Revell 67 Camaro

[turbo nova]

Boy, you guys are just looking for problems. I have to quit looking at this tread before I begin to believe you too much, and start disliking this kit. The I've got looks pretty good. As noted, I've just started working on it. And despite the flaws you guys keep pointing out, it still looks like it will build into a decent looking '67 Camaro to me.

I do need to quit reading this thread. It's become no fun. Like Revell' latest '70 'Cuda it may not be perfect. So are a lot of the models I've built over the years. But, if they do a pretty good representation of the real car. In others words if the average person can not tell there is anything wrong. I'm pretty happy with it. This is my last comment on this subject. I'm not going to let you guys ruin any more of my fun. On to other things.

Scott

I spotted the tail panel, valance, quarter shape when I opened the kit in the hobby lobby parking lot, the kit was open for ten seconds max before I saw it as soon as I picked up the body. Im not nit picking it to death, its just that wrong

[Snake45]

I've been reading through this thread, and it always comes down to the same thing: the people who can see and identify a kit's flaws are called "rivet counters" or whatever by the people who either A, don't see the flaws, or B, see the flaws but don't care.

Either way is fine! If you are the "rivet counter" type, or someone who expects a scale model to be accurate, that's absolutely fine, and a completely realistic expectation.

And those of you who don't care about accuracy, or are willing to overlook obvious flaws in a kit and are perfectly happy with a model that sort of looks like the subject, that's fine, too!

We all have our own expectations.

What I'm really tired of seeing, though, is the "I don't care about the kit's flaws" group always jumping on anyone who does care.

This (and most other "review" threads) is about the kit, its pros and cons, whether it's accurate or not, possible problems with assembly, etc. Pointing out a kits obvious flaws is a legitimate, even necessary, part of any "review" thread.

So there really is no point in posting things like "I don't care about the mistakes in the kit" or "Stop complaining, there will never be a perfect kit," etc. in a thread where the kit's accuracy is being discussed. We're not talking about your preferences or expectations, we're talking about the model's accuracy (or lack of).

If you don't care about a kit's accuracy, great! Build it and have fun. But don't bash the people who DO care and who DO have higher expectations and who DO expect the manufacturer to get it right. I mean seriously... if you don't care about the flaws in the kit, why are you even commenting on them in the first place?

You wouldn't believe how many times I've been through this on the model airplane boards. And I've been on both sides of the argument, depending on how fanatic I am about the particular subject in question. Many people happily nail together kits I just HAVE to correct, and I'm sure I do the same with kits of subjects other people are passionate about.

I happen to be a fan of the first-gen Camaros, so I'm here.

When one of these bad kits comes out, you have about six choices about what to do with it:

1. Fix it.

2. Buy an aftermarket fix for it.

3. Start with a better kit, if one's available

4. Build it and live with it.

5. Think outside the box and do something creative with it.

6. Put it back on the shelf (yours or the hobby shop's) and wait for something better to come along. Which might never happen.

I've done all six of these things and I'm sure I'll be doing all six things in the future.

Oh, and life's too short to build bad kits of subjects you don't really like all that much.

[Rob Hall]

This is probably the 5th or so kit that has such blatant errors, it really seems that no one there cares. I don't know how many times I've said it. And if these posts get read by any corporate person, that show us you give an S and fix things.

Revell needs to get serious about accuracy..they've been slipping for a long time. It seems who ever is in charge of product accuracy just doesn't get it.

[DaveM]

A while back, I promised a box stock build of this kit. I still plan to do this, with a build thread. I was delayed by a medical situation in the family. I hope to make some progress soon. so far, I have most of the parts cleaned up and ready for painting. I also have the big stuff glued together and the seam lines cleaned up. My original intent was to build a contest model for the box stock class to use at a contest or two next year. I will not have the time for that right now, and I will choose a slightly more accurate kit when I do. (Possibly another 1970 Torino) This kit will be built as a fun shelf model. Accuracy is really important in a box stock class, as you can't alter the model to fix inaccuracies. This kit has some really nice detail, crisp engraving, great parts and good fit so far. It's actually a pretty nice kit until you compare some of the body details to a real car. The good news is that most of the problems can be fixed pretty easily by the builder, and also by Revell. I am hopeful that the next release of the kit will have a different grille (RS, or Z/28, or base) This will solve the problem of the SS miscue. The nose of the car, and the taillight panel could be easily fixed in the next release. The overall shape of the body is pretty nice, so just those two spots need to be fixed. I don't mind the fender bulges as much as some people do. They are a pretty minor flaw, although I might work them over with a sanding stick if I was building a full bore replica model. I will fill and fix the door ding on my shelf build. That is just basic model building, Right now, I am thinking about making mine Gold, with the black interior, but that is subject to change until the first color coat is shot.

