highway Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I'm amazed at how many of these I see in rush hour commuter traffic every day. I don't mean dedicated work trucks, but ones without any company markings and a guy wearing a tie driving it to the office. I don't wear a tie and never have and never will, but this was my daily commuter for quite a few years: Ditto. What the heck is the point of having a big old honkin' pickup as your daily commuter vehicle, dragging that big old empty cargo box around? The satisfaction of knowing that if by the time you reach your destination and need a parking space, you can throw the Prius, Smart Car, or Mini taking up a full parking spot in the bed and park there or just park over the lowrider in another spot!
Thatswhatshesaid Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I'm not a 'real modeler' and I don't gripe about the trim being too tall, too sweepy fenders, and nonexistant USB ports. Stuff like that doesn't matter to me, and from the photos of this I've seen- all that stuff looks good enough to me. Now- Something like a chassis that's completely wrong for the application? I do have a few problems with a manufactuer who'd do that routinely. Just saying... glad Italeri wasn't the company who finally decided to tackle a Super Duty kit. I'm not saying that all modelers are like that. But the truck modelers have very little to work with in terms of modern trucks. Its not that we like the inaccurate chassis but sometimes that is the only starting point we have. If that makes us gullible oafs so be it. The Moebius kits aside, the most recent American truck kits from any manufacturer are nearly 20 years old. So to hear all the nitpicking about new kits from the car side gets quite frustrating. At least you guys have a better starting point. I would love a new truck kit that was flawed with 'shallow scripts' or 'missing air cleaner decal'. A lot has already been discussed about this kit. Some will buy it, some won't. Price being one hinderance, the lack of parts (crew cab, dually option etc) being another. All I'm saying is while major kit inaccuracies are annoying, minor flaws maybe aren't so bad. Imagine if the most current Corvette kit was from 1992. Thats what truck modelers deal with.
Chuck Most Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I do hear where you're coming from, as far as not having any new subject matter with the 'big rig' kits, Jake... believe me! If kit manufacturers were making them, I'd be buying and building them, and I'm assuming you would as well. And we wouldn't be the only ones. I can think of at least a half dozen modern Class 8 rigs I'd love to have in scale. Quite a few older rigs I'd like to see, too, but I digress. If you are into car models you tend to get spoiled by the new releases- even though there are fewer and fewer every year. My "gullible oafs" statement (which I stand by) was aimed at Italeri, not truck modelers. From where I sit that seems to be their opinion of US truck modelers. The way I see it, if Italeri wants to make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks... they should make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks. I do have to give Italeri credit for one thing- they did kind of keep the flame burning for heavy truck modelers while the domestic kit manufacturers were out to lunch. If you ignore the chassis, they look great built. I give them kudos for their parts packs as well. But I really take issue to their use of the Freightliner chassis under too many non-Freightliner subjects, that just smacks of "they'll never know the difference" thinking - that one thing strikes me as a tad insulting from the standpoint of a consumer. Italeri really would have had something great if they'd put the same effort into their US truck kits that they put into their aircraft kits, or even their '30's car kits. And of course Italeri isn't alone in trying to pull the wool over the consumer's eyes - I'm sure you're aware of the AMT T600a, and that Revell AG kit that was supposed to be a Marmon. I'd even go so far as to say that last one was worse than anything Italeri tried to pull... Now- if Meng decides to produce another light truck kit... let's just say, a Ram Power Wagon, and they recycle this Ford chassis under the thing... yeah, I'm not going to be a happy camper, for the same reasons the majority of Italeri American rigs don't thrill me. And I won't be the only one. Alrightie- I've said all I wanna say about THAT matter... now I've got to order a couple of these kits.
Danno Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Ditto. What the heck is the point of having a big old honkin' pickup as your daily commuter vehicle, dragging that big old empty cargo box around? Psychologists have a couple of theories on this point, neither of which can be discussed here.
Chuck Most Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Ditto. What the heck is the point of having a big old honkin' pickup as your daily commuter vehicle, dragging that big old empty cargo box around? Because you might be pulling a loaded trailer behind that empty bed... like I seem to be doing three or four days out of the week. My last pickup had a bumper sticker which read "Yes- this is my truck. No- I won't help you move" on it... I'm thinking I need to get one for my current pickup too.
