Randy Ayers Nascar Modeling Forums Forum Index Randy Ayers Nascar Modeling Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Salvino 442 body
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Randy Ayers Nascar Modeling Forums Forum Index -> Grayside Racers Corner 1973 - 1989
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom Birky



Joined: 01 Feb 2018
Posts: 197
Location: Eastern Iowa

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:53 am    Post subject: Salvino 442 body Reply with quote

A couple of pics of Salvino's 442 test shot from their fb page. Very cool.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigryan18



Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 189

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wall tester



Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Posts: 52
Location: Too close to Chicago

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes indeed! The "Ghost" has appeared. Looks nice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lookin good......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lionpride



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks real nice. The only thing I see that I question is the rear window strap hardware. It looks to big/thick. Looking forward to seeing the chassis.

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lionpride wrote:
Looks real nice. The only thing I see that I question is the rear window strap hardware. It looks to big/thick. Looking forward to seeing the chassis.

Don

Agreed....but that's what test shots are for.....CAD drawings are tough to see at times. And if that was the only issue....I'd take it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Orangeastre



Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure there will be things that aren’t quite perfect. Most companies improve on each subsequent offering. In order to get the second offering, we as a collective must support them by purchasing the first offering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scatpack



Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't really build anymore, but if they come out, I'll have to get one and see about doing an Osterlund/Earnhardt car. Don't want to see this stuff go by the wayside in favor of intangible schlock, especially for the kids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R.J.



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 382

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt I will ever get around to building one but I will purchase a couple for my unbuilt collection and for support of a new model company.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They're showing a leaf spring rear suspension on the box art. Is this correct?


_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lionpride



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It has been a question twice on FB and he has not answered. I don't think it's accurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill J



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I figured they would do, they left off the body line along the rocker panel, front to rear. That tells me they used a resin body to master their molds and therefor not worth my money.

I see one bar on the rollcage that is not from that era and the chassis appears to have leaf springs in the rear, also wrong.

Oh well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disappointed.
_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Firefly



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 808
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could be a universal chassis to work with future releases, a la MPC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R.J.



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 382

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Give them some slack on their first offering. If the quality of what is in the box is high it will beat the heck out of working with a resin body and they can work on period correctness and finer details on the next offering.
If this company is willing and serious about filling the gap in the modeling world between the major modeling companies and the resin producers they should improve with each offering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orangeastre



Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe it is the box “art”....

I cannot believe the negativity that I am hearing.

I thought this was a hobby.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scatpack



Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill J wrote:
As I figured they would do, they left off the body line along the rocker panel, front to rear. That tells me they used a resin body to master their molds and therefor not worth my money.

I see one bar on the rollcage that is not from that era and the chassis appears to have leaf springs in the rear, also wrong.

Oh well.


They very well could be reading what is said about it here to make refinements. But, considering the investment costs, if they hear nothing but negatives the project could be shelved and/or abandoned and written off as a loss due to lack of interest and therefore a forecast to inadequate sales. Just a thought.

I've got boxes full of spare parts with NASCAR Ford 9" rear axle housings with coil springs and 1967-1972 GM truck trailing arms that aren't "correct" to people who build street car models.

Does it have a Ford Galaxie front clip on the chassis? Is that correct for the era? Or correct for only Junior Johnson built cars?

As with anything, the "first" isn't always the "greatest" or "cheapest", but time and patience can help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gary66
Board Moderator


Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 310
Location: Kannapolis,N.C.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That didn't take long. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill J



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It takes no more time or money to make something correctly. Do it right or don't bother. I am not paying nearly $40 for a kit that I need to replace the chassis, try to rework the incorrect body lines and correct myself.

You all can do what you like with your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scatpack



Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if there is a way to directly contact the people making the kit, that would be the best way to address issues and concerns. If no one takes the time to respond, then conclusions can be drawn from there.

Are there pictures of the chrome parts (if there are any)? A big detractor for me was mold lines in chrome. Now that is definitely a "why bother" moment. Like the AMT 1958 Plymouth Belvedere front bumper extensions....