I know I have said this before, about a couple of other Revell models, but if they fix the nose and tail of this model, I will buy a kit or two of each version they release. (And I know they will do a lot of different versions of this kit just like the 69.) The rest of the kit is too nice to give up on it now. It is much easier for Revell to touch it up and fix the tooling once than it is to expect all five or ten thousand of their customers to fix it individually. with just a little help, this kit could be right up there with the '69 Camaro, '70 Torino, '68 Firebird and some of their other great kits.

To paraphrase that old baseball movie, "Fix it and we will buy!"

[Brett Barrow]

Well, I'm selling the heck out of 'em. Revell said they had sold the entire first run out before they even hit the shore. I'm sure they're pleased with how well they're selling. I don't have an MBA from the Wharton School or anything like that, but I think I'd rather have good sales than good reviews any day of the week...

[Matt T.]

Well, see, that's it. We "one percenters" here can lament a curve here or a trim piece there til the cows come home. Nothing's going to change if the masses are buying these up in bulk.

It would appear that accuracy is no longer a requirement to succeed in the model car business.

[Brett Barrow]

You wouldn't believe how many times I've been through this on the model airplane boards. And I've been on both sides of the argument, depending on how fanatic I am about the particular subject in question. Many people happily nail together kits I just HAVE to correct, and I'm sure I do the same with kits of subjects other people are passionate about.

I happen to be a fan of the first-gen Camaros, so I'm here.

When one of these bad kits comes out, you have about six choices about what to do with it:

1. Fix it.

2. Buy an aftermarket fix for it.

3. Start with a better kit, if one's available

4. Build it and live with it.

5. Think outside the box and do something creative with it.

6. Put it back on the shelf (yours or the hobby shop's) and wait for something better to come along. Which might never happen.

I've done all six of these things and I'm sure I'll be doing all six things in the future.

Oh, and life's too short to build bad kits of subjects you don't really like all that much.

You forgot option #7 - Don't buy it but bitch about it on the message boards anyway.

Well, see, that's it. We "one percenters" here can lament a curve here or a trim piece there til the cows come home. Nothing's going to change if the masses are buying these up in bulk.

It would appear that accuracy is no longer a requirement to succeed in the model car business.

Don't think it ever was. Exhibit A - MPC's General Lee is the best-selling model car kit of all time and for most of its existence it had a Charger 500 back window.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Rob Hall]

Well, I'm selling the heck out of 'em. Revell said they had sold the entire first run out before they even hit the shore. I'm sure they're pleased with how well they're selling. I don't have an MBA from the Wharton School or anything like that, but I think I'd rather have good sales than good reviews any day of the week...

I guess a lot of people are content with mediocrity. Sad.

[Brett Barrow]

Does anybody on here actually have fun building models anymore?

[Rob Hall]

Does anybody on here actually have fun building models anymore?

What does that have to do with expecting a level of quality and accuracy from a product? These aren't toys for children--if the target market is adults, they need to be made to a high standard of accuracy. The ignorant mindset that accepts mediocrity without question is part of the dumbing down of America...hard to have 'fun' when kits have so many glaring faults.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Rob Hall

[Exotics_Builder]

In my opinion, one can still have fun building, but also point out the inaccuracies. As I found out a couple of days back, constructive critiques and pointing out of errors is read and noted. Sadly, it may not result in a rapid fix.

Based on some comments Harry made, I went back and checked a lot of older kits and surprised myself on the amount of inaccuracies, some slight some not, that exist. Personally, I don't think the AMT 67 Camaro is much better than the Revell. I don't have an MPC Gen 1 Camaro to compare to, but all the Gen-1 Camaros, AMT, Revell, etc. I have viewed do not have front fender braces. If somebody mentioned that one, I don't recollect.

Harry's comment above about respecting opinions is the point. I, again personally, don't like the vitriol that is directed at people regardless of their opinion. If that continues, the value of this forum is severely diminished.

