Aoshima,Fujimi,Hasegawa

We all know that Tamiya is #1 but of the other three what is your pick for the money? Do any of them come with pe parts? have not seen any reviews on the Aoshima kits.

Aoshima is pretty good, I haven't touched Hasegawa, though, so I couldn't compare.

Hasegawa is my #2 after Tamiya, not only that but some of their kits come with P/E PARTS.
Fujimi also has some kits with P/E parts.

Nearly all the Hasegawa kits I have built have been excellent quality. Not quite as good a fit and finish as Tamiya but very good nonethless. I mostly build cars from their rally lineup and they also normally include a nice PE fret, seatbelt material and mudflap material too. In my opinion they also have great decals.
The only Fujimi kits I have made are a couple of their Enthusiast series Porsches and for the most part these are the equal of Tamiya. The bodies don't seem as crisp as Tamiya's but general fit and finish is excellent.

Nearly all the Hasegawa kits I have built have been excellent quality. Not quite as good a fit and finish as Tamiya but very good nonethless. I mostly build cars from their rally lineup and they also normally include a nice PE fret, seatbelt material and mudflap material too. In my opinion they also have great decals.
The only Fujimi kits I have made are a couple of their Enthusiast series Porsches and for the most part these are the equal of Tamiya. The bodies don't seem as crisp as Tamiya's but general fit and finish is excellent.
I built a rally car from hasegawa many many years ago and did not like the p/e parts they were to stiff. like the brass better.

I am becoming more and more impressed with Aoshima's efforts of late. their kits are becoming more and more well engineered and good looking. Aoshima has my vote for #2, tied with Revell (sorry that's not on your choices) then Fujimi. Sorry Hasagawa, I don't have much experience with you guys,.

IMO

Aoshima
Hasegawa
Fujimi

I am becoming more and more impressed with Aoshima's efforts of late. their kits are becoming more and more well engineered and good looking. Aoshima has my vote for #2, tied with Revell (sorry that's not on your choices) then Fujimi. Sorry Hasagawa, I don't have much experience with you guys,.
I have done a lot of revell street rods and other subjects. might try my hand at a revell tuner.

IMO:

Hasegawa
Aoshima
Fujimi

A good Hasegawa or Fujimi kit can be pretty much the equal of a Tamiya. Trouble is there is quite a difference in quality so each company have issued some stinkers. For instance the Hasegawa Lancer Evo V Group A car is terrible. But other kits, like their Evo IV or Stratos are fantastic. Even Tamiya have a few kits that are not quite up to their normal standards in one way or another. In many ways I prefer Hasegawa and Fujimi even to Tamiya. They are both releasing far more interesting cars to me lately. You just have to be careful sometimes. That is where this forum can be a great help. Post a thread asking for opinions on a particular kit before you buy it, hopefully somebody will be able to give you a good idea.

IMO:

Aoshima
Hasegawa
Fujimi

It's no secret that i love Aoshima, especially their range of VIP kits, and as willimo says.......their stuff of late is excellent. I've only ever set my eyes on 1 Hasegawa kit & thats the VW van i've got hoarded, quality of it looks great. Fujimi, well.......they give us stuff like Veilside kits, BMW Schnitzer & the F355 Berlinetta etc, which we all want regardless of the quality.

Aoshima
Fujimi
Hasegawa

Well, if you read my review of Hasegawa's pair of LanEvo VI kits, you'd know I have some skepticisms about them, but generally find their kits to be decent offerings.

That was before I picked up their street Stratos kit (review pending).

Quite honestly, the Hasegawa Lancia Stratos HF Stradale kit is quite possibly the best curbside kit I've put my mitts on. Its detail is superb and for all my references it looks to be right on the money. The fit is great and it's just a very pleasing car to build no matter how you view it.

Aoshima I've not had as much experience with, but recently they've shown a commitment to accuracy that's really commendable. They're also fairly cheaper than the Hasegawa or Tamiya kits and offer more road cars.

Fujimi is so hit and miss it's no longer funny. They're trying honestly to catch up (redoing the body on their woeful RX-8 kit is a good start) but their catalog is drowning in miserable kits like their S15 Silvia. Though their recent releases, their classic sports cars, and the Enthusiast Series are good kits, their main line is often times a "well, I can't get it from anyone else" affair.

Hasegawa
Aoshima
Fujimi

But IMO at the end of the day, if you want the kit bad enough you will get it no matter who builds it.

Hasegawa makes some real good rally kits, I think Fujimi is the asian Revell.

In general:

Aoshima
Hasegawa
Revell


Fujimi.


Aoshima's body molds are cleaner than Hasegawa's, Hasegawa's recent Miura proved that point (many sink marks in the body)...and it had a number of chrome parts that were of questionable design and had some sink marks, yet the finished model was spectacular, so they're nearly a tie. Hasegawa's army Jeep is jam-packed with detail.

