1/25 Revell '70 Plymouth HEMI 'Cuda 2'n1

[Brett Barrow]

The 1:1 photo is very close to orthographic, it's a very good reference shot taken from far away with a long lens, which lessens any camera distortion. The model shot couldn't be worse, it's taken from up close with a very short lens which maximizes distortion.

To be honest, that 1:1 picture comes to closest of any I've seen so for to matching the shape of the model. For a while I thought it was short in the overhangs and maybe a little thick through the middle vertically, but seeing that 1:1 shot makes me think they got closer than I thought at first.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Danno]

Agreed. A lot of the distortion is in the eye of the beholder. Kit looks pretty good!

[cotto]

I don't know guys, I took the liberty of posting the same pictures but using the Sublime Green images from the links and I definitely see big differences on the body. I think that the black in conjunction with the vinyl top on the black model kind of creates a better contrast and keeps the errors of the lines to a minimum. Bad picture or not, this body is not correct, there are still a lot of issues.

[RodneyBad]

I don't know guys, I took the liberty of posting the same pictures but using the Sublime Green images from the links and I definitely see big differences on the body. I think that the black in conjunction with the vinyl top on the black model kind of creates a better contrast and keeps the errors of the lines to a minimum. Bad picture or not, this body is not correct, there are still a lot of issues.

Excellent photos..

Yup, Revell missed it..

Again..

[Guest]

I disagree Jay and Rodney, looking at your pics, there are small diffrences, but not glaring ones.

[tim boyd]

I disagree Jay and Rodney, looking at your pics, there are small diffrences, but not glaring ones.

Lee....thanks and I agree with you.

The most important point here is that to do an entirely valid photo comparison, as several of you pointed out above, you need the same camera, the same lense and lense setting, and the same camera angle for both the 1/1/ and the 1/25th scale 'cudas. The above photo comparisons lack this continuity and therefore are interesting, but do not provide the basis to draw a definitive conclusion.

If and when someone does this exact camera/lense/angle comparison, the most likely conclusion will be that none of the models - the MPC, JoHan, or Revell - are 100% correct replicas of the 1/1 car, but all of them are reasonably close.

Yes, the Revell body has some errors - most (but not all) of which have been pointed out in this thread of posts. But for most of us, when any of these three scale 'cudas are done and setting on the shelf, they say "'70 'cuda" when you look and handle them. (Well, the JoHan says '71, but you get my point).

Just weighing in here, "representing the opposition"...

Cheers....TIM

Edited January 18, 2014 by tim boyd

[Art Anderson]

Lee....thanks and I agree with you.

The most important point here is that to do an entirely valid photo comparison, as several of you pointed out above, you need the same camera, the same lense and lense setting, and the same camera angle for both the 1/1/ and the 1/25th scale 'cudas. The above photo comparisons lack this continuity and therefore are interesting, but do not provide the basis to draw a definitive conclusion.

If and when someone does this exact camera/lense/angle comparison, the most likely conclusion will be that none of the models - the MPC, JoHan, or Revell - are 100% correct replicas of the 1/1 car, but all of them are reasonably close.

Yes, the Revell body has some errors - most (but not all) of which have been pointed out in this thread of posts. But for most of us, when any of these three scale 'cudas are done and setting on the shelf, they say "'70 'cuda" when you look and handle them. (Well, the JoHan says '71, but you get my point).

Just weighing in here, "representing the opposition"...

Cheers....TIM

Tim,

Exactly! Having had just enough experience in product development, both in 1/25 scale models, and diecast, the only way I've found to judge any scale model for accuracy (certainly shapes and contours) is looking at the miniature in as close to the angle of the camera which recorded the image of the real thing that one is trying to use.

Even with picture-to-picture comparisons of just the real car--different cameras, at different angles to the subject can tell different stories, given the often complex shapes of a real car body. And, when studying the model against the real thing--try closing one eye, so that the model appears to you more-or-less in two dimensions, simply for the reason that a camera has but one "eye" (one lens) while we humans are born with two eyes, giving the ability to see things with "binocular" vision.

Art

[FASTBACK340]

Not that I memorized every point made in over 650 posts, but why are the throttle bores splayed 45 degrees off in those horrible carbs? They have a single barrel front & rear w/ 2 on the center sides!