Even people passionate about a particular topic can express themselves civilly, And we should respect that.

As regards this model, I would to thank those who have been able to compare against 1:1 versions and point out the discrepancies.

As regards the model companies in general, I fear that those who are passionate car people are gone (death or retirement) and the few left are dealing with different corporate cultures.

[Brett Barrow]

Don't take anything I said as a personal attack or vitriol, I'm just asking a question - "Is this fun?". If pointing out flaws is fun, then by all means continue doing it. But I feel that if you base your personal happiness level on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a model car kit, then you pretty much deserve what you get.

[Guest]

Excellently said Harry.

Don't forget, those types that are against these reviews also take personal offense to them also. Come on guys, if you're on Revell's payroll just man up already. Otherwise stop it with the bs attitude.

That's what I don't get. Why do some people get so offended if someone mentions an inaccuracy? You would think someone had made a rude comment about their mother or something. Of course, it's OK if they point one out. If a kit has inaccuracies, it has them. Plain and simple. Some either can't see or just flat out refuse to see. Just like with the '70 'Cuda, the more I look at it, the more flaws I find. More and more, it seems like Revell is producing engine/chassis donors for the old AMT, MPC and JoHan kits.

[Exotics_Builder]

Don't take anything I said as a personal attack or vitriol, I'm just asking a question - "Is this fun?". If pointing out flaws is fun, then by all means continue doing it. But I feel that if you base your personal happiness level on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a model car kit, then you pretty much deserve what you get.

I wasn't referring to your comment. Sorry if you thought so. Just a general observation on some of the threads that have been going on lately, including this one.

I don't envy the moderators trying to keep things civil yet allow an exchange of views.

To me, it is useful when someone can compare to a real example or is an expert in a particular mark. I still may buy an inaccurate model and work with it. Or I may not. Personal preference. I think we all do that to some degree, depending on our interest in the subject.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Exotics_Builder

[Daddyfink]

Think of the sandwich as the kit, Aunt Edna as the average model builder and the Dog as Revell

http://youtu.be/C1Zp7vfyew8

Edited September 24, 2014 by Daddyfink

[Snake45]

I don't have an MPC Gen 1 Camaro to compare to...

You're not missing much. It was an okay kit in its day, but definitely second in accuracy to the AMT '67 annual. And definitely behind the AMT '67-'68 kits that originated in the '80s. Probably behind the new Revell, though I think in certain body areas, it's prolly more accurate. Definitely inferior in interior, chassis, engine, etc.

[freakshow12]

I have noticed a trend with some of the people who cry hardest about this stuff. Using the find content button, I notice a ton of crying bit little or no WIP activity....

Perhaps they just can't find a kit perfect enough to build?

[Snake45]

I have noticed a trend with some of the people who cry hardest about this stuff. Using the find content button, I notice a ton of crying bit little or no WIP activity....

Perhaps they just can't find a kit perfect enough to build?

I've got a '66 Skylark and a dune buggy in the Workshop section, and an in-progress '65 Chevelle in the Drag section. When I get those two finished, I think at least one and perhaps two '69 Camaros will be next. Coming up soon should be a MPC '68 annual Camaro resto, and an AMT annual '67 Camaro resto. My problem is I have about 20 projects started, and I need to bear down and work on one or two of them at a time until completion.

[Brett Barrow]

I've got a '66 Skylark and a dune buggy in the Workshop section, and an in-progress '65 Chevelle in the Drag section. When I get those two finished, I think at least one and perhaps two '69 Camaros will be next. Coming up soon should be a MPC '68 annual Camaro resto, and an AMT annual '67 Camaro resto. My problem is I have about 20 projects started, and I need to bear down and work on one or two of them at a time until completion.

I don't think he meant that to you, there are 3 or 4 individuals who seem to pop up every time one of these threads goes down this path (and they always go down this path).

I look at it this way, you paid your money, you bought your kit, you can say whatever you want about and do whatever you want to it. But there are certain characters who come along in these Revell threads who build other scales or other genres and were never going to buy it anyway and proceed to $#!& over anything the company does, if it's not the model itself, it's the instruction sheet or the decals or it's what parts they put in one version and not the other or it's decisions made or not made about subject selection. They'll find something to complain about.

[Harry P.]

But I feel that if you base your personal happiness level on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a model car kit, then you pretty much deserve what you get.