Revell kits are hit or miss...their newer kits are very well executed, and they're usually full detail. The few curbsides they do are all very clean and look right. Some of their kits seem to have parts that don't fit and wheels that are too small.

Fujimi is well below the others, and I also include their enthusiast kits well below Tamiya. Why? I've built a couple, and I've looked at all the parts in the ones I own and some that I don't. Just because it's a box slam full of parts does not a Tamiya competitor make. Each and every one of those parts (compared to Tamiya) has more prominent mold lines, ejector pin marks, and sink marks-it's never going to be as pleasant to build as a Tamiya kit with similar parts count. Fujimi's accuracy is suspect in many cases, yet some of their newer kits are better than others, as if some of their team "gets it", while other's don't. The RX8 was riddled w/problems, most of the body issues have been fixed. The new Mini looks spectacular, it simply blows away the Revell AG version. The Murcielago looks fantastic, but the wheel placement is all wrong and you must fix that for it to look right. And even with some of these questionable traits, many Fujimi kits are fun and quick to put together.

If you're hedging on choosing a kit, ask about it here...after a day or so you'll have enough opinions to guide your decision.

Aoshima
Hasegawa (Evo IV=:sunglasse)
Fujimi

I appreciate the fact that Fujimi has as many kits as they do but as most have said, they seem to struggle over the quality versus quantity issue. I'll buy whatever I think I can do a decent job on basically though. :)

For sure Tamiya is number one, but they have a limited selection. :disappoin

Though IMO...
Aoshima (For their wide selection of models. Fit is good, though for some.)
Hasegawa (I love their rally kits and especially their Honda EG Civic kits! Superd detail, but some kits you need to dry fit them before proceeding.)
Fujimi (Last. Some kits are worth it, but some aren't. Though I rather take Fujimi over Revell any day.) :2cents:

IMO:
1) Aoshima
1) Hasegawa
3) Revell
4) Fujimi

The 2 first places is not a typo. If Hasegawa and Aoshima produced the same type of car at the same price point, I'd have to flip a coin (or come here and ask some questions).

We all know that Tamiya is #1 but of the other three what is your pick for the money? Do any of them come with pe parts? have not seen any reviews on the Aoshima kits.

Each of the manufacturers (Aoshima, Fujimi, Hasegawa) at one point released a series or two of kits that did contain P/E parts (Aoshima's New Trends line, Fujimi's Deluxe Lamborghini's and some of their old race cars, etc.) Not any more though. With the exception of Fujimi's Murcielago Deluxe Edition, I do not believe any newer kits have them. There is a healthy selection of aftermarket P/E stuff, so it shouldn't be an issue when deciding what kit to buy.

Tamiya
Hasegawa (very good rally kit, mainly old one)
Aoshima
Revell
Fujimi

Thanks guys you all have been very helpful. :grinyes:

Hasegawa
Aoshima
Fujimi

But IMO at the end of the day, if you want the kit bad enough you will get it no matter who builds it.
TRUE TRUE VERY TRUE.

Thank I will go with aoshima maybe drifter also like the VIP's.

1. MPC
2. Tamiya
3. AMT
4. Revell/Monogram
5. Fujimi
6. Trumpeter

I've never built a Hasewaga or a Aoshima kit so I can't comment on them.

Well since we're tossin' this about...

Another ranking from Chuckie:

1) Tamiya (no-brainer; we'll just let those '95 Mustangs slide)
2) Hasegawa (only one to come consistently close)
3) Revell/Monogram (best of the US, inspiration to Mr Tamiya)
4) Aoshima (not as good as Fujimi's best, but certainly not as bad as their worst)
5) Fujimi (if only there weren't so much mediocrity leavening the excellence; Rosso offered a glimpse of what might have been)
6) Italeri (bikes are cool; wanna start showing cars that kind of love again?)
7) Trumpeter (brilliant, but a little flawed yet)
8) Polar Lights (to come so far in such a short time and get shot down again)
9) AMT/ERTL (if this company were still as it was in 2000, it would be a different game entirely)


The best of the dead:

1) Pocher D'Italia (not always accurate; certainly not easy - but try to find a more imposing finished piece)
2) Gunze Sangyo (too bad them hi-tech kits were so marginal)
3) MPC (frequently outdid their overrated AMT counterparts)
4) IMC (set the '60's standard for working features)
5) Lindberg (at least they got the '53 Ford off before they croaked; yeah, they're still doing dancing lo-riders - you call that living?)

:icon16:

I dunno Chuck, when you look at Tamiya's older kits versus Revell's, I really feel that as a whole product line Revell's is superior.

Especially when you look at the detail of Revell kits from the early 60's to mid 70's like their XKE, Austin-Healey 100-6, the Orange Crate, the Tony Nancy 22jr, and the original Stone, Woods, & Cook Swindler II kit.

