Comments from Revell at pre-IHOBBY interview

[Luc Janssens]

Are the masters and the tooling created by Americans or by Chinese?

I realize that the actual manufacturing of the kits is done overseas, but what is the source of the initial kit design, engineering, and tooling?

Masters and tooling are also done overseas, dunno if the production is done by the same vendor(s) as the one who's contracted to do the tooling-model and cutting the dies.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[Harry P.]

Masters and tooling are also done overseas, dunno if the production is done by the same vendor(s) as the one who's contracted to do the tooling-model and cutting the dies.

Interesting. I thought that only the actual production of the kits was done overseas... didn't realize that design, engineering, and tooling was all done there, too.

Of course, that still doesn't excuse all the mistakes. I mean, Chinese workers do have eyes, right?

[Luc Janssens]

If we can see them, why can't the manufacturers see them?

Dunno, maybe sometimes the tooling model is so much off, that they don't have the budget and time-frame to fix all the errors, let alone start from scratch?!

For instance when the wheelbase is off, not only the body needs to be retooled, but also the chassis, suspension parts, exhaust, interference with other parts need to be checked, interior, firewall, etc..

Then the translation form tooling model to first shot can also go bad for reasons Murphy only knows, remember the B-pillar from the Moebius Ford P/U?

Maybe we should call it the Walmart legacy..

Cutting costs so much that decisions were made which now seem irreversible due to laying the eggs in just one basket, so that there's no turning back without a major investment in technology, human capital and production slots.

Think the complaining of board members is like poring salt in an already open wound.

just my opinion...and open for debate...

Edited September 25, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[Harry P.]

Dunno, maybe sometimes the tooling model is so much off, that they don't have the budget and time-frame to fix all the errors, let alone start from scratch?!

For instance when the wheelbase is off, not only the body needs to be retooled, but also the chassis, suspension parts, exhaust, interference with other parts need to be checked, interior, firewall, etc..

Then the translation form tooling model to first shot can also go bad for reasons Murphy only knows, remember the B-pillar from the Moebius Ford P/U?

The test shot is a product of the master. It can't be different. If the pillar on that Ford looked right on the master, but was off on the test shot, that means that master (with the correct pillar) was not used to create that test shot (with the incorrect pillar). It couldn't have been.

[southpier]

I remember Revell kits that basically couldn't be built (separate fenders, too). now we whine about a little glitch, and AMT is so impossible.

we're such great "assemblers", yet can't we make something out of the box o' parts?

Q: could it be we don't know when we're well off?

[johnbuzzed]

I'd love to see the plastic model car kit that is completely free of even little niggles. frankly. Simply put, I submit that would be darned near impossible.

Art

Art, I respect your opinion, but I don't think any "serious" car modelers, such as those who take part in this and other forums, expect ANY kit to be perfect. Most of us have been around long enough to realize that and to pass that sage information on to relative newcomers and those who might be a little less "serious" about the hobby. But "little niggles" are one thing. Such things as inaccurate body contours and incorrect roof heights are hardly "little niggles". Those are more like... big niggles, that show negligence, incompetence, apathy, or whatever. That goes for ANY model manufacturer, whether the subject is cars, aircraft, armor, ships, even sci-fi.

Let's hope that Revell- and all of the other manufacturers- actually do pay attention to what "we" modelers have to say on this subject and that they strive to keep all the niggles little- way little.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Mmmhmm. Guess I better look at making this another blog post...

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92517&p=1271431

[Luc Janssens]

I remember Revell kits that basically couldn't be built (separate fenders, too). now we whine about a little glitch, and AMT is so impossible.

we're such great "assemblers", yet can't we make something out of the box o' parts?

Q: could it be we don't know when we're well off?

Think Revell in the Venice years had some great Ideas, but where was their tooling done?

'Bout the second statement you make, well if the weekend modelers were not so discriminative palmer and that other brand still would be current model kit makers.

;^)

[Luc Janssens]

The test shot is a product of the master. It can't be different. If the pillar on that Ford looked right on the master, but was off on the test shot, that means that master (with the correct pillar) was not used to create that test shot (with the incorrect pillar). It couldn't have been.

Didn't know that they had several Masters, which is not likely cuz they cost a ton of money.

But I doubt we will ever know the reason why it happened...internal kitchen...