I strongly doubt that anyone bases their "personal level of happiness" on the accuracy of a model kit. That's absurd.

And I don't understand why you are always insinuating that people who point out a kit's flaws in a thread where the kit is being reviewed, are somehow off-base or have some sort of personal problem. If a thread where a model kit is being reviewed is the wrong place to point out that kit's flaws, explain to me what the correct place would be.

I'm a perfectly sane person with no major psychological problems. I'm relatively happy, relatively healthy, and have a good sense of humor. So if I (or someone else pretty much like me... the average person) makes a comment about an inaccuracy or flaw with a model kit on a model kit forum, why insinuate that we have some sort of problem?

[freakshow12]

I don't think it's the mentioning of the flaw, it's the beating to death of it and the mud slinging and name calling. Harry, I really enjoy how you do builds. What I mean is that you build some different things and I have seen you work the review into the build. You don't like a part of the kit but you keep going, you don't harp the flaw to death but you correct it. Isn't that part of the fun? I have seen you build parts that were wrong or just not in the kit you were building! Did you rant and rave about it? No, you stated it and got to work. I like that mindset.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right to have an opinion, be classy about it is all.

I also noticed that a review like this is done on a bare white body. I get that, but I challenge the haters to paint one up, detail it out and put it together. Just once! Let's throw the mustang and cuda in there too. Did you know once the trim is all done and all the parts are on it puts it all together as a package and the results are good. You get the effects and help of shadows, depth, texture, reflection that you don't get from a bare white kit body. Go look at the 70 cuda thread under glass. If those models don't impress then I will eat my words. Sorry for the rant

[niteowl7710]

I strongly doubt that anyone bases their "personal level of happiness" on the accuracy of a model kit. That's absurd.

And I don't understand why you are always insinuating that people who point out a kit's flaws in a thread where the kit is being reviewed, are somehow off-base or have some sort of personal problem. If a thread where a model kit is being reviewed is the wrong place to point out that kit's flaws, explain to me what the correct place would be.

I'm a perfectly sane person with no major psychological problems. I'm relatively happy, relatively healthy, and have a good sense of humor. So if I (or someone else pretty much like me... the average person) makes a comment about an inaccuracy or flaw with a model kit on a model kit forum, why insinuate that we have some sort of problem?

See Harry! The attitude that Brett and Fred are showing is why we can't have anything nice around here. Between Brett implying in a wordy albeit polite way, that that anyone who wants an accurate kit is somehow miserable AND deserves it, and Fred saying people are crying all the time, and then pulling out the "What have you built" card.

I mean don't you people ever get tired of repeating the same lines over and over and over again. A kit is critiqued, the Defense Squad saddles up, and a flame war erupts because they can't handle the truth of the matter. What's that old line about being entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. I've stayed out of this thread until now, but the facts are the kit is deficient in the ways shown. Those are the facts...no amount of taunting people about perfect kits, crying like girls, constantly whining that you're tired of all the complaining - but are the ones CONSTANTLY WHINING AND BRINGING UP THE COMPLAINING - eg "Oh here comes another kit their going to bash, wonder what they'll find wrong with THIS one", et al ad nauseum. Yeah a few people are particularly heavy handed in their criticism of various domestic manufacturers, Revell taking the brunt since they're the biggest and busiest. If it seems like they're always finding something to complain about, maybe it's because there's always SOMETHING to be complaining about. Also at least it's DIFFERENT from kit to kit, it's not the same recycled cliches that Chuck K handles so marvelously in his blog post. In doing so, not a single one of the people who do critique Revell kits have ever attacked anyone on the "I Don't Care About the Flaws" camp unprovoked and personally. Maybe "we" should all start posting "Hey that new S&H Torino is coming out soon, can't wait to see how Brett tries to cover for Revell THIS time", or "The new Moebius F-Series is almost here, I can't wait to hear about how perfect and flawless it is, and how we should just be happy they even bestow this great honor upon the huddle masses". See how obnoxious that looks? Do you "defend the hobby against critique at all costs!" guys even realize how much you all run ram shod throughout every section of this forum doing that on nearly daily basis? It's like a Groundhog Day-esque repeating of Kevin Bacon screaming "ALL IS WELL" at the end of Animal House.