When you compare those to the old Tamiya reissues like the Lancia Stratos Turbo or 1/20th scale Fiat Abarth 124, I have a hard time saying Tamiya is flat out the superior company.

And, by the way, I'm very glad you've decided to join AF's modeling forum. You, Larry Greenberg, and Drew Hierwater were my favorite columnists from the dearly departed Scale Auto Enthusiast. I loved the year end new releases reviews, particularly your comments on the Accurate Miniatures McLaren M8B.

That Orang Crate kit was a moinster to build!!:(

As you say, Tamiya is no.1

2nd place is shared between Hasegawa ans Aoshima.

In this respect, hasegawa produce better rally cars and their early Le Mans & race cars were of much higher quality
Aoshima do a much better job of their road/tuning/competition cars, near Tamiya standards in some cases. Now that's praise!

3rd goes to Fujimi. They do try, as they do pump out loads of different kits and wheels sets. Their only failure is that they do not do a thorough enough job and are known to 'steal' sprues from a number of their existing kits and come up with a new re-boxed kit. You therefore do not exactly know what you are getting in the box! However, I cannot argue with their 1/12th Skyline kits and their 'Enthusiast' range.

Overall, I say don't be afraid to experiment!

IMO:

Hasegawa
Aoshima
Fujimi.

Hasegawa Rally car are excellent but some of the car do have too much wheel height.
Aoshima kit... can be a decent kit to build but some plastic flasher needed to clean. All I dislike most is they always give white plastic...
Fujimi...parts are too little and simply. But it is my favorite to mod bodykit or learn "how to lower the suspension". :iceslolan

I dunno Chuck, when you look at Tamiya's older kits versus Revell's, I really feel that as a whole product line Revell's is superior.

Especially when you look at the detail of Revell kits from the early 60's to mid 70's like their XKE, Austin-Healey 100-6, the Orange Crate, the Tony Nancy 22jr, and the original Stone, Woods, & Cook Swindler II kit.

When you compare those to the old Tamiya reissues like the Lancia Stratos Turbo or 1/20th scale Fiat Abarth 124, I have a hard time saying Tamiya is flat out the superior company.

:sly:

Dude. Just where are you keeping...

**LA-A-AY-LA (duh DA DA DA DA DA) ** :bananasmi

SORRY!

Kind of... uh... SOPHOMORIC, I know.

:redface:

Really, though. Thanks for the kind words! Drew and especially Larry were pretty inspirational to me - I knew I was on the right track when Larry extended me some encouragement early on, and I'll always be grateful to him and Gary Schmidt.

Now I'm with you on the examples you bring up; when I developed my list, the context was less historical and more what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, which seemed to be in keeping with the temperament of the thread. It's really Monogram's '80's kits and vintage eighth-scalers that occupy my consciousness the way AMT's annuals do for modelers half a generation ahead of me, and taken as a whole with the delightfully perverse Revell models you bring up, the boys in Illinois make a compelling case. As I mentioned, Shunsaku Tamiya himself was inspired by the detail in Revell kits as he spearheaded the factory's conversion from wood to plastic model production.

While the contemporary 1/20 & 1/24 Tamiya kits with their motorized chassis tubs were certainly underwhelming by comparison, I'd have to point out that Tamiya's 1/12 game was really ramping up by the late sixties. Recently picked up their Porsche Carrera 10 reissue, modern enough in its design that it was a shock to see the copyright dates and realize that the tooling was less than a year younger than I! And from there, the 1/12 cars just improved all throughout the '70's, if the ones I've seen are representative. So if we're really gonna take all their offerings as a complete whole, I'd suggest Tamiya was at least laying the groundwork for its dominance, if not establishing it outright even then.

As a manufacturer with design priorities of a more international temperament, Tamiya doesn't always include engines in their kits, and I've noticed this is particularly off-putting to us American builders - hell, I'd really rather have an engine myself. And if Revell's current Focus kit is any indication, there have been some quiet strides made at Revell/Monogram in processing; my sample of that kit had a near-total absence of sink marks or chrome flaws of any kind. But for overall tooling precision and crispness, for ease of assembly and innovative engineering, and for overall design and presentation, Tamiya simply represents the current world standard.

Hasegawa, however, may want to watch its back...

lol She's in the driveway. "Layla" is the nickname I gave my 1970 MGB GT. The song was playing on the radio when I electrocuted myself fixing the turn signals.

I do agree with you that "delightfully perverse" is a good way to describe the hyper-detailed and hyper-fiddly Revell kits of the sixties. The 1959 Ford Skyliner kit for instance. Only company I can think of today that would attempt something as psychotic as that kit's FUNCTIONAL retractable hardtop would be Trumpeter.

And if it were Trumpeter, the hinges and mechanisms would all be really prototypical, completely impossible to assemble, brass photoetched stock.