EDIT: Just read the "17 chrome parts included" on the proposed box art.


Last edited by scatpack on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The picture of the chassis is just a sketch....not a 3D CAD file....so let's hope they will have it correct by the time they cut tooling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaveVan wrote:
The picture of the chassis is just a sketch....not a 3D CAD file....so let's hope they will have it correct by the time they cut tooling.


That sketch from the box art.
_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it ends up with leaf springs I'll still buy....but not in the numbers I may have if done correctly.......this is such an easy thing to get right....ask anyone here!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dennis O
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 876
Location: Louisville, Ky.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“we have met the enemy and he is us”

_________________
Dennis
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gary66
Board Moderator


Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 310
Location: Kannapolis,N.C.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The incorrect parts (to me) become more of a problem as the price goes up.
The higher the price, the more correct it should be out of the box.
Just my .02's worth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lionpride



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a problem with the leaf spring question being asked directly to him two different times and ignoring it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firefly wrote:
Could be a universal chassis to work with future releases, a la MPC.


That is what he told me this afternoon.
_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lionpride



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you ask him about the leaf springs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lionpride wrote:
Did you ask him about the leaf springs?


I told them that was incorrect for that car. They said they wanted a "...universal chassis..." to cover future releases.
_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I kinda understand......if first 3 kits all have trailing arm rear....might have been better to go with it. For 70's era cars only Chrysler's had leafs.....
If you thought ahead some the kit could be tooled for both types like the vintage MPC short track cars. Just sayin.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill J



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the apparent attitude they seem to be taking, it would seem they don't care if any of it is correct. Just throw some plastic in a box and sell it.

It really is too bad, I was really looking forward to this kit and future kits. I had expectations that since they were all new tool kits, they'd be accurate. Very discouraging. I could live with a chassis that needed work but the body should at least be right, it is not correct. Well, they got our hopes up for awhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mack



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 731
Location: deep south

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have pre-ordered four of these kits. I wish it were perfect out of the box, but it's probably not going to be. So here's my option. Simply do what I've seen done countless times on this forum, substitute an AMT Thunderbird chassis, they're plentiful and cheap. I'd rather do that than buy a resin for practically the same price and still have to supply a chassis along with decals. I'm going to support this kit. I remember well all the griping and moaning about the Polar Lights Petty Charger. I'm not saying it wasn't warranted, but it put a quick end to a kit that was a good donor if you wanted to build any other Mopars from that era. And now the Petty/Baker kit is quite pricey. I say at least give it a chance. And the chassis in the drawing looks a lot like the old MPC chassis. Again good donor material.
_________________
life is hard, it's harder when you're stupid. John Wayne
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R.J.



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 382

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wonder how much trouble it would be to include a truck arm conversion for this kit so both options would be available?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lionpride



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 245

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He responded to the leaf spring this afternoon:
Yes The chassis was basted off of Richard Petty’s 78 Monte Carlo he used Leaf springs to use up the remaining parts from the Magnum. We will include the new rear end on the Monte Carlo with an extra set of rear end parts that will be interchangeable and an easy fix. So you can build the Oldsmobile with the Leaf springs remove them later and put on the new rear parts when the Monte Carlo is released. Thank you for your attention to detail it’s builders like you that help us to improve!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If that's true.....a really good sign!!!! I'll buy a few now....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pat Redmond
Board Moderator


Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had the same discussion earlier this evening. Replacement truck arm set-up will be included in the NEXT release, not THIS Olds.
_________________
<< On The Bench --- 2022 Elliott Hooters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Firefly



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 808
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lionpride wrote:
... Monte Carlo....


Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill J



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do take it as a positive sign that they are going to add extra parts to the Monte kit for a truck arm option.

Since you guys have an ear of the model company folks, ask why can't they fix the side of the body to actually look like a 77 Olds 442. I am not letting go of that missing body line. In those days they were required to use factory skin panels and that line is there, missing on the model kits new body. Just look at the pictures of 77 Olds in this forum. The line doesn't always show well, due to paint schemes, camera angles and such, but it is there on all the cars, like it or not.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's my first build......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sentsat71



Joined: 03 Feb 2018
Posts: 1237
Location: Fenton, IA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In reading the comments here, brings to mind a question:

"Has ANY model car company EVER come out with a NASCAR kit that was 100% correct in ALL the details??"