[Harry P.]

But I doubt we will ever know the reason why it happened...

I think you're right...

[Rob Hall]

Think Revell in the Venice years had some great Ideas, but where was their tooling done?

'Bout the second statement you make, well if the weekend modelers were not so discriminative palmer and that other brand still would be current model kit makers.

;^)

Reading comments in this and other threads, I get the impression many modelers have enough apathy that they would be content with the legendary Palmer accuracy (or Premier).

[johnbuzzed]

I remember Revell kits that basically couldn't be built (separate fenders, too). now we whine about a little glitch, and AMT is so impossible.

we're such great "assemblers", yet can't we make something out of the box o' parts?

Q: could it be we don't know when we're well off?

Some are more difficult to build, but ANY kit can be built and completed right out of the box. It's all depends on how much effort is used to do that. But, that's not the point here.

It's the fact that a given manufacturer turns out a product with an obvious, known flaw, and shows no genuine concern about having done so. It's more frustrating when that same manufacturer can also turn out some real gems. Either way, "we" can "assemble" the kits. But maybe we would like to assemble kits that are more accurate in dimensions and contours than some have been. I did buy the drag version of that infamous Ford kit and I will build it pretty much box-stock. That doesn't mean I have to be 100% satisfied with the product, but I don't want to- nor should I, or any other modelers, have to perform major surgery or purchase an aftermarket item that costs almost as much as the original kit to build an accurate replica of anything. And I don't mean all-wired-and-plumbed-up, VIN tag on the fenderwell and washer-hose placement accurate. We should be able to place the completed replica near the real thing and say: "Heck, that looks pretty much dead-nuts on". Or, substitute your own words to that effect.

Wouldn't it be fun if those of us older modelers who have 100+ kits in our stash had to do that to EVERY ONE of those kits?

And, I wonder how many people work at Revell, in their corporate offices.

Edited September 25, 2014 by johnbuzzed

[Daddyfink]

Because the guys that make this:

Are now making this:

[sjordan2]

Because the guys that make this:

Are now making this:

Huh? Please explain.

[Art Anderson]

The test shot is a product of the master. It can't be different. If the pillar on that Ford looked right on the master, but was off on the test shot, that means that master (with the correct pillar) was not used to create that test shot (with the incorrect pillar). It couldn't have been.

Time was when a master for a model kit was literally that, a master from which the tooling was cut, by old-fashioned analog means (using the human hand and eye), so what you got was based directly on a tangible, 3 dimensional object. There are no masters of that sort used anymore--it's almost ALL digital, even the so called tooling mockups are just that, mockups to give a look at what the forthcoming kit should look like, before the first flake of metal is cut from that block of tooling steel.

Art

[clovis]

I have a good friend in the tool and die industry. He owned a company that made molds for tail light lenses for the Big 3.

He says that many companies rushed to the Republic Of China for their cheap tool and die, but in the end, after such poor quality, unsatisfactory workmanship, and so many problems, that the US companies should have paid the prices that US T & D shops were charging.

He told me that the Chinese are improving, but have a long way to go. He added that it is becoming the norm that US manufacturers outsource tooling to China, and fully expect to have "rework" done to the tooling once it returns to the US.

It makes me wonder how much Revell has to spend on reworking the tooling made in China.

[Daddyfink]

Huh? Please explain.

Sure thing! Some of the tool makers in China are defense factories and they can make the heck out of an tank or AK-47 but it does not necessarily mean it will translate to good tooling for a car that most there can't even pronounce.

But they can make some really nice Military kits!

That is all

[Bob Ellis]

The Chinese have a huge labor force. Finding someone to rework a part is no problem. When I was in China a few years ago, I saw Buick Regals that were perfect copies of the American ones. The only difference is that in China they used 5% robots and 95% manpower with big rubber hammers.

[PeeBee]

I think the most glaring difference I've seen in the quality of products manufactured in China as opposed to products made elsewhere (here, Japan, Eastern Europe, etc.) is in 1/1 car parts. The Chinese products are utter garbage, even to the point of compromising the safety of a vehicle, as far as I'm concerned; especially if you have suffered the misfortune of bolting on suspension components manufactured "over there."