Guest Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Because you might be pulling a loaded trailer behind that empty bed... like I seem to be doing three or four days out of the week. My last pickup had a bumper sticker which read "Yes- this is my truck. No- I won't help you move" on it... I'm thinking I need to get one for my current pickup too. I need one those too Chuck! Some people think if you own a pickup, you should have a load in the back of it 24/7 or it's of no use. The last I checked, this was still America and you can drive whatever you want.
Aaronw Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I really enjoy the people who think a truck bed is a dumpster. I've come from shopping or the movies more than one time to find somebodies empty fast food carcasses in the back of my truck. I think it is pretty clear the using a truck to commute comments are aimed at those people who clearly never do any work with their trucks, not those who use a truck for truck stuff. I also use a pickup as a daily driver, it is a small truck, but still a truck. You ever try to haul a load of firewood with a Honda?
Platerpants Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I really enjoy the people who think a truck bed is a dumpster. I've come from shopping or the movies more than one time to find somebodies empty fast food carcasses in the back of my truck. I think it is pretty clear the using a truck to commute comments are aimed at those people who clearly never do any work with their trucks, not those who use a truck for truck stuff. I also use a pickup as a daily driver, it is a small truck, but still a truck. You ever try to haul a load of firewood with a Honda? I hated when others used my first f150 as a garbage can, i had a fiberglass bed cover and id open it to find garbage all over the place that wasnt mine. It was my daily Driver/ and daily mudder, sadly ice has a way of ending good things, Hope my current f150 dont become a garbage can cuz it doesnt have a bed cover. Although thanls to the old one i have the mud tires still and a second set of wheels. Edited March 11, 2014 by Platerpants
Tom Geiger Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 My "gullible oafs" statement (which I stand by) was aimed at Italeri, not truck modelers. From where I sit that seems to be their opinion of US truck modelers. The way I see it, if Italeri wants to make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks... they should make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks. I do have to give Italeri credit for one thing- they did kind of keep the flame burning for heavy truck modelers while the domestic kit manufacturers were out to lunch. If you ignore the chassis, they look great built. I give them kudos for their parts packs as well. But I really take issue to their use of the Freightliner chassis under too many non-Freightliner subjects, that just smacks of "they'll never know the difference" thinking - that one thing strikes me as a tad insulting from the standpoint of a consumer. Italeri isn't here to defend itself, but I'd guess that using the common chassis was what made the later projects do-able from a financial stand point. Same as the Caddy V8 in the new Revell '49 Mercury woody wagon. A source inside of Revell told me that was the one thing that made the project viable, reusing those under pinnings from the '49 Merc custom. There just wasn't money in that project budget to support developing a stock engine / trans for the kit. I'll bet the Italeri story would be similar. Probably saved them 20-25% of the development budget, which made the project viable!
Chuck Most Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I really enjoy the people who think a truck bed is a dumpster. I've come from shopping or the movies more than one time to find somebodies empty fast food carcasses in the back of my truck. It's handy if you go to a party, and people ask "where do I put my empty bottles"? I always tell them just to toss them in the back of the blue F-250 right over there. Good way to get a little extra gas money for the weekend.
martinfan5 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Italeri isn't here to defend itself, but I'd guess that using the common chassis was what made the later projects do-able from a financial stand point. Same as the Caddy V8 in the new Revell '49 Mercury woody wagon. A source inside of Revell told me that was the one thing that made the project viable, reusing those under pinnings from the '49 Merc custom. There just wasn't money in that project budget to support developing a stock engine / trans for the kit. I'll bet the Italeri story would be similar. Probably saved them 20-25% of the development budget, which made the project viable! Not trying to say that Mercury Woody is a bad kit, I hear its a really good kit, but with that said, I see what you said as this, if you dont have the budget to do it 100% correctly, then why do it at all?, the general masses that Revell is trying to sell to might not have a kit stash to parts raid from, or desire to spend the money on getting a correct engine to put in the kit, just my 1.5 cents worth and this was not intended to be another Revell bashing post, this applies to all kit manufacturers as well
Longbox55 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I really enjoy the people who think a truck bed is a dumpster. I've come from shopping or the movies more than one time to find somebodies empty fast food carcasses in the back of my truck. I hate that, too. I went to a swap meet in Indy with a friend of mine (W-M-D on here) in Indy a while back, left my truck ('55 Chevy 3200)at his place up in Lafayette. Never had anyone mess with it before, but hen we got back later that day, sure enough someone at his apartment complex had tossed a few pop bottles in the bed. Back on topic; At first, I considered the price of this kit to be high as well, never mind that I most likely will not pick one up as I'm more into vintage trucks than late models. However, there is one way to look at it. How many of us have bought resin kits/conversions over the years? I'll use a recent resin kit as an example, the Modelhaus Dodge D100. While very nice, those kits have basic chassis detail, plus no engine or transmission. They run right about $100. Looking at it that way, the Meng F250 isn't really that bad. Granted, it really isn't a fair comparison, seeing as one is a mass produced injection molded kit, the other is a hand made resin cast.