Here is a company that is trying to fill a void in NASCAR kits in PLASTIC, and it is not even on the shelves and here come the complaints.....

I can only imagine the complaints if the internet was around in the early 1970's when MPC offered NASCAR kits with their adjustable chassis, for the Petty Plymouth, Baker Dodge, Allison Mercury, Hurtubise Chevelle, etc.....Right or Wrong, at least they tried, especially back then when NASCAR had not really taken off.

Heck why go back that far.....When NASCAR did become very popular and AMT and Monogram stepped up to produce those kits for the public, just before PC's came into their own, were ALL those kits correct??????????????

Remember the AMT '68-'69 Torinos with the NASCAR option? Heck even the Jo-Han Superbird with the NASCAR option....the latter chassis had the stock exhaust molded on.......Don't remember the AMT '65-'66 Galaxies with the NASCAR options......so cannot comment on those....
Only reason I know the Jo-Han Superbird kit as the street stock items molded to the chassis, is that i picked one up not long ago......
Not sure about MPC's Bobby Isaac Dodge Daytona, bought it at the time, but did not survive the 1st real purge in 1980. But IIRC, that was a race only option for building, which is what I wanted at that time....this was a year or so before MPC came out with the "universal" chassis for their next issue of NASCAR kits...

Sorry for the long ramble....must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning..... Wink Rolling Eyes
_________________
Ed. K
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hemiman_1999



Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well this will be kinda long so beware. First of all I have for years enjoyed the postings by all of you and always look forward to seeing your builds and your hints on how to make anything that you have shared with us all.
Now get a life people, there has never been a perfect model kit of anything ever made all of them have faults some very minor, others glaring mistakes and this is an example of what I call a normal kit "IT'S NOT PERFECT". First of all someone asked if the kit will have chrome parts I assure you it will. Next leaf or coil rear ends 80% of the people that buy this will not give a furry rats behind what it has they will be happy to finally have this after waiting 40 plus years for it to be done in plastic. If they make some mistakes but are able to give me this car Petty's car and a 73 and 76 Monte Carlo I am one of those not caring. So many people are just happy to slam something and just in general cut it down that it gets tiring to be around them. Now the body line, you know it is on the real car and on at least two RESTORED cars but perhaps my eyes are bad but it appears in a lot of photos of real cars from this era the line is missing it could just be the photos I do not know if NASCAR had and enforced side templates at this time or not. I am not saying they did not make a mistake but it really may not be a big deal, to me it really doesn't matter. Guys you are all great builders but it you want a perfect model pull say $400,00.00 from the bank and make a kit for us, I bought a lot of these and have presold them, many to members of this board, as well as across the world I can tell you that in 19 days I sold so many that it's going to take me perhaps 2 days to repackage and ship them and I have bought for myself and I look forward to building it....
Well I'm done so now slam me.. I actually have some work to do and a model to finish...
Take Care and belated Happy Easter...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DaveVan



Joined: 27 Jan 2018
Posts: 1571

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been excited about this kit since I heard rumors of it a while back.
I'm goonna buy a few.
NO ONE has said it needs to be PERFECT......but a major part being wrong is an issue.
Think it's just us NASCAR freaks???
Check out the Revell 90's Mustang notchback kit. Roof was measured a 1/64 of a inch to low. You would think Revell had killed a shelter full of puppies.
Or how about a company kits a new 1962 Olds kit (Revell) and uses a Dodge chassis under it??? That would be OK right??? NO ONE would complain after all no kit is perfect!!!
Maybe a 2018 Camaro kit using a Mustang chassis....both close to the same....
Why do we as race car builders have to take it and smile??

