What Model Disappointed You The Most Once You Opened The Box?

[Art Anderson]

AMT 70 Challenger- Have a 1:1 Challenger R/T and was hoping to build a decent hardtop- was hoping the box art was just bad and the contents would be better

decent convertible body after molding in the front valance and engine bay is nice but most of the other parts are misshapen compared to the original car- all the interior much more sharp and squared off compared to the 1:1, bizarre looking oversized shaker setup, crude engine, etc.

The latest die cast based Revell was bad (with nice interior detail) but terrible enough to be obvious from the box

The Lindberg '72 started out as Palmer's attempt to make a "normal" model kit of the '71 Challenger by copying the MPC annual- the update to '72 was very poorly done and the "custom" pieces pretty cheesy

I remember the Lesney/AMT '70 Challengers all too well--I got the call to do the original box art models for both the HT and Convertible, all from test shots, and they were pretty bad, to say the least! It was pretty obvious to me that those two kits got designed DOWN to a budget, and not UP to a standard, frankly. And the convertible top boot on the Challenger--way way off!

Art

[unclescott58]

The AMT 72 GTO and 69 general lee, many messed up molds, TONS of flash, and even missing parts... that is why I stick with revel and others from now on

I kind of like the AMT/MPC '72 GTO. Mine isn't too bad. It's exactly what I expect from an early 70's MPC. I've never had an interest in the General Lee, so I can't say anything good or bad about that kit. Oh... One thing I really dislike about my '72 Goat kit is the exhaust system. It doesn't bother me the way it's molded to the rear axle, like other MPC kits of the day. The exhaust ends/outlets are wrong. They are not as shown on the box art model. Which is the correct setup for a '72 Goat. Was this kit changed in some way over the years, and we lost the correct exhaust system?

Scott

[bisc63]

For me, the Lindberg 48 Lincoln gave me the biggest attack of WTF-itis. I picked one up at my LHS based on the photo of the actual car on the box, and the fact that Lindberg had been cranking out some nice kits at this time ( mid-late 90s; think 61 Impala,53 Ford, 67 442 Olds, etc) I had no idea this wasn't a newly tooled kit! Turns out it was an old Pyro or some such; just awful and such a let-down.

I still have it in my collection (unbuilt), and every now and then I take it out to look it over, thinking "maybe I was too hard on it, and should give it another careful, more objective analysis, then maybe" ...NOPE, STILL SUCKS, and back in the box it goes. Dang you Lindberg box and your REAL car photo!!!

Edited August 4, 2014 by bisc63

[philo426]

Yes!It is pretty crude!

[philo426]

I did make a V-12 for it.

[philo426]

[rmvw guy]

Any of the Testors kits. They should stick to just making paint, what they do best in my opinion. To name a couple; Cheezoom and Alumicoupe with small parts count and more disappointment the detailed versions.

[unclescott58]

Oh my god! The pictures that Phillip Rowe posed of the Lindberg '48 Lincoln Continental are the first I've ever seen of that kit. Built or unbuilt. That looks bad! The exact opposite of Monogram's '41 Lincoln Continental. Wow! I'd be disappoint if I bought that. And I've thought of it a few times. Now I'm glad I didn't.

Scott

[unclescott58]

Any of the Testors kits. They should stick to just making paint, what they do best in my opinion. To name a couple; Cheezoom and Alumicoupe with small parts count and more disappointment the detailed versions.

Never built a Testor kit. But, I think their paint sucks too! So they must do nothing good then?

Scott

[jbwelda]

testors reboxed a few of the fujimi enthusiast model kits so give them some credit for that.

jb

[Craig Irwin]

The old Monogram 1/24'th 69 Camaro, I can't describe how bad it is so unless you've built one....

[JordanFordF1]

I kind of took the question as overall disappointment rather than build quality so my choice is the Revell Jeep Rubicon. Granted I would have bought one just for those wheels and tires but I had actually planned on buying several before I opened the box. Come on curbside in this day and age? Well I got one and only one so well done Revell; less money for you, more money for me! Oh ya and I had to severely trim the roll cage to fit up against the windshield frame. So many dream builds down the tube with that model.

