Harry P. Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Your comparison shots of the body show, to me at least, that the two bodies are very close. Meaning it looks like they either both got it right, or both made the same mistakes! My guess is, in this case, they both got it pretty much right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exotics_Builder Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Your comparison shots of the body show, to me at least, that the two bodies are very close. Meaning it looks like they either both got it right, or both made the same mistakes! My guess is, in this case, they both got it pretty much right. I wasn't going to get the 67 because I have the AMT kit and am more interested in a 68 as I had a real 68 Z/28 and the AMT kit is, IMO, not as good as the MPC kit was. When I asked Revell at the GTR Summer NNL in Crystal Lake, it didn't sound like they are contemplating a 68 as they feel the market is already saturated with the AMT kit. Since they only have so much R&D money to invest, I can understand that and there are a lot subjects that would make other modelers happy. I really like your idea of the body template. There is only so much you can do with photographs, even digital. And there is always the possibility of parallax creeping in to distort. Then one needs to hope the version is pristine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 There is some very good chrome plating in this kit. I mean very tough to remove, I have had a few parts in the Purple Pond for 24 hours, with No significant plating removal at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 All the new revell stuff is like that. I use an old Tupperware container and spray it all down with no scent easy off. Then wash it and scrub with toothbrush (wife's) lol. J/k. Then repeat to get the thick yellow stuff off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparfarmer Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 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? Because the molds (bucks) are not done by hand and the Chinese manufacturers use computers etc that don't cut finely like it was done in the olden days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Those who design the molds also have to worry about draft angles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake69 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I have a possible answer to Harry's question. After reading more on the history of model cars and the Detroit Big 3, it seems to me that Jo-Han had greater access to the more acurate "last stage" clay or wood templates that the design teams made of the new cars prior to production (probably paid for well in advance...). Although Revell, AMT, and other model companies also made promo kits at the same time as Jo-Han, they all seem to be less acurate than anything Jo-Han ever produced, and this would make sense if all they had access to were older pre-production templates (since Jo-Han had already acquired all the more recent ones...). Imperfections in body size and proportion, missing badging, inacurate interiors, etc..., would commonly be the result of this practice. What was missing in the early design templates would then have to accounted for in pictures, or eye-balling, or some other less-acurate practice in an attempt to get the kit as close to the real thing as they could. BUT, improper measurements would have already translated to the model kit because the base template would still be inacurate. And since the kits cost money to constantly redesign them, Revell et al. developed a "just good enough" approach to their product, knowing it was still a model kit people would purchase. Then, once modellers pointed out inconsistences in the kits, Revell et al. would sometimes correct the kits later on, like in an annual release or some other re-release point. In summary, Jo-Han paid bigger bucks (OR, had contract rights well in advance...) to the automakers to get ahold of more acurate pre-production templates than the other companies, ensuring that their model car kits were more acurate in body shape and style than anything else out there. Now, if only they had spent more design time with the chassis of those kits.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I have a possible answer to Harry's question. After reading more on the history of model cars and the Detroit Big 3, it seems to me that Jo-Han had greater access to the more acurate "last stage" clay or wood templates that the design teams made of the new cars prior to production (probably paid for well in advance...). Although Revell, AMT, and other model companies also made promo kits at the same time as Jo-Han, they all seem to be less acurate than anything Jo-Han ever produced, and this would make sense if all they had access to were older pre-production templates (since Jo-Han had already acquired all the more recent ones...). Imperfections in body size and proportion, missing badging, inacurate interiors, etc..., would commonly be the result of this practice. What was missing in the early design templates would then have to accounted for in pictures, or eye-balling, or some other less-acurate practice in an attempt to get the kit as close to the real thing as they could. BUT, improper measurements would have already translated to the model kit because the base template would still be inacurate. And since the kits cost money to constantly redesign them, Revell et al. developed a "just good enough" approach to their product, knowing it was still a model kit people would purchase. Then, once modellers pointed out inconsistences in the kits, Revell et al. would sometimes correct the kits later on, like in an annual release or some other re-release point. In summary, Jo-Han paid bigger bucks (OR, had contract rights well in advance...) to the automakers to get ahold of more acurate pre-production templates than the other companies, ensuring that their model car kits were more acurate in body shape and style than anything else out there. Now, if only they had spent more design time with the chassis of those kits.... And yet sadly, Jo Han was one of the first to go under. So, where does accuracy get you? Bankrupt! At this rate, Revell should be around forever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubaja Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 And yet sadly, Jo Han was one of the first to go under. So, where does accuracy get you? Bankrupt! At this rate, Revell should be around forever! L O L!!! Excellent! Maybe that's what they are afraid of after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) 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. I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that all the AMT '67/'68 bodies (except of course for the original