NOW......it's reported that JR Models will tool the correct rear trailing arm suspension when they tool the Monte Carlo....so I'm OK with it all. I don't want the Olds to be delayed......but think how much better it would be if done correct the first time? And I know JR Models wanted to keep the wraps on this project.....but since it was announced BEFORE tooling was cut....ten minutes of consultation with any number of us here would have fixed it. I've consulted with Revell, AMT (under RC2, Round2) , AM II and Moebius. I'd be happy to do the same for ANYONE willing to take a risk in the plastic hobby. My only goal is to have the hobby outlive me!!! If JR Models want help in the future I'd help again.....not an expert but have access to those that are!!! thx
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill J



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not one that nit picks all the kits that come along. In fact I can't ever recall complaining about any issue in a kit. There are quite a few kits with minor to major issues.

However, this kit has a body that is missing key lines. There is no excuse for that other than a blatant disregard for the customer and accuracy. Like I said, I can replace the chassis or live with it being wrong. I can't live with the body being wrong.

What lines are they going to leave off their Monte Carlo? The Monte has a bunch of body lines on it's sides.

To me, this disregard is unacceptable. I am not paying premium prices for a poorly executed effort. You guys can buy them if you like, it's your money. I am not accepting a weak effort and "taking it". They'll make all their kits weak if we just buy them anyway.

Any job I have ever had I had to do it right, I think that is a perfectly normal expectation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jim unger



Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Posts: 45
Location: Rhinelander WI

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orangeastre wrote:
I am sure there will be things that aren’t quite perfect. Most companies improve on each subsequent offering. In order to get the second offering, we as a collective must support them by purchasing the first offering.

I'll have to get at least 2 for my Daytona 500 winners collection!
_________________
On the bench:
Daytona 500 winners
Bobby Allison Dark Side rides
Petty/Wood Brothers tribute
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radar43



Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:49 am    Post subject: Olds Kit Reply with quote

I would like to politely make a comment, my opinion. This kit is the Buddy Baker Gray Ghost. I have been looking at photos of this car and most all appear "to me" to have rounded sides, not with the crease in the side like most other Oldsmobiles had. Some of the others show more of the round side. I would like for the crease to be on the body. We have not seen yet what will be in the box, maybe they will fix it. Just my thoughts. I do plan on buying a few myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
hemiman_1999



Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just another note for all of you watch Facebook over the next few days some more of the kit trees might be shown..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bluesman Mark



Joined: 01 Mar 2018
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lionpride wrote:
He responded to the leaf spring this afternoon:
Yes The chassis was basted off of Richard Petty’s 78 Monte Carlo he used Leaf springs to use up the remaining parts from the Magnum. We will include the new rear end on the Monte Carlo with an extra set of rear end parts that will be interchangeable and an easy fix. So you can build the Oldsmobile with the Leaf springs remove them later and put on the new rear parts when the Monte Carlo is released. Thank you for your attention to detail it’s builders like you that help us to improve!


They can claim whatever they like, but that's a BS excuse/outright lie to cover up the fact that they screwed up. How do I know this? Richard Petty is on record as saying that they bought their first Monte Carlo from Cecil Gordon, they did not build it themselves. And if one has any working neurons in one's brain, then they will know for a fact that Cecil did not run a leaf spring rear end under his Montes. Their Olds came after the Montes. Also, you can bet your bottom NASCAR would not have let the Pettys, or any other team run a leaf spring rear end under that car. Finally, the Franklin Mint diecast this thing is based off of had coil springs all the way around, & it was based on the 1/1 Olds in the Petty Museum.

So basically they've screwed up the kit, lied about it, & made up a lame excuse as a pathetic cover. At $40 MSRP, they can keep their lies & inaccurate kit, I'll pass, TYVM.

Comparing this to those old MPC kits from the 70s is like comparing apples & hand grenades. Those kits were brought out forty-seven years ago , & largely based on annual kit bodies at first, (with a few exceptions), which is why MPC came up with that inaccurate "one size fits all" chassis & drivetrain. These kits are being tooled up to be exclusively NASCAR models. Making an excuse in comparison to kits first sold forty-seven years ago is similar to saying that because Toyota plugged up the tailpipe on the 1995 Corolla means that Ford can do the same on the 2018 Mustang & it's ok.