Thank goodness the shaker will cover that lump.

[Erik Smith]

Not that I memorized every point made in over 650 posts, but why are the throttle bores splayed 45 degrees off in those horrible carbs? They have a single barrel front & rear w/ 2 on the center sides!

Thank goodness the shaker will cover that lump.

Accurate, good looking carbs are few and far between in all kits...and 90% of bad and good get covered!

[tim boyd]

Tim,

Exactly! Having had just enough experience in product development, both in 1/25 scale models, and diecast, the only way I've found to judge any scale model for accuracy (certainly shapes and contours) is looking at the miniature in as close to the angle of the camera which recorded the image of the real thing that one is trying to use.

Even with picture-to-picture comparisons of just the real car--different cameras, at different angles to the subject can tell different stories, given the often complex shapes of a real car body. And, when studying the model against the real thing--try closing one eye, so that the model appears to you more-or-less in two dimensions, simply for the reason that a camera has but one "eye" (one lens) while we humans are born with two eyes, giving the ability to see things with "binocular" vision.

Art

Art...good point about closing one eye when comparing actual shapes vs. pictures of same.

You just reminded me of a technique sometimes used in the 1/1 scale automotive design studios when comparing designs - which is to look at the designs upside down or rotated 90 degrees. The eyes pick up differences that are unseen in more familiar views. Hmmm...maybe I should do that exercise in this case and see what pops up.

TIM

[gtx6970]

I disagree Jay and Rodney, looking at your pics, there are small diffrences, but not glaring ones.

I gotta agree here.

Having been around mopars all my life. And just recently did a ground up restoration on a 1970 Hemi Cuda .

The biggest complaint I have with the revell kit is too pronounced wheel lips ( they look too much like wheel flairs ) , weak tail light surround moulding ( easily recitied with strip stryene ,,not that I think I should have to on a new tool kit ) and the contorted body line above the rear wheel lips. ( not an easy fix imo )

Am I so dis-appointed with it that I'll send them back and hord my original MPC issues ? No

But I am glad I hung on to my MPC issues

Oddly enough,, no one has mentioned the windshield washer reservoir ( white plastic piece in the lower left corner of the engine compartment ) is incorrect for a 1970 E body. 1970 E bodies it whould be pretty square on top ,not have the rounded corner.

Sorry, everyone is picking on this kit and being a life long die hard mopar nut I had to mention it,, as in the 1/1 world this would be considered blasphemey .

Edited January 18, 2014 by gtx6970

[FASTBACK340]

Accurate, good looking carbs are few and far between in all kits...and 90% of bad and good get covered!

I know… I know…. but the point is:

In the `60's Revelll would cast engine blocks with cranks and realistic representations of pistons in various stroke depths in the bores. Details 99% of viewers after assembly never saw either, but they got it "right". I just find it puzzling that such obvious "non-interpetable" details are gotten wrong 50 years later. Distributor terminal count, carb. barrel layout, exaggerated wheel lips, etc. To me, this all shouldn't be noticeable after the consumer pulls off the shrink-wrap. You mean to tell me, there isn't ONE car-guy in the entire process that does't see these things before the the guys in the suits yeah-yeah it into production? Or do the suits brush them off? The distributor is the biggest detail that speaks the loudest, as least to me. It can't ALL be the corporate "get it out and make money" mindset. Doesn't anyone see this along the way? If the side marker lights were vertical would that be dismissed too?

Just making some observations. I know that there are people here way-more connected to this project than me, and I mean no disrespect, but remember I represent the guy your selling to. I still think it's a great kit, but why do these things get through?

Just saying….

[sak]

I am.guessing that a large part of the market are still people buying them for children..of whom, most dont add detail like spark wires and problem dont know a cylinder or how many of them are in a Hemi.

[FASTBACK340]

<sigh…> Your right, it just may be that simple. Why bother, who would notice?

