Exotics_Builder Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 Yup, John, right as rain. I've always known Tamiya erred on the side of "too wide" for its tires, and now I've got confirmation on why the 360 looks just that wee bit rotund. The Fujimi 430 doesn't seem to have any of that - wonder if they also saw fit to tease it some. Haven't done a real compare although I guess I could. The Revell AG and Fujimi F430 and 458 are not clones. There are differences. If they hadn't been out for a while, it might be a good exercise.
Young iron Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 More than the doors and quarter panel windows, I noticed the wrong wheels on the Torino. Fortunately, this is way easier to fix up
Chuck Kourouklis Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 Haven't done a real compare although I guess I could. The Revell AG and Fujimi F430 and 458 are not clones. There are differences. If they hadn't been out for a while, it might be a good exercise. I personally found a fairly wide disparity between the 430s, such that Revell AG's really seemed useful for its engine and not a whole lot else. Then Fujimi's Scuderia came along and murdered them both. The 458s, on the other hand, shift the balance waay in the other direction for overall detail - the Fujimi has a crisp body but otherwise seems useful mostly as a wheel and tire donor to the Revell kit. But for proportions, the two are very close iIrc. The area under the front grille seems thicker on the Revell shell, but I believe that's because they molded in a lower lip that's separate on Fujimi's.
towtruck Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) everybody that think's it's not quite right.... cool that just makes it easer for me to get my 2 or 3. been waiting for this one a long time..thank's R-M.. Edited August 4, 2014 by towtruck
Daddyfink Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 Who cares what some of you think. I'm buying it
Chuck Kourouklis Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) And that brings up a very good question - is anybody telling anyone not to buy the kit? We'll see some very general commentary like "long as we buy this stuff, it's as good as we'll get" (and I have to confess to being a prime violator of that whole principle 'cause I'm constantly buying this stuff regardless). But as I recall, last time I saw any directive not to buy a kit, it was more in the context of "If you DON'T LIKE it, DON'T BUY IT!" 'Less I'm mistaken, that's the party line specifically mandating somebody deprive a manufacturer of a sale. Edited August 4, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis
Exotics_Builder Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 I personally found a fairly wide disparity between the 430s, such that Revell AG's really seemed useful for its engine and not a whole lot else. Then Fujimi's Scuderia came along and murdered them both. The 458s, on the other hand, shift the balance waay in the other direction for overall detail - the Fujimi has a crisp body but otherwise seems useful mostly as a wheel and tire donor to the Revell kit. But for proportions, the two are very close iIrc. The area under the front grille seems thicker on the Revell shell, but I believe that's because they molded in a lower lip that's separate on Fujimi's. You pretty much hit the big ticket stuff I've noticed. I'm using the Revell 430 to add some more detail to the Challenge car and also do a 16M using the conversion kit. The 458 is totally Revell's in my opinion. Just wish they would do the wheels differently. It's sad Revell didn't do the F12, but Fujimi pretty well got it, but more detail would be useful. The Hobby Design parts help improve it and I've got a C1 Novatec N-Largo conversion to add. Of the 4th Qtr. announcements only the Vette and ZlL-1 are must have's. The Ivo Showboat is a possible and the Ontos Thing (ex-Renwal). I built one in my early teens and thought it was cool. I am trying to set up an interview with Revell and see what more I might learn. I live only 11 miles from their offices.
keyser Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 Please fix kit so people don't discuss for 20+ pages? What kind of idiotic logic is that? Do your job at making a miniature so people stop complaining when it's WRONG? Chassis looks good, original had 400 SBF IIRC, huge engine room, so looked lost a bit. But getting sills wrong, DLO, roof, whatever is not what is appropriate. Yes, nothing is perfect. But basic stuff should be close enough for most builders to ignore. Easy to fix or not, I don't want to fix something unless I have to. I have to if every time I look at a kit/built on shelf I see the flaw. It overpowers everything else. Happy for you, but for those of us that have the issue, it's like a 2" mole on Kate Beckinsale's cheek. Try to ignore it and you can't. Make kit accurate in BASIC things like DLO (daylight opening, winders), headlight doors (see 69-70 Mustangs), roof (KTMNBN, anything chopped, 36 5W, Trmp Nova), yada-yada. Gerry, Chuck, others here can fix lots of things/scratchbuild/transform a kit. I can fix some stuff, tweak things, but unless I'm dying for it, it gets partially completed, and sits in project pile, probably 50-60 deep. I'm to the point if it isn't right, I pass, as I'll be dead before I get to it. It's offensive that this is a recurrent issue, when guys did pretty good job with slide rule, pantograph, and photos back in 50-60-70's. If you think it's nitpicking, go visit a real rivet-counter board, or tell me a P-51D is close enough to a P-51B (it's only 2 letters). Keep new stuff coming, but dear lord please get the big stuff right. Or don't bother.
Chuck Kourouklis Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 Oh YEAH, Gerry - I'm down-and-a-half for that danm where-is-it-WHEREIZZZIT?! Stingray. ...If you think it's nitpicking, go visit a real rivet-counter board, or tell me a P-51D is close enough to a P-51B (it's only 2 letters). Keep new stuff coming, but dear lord please get the big stuff right. Or don't bother. Yup.
martinfan5 Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) C1 Novatec N-Largo conversion to add. Just finished one up a few months ago Edited August 4, 2014 by martinfan5
Dave Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) And doing a quick match up, got this: This is a 72 Grand Torino, door height looks like the test shot, to my eyes anyway Edited August 4, 2014 by Dave
Chuck Kourouklis Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Well I wanna say the entire profile looks a bit chunky in height, but you've hit upon the one mitigating factor for me, Dave - the later model Torino as repped by the S&H has a lower chrome molding that works to visually slim and lower the flanks. Finished in the 1:1 S&H profile, body color in both yours and the bare plastic shell. That's why - even after decades of test shot previews proving to be very reliable indicators of issues making it to production - this is that rare exception I'd rather see in the plastic before rendering any final observations.