The Tamiya 1:12th scale kits are a very good example of how good Tamiya was going to become, but when you look at other big scale kits of similar age like Entex's 1:16th scale classics (now under the Minicraft name) I think that Tamiya's 1:12th scale kits are just a natural progression.

And I bring up the quality of reissues because, let's face it, reissues make up a huge portion of kits released these days. Tooling budgets are slim (especially at RC2, cheap bastards) and new kits are seen progressively as more and more of a risk. Tamiya had a solid hit when they fell back on their Group C kit archive with fresh Cartograf decals, but there's not much further Tamiya can dig in their tooling resources than that without pumping out motorized kits.

In contrast, Revell-Monogram has an absolutely huge tooling archive full of reissues that can be well received on today's market. If Revell saw the market was there, we could have a Triumph TR7, a Bugatti EB110, and a classic Packard dual-cowl phaeton.

And recently Revell has finally taken a page out of Fujimi's book and adopted the practice of reissuing old kits with new, more trendy parts with their "California Wheels" program.

For new tooling, Tamiya is certainly an impressive beast and they're a company I definitely enjoy and respect. But for my money, kit for kit, Revell is a winner.

I just picked the 93 honda civic coupe (revell) today and you right "kit for kit and for the money revell is a true winner. The kit had very little flaws and the chrome was very nice. lots of extra parts. Nice touch on the metal exhaust tip. As for some of us that have been building models for a long time like Chuck said I would like to have an engine. Some of us if not most like to have engines and not just gurbside. If tamiya can produce nice kits in a short run why not go the extra mile and add that one last small detail.

Nice discussion, LK!

Of course, your position has nearly been the one I've taken up when I see some of the nothing-but-japanese (nippophilic?) attitudes that occasionally dot these forums.

While I'm not inclined to modify my appraisal of Tamiya, I do contend that Revell/Monogram is much more in the hunt than some would have us all believe. I think some of the more recent (but not the MOST recent) German Revell automotive offerings may have hurt the company's reputation...

This is an easy one...

Tamiya
Hasegawa
Aoshima
Fujimi

and the rest of the increasingly smaller Wal-Mart throng.

I'm not a Japanese-centric modeler, but when you compare what Tamiya did with the 96 Porsche GT1 vs what Revell did with the 97 Evo...it's like nite and day. And don't get me started on the C5R's "wheels"...sheesh.

You do realize that the 911GT1 kit was a Dragon kit that Revell distributed because Dragon has very poor stateside distributors for their automotive kits, right?

Revell had nothing to do with that shady tooling.

As for the C5-R, its wheels are fairly incorrect, which is understandable when kitting a brand-new factory race car that is difficult to get complete information on. As many folks on the forum have noticed, the further away from the 1999 original with the Goodwrench livery and 5.7L engine architecture, the more incorrect the kit is. However, when you consider it's the ONLY GTS class car that we've received a kit of in plastic, you realize that Revell is far more interested in trying to please the building public.

Lindberg is dead? No wonder their Crown Victoria Snap kits are about $20, and I cant find their late model Dakota anywhere.

"It's not the kit that makes a good model,
it's the builder that makes a good model."
CADguy '04

You do realize that the 911GT1 kit was a Dragon kit that Revell distributed because Dragon has very poor stateside distributors for their automotive kits, right?

Revell had nothing to do with that shady tooling.

As for the C5-R, its wheels are fairly incorrect, which is understandable when kitting a brand-new factory race car that is difficult to get complete information on. As many folks on the forum have noticed, the further away from the 1999 original with the Goodwrench livery and 5.7L engine architecture, the more incorrect the kit is. However, when you consider it's the ONLY GTS class car that we've received a kit of in plastic, you realize that Revell is far more interested in trying to please the building public.

Of course it was speculated (and later proven correct) by Mike Quarterman in the now defunct MRRM that the '97 Evo was simply a reboxed Dragon molding that was re-reboxed from RoG for Revell...and while Revell had "nothing to do with the shady tooling" they did think enough of their pocketbook to put their name on the box and their reputation behind it. They've also continued to milk those molds for every pennie's worth...

Actually, Tamiya's 96 GT1 BBS wheels were (to my old eyes) perfect and they had just as much or as little actual contact with the manufacturer as Revell did. Why did Tamiya get it right and Revell get it wrong? I'd say commitment to the modeler and accountability. One company has that, the other....
Another example would be the 12 spoke wheels on the recent Ferrari 1:12th. 10 spoke wheels were used, why did Revell send the kit out with 12 spoke? Why not retool or make available corrected pieces?

And of course, since the tooling did not evolve but the actual car did, it quickly became more incorrect. But my point is, why was it released incorrectly in the first place? It can't be that hard to get it right. A man with a $700.00 mini-mill can produce a better wheel than what the Revell COMPANY did. Profit margins will remain slim when the bottom line is the most important thing.

