ones preceding them (which isn't true btw, they get butchered for components to upgrade earlier models, like breaker-point-less distributors, dual circuit power disc brakes, etc.), but they looked good. The Seventies were all about looks. And that's what I'm interested in, not the oily bits. So even curbsides would do for me, which would again facilitate things for the makers.

Man, would a mid to late Seventies Marquis rock my boat. As a model and as a real car.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Junkman

[Chuck Most]

And, just coming from the viewpoint of a guy who was born three years after the '70's ended, let me just say this- I've only heard hear-say about how terrible cars of that era were. But you know what? Cars of the earlier decades really weren't that much better from a quality standpoint. Mile-wide panel gaps, ill fitting body panels, mismatched paint with dirt flecks in it, questionable engineering... none of this stuff began (or ended) in the '70's.

[Harry P.]

American cars of the '70s are widely considered junk, mechanically at least, because they were junk! But a lot of that "junk" reputation is because of the government mandates of the time. Suddenly the manufacturers had to meet all sorts of new emissions, fuel economy and safety requirements. So we got half-baked emission-control systems that were not fully developed, those hideous 5 mph bumpers that were tacked on to cars just to meet the new crash standards, the infamous V8-6-4 system from Cadillac, etc.

It took a while before carmakers figured it all out. Now we have very effective and efficient emission-control systems, and the 5 MPH bumpers are hidden away so skillfully that we don't even realize they're there. But back in the '70s when all of these government standards went into effect things were a lot less sophisitcated... or to put it another way, cars were junk. Not total junk, just junky enough for them to have that reputation.

[samdiego]

I'm gonna have to say that the term junk is a little too harsh for the cars that I grew up on. They were what they were. Build quality may have suffered and, yes, finding the right path to adhere to Federal changes was awkward. There are the planned obsolescence rumors as well. But we bought them, we drove them, and I loved many of them even the ones not on the usual list of collector cars of the 70's. They may not be my favorites but they served their duty well and left many icons. They did fade in the half life of today's imports but so do the radical hyperbikes of today. Find a GSX with 150,00+. They aren't considered junk, It's just a different scale.

Edited October 24, 2011 by samdiego

[Dave Ambrose]

I'm among the 40+ to Boomer market that is most heavily represented among model builders. I just wonder how much of this market is cannibalized by the availability of beautiful diecasts that aren't available as kits, such as a bullet-nose Studebaker. If I have a nice one of those on my shelf, I don't need a kit. I spent a long time trying to put together everything I needed for an accurate Bugatti Atlantic because there was nothing good available, but suddenly there are many excellent diecasts on the market and I've lost interest in building one.

Fortunately, there are lots of older vintage car kits that don't have very good diecast versions, and that keeps me going.

I have no interest in diecasts. For me, the pleasure in having a model comes from the fun in building it. Just buying a model car and putting it on the shelf, doesn't create any sense of attachment.

[Brett Barrow]

I don't disagree that some 70's stuff wouldn't make good choices for re-issue or a resin caster or a Juha Airio-type mainstreamer scratchbuilder, just that they wouldn't make good choices for an all-new tool plastic model kit with the situation the way it currently is.

And yes, taken completely out of context of the era that immediately preceded it and viewed through squinted eyes behind rose-colored glasses shrouded in 30+ years of hazy memories, some 70’s cars could pass for something vaguely resembling something cool…

[Aaronw]

I wish more of the diecasts were sold unassembled as kits. I have a fair collection of diecasts simply because there is no plastic kit of the subject. Most were bought with the intent of tearing them down to rebuild my way, but they are so nice I tend to just leave them alone. Sell me a box of unpainted parts at a discounted price and I would be thrilled (plastic is better but I will take what I can get).

[Chuck Most]

American cars of the '70s are widely considered junk, mechanically at least, because they were junk! the infamous V8-6-4 system from Cadillac, etc.

.

You do know that faulty Cadillac engine came out in 1981, right? 1981 isn't the '70's. Not that it matters too much, but I don't think the '80's were much better than the '70's as far as automotive quality, yet those vehicles don't get heaped with the same amount of scorn for whatever reason.

[Aaronw]

My point is that there are only about 10,000 -15,000 of us car modelers cruising the various forums. we are literally the tip of the iceberg. unless every last one of us buy about 500 new model kits in addition to any old kits we pick up, we do not represent the bulk of kit sales.

Um, I'm curious about your numbers.

Has any kit sold 5 million copies? I've read the AMT Star Trek Enterprise model is the best selling kit ever, even leading to AMT making multiple tools to keep up with sales. Does anyone know how many copies of that kit have been sold?

From others numbers quoted I'm under the impression 50-100,000 is a good selling kit which means "we" (assuming there are really only 10-15,000 "hardcore" modelers, which also seems suspect). Only need to buy 5 - 10 of each to make it a success, not 500.

[Chuck Most]

That's another thing I've never seen a specific figure about- how many sales means it's a hit? How many is the break-even point? How low do sales have to be for a kit to be considered an epic fail? And who really knows how many active modelers there really are. I don't recall seeing 'model car building' on any census form I've ever looked at.

[charlie8575]

That's another thing I've never seen a specific figure about- how many sales means it's a hit? How many is the break-even point? How low do sales have to be for a kit to be considered an epic fail? And who really knows how many active modelers there really are. I don't recall seeing 'model car building' on any census form I've ever looked at.

Based on what I've seen, approximately 10,000 units is the break-even point; 50,000 or more I guess allows an actuarially-optimal return on the molds.

Charlie Larkin

[Harry P.]

I know that if Moebius can sell 5,000 Hudsons, they'd consider that a job well done.

And Chuck... 70s and 80s sort of blend together as far as the "Age of Junk"...

[Brett Barrow]

That's another thing I've never seen a specific figure about- how many sales means it's a hit? How many is the break-even point? How low do sales have to be for a kit to be considered an epic fail? And who really knows how many active modelers there really are. I don't recall seeing 'model car building' on any census form I've ever looked at.

It varies due to costs and how much you want the kit to retail for, but 10,000 is pretty close to where you start to break even these days. I'd say with the higher priced kits from companies like Trumpeter and Moebius that know up front they're going to sell less kits because they're not as established in the model car world it's probably more like 5,000.

[Aaronw]

You do know that faulty Cadillac engine came out in 1981, right? 1981 isn't the '70's. Not that it matters too much, but I don't think the '80's were much better than the '70's as far as automotive quality, yet those vehicles don't get heaped with the same amount of scorn for whatever reason.

I would agree with the early 80s, but by the mid 80s quality was definately improving. US perfomance cars (Corvette, Mustang, Camaro /Firebird) were starting to have decent performance again, and the overall quality of US cars was definately better although most of the best were borrowing heavily from the Japanese (lots of Mitsubishi, Isuzu and Mazda motors in the Big 3s entry level cars, if not complete rebadges of Japanese cars). Many of the 70s cars were pretty bad, particularly those on the lower end. By the 80s they may not have been exciting but at least the quality was getting better. Compare a Chevy Chevette or Ford Pinto of the 70s to a Dodge Omni or Ford Escort of the 80s. Not great cars but at least the US manufacturers were starting to get an idea of how to make a decent economy car.

[Jantrix]

I know that if Moebius can sell 5,000 Hudsons, they'd consider that a job well done.

I think between Chuck and Cranky, we'll be well on our way to that goal.

Guys this has been a great read. See we can all be adults.