Edited January 19, 2014 by FASTBACK340

[tim boyd]

I know… I know…. but the point is:

In the `60's Revelll would cast engine blocks with cranks and realistic representations of pistons in various stroke depths in the bores. Details 99% of viewers after assembly never saw either, but they got it "right". I just find it puzzling that such obvious "non-interpetable" details are gotten wrong 50 years later. Distributor terminal count, carb. barrel layout, exaggerated wheel lips, etc. To me, this all shouldn't be noticeable after the consumer pulls off the shrink-wrap. You mean to tell me, there isn't ONE car-guy in the entire process that does't see these things before the the guys in the suits yeah-yeah it into production? Or do the suits brush them off? The distributor is the biggest detail that speaks the loudest, as least to me. It can't ALL be the corporate "get it out and make money" mindset. Doesn't anyone see this along the way? If the side marker lights were vertical would that be dismissed too?

Just making some observations. I know that there are people here way-more connected to this project than me, and I mean no disrespect, but remember I represent the guy your selling to. I still think it's a great kit, but why do these things get through?

Just saying….

John...good points, all.

Ideally we'd get a direct response from someone inside the companies, but I don't expect that is going to happen any time soon.

As an outsider looking in, perhaps I can add some perspective that will hopefully be more correct than not...

First, the model companies I know of today are VERY small, tight-knit organizations today. The remaining industry volume and sales revenue for model car kit sales just can't support larger or even moderately sized organizations. So in the situations I am aware of, the "Suits" as they are sometimes call here, are heavily involved in the creation and production of the kits. In fact, the most senior person I currently know well in the model companies is a die-hard car enthusiast who has owned (and maintained, and worked on) C2 Corvettes for virtually his entire adult life and regularly travels to the Woodward Dream Cruise, Oakland (now in LA) Roadster Show, and similar car-guy events. My guess is that he probably knows more about the insides of a carb than 90% of us who read this forum.

Second, I can understand the frustration with inaccurately rendered carb venturis and seven vs. eight hole distributors, but for some on this board to discredit this entire kit on the basis of those and some very evident overdone wheel lips, strikes me as a case of possibly missing the bigger picture in this case. As you put it, I mean no disrespect, but...what about all the stuff Revell got right with this kit? The correct factory stock building options like the plated as well as correctly shaped Elastomeric front bumpers? The overall appearance of the finished chassis and the interior? The shape of separately molded, plated fishgill rocker panels or the engraving on the pistol grip shifter handle, for example? I'll be very up front here - I built two of these kits and I still missed both the distributor and carb venturi goofs, probably because so much of the kit was right. Could that have been what happened at Revell?

Finally, all consumer products are the result of tradeoffs. In this case, the model manufacturers have to work with Artisans that are half the world away, who in most cases have never been given the benefit of seeing in person what they are being asked to recreate in miniature. The volumes involved can no longer financially justify having the tools created just 60 miles down the road (e.g. 1225 East Maple to the former tooling house in Windsor, Canada) any more. The alternative would be no new kits at all. Instead, the model companies work with their suppliers and overseas tooling houses to get these products right as much as humanly possible, and those suppliers also do their best to get it right. Then there's the timeline. At what point do you hit the "publish" button? If you were the product manager, would you have held the kit up yet another 3-6 months (uneducated guess here) to fix the distributor and carb?

Now it's time for me to question something. Having spent my 35 1/2 years in the auto industry of which the last 12 were senior positions in the Design department, I agree with Chuck K. on the following - I do not understand why the model companies are not using 3D digital scans in the development of their 1950's to 1970's model car kits. By this point in the 100 year development of the automotive styling profession, each 1/1 scale car design was the result of thousands of hours of studio designers and engineers fine tuning things like - for example- wheel well openings and fender lips. Or in this case, the artistry of the surfaces in the '70 'cuda taillight panel cove, which no one - MPC, JoHan, or Revell - has correctly captured in their kits. There just isn't time or money to continue to develop a 1/25th scale tool to catch all these subtle tweaks. On the other hand, the cost of a high quality digital scan is now in the mid 4 digit range (e.g., just $5,000, more or less), and with some additional expenditures to process the scan results, and perhaps to ship, prep, and clean the 1//1 scale car post-scan. This digital scan could at least give the overseas toolmakers a huge head start in capturing the subtle surface nuances of the original 1/1 scale designs. It would seem to me that the incremental cost of this up front expenditure would be more than offset by not having to retool body castings to correct mistakes that were the result of trying to design a model from 2D pictures alone. To me, personally, this is a much bigger issue than some embarrassing omissions or engraving on small engine parts.