One last thing, before that old trope about "perfect" kits gets dragged out yet again: No, I don't expect a "perfect" kit, as I know nothing is perfect, but for my hard earned money, I do expect it to be right, not wrong, & to not be lied to about why it's wrong as some sort of lame excuse. It doesn't take one single cent more to get things right the first time as it does to get them wrong. All it takes is the proper attention to getting such details correct. Such a failure to do so coupled with such an outright, blatant lie in a sad attempt to cover up their mistake speaks volumes about how they view their potential market:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mack



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 731
Location: deep south

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man o' man, not even out yet and it's DOA. Geeez. I recall building my first Polar Lights Cyclone, it was tricky to say the least, but it could be built into a nice looking model. The Talladega actually fit the chassis better, and the 429 was all but impossible to install. But, It was a far cry better that the old AMT offering. People whine because there are no new kits being made, then they whine because the new kits aren't 100% correct. Why would a kit producer even try? I remember the Accurate Miniatures kits were fantastic. When was the last time they made a kit? Why can't modelers offer constructive criticism and advise, instead of basically writing them off as frauds? Geez, it's just model cars!!! No one can make you buy it. If a person is not happy, FINE!!! That doesn't mean the rest of the modeling community may not give the kit a chance. No wonder modeling is a DYING hobby.
_________________
life is hard, it's harder when you're stupid. John Wayne
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Henryjint



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 1957
Location: NY State's Hudson Valley

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When the early pictures of the car came out the window net reminded me of the old MPC kits. I finally preordered one for $32.99. I said why not give them a shot. We have been looking for new and different kits. Better than the cookie cutter modern NASCAR stockers now. At least have a reason to use a truck arm set-up from all those cheap donor kits in stash.
_________________
Forum member since 10/25/2010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bluesman Mark



Joined: 01 Mar 2018
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mack wrote:
Man o' man, not even out yet and it's DOA. Geeez. I recall building my first Polar Lights Cyclone, it was tricky to say the least, but it could be built into a nice looking model. The Talladega actually fit the chassis better, and the 429 was all but impossible to install. But, It was a far cry better that the old AMT offering. People whine because there are no new kits being made, then they whine because the new kits aren't 100% correct. Why would a kit producer even try? I remember the Accurate Miniatures kits were fantastic. When was the last time they made a kit? Why can't modelers offer constructive criticism and advise, instead of basically writing them off as frauds? Geez, it's just model cars!!! No one can make you buy it. If a person is not happy, FINE!!! That doesn't mean the rest of the modeling community may not give the kit a chance. No wonder modeling is a DYING hobby.


I certainly wasn't "whining" about this issue, & don't appreciate my honest, factual comments to be defined as such.

Mentioning issues with Polar Lights kits, (of which there were many), or dragging Accurate Miniatures' downfall into the discussion is just a deflection from the facts: JR Models got an important component of the kit wrong, then tried to cover up that fact with a blatant lie. There's simply no excuse for that.

You mentioned Accurate Miniatures. I knew two of the principals of that company pretty well, Bob Johnson & Jack Higgins, being as they were based in Charlotte & I lived in Gastonia. I knew them well enough that I was the second or third person outside of the company to see the' first test shot of the McLaren M8B Can-Am car the week they got it from their molding facilities in Korea.

Due to a shortage of working capital, (according to Dave Van in another thread where we discussed this very subject), & the tooling being cut & ran overseas, it took three years before that kit hit the shelves. Dave Van can go into more detail than I can about what caused them to go under, but I can say that when the original AM closed up shop in 2001 or 2002, I went to the "going out of business" they held the last weekend before closing up shop & bought a few kits. While there, I talked with the person with AM, (neither Bob nor Jack), doing the sale, about what caused them to go under.

You may recall that a year or so before they went under, an announcement in Scale Auo that they were teaming up with Testors to do an entirely new series of contemporary NASCAR models in 1/24th scale to directly compete with Revell/Monogram. These were to be sold as both highly detailed glue kits by Accurate Miniatures, (much like their Corvette Gran Sport & McLaren M8B kits), & as less complex, prepainted & decorated, (& IIRC snap together), kits by Testors.