[mrknowetall]

AMT's '34 Ford three window coupe. I eagerly awaited the release of that kit back in 1977, and when I finally got my hands on one, disappointed would be an understatement! The kit was pure cr*p! I have to wonder what went wrong in the mock up and tooling process?

Edited August 6, 2014 by mrknowetall

[Tom Geiger]

Come on curbside in this day and age?

Rusty- I see you are new to the board so I wanted to share a link with you:

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86629&hl=+cruz,%20+jeep

This thread shows a copy of that Jeep Rubicon that was built by Marco Cruz. It really builds up to be a very nice model.

The background on this kit is that Revell converted their previous diecast Jeep into this kit, thus the curbside aspect. It was either this way or no kit at all. A budget thing, and reality in our very small market. Many of us are very happy to have some new releases as curbsiders, it gives us an opportunity for a fun build and a chance to practice paint and finish technique. Let's face it, a lot of modern cars don't have all that much showing under the hood with engine covers and such anyway.

Some guys use these as slump busters. And of course if you really need a full detail kit... you can always go the kit bash route and add your own engine!

[Sledsel]

Revell 49 Merc.... Body is junk

[dieseldawg142]

......

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Jordan White]

Yeah it does leave a lot to be desired, but it's just a quick buck for them, though it does come with a great plow. Of course, AMT's version isn't really much better.

[dieseldawg142]

......

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Pete L.]

Fellas,

You guys are going to laugh but, Monograms OLD midget kit PC- something or other back in the early 1960's. When I got it home and took off the cellophane, opened the box...NO CHROME !!!

I remember well because I have the newest issue of the kit (still unbuilt) in the shop and every time I look at it I get disappointed all over again because of the lack of shinny parts !!! :rolleyes:

[peekay]

I agree with previous criticism of AMT's 58 Plymouth and I'll never build it. It's not just the trim - the whole body is bow-shaped. Such a pity as everything else in the box looks OK and I'd love to have one on my shelf.

I was also very disappointed with the 62 TBird, mainly because I'd SO looked forward to it. The body isn't as bad as the Plymouth, but it doesn't look right to me, and the windshield is way too tall. I could have corrected the odd stance and shaved the (rarely seen) chrome strip off the sides but I bought myself the more accurate promo instead.

[gtx6970]

Do you really want to eat the plastic model replica of the burger in the photo?

"Food" for photos is a lot more model than food in many cases.

Even at that,,its probably more edible than what you'll reveive when you order lunch.

[Drake69]

I had been out of the model business for a LONG TIME before I picked it back up several years ago (2009 ~2010). So when I made up my mind to try it again I took myself down to the LHS, walked through the model car aisle, and tried to decide which one I wanted to get. I wanted something in a Mopar flavor since I was always a Dodge/Plymouth man from years back, and I also wanted to do one that I never had tried before. Having been out of practice for so long, I was COMPLETELY out of touch with the modelling scene in regards to tips, tricks, and tool preparedness, not to mention a miniscule area with which I had set aside for my hobby rebirth.

Mind you all, I was a mediocre builder at best in my youth, more suited to snap kits than anything else. I even avoided spraypaints and did ALL my car bodies with enamel brush painting. That being said, I knew NOTHING about puttying, sanding, or body customization.

So I made my choice...

It looked so pretty on the front of the box.

And it very nearly became MY LAST MODEL KIT EVER.

The only two surviving pictures of that build, before I dismantled the thing for parts....

Edited March 11, 2015 by Drake69

[gtx6970]

Agreed. But the amt/mpc Daytona kit can be built into a decent looking car with some work.
Just cut the bottom of the fender off and mold the valance in,,,just like they did on the real car.

Although I haven't built one of them. To me the Revell Daytona the door scallops are far to pronounced for my liking when compared to the real car

Edited March 11, 2015 by gtx6970

[my80malibu]

Keep in mind that when a majority of these kits came out. Firecrackers were readily available, and thus a lot of these kits got blown up, shortly after being built. Therefore the kit manufacturer, did not put much emphasis on accuracy, or quality.

[DaveM]

Firecrackers are available in Michigan again... Must explain some of the recent releases