mk11 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) ... why do it at all?, the general masses that Revell is trying to sell to might not have a kit stash to parts raid from, or desire to spend the money on getting a correct engine to put in the kit.... It might just be possible that the 'general masses' being sold to might not care as much as some of us about having something dead nuts accurate as long as they've got that cool project they built themselves sitting in a place of honor on the shelf.... ...not to excuse or encourage companies to waste our time and theirs on half baked offerings mike Edited March 12, 2014 by mk11
Chuck Most Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 It might just be possible that the 'general masses' being sold to might not care as much as some of us about having something dead nuts accurate as long as they've got that cool project they built themselves sitting in a place of honor on the shelf.... mike I'm kind of in the middle... I'm not going to sit there and pour over the thing, comparing it to scale photos with a grid pattern, running along the rub strips with a digital caliper, and lambaste the thing for a very insignificant flaw. Big flaws are bad, but personallly- I can live with a few little ones. But if I have a dead nuts accurate kit, well, that's just as satisfying to look at in its place of honor on the shelf, right? Then again I've built at least one Zinger... But I agree with what Bill said- yes, comparing use of aftermarket parts on a regular injection molded kit to a straight injection molded kit isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but I can tell you with a straight face I've gone way, way, way overboard on some projects, and I've paid way more than the high MSRP of the Meng kit for complete garbage (ie- iffy resin kits and crude but pricey OOP vintage kits). I've spent that much on good resin kits, too. Who here hasn't? From what I've seen of the Meng kits, compared to the quality of most existing light truck kits, and the cost of all the happy horsepuckey that goes along with producing a new tool, full-detail kit nowadays, I don't think the price is too out of line. And the kit isn't out... so we don't even know what the average going rate will be- a lot of retailers will sell it at full MSPR, others, well, won't. I'm sure pretty soon you'll be seeing guys posting saying how they got a killer deal on one of these before too long. Personally? I'd gladly pay full retail for this kit, but if I can get it at a bit of a discount price... well... guess which path I'm going to follow.
SlotDaddy1963 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Revell couldn't justify the cost of tooling up a flathead ford v8 for either of the merc's? IIRC they had a pretty nice one in the '37 pickup that we could have made do with... just a thought. or do I have them out of order?
martinfan5 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Personally? I'd gladly pay full retail for this kit, but if I can get it at a bit of a discount price... well... guess which path I'm going to follow. That sums it up It might just be possible that the 'general masses' being sold to might not care as much as some of us about having something dead nuts accurate as long as they've got that cool project they built themselves sitting in a place of honor on the shelf.... ...not to excuse or encourage companies to waste our time and theirs on half baked offerings mike And you have a valid point Edited March 12, 2014 by martinfan5
Tom Geiger Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 It might just be possible that the 'general masses' being sold to might not care as much as some of us about having something dead nuts accurate as long as they've got that cool project they built themselves sitting in a place of honor on the shelf.... and that's it in a nutshell. I got bashed hard on the board here for saying that Revell wasn't going to correct something on a kit that only mattered to maybe 1% of their overall audience. Folks here have to understand that we are the 'lunatic fringe'. We are those guys standing in the middle of the street in our Star Trek jammies, yelling at the sky!