I don't believe anyone can be rationally objective and say that the kits we've gotten out of Revell in 2013 & 2014 are NEARLY as good as the kits we got in 2011 & 2012. If Revell or you guys who are creepily in love with, or your job puts you in "bed with" them want the "crying/whining/complaining" to stop, then they need to start producing kits like the '50 Olds & '57 Ford again. Nobody said two words about those kits in a negative way, other than perhaps the inclusion/exclusion of the Paxton Supercharger, but that had nothing to do with the excellent base kit itself.

Ya all wanna know something ELSE that's wrong with this kit that no one has brought up, but I have seen with my own two eyes in person from someone who did buy one of these kits. The Cowl Panel isn't wide enough. Or the firewall isn't deep enough. One or the other, because when installed in the correct location the firewall doesn't go all the way back to the cowl panel leaving an impressive gap of daylight and vision directly into the interior. Huzzah!! That's not even a problem with the car's proportions, that's basic kit engineering!

This thread had actually been one of the more civil and informative critiques of a Revell kit as of late, with even a tone of cooperation and understanding between the two "sides", and yet SOME people couldn't just leave that well enough alone and have to come in here and start flinging barbs around and try to start a fight where there wasn't even an argument.

Remind me again who the miserable people on this forum are again?

Edited September 24, 2014 by niteowl7710

[Harry P.]

Well Fred, first of all, thanks for the nice words. Yes, I fix problems when I build, I scratchbuild details that are missing, I correct details that are there, but are wrong... I basically make the kit I'm building as "right" as I can. And sometimes it's pretty frustrating when I have to re-engineer a kit I paid for that was supposed to be engineered correctly before I opened the box! But incorrect kits and wrong details and missing details, etc., are part of the process. Like everyone always says, there will never be a perfect kit... and I realize that.

But here, we're specifically reviewing a kit. So I don't see anything out of line with people noting the flaws they see. And I think that things like incorrect body contours, wheel openings shaped wrong, incorrect or missing trim, etc. can be pointed out easily on a bare body. I agree with your point about once a kit is painted and detailed and built, it generally looks ok and the flaws tend to visually disappear. That's because your eye is drawn to a lot of things... the color, the wheels, the interior, the foil work, etc. So basic flaws in a kit's body, for example, generally aren't as obvious on a finished kit.

[Harry P.]

Like I said in an earlier post, if you are one of those people who don't care all that much about accuracy, and are happy building a kit that sort of looks like the real car, more or less, that's perfectly ok. For you.

But if you are one of those people, why come on to a review thread where a particular model is being discussed, warts and all, and complain about people who are discussing the kit's problems? Why are you trying to force your way of thinking onto others?

It's as if I was a member of a cooking forum and there was a thread about the pros and cons of a certain Chinese recipe, and I came on and said something like "why are you guys picking apart this recipe? There will never be the perfect Chinese dish, so stop complaining about it."

See how silly that is? And how it contributes nothing to the discussion at hand?

[Brett Barrow]

I strongly doubt that anyone bases their "personal level of happiness" on the accuracy of a model kit. That's absurd.

And I don't understand why you are always insinuating that people who point out a kit's flaws in a thread where the kit is being reviewed, are somehow off-base or have some sort of personal problem. If a thread where a model kit is being reviewed is the wrong place to point out that kit's flaws, explain to me what the correct place would be.

I'm a perfectly sane person with no major psychological problems. I'm relatively happy, relatively healthy, and have a good sense of humor. So if I (or someone else pretty much like me... the average person) makes a comment about an inaccuracy or flaw with a model kit on a model kit forum, why insinuate that we have some sort of problem?

I think you read waaaay too much into what I wrote, or maybe I didn't do a good enough job expressing what I meant to say, because that's not at all what I meant.

The problem is with the folks who come along after a flaw has been pointed out and pile on - "How do they let these leave the factory", "How could they do something this bad in 2014" "They're idiots" "Nobody with any sense works there" - that's the type of stuff I'm talking about, and it happens on every single one of these. Folks that don't even build 60's muscle cars or 1/25th scale come along and pile on whenever the topic is Revell. And I see those same folks blowing smoke up Moebius' you-know-what in their threads, even though Moebius is guilty of some of the same flaws, not to mention they tend to miss release dates by months or years, but hey, we'll cut 'em some slack because they have a guy who posts on the board. It's hypocritical. I don't favor one over the other, I sell 'em both and they both sell well, but c'mon, let's treat them both the same.