The Chinese may be indifferent towards quality, and that's understandable (what do they care?), but I'll never buy another Monroe product ever again. Or, any other automotive component that I know is made in China. Of course, now I pay a premium for OEM parts but in the end it's cheaper than tossing out useless garbage and then having to do a job twice.

Yeah, I know my models are manufactured in China, but I don't drive those...

PB.

[Tom Geiger]

The Chinese have a huge labor force. Finding someone to rework a part is no problem. When I was in China a few years ago, I saw Buick Regals that were perfect copies of the American ones. The only difference is that in China they used 5% robots and 95% manpower with big rubber hammers.

Actually the opposite is true. Chinese auto plants are brand new so they are state of the art, higher tech than those aging plants in the USA. That Buick was probably better constructed than it's US counterpart.

Back when Chevy got started in China, one of the first things imported to the US were engines for the then new Chevy Colorado pickups. GM was cautious and expected there to be a lot of quality failures. So they made their shipping containers to hold 12 engines for every required 10 units. Soon enough they sent the message to China to stop shipping engines... the ones already received were perfect. There were no rejects. And the extra engines were filling up the warehouses!

Funny thing is that as we were cringing just waiting for the import of Chinese, and then Indian cars to hit the US market... when nobody was watching, Ford started selling the Transit Connect, which was manufactured in Turkey. Yea, nobody saw that one coming!

[LoneWolf15]

I generally stay out of such discussions .... But ...

I thoroughly enjoy what Revell has brought to the table over the last few year and look forward to what is to come in the future .

That being said , I refuse to allow them to slide on the quality of the chrome that has gone downhill since the release of the '48 Ford . I opened 4 different '57 Fords to find that every one of the rear bumpers had a thick mold line on the right side , ending with a string of chrome about 3/4 of an inch long , still attached to the bumper .

The rest of the parts chrome appeared to be blobbed on . After stripping it , I realized why . It was put on thick to cover up mold lines that were extremely obvious . Even the windshield wipers and door handles , tiny as they are , had them ! This same problem holds true with the '62 Vette Gasser kits .

I would expect this situation to exist on a kit that has been repopped over several decades of time . A new release , no , I'm sorry , there are no excuses for this , whatsoever . And yes , before someone states the old " we're modelers " saw .... These are new releases , and there is no way on God's green earth that I should have to strip the chrome and redo it , especially for the price that I am paying for said kits .

As far as I'm concerned , this is a lack of quality control , plain and simple , and needs to be addressed ......

[BubbaBrown]

I worked for over 40 yrs at GM and Delphi and Ive seen alot of cost cutting moves from Mississippi to Mexico to China. Its not the nation its the lack of inspection and quality control. 2 different departments.Also this bin is red tagged until they need the part then suddenly there will be an engineering change and the red tag lifted, bad part shipped but production didn't stop. At today's prices I don't think we should have these problems with our models. I don't think we should have these problems with our 1 to 1's. I agree with Harry and Lone Wolf.

[Jeff Johnston]

I think part of the problem is that the product manager can't interact regularly with manufacturing. I'm not an expert but I have to believe that in the days where it was less common to have "issues", a Revell (or whoever) Product Manager spent a lot of time with the design and manufacturing team, who were all right there. You can't do that if the design and manufacturing team is half way around the world.

A great example is the Revell Mustang notch-back. While I am not an industry expert, I'd venture an educated guess that if the design and manufacturing were all able to regularly interact, that roof would have been correct. It would have been caught early and corrected early. I mean, if that were not true than there would have beem more mistakes on vintage models, and there weren't. Johan is a great example. Yeah they were somewhat simplistic but the body details were right.

[D. Battista]

....I sure don't get why a lot of modelers only complain about model kits produced. Can't we just be thankful what they ARE doing...! I still say, nowhere do they advertise 100% accurate full detail kits! They are plastic models... born in roots of inaccuracy, fit problems, and poor detail. I really do believe the current production teams are really trying to get it better..! If You want 100% accurate full detail kits ...buy them as advertised!

Or take what is out there and make it perfect with your own modeling skills...!

I can't believe I still see modelers still complaining about long past subjects as Palmer etc..

CAN'T WE JUST BE THANKFUL FOR WHAT WE HAVE..?

SCHEEESE...!

If they advertise as 100% accurate...and then fall short, then we would have a reason to complain...!

Edited October 5, 2014 by Davemodeltech

[southpier]

x infinity