tim boyd Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Revell couldn't justify the cost of tooling up a flathead ford v8 for either of the merc's? IIRC they had a pretty nice one in the '37 pickup that we could have made do with... just a thought. or do I have them out of order? This reply is in danger of getting way off topic, but briefly, the 1949 Mercury flathead is a different design from other Ford flatheads; one that Revell has never tooled up before. The AMT '49 Merc flathead is a very accurate substitute. TB
Thatswhatshesaid Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I do hear where you're coming from, as far as not having any new subject matter with the 'big rig' kits, Jake... believe me! If kit manufacturers were making them, I'd be buying and building them, and I'm assuming you would as well. And we wouldn't be the only ones. I can think of at least a half dozen modern Class 8 rigs I'd love to have in scale. Quite a few older rigs I'd like to see, too, but I digress. If you are into car models you tend to get spoiled by the new releases- even though there are fewer and fewer every year. My "gullible oafs" statement (which I stand by) was aimed at Italeri, not truck modelers. From where I sit that seems to be their opinion of US truck modelers. The way I see it, if Italeri wants to make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks... they should make nothing but cabs and hoods for US trucks. I do have to give Italeri credit for one thing- they did kind of keep the flame burning for heavy truck modelers while the domestic kit manufacturers were out to lunch. If you ignore the chassis, they look great built. I give them kudos for their parts packs as well. But I really take issue to their use of the Freightliner chassis under too many non-Freightliner subjects, that just smacks of "they'll never know the difference" thinking - that one thing strikes me as a tad insulting from the standpoint of a consumer. Italeri really would have had something great if they'd put the same effort into their US truck kits that they put into their aircraft kits, or even their '30's car kits. And of course Italeri isn't alone in trying to pull the wool over the consumer's eyes - I'm sure you're aware of the AMT T600a, and that Revell AG kit that was supposed to be a Marmon. I'd even go so far as to say that last one was worse than anything Italeri tried to pull... Thank you for seeing my point of view. Not trying to start a car/truck vs big rig builder war here, just trying to point out some facts. Italeri and their multi use Freightliner chassis is annoying, but workable. AMTs T600 is a Frankenstein of different decades but the Marmon grilled Pete is rediculous. Sometimes you just gotta laugh and say 'really!?!?'
Ron Hamilton Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Until I get my grubby little hands on one of these, I am going to take these on line reviews of the new kits with a grain of salt. Normally, I am able to get a kit within the first week of release. The exception to this rule is the "Tim Boyd" review.
Rob Hall Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I'm not sure why people keep rambling on about accuracies or inaccuracies of big rig truck kits. This is a pickup truck model..apples and oranges. No correlation.
Tom Geiger Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I'm not sure why people keep rambling on about accuracies or inaccuracies of big rig truck kits. This is a pickup truck model..apples and oranges. No correlation. They like to type!
Aaronw Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Revell couldn't justify the cost of tooling up a flathead ford v8 for either of the merc's? IIRC they had a pretty nice one in the '37 pickup that we could have made do with... just a thought. or do I have them out of order? This reply is in danger of getting way off topic, but briefly, the 1949 Mercury flathead is a different design from other Ford flatheads; one that Revell has never tooled up before. The AMT '49 Merc flathead is a very accurate substitute. TB and I think this is where that lunatic fringe part comes in. The casual modeler probably won't even recognize the issue. The hard core modeler will just scrounge the AMT Merc motor and stick it in the woody. It is that in between modeler who gets stuck, knows better, but not willing to kit bash. My guess is it won't be long until a resin Mercury motor appropriate for the '50 Woody turns up (and looking surprisingly like the AMT kit motor).
Platerpants Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) "and I think this is where that lunatic fringe part comes in. The casual modeler probably won't even recognize the issue. The hard core modeler will just scrounge the AMT Merc motor and stick it in the woody. It is that in between modeler who gets stuck, knows better, but not willing to kit bash." My guess is it won't be long until a resin Mercury motor appropriate for the '50 Woody turns up (and looking surprisingly like the AMT kit motor). I would end up kitbashing if i caught on or just leave it, there have been times ive tryed making engines out of spare parts, like my amc 4.0 turned cummins i recently did.... Im not gonna say im the smartest, most accurate, or best builder, im in it for the fun of experimenting but will do accurate at times to the best my skills allow. Edited March 13, 2014 by Platerpants
Darbo Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I will be waiting for Ron Hamilton's review!, when he does a review of a kit it is always spot on!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now