Revell 67 Camaro

[freakshow12]

Oh that's gonna be nice

[freakshow12]

Maybe if you had built one and saw the body in paint and finished you would change your mind. I know of at least 4 built up on here recently that I thought turned out very nice.

[unclescott58]

From what I've seen in photos, the body is pretty bad. The stubby front end alone is almost impossible to fix. Let alone, the other problems it has. It's better than their first two efforts with the AAR. But, that isn't a big jump IMO. I haven't/won't buy it. I've seen enough in photos to know that it's something I don't want to get into to try to fix. I can fix this Camaro pretty easily.

Come on guys. Let's not go after the 'Cuda kit again. I liked the kit and I'm tired of hearing about it by those who don't. If you don't like it fine. We know. It's been beaten into the ground. I like most of Revell's new releases. Compared to what we got back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, the new stuff we get now looks pretty good.

Thank you Revell. I like your recent '70 'Cuda kit. And I'm sure I'll like your '67 Camaro kit too. Are they perfect? No. But, they are pretty darn good.

Scott

[Guest]

What Scott said. The Cuda is not bad at all in person. It looks better than pics show.

[my80malibu]

I got one on Friday. The body is molded very thinly therefore is quite delicate, the plastic is softer than regular IMO.the entire kit appears to be very nice. However I am curious to see how it will react,with automotive primer,and paint.

[MrObsessive]

I got one on Friday. The body is molded very thinly therefore is quite delicate, the plastic is softer than regular IMO.the entire kit appears to be very nice. However I am curious to see how it will react,with automotive primer,and paint.

Hmmm.......I dunno----I've been wary of Revell's plastic for the last ten years or so. If it were me, I'd put a barrier coat on it before applying any automotive paint over that.

Forewarned is forearmed!

[deuces wild]

Wasn't there a problem with the plastic '06 mustang gt kit a while back????..

[martinfan5]

Wasn't there a problem with the plastic '06 mustang gt kit a while back????..

Yes, anything other than hobby paint can craze the poop out of the plastic , you have be careful

[freakshow12]

I dunno, I regularly use dupli color filler primer on the raw plastic. Then dupli color sealer then whatever paint I want. No issues

[my80malibu]

I used Martin Senour rust colored laquer primer. Over the entire body, and hood.I had no crazing.

[IMPALASS89]

I also use automotive primer from mcw and I just painted the 67 Camaro and had no issues with any of the parts I painted them in.

Edited September 1, 2014 by IMPALASS89

[deuces wild]

Cool... Thanks guys!

[Guest]

I used a auto type catalized primer on my 68 Bug, no issues. Even sprayed it from a regular spray gun, you just go light and build it up as with any primer. Used it on the seats of my Trumpeter 63 Nova I am working on, no issues as well.

[cooltoys1]

Why does my local hobby distributor say not available yet? Is it my location?? Im in Buffalo NY

[Rob Hall]

Why does my local hobby distributor say not available yet? Is it my location?? Im in Buffalo NY

It was out about a week ago at RPP shops and should be generally available in the next week or so, the standard Revell release..

[Harry P.]

From what I've seen in photos, the body is pretty bad. The stubby front end alone is almost impossible to fix. Let alone, the other problems it has.

This comment, and many others like it in the various review threads, brings up a great question that has been asked before, but never really answered...

Back in the Stone Age, JoHan models were known for their very good, realistic, well-proportioned, accurate bodies. If it was possible for a relatively small company with no computers to get their kit bodies so accurate, why is it that today, given the leaps and bounds in technology (computers, CAD, etc.), we see so many newly tooled kits that are so wrong?

I've heard all the stock answers.

1. We're modelers, we can fix it.

2. I'd rather have an inaccurate kit than no kit at all.

3. I'm not a "rivet counter" so it's close enough for me.

4. There can never be a perfect model.

But I have never seen a logical, informed answer to this question. I'm not bashing any particular manufacturer, but I would really like to know why this problem exists in 2014, when JoHan apparently solved it 50 years ago?

[Rob Hall]

This comment, and many others like it in the various review threads, brings up a great question that has been asked before, but never really answered...

Back in the Stone Age, JoHan models were known for their very good, realistic, well-proportioned, accurate bodies. If it was possible for a relatively small company with no computers to get their kit bodies so accurate, why is it that today, given the leaps and bounds in technology (computers, CAD, etc.), we see so many newly tooled kits that are so wrong?

But I have never seen a logical, informed answer to this question. I'm not bashing any particular manufacturer, but I would really like to know why this problem exists in 2014, when JoHan apparently solved it 50 years ago?

Back in the promo era, model car companies had access to the auto makers (access to design drawings, patterns, etc) that they don't have today? And JoHan was making models of new cars...not old ones. And it was local..none of the outsource to China nonsense we have today...

[Harry P.]

Back in the promo era, model car companies had access to the auto makers (access to design drawings, patterns, etc) that they don't have today? And JoHan was making models of new cars...not old ones. And it was local..none of the outsource to China nonsense we have today...

I don't know if that's the real reason. Today the kit makers have sophisticated ways to measure a car (no need for access to factory drawings, etc... just an example of the real thing!)... and I don't really see how the age of the car would matter. You can measure a 1932 Ford just as accurately as a 2014 Ford. You're just measuring an object. That object's age has nothing to do with how accurately you can measure it. And besides, JoHan also made kits of several classics from the '30s that were every bit as accurate as their models of then-current cars.