Producers and companies who have an honest-to-god passion for what they do will always out perform those who do not. Revell-O-Gram has produced alot of great models in the past, but they are no Tam/Has/Ash/Fuj...and they probably never will be...IMHO

Well then. How did AMT and Monogram manage to paste Tamiya so thoroughly when it came to the SN95 Mustang?

Tamiya's '95 Mustangs were little more than expensive parts boxes for those of us who wanted better wheels, straight exhausts and automatic shifters for our Monogram Fox-bodies. The prototypes had been available for a year, and Tamiya was at the height of their game; it's not as if they had any excuse. The material quality was there. The processing was there. The proportioning and accuracy were shocking, a total embarrassment to manufacturers far lesser than Tamiya - and yet you're not going to see me make any sweeping generalizations about their commitment to modelers and their accountability based on that example. Or the wheels that are continually a little too wide for scale from kit to kit. Or the 1:24 Mini that might be a bit bulbous, or the 1:12 Mini that doesn't quite perch perfectly on its track.

Seriously, to imply a lack of passion on Revell's part? Look no further than the effort lavished on the latest Big Deuce reissue to give the lie to that premise. Exactly what kind of "bottom line" do the spun wheel caps and fabric seat blanket serve? What sort of business case do the newly tooled wheels, tires, and additional engine make, where a lesser approach might have sold just as many kits? Even though it's one of the "past" efforts, the new parts more than live up to the rest of the kit.

How does that happen without passion? How does that colossal run of domestic tooling from five scant years ago happen without passion? How do the 300-piece engine kits happen without passion? Or the 400-piece Bussing trucks?

For what we know, the here and now, they ain't Tamiya; nobody is. But when it comes to the rest of the Japanese model industry, Revell/Monogram has pretty much been there and done that.

And as the rest of the domestic industry withers, they're the only ones hanging on and making any return to form, because they're the only company with any enthusiasts left at the helm. I'm not the only one saying Revell's domestic releases have been strong this year. All they have to do is keep it up.

So it's wrong for a company to just re-run kits with the same tooling but different decals so that they can recoup losses on investment, eh?

Does this mean you're on Tamiya's case about releasing the same Peugeot 206WRC kit since 1999 except with wheel changes for gravel?

Companies have to recoup losses on investment. Yes, the Dragon 911GT1 Evo kit was flawed in its design, especially when compared to the short-lived UT Models 911GT1 Evo which was superior in detail even to the Tamiya 911GT1 kit.

With the C5-R kit, year after year updates are ridiculously difficult, especially when the car changes race to race. Heck, if you're going to be busting company's balls over accuracy let's take every company to make an F1 kit in the past ten years to town because it's bloody impossible to get accurate dimensions on an F1 car AND the cars are re-engineered for each race.

Botching race cars is frequent and easy thanks to Cold War level paranoia inside of the teams, incredibly high licensing costs, and limited appeal window (this year's hot race car may not even be competing next year, fan opinion could shift, serie could go defunct/change rules) mean that race cars are incredibly risky.

In 1999, when Revell released the C5-R kit, it was a new car that was changing week to week in R&D at Pratt & Miller. The car had a 5.7L LS1 based engine (that would prove ineffective against the Oreca Viper V10's) and had less radical bodywork nips and tucks. For all we know, Pratt & Miller supplied Revell's tooling department with the test mule's wheels. Or with inaccurate dimensions (it is actually believed amongst top level teams that other teams would buy scale models of their cars and use them for wind tunnel testing) or with incorrect suspension features or any myriad of imperfections either on purpose or because the car simply didn't turn out that way.

AND Revell could not have been expected to believe that 5 years down the road this....

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1999/Sebring-1999-03-21-003.jpg

would morph into this....

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/2004/Road_America-2004-08-22-004.jpg

But, apparently Tamiya is allowed to peddle multiple incorrect versions of the Peugeot 206WRC at $25 a pop, but Revell must be crucified for an incorrect $11.50 Corvette C5-R.

Well then. How did AMT and Monogram manage to paste Tamiya so thoroughly when it came to the SN95 Mustang?

Tamiya's '95 Mustangs were little more than expensive parts boxes for those of us who wanted better wheels, straight exhausts and automatic shifters for our Monogram Fox-bodies. The prototypes had been available for a year, and Tamiya was at the height of their game; it's not as if they had any excuse. The material quality was there. The processing was there. The proportioning and accuracy were shocking, a total embarrassment to manufacturers far lesser than Tamiya - and yet you're not going to see me make any sweeping generalizations about their commitment to modelers and their accountability based on that example. Or the wheels that are continually a little too wide for scale from kit to kit. Or the 1:24 Mini that might be a bit bulbous, or the 1:12 Mini that doesn't quite perch perfectly on its track.