annuals) come with the so-called "Belt Reveal Molding" (below the side windows), which is correct only for '68 Rally Sports and cars with the optional Style Trim Group (which was part of '68 Rally Sport). And AMT molded it incorrectly to boot. Seen a lot of models with this uncorrected (and have even built a few of them myself). At least the new Revell body doesn't have that mess to deal with--it seems to look pretty good in this area, which no other '67 or '68 Camaro kit from anybody has ever gotten exactly right. I wrote a tutorial on fixing this, and also on correcting the AMT body's too-fat front end. I'm brand new here and don't know this board's policy on posting links to other sites, but if it's legal here and anyone is interested, I'll try to find that and post a link. Edited September 3, 2014 by Snake45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robberbaron Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) I wrote a tutorial on fixing this, and also on correcting the AMT body's too-fat front end. I'm brand new here and don't know this board's policy on posting links to other sites, but if it's legal here and anyone is interested, I'll try to find that and post a link. Not really a matter of "legal", but as a matter of courtesy most of us normally don't post links to other model forums. I do recall that tutorial, and I think it would be beneficial to anyone building either the 67 or 68 AMT Camaro kits, especially since the 68 was just reissued again. If you have the text and pics saved, duplicating the tutorial here (instead of posting a link) in a separate thread, specifically for the AMT Camaros would be no problem. Edited September 4, 2014 by Robberbaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I'm looking at the various grille pictures again, and I can't tell for sure, but it looks like Revell might have gotten the ends of the grille wrong. The top of the grille should be wider than the bottom. It looks like the Revell grille is symmetrical top to bottom, i.e., you could put it in either way and not be able to tell the difference. The AMT '67 and '68 kits have the proper effect, very subtly (probably not as much as it should). The old MPC '68 Rally Sport kit has this right on the right (passenger) side, but not on the left (driver) side--very annoying! The original AMT '67 SS/RS annual got this right (though that grill might have a little more "V" in it than it should). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I wonder if the custom interior from the Revell '68 Firebird will fit in the '67 Camaro..???... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Most likely not a direct fit. The interior plate is a little different than the Firebird in the way it attaches to the chassis. If you have one to look at you will understand,what I am saying. I wonder if the custom interior from the Revell '68 Firebird will fit in the '67 Camaro..???... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Ok, thanks Gabe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Hey guys... Does the Camaro big block motor resemble the one from the copo/Yenko Nova motor???... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not sure,I will say that it is simple. The exhaust manifolds are molded relieved on the backside, there are raised bumps on the heads for spark plugs.all parts are molded very cleanly, with hardly any flash. The Engine mounting posts come up from the frame. Fitting into cutouts on the block very toylike IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The Engine mounting posts come up from the frame. Fitting into cutouts on the block very toylike IMO. I hated that on the '69 Nova! So much so that I swapped the engine out and cut those huge posts off. I also hate how they mold the the inner fenderwells to the floor pan! That's one of the dumbest engineering moves I've ever seen on a kit! Mold them to the chassis or fenders. But don't mold them to the floor pan! I want to buy this kit when they do a version I want. But, the list of fixes keeps getting longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 What do you hate about it? I found it all fit together well and helped with mock ups so I didn't have to handle the body much. I liked that with the cuda and the mustang lx for that matter. On the mustang in particular it allows easy swapping into the mpc bodies too. Thumbs up in my book Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) It is an excellent kit, just different from the norm. From other kits I have built. I would recommend it. I am building mine straight from the box, not something I normally do (boring for me). Edited September 10, 2014 by my80malibu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Irwin Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What do you hate about it? I found it all fit together well and helped with mock ups so I didn't have to handle the body much. I liked that with the cuda and the mustang lx for that matter. On the mustang in particular it allows easy swapping into the mpc bodies too. Thumbs up in my book Mine was warped so bad I had to cut them off to straighten them out, and glue the under hood parts together and reinstall them that way. That makes more sense for correct painting to me. I vote bad move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I am finding Small fixes that could be looked at by Revell, The detail of the the steering wheel could be Sharpened up, next the front seat upholstery pattern is a little Shallow compared to the rear seat and almost washes out. There is a decal for the Gauge cluster, but yo won't be able to see it once it is place because the steering wheel placement obscures much of it. Revell included a decal for the Radio face, but it would have been nice to do one for the heater control panel while they were at it. Basicallly I feel the crispness in the Interior is lacking, which could be a problem if you want to offer this kit as a convertible in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Has anyone actually finished one of these yet? On a related note: Is anyone planning to use this kit to build Grumpy's Toy III? (I am. Maybe not my first one, but eventually.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTony8 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Jo-han didn't always get it right.See the incorrectly sized '62 Cadillac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) I am currently working on one. I am building Grumpy's car. I sourced some headers from the Baldwin Motion Camaro, and they are horrible! Need to find a better set. And yes, for some reason, this kit does not seem to have the same "sharpness" as the Cuda kit. Just finished the S&M 70 Cuda, and it is not a bad kit. Edited September 15, 2014 by Daddyfink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.