Once again, I'm struggling to find the right tonality in these remarks. I feel that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the hobby community about how the model car industry actually works. As a result there are often statements made on the model car boards that are, at best, unfair to the hardworking people at these companies. But on the other hand, and as you John so succinctly and correctly put "you represent the guy that they are selling to".

Hope this adds a little bit of insight. Others with industry contacts, feel free to step in with your knowledge and views as well, whether they agree with me or not! TIM

[tim boyd]

I am.guessing that a large part of the market are still people buying them for children..of whom, most dont add detail like spark wires and problem dont know a cylinder or how many of them are in a Hemi.

For this type of kit, the model companies are designing for the adult hobbyist, and from what I know the buyers are almost all adult model car builders.

Children (or parents buying for children) usually go for the simpler, "snap kit" or "fast build" products today.

TB

[Luc Janssens]

"The cost of a high quality digital scan is now in the mid 4 digit range (e.g., just $5,000, more or less), and with some additional expenditures to process the scan results, and perhaps to ship, prep, and clean the 1//1 scale car post-scan. This digital scan could at least give the overseas toolmakers a huge head start in capturing the subtle surface nuances of the original 1/1 scale designs. It would seem to me that the incremental cost of this up front expenditure would be more than offset by not having to retool body castings to correct mistakes that were the result of trying to design a model from 2D pictures alone. To me, personally, this is a much bigger issue than some embarrassing omissions or engraving on small engine parts."

TIM

See my post below...

Edited January 19, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[Hawk312]

Now it's time for me to question something. Having spent my 35 1/2 years in the auto industry of which the last 12 were senior positions in the Design department, I agree with Chuck K. on the following - I do not understand why the model companies are not using 3D digital scans in the development of their 1950's to 1970's model car kits. By this point in the 100 year development of the automotive styling profession, each 1/1 scale car design was the result of thousands of hours of studio designers and engineers fine tuning things like - for example- wheel well openings and fender lips. Or in this case, the artistry of the surfaces in the '70 'cuda taillight panel cove, which no one - MPC, JoHan, or Revell - has correctly captured in their kits. There just isn't time or money to continue to develop a 1/25th scale tool to catch all these subtle tweaks. On the other hand, the cost of a high quality digital scan is now in the mid 4 digit range (e.g., just $5,000, more or less), and with some additional expenditures to process the scan results, and perhaps to ship, prep, and clean the 1//1 scale car post-scan. This digital scan could at least give the overseas toolmakers a huge head start in capturing the subtle surface nuances of the original 1/1 scale designs. It would seem to me that the incremental cost of this up front expenditure would be more than offset by not having to retool body castings to correct mistakes that were the result of trying to design a model from 2D pictures alone. To me, personally, this is a much bigger issue than some embarrassing omissions or engraving on small engine parts.

When I hear about model companies using a 1:1 car for measurements, I am always curious about why they are not doing this as well. I would imagine this would make kit bodies nearly 100% accurate.

Has anyone seen this at Hobby Lobby yet? They still don`t have this kit in my local one.

[Luc Janssens]

"The cost of a high quality digital scan is now in the mid 4 digit range (e.g., just $5,000, more or less), and with some additional expenditures to process the scan results, and perhaps to ship, prep, and clean the 1//1 scale car post-scan. This digital scan could at least give the overseas toolmakers a huge head start in capturing the subtle surface nuances of the original 1/1 scale designs. It would seem to me that the incremental cost of this up front expenditure would be more than offset by not having to retool body castings to correct mistakes that were the result of trying to design a model from 2D pictures alone. To me, personally, this is a much bigger issue than some embarrassing omissions or engraving on small engine parts."

TIM

Yes...it would be a step forward, but still you'll end up with scans of a 1:1 vehicle and it still needs to be translated to a 1/25 scale model, meaning tolerances, plastic thickness and molding concessions, can and will lead to differences between the final product and what used to roll of the line at the OEM.

It all still boils down to the human factor, time and the budget.