Seriously, to imply a lack of passion on Revell's part? Look no further than the effort lavished on the latest Big Deuce reissue to give the lie to that premise. Exactly what kind of "bottom line" do the spun wheel caps and fabric seat blanket serve? What sort of business case do the newly tooled wheels, tires, and additional engine make, where a lesser approach might have sold just as many kits? Even though it's one of the "past" efforts, the new parts more than live up to the rest of the kit.

How does that happen without passion? How does that colossal run of domestic tooling from five scant years ago happen without passion? How do the 300-piece engine kits happen without passion? Or the 400-piece Bussing trucks?

For what we know, the here and now, they ain't Tamiya; nobody is. But when it comes to the rest of the Japanese model industry, Revell/Monogram has pretty much been there and done that.

And as the rest of the domestic industry withers, they're the only ones hanging on and making any return to form, because they're the only company with any enthusiasts left at the helm. I'm not the only one saying Revell's domestic releases have been strong this year. All they have to do is keep it up.

Tamiya has made far more mistakes than the simple Mustang (something the NA companies should have and did get right)...but remember that these are simply 1 modeler's opinions and should be taken as such.

As for passion to an industry and it's participants...don't confuse industriousness with passion. 300-400 part count is worthless if the parts don't fit and the engineering is unsound.

You can certainly call it "passion"...but I'll beg to differ and do so with my wallet.

Bill

So it's wrong for a company to just re-run kits with the same tooling but different decals so that they can recoup losses on investment, eh?

Does this mean you're on Tamiya's case about releasing the same Peugeot 206WRC kit since 1999 except with wheel changes for gravel?

Companies have to recoup losses on investment. Yes, the Dragon 911GT1 Evo kit was flawed in its design, especially when compared to the short-lived UT Models 911GT1 Evo which was superior in detail even to the Tamiya 911GT1 kit.

With the C5-R kit, year after year updates are ridiculously difficult, especially when the car changes race to race. Heck, if you're going to be busting company's balls over accuracy let's take every company to make an F1 kit in the past ten years to town because it's bloody impossible to get accurate dimensions on an F1 car AND the cars are re-engineered for each race.

Botching race cars is frequent and easy thanks to Cold War level paranoia inside of the teams, incredibly high licensing costs, and limited appeal window (this year's hot race car may not even be competing next year, fan opinion could shift, serie could go defunct/change rules) mean that race cars are incredibly risky.

In 1999, when Revell released the C5-R kit, it was a new car that was changing week to week in R&D at Pratt & Miller. The car had a 5.7L LS1 based engine (that would prove ineffective against the Oreca Viper V10's) and had less radical bodywork nips and tucks. For all we know, Pratt & Miller supplied Revell's tooling department with the test mule's wheels. Or with inaccurate dimensions (it is actually believed amongst top level teams that other teams would buy scale models of their cars and use them for wind tunnel testing) or with incorrect suspension features or any myriad of imperfections either on purpose or because the car simply didn't turn out that way.

But, apparently Tamiya is allowed to peddle multiple incorrect versions of the Peugeot 206WRC at $25 a pop, but Revell must be crucified for an incorrect $11.50 Corvette C5-R.


Sure, getting EVERY LITTLE DETAIL correct is impossbile for a company..getting something as simple and integral to the look of of a model as a set of WHEELS correct, is something that should be expected! I saw the pre-release sprue of this kit at the Dallas IPMS and knew right off the bat the wheels were "strange"...I don't care about the port and cooling duct changes the 206 went through in 2 years, but I certainly do care and expect that that the basics be correct.

To each his own...but many will agree that nothing impacts a model's looks as much as the wheels...I'd rather have had Revell chunk the engine entirely and spend the extra time getting the outer portions of the kit correct...because in the end, that's all most will ever see anyways...

Bill

Well then. How did AMT and Monogram manage to paste Tamiya so thoroughly when it came to the SN95 Mustang?

Tamiya's '95 Mustangs were little more than expensive parts boxes for those of us who wanted better wheels, straight exhausts and automatic shifters for our Monogram Fox-bodies. The prototypes had been available for a year, and Tamiya was at the height of their game; it's not as if they had any excuse. The material quality was there. The processing was there. The proportioning and accuracy were shocking, a total embarrassment to manufacturers far lesser than Tamiya - and yet you're not going to see me make any sweeping generalizations about their commitment to modelers and their accountability based on that example. Or the wheels that are continually a little too wide for scale from kit to kit. Or the 1:24 Mini that might be a bit bulbous, or the 1:12 Mini that doesn't quite perch perfectly on its track.

Seriously, to imply a lack of passion on Revell's part? Look no further than the effort lavished on the latest Big Deuce reissue to give the lie to that premise. Exactly what kind of "bottom line" do the spun wheel caps and fabric seat blanket serve? What sort of business case do the newly tooled wheels, tires, and additional engine make, where a lesser approach might have sold just as many kits? Even though it's one of the "past" efforts, the new parts more than live up to the rest of the kit.