Ron Hamilton Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Who cares what some of you think. I'm buying it I'm in complete agreement. No model is perfect. I'm going to check one of the ones I buy against a Johan body, which looks awful good to me. I am then going to take that Johan and combine it with the Revell guts and make a truly nice '72 Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof out of the two.
johnbuzzed Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 The whole point of a test shot is to see if it looks right. If not, they adjust the molds. "looks right"... In whose opinion? All too often lately, kits are introduced that apparently, somewhere along the production process, looked "right" to somebody in a corporate position. But when we see the production version, something is wrong- it doesn't "look right". No, wait- there are problems with dimensions. contours, body lines... that's not just a problem with perception, it's a problem with accuracy. I understand the purpose of a test shot. For reasons stated in my previous post, I don't understand the need for a test shot- especially when the production item is lacking.
SteveG Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) "Ill conceived"? Hardly. Poorly executed is a better description. As has been stated in the pages of these forums, time and time again: there is no such thing as a perfect model and no one is forcing any one to buy anything. But I must wonder aloud, again: With today's technology, so much reference material and the availability of the real thing in most (if not all) instances, how can "they" screw things up? The more important question might be : "Why?" Why is because Revell ( Also Round 2 and Moebius ) don't actually produce the model kits anymore. All new tooling work is done overseas by sub-contractors. Revell does the R&D, and designs the packaging etc.. The point of the test shots is to see if vendor produced what Revell ordered. There is only one set of molds produced, if Revell doesn't like the test shot they have to rely on that vendor to fix it. Revell can send over a perfectly designed kit but that doesn't mean they'll get a perfect product back. In most cases all the vendor gets to start with is photos and and measurements to work from. The vendor has to do the all the rest of the work. -Steve Edited August 5, 2014 by SteveG
johnbuzzed Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Revell (and anyone else, for that matter) has the ability to say "No". Revell is paying to have those kits produced. Money talks.
Dave Van Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Why is because Revell ( Also Round 2 and Moebius ) don't actually produce the model kits anymore. All new tooling work is done overseas by sub-contractors. Revell does the R&D, and designs the packaging etc.. The point of the test shots is to see if vendor produced what Revell ordered. There is only one set of molds produced, if Revell doesn't like the test shot they have to rely on that vendor to fix it. Revell can send over a perfectly designed kit but that doesn't mean they'll get a perfect product back. In most cases all the vendor gets to start with is photos and and measurements to work from. The vendor has to do the all the rest of the work. -Steve All true Steve. I am not judging the Torino.....until production kits are in hand it's just talk. But while the vendor in Asia does the work they will only do what the customer requests. I have had the opportunity to do some tooling work through Model King and the old RC2. When we were restoring a older tool sent some vintage parts overseas to be cloned to restore a tool. The tool maker cloned them perfectly down to a ejection pin mark I should have cleaned up before sending!! Good info in.....good product. You know the rest....
ianguilly Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Oh no a model isn't perfect, I'm gonna sell all the hundreds I have so I can sleep at night again.
SteveG Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 All true Steve. I am not judging the Torino.....until production kits are in hand it's just talk. But while the vendor in Asia does the work they will only do what the customer requests. I have had the opportunity to do some tooling work through Model King and the old RC2. When we were restoring a older tool sent some vintage parts overseas to be cloned to restore a tool. The tool maker cloned them perfectly down to a ejection pin mark I should have cleaned up before sending!! Good info in.....good product. You know the rest.... I've seen great work come out of the Asian vendors, the cloned parts is a good example. I've also personally felt the frustration of trying to get corrections done and seen how difficult it can be. I've told the story before about the certain Police car steel wheel and center cap. No matter how many photos or measurements we sent to the vendor they just couldn't get it right. After the third sample was rejected, I suggested we just go buy the actual parts from the dealer and ship it to them. That worked and the parts were approved on the next round. Short of shipping complete cars to Asia or digitally scanning them (it's been done but still very expensive) your going to be dependent on the capabilities or your vendors. Back in the original golden age of model cars you had the full process being completed in the US with major support from the Automakers. The model companies just don't have that kind of access anymore. Me, I'm hoping for the best from the new releases but knowing how the process works I'm not holding my breath. Going by the current track record of hit or miss we'll just have to wait and see .... Steve
johnbuzzed Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) (deleted text) Edited August 5, 2014 by johnbuzzed
johnbuzzed Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 I'm not saying I won't buy any more kits, nor will I get rid of anything nor stop building anything. I won't even lose any sleep. It's not a matter of expecting perfection. If you have read any of the previous posts, you'll understand that. It's a question of "Why", and while that might or might not bother you, there are those of us who do wonder.
Tonioseven Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 And doing a quick match up, got this: The rear-side window is too small on the kit. That being said, I'll still buy it.
Jordan White Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Oh no a model isn't perfect, I'm gonna sell all the hundreds I have so I can sleep at night again. From what I'm seeing, it's not the perfect kit, but one that is an accurate attempt at the subject. If you're making it a specific year, it should look like that year. Likewise if you're going for stock, it should look stock and not like a chop-top.
Chuck Kourouklis Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 ...It's not a matter of expecting perfection. If you have read any of the previous posts, you'll understand that... Don't know if I'd hold my breath. How many tens of thousands of times do we point out the bone-headed obvious fact that nobody's asking for a perfect kit, and yet it keeps coming up. Without patent exaggerations like that one, what would there be to rail against?
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