A deal supposedly was made, & AM invested the capital to finance cutting temporary tooling to run the test shots, & for the test shots themselves. The first round of test shots came through, & AM contacted Testors about them, only to discover that the person who "authorized" the deal did not have the authority or permission from his higher ups to do so, & in fact had made the deal entirely on his own, without contacting anyone else at Testors. Testors upper management had no clue of the agreement, no idea that AM had gone ahead & cut & ran the test shot tooling, & no intention of investing in a deal they were never aware of & had never approved.

That investment by AM based on a fake deal perpetuated by a fraudulent person cost them everything they had. All of this was told to me directly by the guy I was talking with at AM that day. He mentioned the name of the person at Testors who created the fake deal, & that person's actions were later verified to me by other people outside of AM. While I won't name who it is, IIRC, he served some jail time over fraud, (I think it may have been this very case), & a few years ago, his name was definitely connected with another modeling company that came to nothing, the new "IMC", (Illinois Model Company, who supposedly had some of the ancient JoHan tooling they got from Okey Spaulding in lieu of money owed.

That's what brought down Accurate Miniatures, not some wild haired speculation about disgruntled modelers, but an overall lack of funds accelerated by a phony business deal. Perhaps having facts, (the only thing I deal in regarding discussions such as this), instead of trying to spin things to suit one's feelings/agenda is a better route to take?

I will however offer some personal thoughts vis-à-vis your comments on AM vs JR, & on AM in general.

AM strove for as close to 100% accuracy & extremely high detail in their models as possible, not perfection, because none of us expect a perfect kit, but accuracy & detail. On accuracy, they did some compromising, some of which was understandable, some of which was head scratching, & not just in hindsight. Things such as the open slots on the bottom of the Gran Sport frame. Never mind that model manufacturers had succeeded in making such parts that could come out of the mold for years without slots to aid them, if they had to use slots, why place them on the bottom of the frame, where they were easily seen if you turned the model over, instead of on the top of the frame, where the slots would have been hidden? Some simple adjustments made in engineering & designing the tool would have corrected that issue. Still, though annoying, that was a fairly simple fix.

More of a problem was the fact that both the John Mecom & the Jim Hall Gran Sports shared the same single external cooler molded onto the body, just below the backlight. That was correct for the Mecom Vette ran at Nassau, which the Mecom version represented, but incorrect for the Hall version ran at Sebring, which used two external coolers mounted on top of each rear quarter panel, & which the second version of the kit was supposed to represent. Instead of such a glaring error made as a compromise, wouldn't it have made more sense to have flashed over holes in appropriate areas of the body to do both versions correctly, with the corresponding coolers included?

Here's a look at the external coolers for each car, the Mecom one first:





As much as AM tried to "sweat the details" & provide modelers with extremely highly detailed kits, as often as not they shot themselves in the foot in the attempt. The McLaren M8B is a prime example of that, due to tolerance stack issues in trying to cram too many pieces into the same plane, & in that some of those pieces showed a serious influence from the diecast community, resulted in a model that if build with all of the details intact, required serious modifying & reengineering to get everything to fit & close. In virtually all aspects of their kits, no matter what the subject matter was, they were aiming for Tamiya. However, they forgot the most important thing Tamiya pioneered, highly detailed kits that are easy to build because everything fits together as it should, due to first class engineering & design.

All of the above issues coupled with the fact that Revell/Monogram had a virtual lock on the NASCAR kit market at that time made me question why they'd even go that route, before everything happened & I found out all I did. Granted, Bob Johnson had been the one at Monogram that got the NASCAR deal going & created those great kits, so perhaps he thought he could make lightning strike again at AM? Still, it was an ill advised endeavour, even if the deal with Testors hadn't fell through.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Randy Ayers Nascar Modeling Forums Forum Index -> Grayside Racers Corner 1973 - 1989 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group