How does that happen without passion? How does that colossal run of domestic tooling from five scant years ago happen without passion? How do the 300-piece engine kits happen without passion? Or the 400-piece Bussing trucks?

For what we know, the here and now, they ain't Tamiya; nobody is. But when it comes to the rest of the Japanese model industry, Revell/Monogram has pretty much been there and done that.

And as the rest of the domestic industry withers, they're the only ones hanging on and making any return to form, because they're the only company with any enthusiasts left at the helm. I'm not the only one saying Revell's domestic releases have been strong this year. All they have to do is keep it up.
Yes you are right. The passion is a key part. Have you ever seen Tamiya do a '32 ford or a '57 chevy. No. Most of there passion is in there military line. The tooling has never changed. :2cents: The Deuce has been around for a long time and the Revell '32 Ford Coupe 3- Window (97) is one of the best I have ever seen other than a resin. The tooling has not changed.

Tamiya has made far more mistakes than the simple Mustang (something the NA companies should have and did get right)...but remember that these are simply 1 modeler's opinions and should be taken as such.

As for passion to an industry and it's participants...don't confuse industriousness with passion. 300-400 part count is worthless if the parts don't fit and the engineering is unsound.

You can certainly call it "passion"...but I'll beg to differ and do so with my wallet.

Bill

And where does "industriousness" arise, if not from passion?

:banghead:

So we should only consider passion as a measure of a company's proclivity to nail the details? Then why does Tamiya get a pass for their mistakes while Revell's on the pillory for theirs? Is it because Revell lags behind in processing and ergonomics? Because they're closing the gap with each successive new release at a fraction of the typical Tamiya price point.

Though I'm trying to include all that "passion" should imply here, I have, as a matter of fact, used the word "passion" within the confines of your exact context - in print, describing a Tamiya kit, interestingly enough.

Unsound engineering and parts that don't fit? I have built and reported on every new domestic automotive glue kit release for the last eight years; and all the imports I can find, for the last three. I have found the engineering and parts fit quite sound in the more ambitious domestic projects I've covered, and that has a great deal to do with why I'm making this argument.

Now as for opinions, it's not that I don't appreciate the reminder, but opinions are what these forums are all about. It's a given that applies to my posts as much as it does to anyone else's. What interests me is how people articulate why they have the opinions they do.

Good point about how in recent years the detail and fit gap has closed dramatically. The best example I can think of, off the top of my head, has to be AMT/Ertl's 1957 Chrysler 300C.

Just the engine is a work of art. A perfect 392 Firepower Hemi (save for valve covers missing the delicate Firepower markings). Look at the cylinder heads and you'll see accurately engraved rocker detail for under the valve covers. Leave off the two piece carbs with their linkage and fuel lines and you can see the intake manifold's perfectly rendered venturis and runners.

The frame is separate from the floorboards, and the suspension is rendered 100% authentically with the proper shock mounts and all.

And let's not forget about the body. Setting aside the 1:24th versus 1:25th debate (and let's be honest folks, do you want a car this friggin MASSIVE in 1:24th scale?) it's a wonderful and accurate depiction of this brutish beaut. Very few mold lines, and all of those massive heavy bumpers have huge locator pins for sturdy attachment and correct alignment.

And this was a bog standard kit for the generation.

And where does "industriousness" arise, if not from passion?

:banghead:

So we should only consider passion as a measure of a company's proclivity to nail the details? Then why does Tamiya get a pass for their mistakes while Revell's on the pillory for theirs? Is it because Revell lags behind in processing and ergonomics? Because they're closing the gap with each successive new release at a fraction of the typical Tamiya price point.

Though I'm trying to include all that "passion" should imply here, I have, as a matter of fact, used the word "passion" within the confines of your exact context - in print, describing a Tamiya kit, interestingly enough.

Unsound engineering and parts that don't fit? I have built and reported on every new domestic automotive glue kit release for the last eight years; and all the imports I can find, for the last three. I have found the engineering and parts fit quite sound in the more ambitious domestic projects I've covered, and that has a great deal to do with why I'm making this argument.

Now as for opinions, it's not that I don't appreciate the reminder, but opinions are what these forums are all about. It's a given that applies to my posts as much as it does to anyone else's. What interests me is how people articulate why they have the opinions they do.

Good point. Let me rephrase. Passion for the product, not for the bottom line is, to me, more important.

I can articulate my opinion by looking at 2 specific models side by side...

The Tamiya Ferrari 1/12th kit verses the recent Revell Ferrari 1/12th kit. The Tamiya was produced what?...15/20+ years ago? vs the 1-2 year old tooling for the F2002. If you have either of these kits (I have both) you'll see there is little to no comparison and yet the price of each is now almost parallel (give or take 20%). What's in the box clearly shows that Tamiya has a PASSION for the subject and that trickles down to me, the consumer. What is in Revell's box takes a $200.00 Scale Motorsport Detail set to simply bring it to the level Tamiya achieved so long ago.