And as far as China... I may be off base here–if so, someone please correct me... but I thought that the kits were measured and designed here. but the actual manufacturing done overseas. So isn't it a case of GIGO?

[Rob Hall]

I don't know if that's the real reason. Today the kit makers have sophisticated ways to measure a car (no need for access to factory drawings, etc... just an example of the real thing!)... and I don't really see how the age of the car would mater. You can measure a 1932 Ford just as accurately as a 2014 Ford. You're just measuring an object. That object's age has nothing to do with how accurately you can measure it.

It seems like however they are measuring cars today isn't accurate enough...is Revell using tape measures and old men with poor eyesight? 'just measuring an object' isn't the whole story--there are complex contours and surface detailing to be accounted for--'measuring an object' doesn't account for poor efforts like the '67 Camaro grille.

With new cars, they could in theory have access to the manufacturers' data and diagrams which you don't get with old cars.

What's your explanation?

[Harry P.]

What's your explanation?

That's just it... I don't have one.

I don't see how JoHan could do it right 50 years ago, but today it's become so hit-and-miss. I mean, there have been some major bloopers, not just nit-picky rivet counter stuff. I mean basic mistakes in proportion, contours, roof height... that sort of thing. The kind of thing you can capture by simply taking a series of photos, if nothing else.

And by "measure," I mean recording the data, whether photographically, via laser, 3D imaging... not literally just "measuring" distances (although that certainly is a part of it).

[Rob Hall]

That's just it... I don't have one.

I don't see how JoHan could do it right 50 years ago, but today it's become so hit-and-miss. I mean, there have been some major bloopers, not just nit-picky rivet counter stuff. I mean basic mistakes in proportion, contours, that sort of thing.

Incompetence and a 'good enough' attitude is probably part of it as far as today goes...not sweating the details.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Rob Hall

[Harry P.]

Incompetence and a 'good enough' attitude is probably part of it as far as today goes...not sweating the details.

I think that's exactly right. Just didn't want to say it...

[Harry P.]

Here's something to think about... you know how they used templates in NASCAR to make sure the bodies were "correct?"

And the recent discussion here regarding a new Mustang kit and how obviously "off" the roofline was? And a similar problem with a Chrysler 300 with an obviously inaccurate "hump" on the roof?

They could have taken a real car, some strips of wood lath and a hot glue gun and literally made a template of the car's profile... right down the middle... then reduced that profile to scale, giving them a very close outline of the profile of the car. That being just one of many ways they can record data. My point is, regardless of whether or not anyone uses such templates to record the car's data, it seems to me that getting accurate data to then transfer down to scale should be relatively easy to do... one way or another.

[peekay]

In the golden age of promos, the client (ie. Ford, GM etc) had the last word on wether a new tool was good to go or not. I presume this still applies to modern promos like Mustangs, Chargers etc. and I don't see complaints about these tools. But if Revell/Mobius does a non-current subject, ie. the 56 Chrysler 300, Chrysler itself seems to be more concerned with licensing than how the model will look and the model company's own bean-counters decide when it's good enough. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

And the idea that the Chinese aren't up to measuring things is absurd. Along with the Arabs, they pioneered measuring our world.

Edited September 2, 2014 by peekay

[Exotics_Builder]

This is not a defense of any manufacturer. Especially given that some posters recently assailed a reviewer on another thread.

Harry raises a good point. He has raised it before. But it got me to thinking before and I looked at the stash and was amazed at some inaccuracies that I totally glossed over in the past. Even older kits. I am excluding the simplified chasses with metal axles that ran through the engine oil pan from this.

Even on bodies, Even though it looked good, even such notables as Tamiya pulled tricks in dimensional accuracy such as that in their 360 Ferrari Modenas. It also interesting that many wheels are an inch wider than stock versions, but they look right to us. I sometimes wonder if the manufacturers often pull a trompe l'oeil effect as well as doing things to reduce the complexity of the masters.

I suspect the reasons stated above all contribute. But since I have a mid-90's AMT Z28 and did pick up the current Revell kit, I thought I would take some quick side by side photos to compare the two. Here are the body shots. First the AMT 67.

Now the Revell:

And the two together (the white one is the Revell):

And the two from above:

They look very close in general. Since I didn't make a template based on a real car (hopefully unmodified), I can't tell accuracy of either. The Revell kit is taller, but looks closer to side shots of the real car. I did measure the wheels of the Revell and AMT kits. The Revell measures out to 14.9" in 1/25 which would be about right for a 14" wheel (all but Z/28's). The AMT scales out to 16.4", close to 15" for a Z/28.

I also took a photo of the non-RS grill of both, the AMT is on the left:

If you notice, the AMT does not the horizontal bars between the lights either, but is perhaps a little closer because of a depression in the area. The AMT appears more squared off in the corners than the Revell. Also, neither kit (nor any Gen 1 or 2 Camaro kit I have on my stash have the front fender braces. The AMT kit has a semblance of a mono-leaf suspension, but it looks more an beam than a spring.

I like Harry's thought of a body template along with photos if you can't get technical plans of the real car.

I do think we need to constructively critique any new issue or reissue, particularly if we see a test shot. There was an obvious issue with the S&H Torino that should be caught and corrected. But no harm in airing it. I do know that the manufacturers have people guest visiting forums like ours. I was told by one at IHOBBY 2013 that they don't interact because of past experiences that went well beyond test shots and critiques. I suggested they might reconsider.

Anyway, I can take more comparison photos of the two kits, if anyone has an interest.