Luc

[SteveG]

.... Finally, all consumer products are the result of tradeoffs. In this case, the model manufacturers have to work with Artisans that are half the world away, who in most cases have never been given the benefit of seeing in person what they are being asked to recreate in miniature. The volumes involved can no longer financially justify having the tools created just 60 miles down the road (e.g. 1225 East Maple to the former tooling house in Windsor, Canada) any more. The alternative would be no new kits at all. Instead, the model companies work with their suppliers and overseas tooling houses to get these products right as much as humanly possible, and those suppliers also do their best to get it right. Then there's the timeline. At what point do you hit the "publish" button? If you were the product manager, would you have held the kit up yet another 3-6 months (uneducated guess here) to fix the distributor and carb? ....

Here's a perfect example from when I was working with Ernie on developing Lindberg's Dodge Charger Police version. After several attempts over a few months our overseas artisans just could not capture the shape of the steel wheels and center caps correctly. Even though they had plenty detailed photos to work with. We were about to give up on getting them corrected when we decided to send them an actual 1:1 wheel and center cap purchased from a local Dodge dealer. About a month later we got back acceptable test shots of those parts.

Considering that those Artisans probably have never seen a 1:1 'Cuda ever and most likely never will it's amazing how much they did get right. Short of shipping crates of 1:1 parts or actual cars half way around the world, digital 3D scanning is the solution. I hope both Revell and Round 2 adopt the technology soon !

-Steve

[FASTBACK340]

First of all, I'm not trying insinuate people not in the know are running the show. I just can't understand the previously mention carb & dist. mistakes getting through. But on the other hand, to be 100% fair, they did do some things that are real small details gotten RIGHT.

See the tail shaft on the transmission? It's a long tailshaft w/ the dual mounting points (the inverted triangular bolt-holes bosses) cast in for the different shifter locations between B & E bodies. THAT'S awesome detailing !

Again, I want to publicly apologize to Tim for stepping on toes with my original (poorly worded) post on this subject. Yes, there's things wrong… but more things right. Mostly the fact that this kit even happened. Tim, sorry to come across ungrateful or arrogant. We've always had a good relationship I'd hate to spoil. Sorry.

Edited January 19, 2014 by FASTBACK340

[tim boyd]

Again, I want to publicly apologize to Tim for stepping on toes with my original (poorly worded) post on this subject. Yes, there's things wrong… but more things right. Mostly the fact that this kit even happened. Tim, sorry to come across ungrateful or arrogant. We've always had a good relationship I'd hate to spoil. Sorry.

John...no apology necessary or expected at all.

Just passionate modelers having a good discussion.

Cool detail on the tranny shaft - I missed that one!

Best regards...TIM

[FASTBACK340]

Thank you Tim. As you posted, it's hard to judge tonality on message boards. My observation was more of confusion than actually demanding or expecting an answer.

Oh, and BTW….

[Chuck Kourouklis]

HEAR HEAR, Tim. If they'd just scan the body of the 1:1, I'd happily deal with funky distributors, mixed-up venturis, odd little bracket projections off the oil filter, and whatever else came about.

To harp on the human factor would be responsive to the discussion if anybody were suggesting 3D scanning is the magic bullet or that it would replace human input at that level. Fact is, nobody's claiming that. But for some reason, while it seemed to work okay in the past, the traditional method of scaling 3-dimensional objects from 2-dimensional pictures just isn't getting it done these days. Mathematical conversion of 3D scan data will not just put every linear dimension into scale, but every radius of every curve of every surface.

And while I assiduously avoid attacking model company executives or making an epithet out of "suit" - honestly, I think some of that is backlash at other modelers getting personal over stuff it makes NO SENSE to be sensitive about - I do wonder if they might not have some culpability in failing to implement this technology.

Compromises in things like nameplate scripts are understandable and easy to deal with. As for material thickness and the like, you just make those adjustments where they aren't visible - I'm quoting an industrial designer on that one. The Polar Lights '66 Batmobile has been a proof of this concept now. For years.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis

[FASTBACK340]

And while I assiduously avoid attacking model company executives or making an epithet out of "suit" - honestly, I think some of that is backlash at other modelers getting personal over stuff it makes NO SENSE to be sensitive about - I do wonder if they might not have some culpability in failing to implement this technology.

As I apologized earlier for the poor choice of words I still stand by my curiosity as to how things like this happen.

Just wondering aloud…...