Having said that, I DID buy the Revell (paid for it 4 months before it was released) and will buy any more they chose to release. That's not hypocritical on my part, but rather doing what we all do...voting with my wallet.

Bill

p.s. Chuck, and just one last question, just for my interest...how many of those review products you did for the magazines were paid for by either the model companies themselves, or the magazine and how many were "review model compliments of my wallet"?

Ive mentioned this a thousand times but i collect models as well as build them and ive got my own slant on all the companies.

Revell: 1/25th scale is annoying but they costently retool there kits and most originals were from when 1/25th was standard so i can get over it. Generally i dont care for there selection. Im not big into American cars but it seems the ones i like they dont make or wont make (05' Stang, LHD imports?, a decent VW Bug... etc...). on the other hand they all have engines, good enough but fitment is no good, detail can be sparce, tuner and lowrider series are not intresting etc.... to be honest, the only time i open a Revell kit is to steal parts for other kits. thats why i like them... there diverse in parts and you can find something close enough to work for another kit.

Tamiya: Good and bad. some kits are fantastic, others are OK, but for the price they should be retooling these kits more like Revell does. if you got the molds use them. Tamiya does so much business i feel they shouldnt even have OOP kits. but there good for trouble free builds but some times they make really dumb mistakes or leave out crucial details just so they can use it for another kit.

Aoshima: Im getting more and more into there kits. i like the suspension factor cuz you can really dial in the ride height. decent quality molds but they leave out stupid stufff like stock side mirrors and give you all this extra stuff that doesnt fit. but there good, i love the Historic series!!!

Fujimi: this is the most hit or miss company ever. thats all ill say. i probably wouldnt even buy there stuff if it were not for the fact that they offer so much stuff other companies dont.

Hasegawa: I love these kits, or at least most of them though they arent to availible in US. i did get a 67 Impala that was like 5 parts but generally they are excellent, accurate, and full of great stuff like PE and other multi-media. wish more companies would follow there steps!

Bill -

I received a final round test shot of AMT's '57 Chevrolet and used it for a Building Impressions Review. I examined a production version for the yearly ranking article I write.

I received a test shot of the 1/6 283 small block from AMT, but reviewed a production version for the ranking article.

Anything besides those two test shots, I bought at retail from hobby shops. For a couple of years, I submitted a stipend request for the expense of the kits, but ultimately decided that it would be better to write off the expense of the kits against my earnings from Scale Auto. That didn't work out particularly well last year, because I didn't earn enough on magazine articles to report the income - so that one at least, as well as maybe the first three or four ranking articles, came courtesy of my wallet.

In fact, I do have both of the 1:12 F1 kits you mention. And while there's no disputing the superiority of the Tamiya kit, I seem to recall paying something well over 100 1992 dollars for the 641/2, where I only paid 76 2004 dollars for Revell's - I'll have to check and see if I still have the wrap on the Tamiya kit. Neither here nor there, I guess, but while the wheels are wrong, the rest of the Revell's kit, particularly the decals, seems reasonably impressive to me - certainly better than the curbsides I took to pretty savage task in 2001.

As to passion for the bottom line, I've already addressed that and continue to maintain that Revell's parts options, increasing accuracy, and steady processing improvements demonstrate a clear passion for the product; right now, it seems more like the bottom line is a matter of survival than passion for U S manufacturers, anyway. But while AMT and now Polar Lights are getting gutted, Revell is slowly trending back from those limited, simplified releases of the great post-millennium hangover to something like their old form, and that's why I'll continue to pull for them.

Good point about how in recent years the detail and fit gap has closed dramatically. The best example I can think of, off the top of my head, has to be AMT/Ertl's 1957 Chrysler 300C.

Just the engine is a work of art. A perfect 392 Firepower Hemi (save for valve covers missing the delicate Firepower markings). Look at the cylinder heads and you'll see accurately engraved rocker detail for under the valve covers. Leave off the two piece carbs with their linkage and fuel lines and you can see the intake manifold's perfectly rendered venturis and runners.

The frame is separate from the floorboards, and the suspension is rendered 100% authentically with the proper shock mounts and all.

And let's not forget about the body. Setting aside the 1:24th versus 1:25th debate (and let's be honest folks, do you want a car this friggin MASSIVE in 1:24th scale?) it's a wonderful and accurate depiction of this brutish beaut. Very few mold lines, and all of those massive heavy bumpers have huge locator pins for sturdy attachment and correct alignment.

And this was a bog standard kit for the generation.

Yeah. What a pity we're not getting anything more from that particular combination of designers and tooling engineers, huh? I'm a Monogram devotee from way back, but I was cheering AMT so hard at this point - for finally matching Revell standards of crispness and detail - that some folks with reading comprehension problems figured me to have an AMT bias!

The 300 was a very passionate project. Look at the price that team paid for their passion.