Model kit complaint department..Starting with AMT 1972 Nova SS (rant)

After working on the AMT Nova SS kit, I am wondering if it`s time to start a "buyer beware" type thread. I have just about given up on this thing! In fact, even though I am 75% done, I am putting it back in the box. At first glance, this kit wasn`t that bad looking. The details were pretty cheesy, but it had some interesting build options, and better proportions that what I am used to with AMT. I wanted to build a Nova like this in factory stock form (don`t ask why) and this kit comes with the race and factory stock parts. But, and I have no idea why they did this, the front fenders come seperate from the rest of the body! It was a *major* hassle trying to get the fenders straight (there is nothing to guide placement out front), an getting the hood to line up at the same time made me wish I had 4 hands. To top it off, once everything was lined up, there were gaps the size of about 3 or 4 scale inches in between the fender and doors. Everything in general looks "hokey" on the front end without major modification. Not to mention all the body work to get out seems, bubbles, divets, you name it. I know this can all be fixed, but it would be alot of work, and you would really have to like the subject to want to complete it. I could go on, but I`ll leave it at that. This ranks pretty closely with their 55 Ford pickup custom I built a while back. I think I am going to avoid AMT whenever possible from now on.
Anyone else want to share experiences? Let me know I`m not alone. I feel like such a quitter... :( :( :(

Thanks for the tip! I'm gonna scrap mine for parts. You're not a quitter! :sunglasse :sunglasse

After working on the AMT Nova SS kit, I am wondering if it`s time to start a "buyer beware" type thread. I have just about given up on this thing! In fact, even though I am 75% done, I am putting it back in the box. At first glance, this kit wasn`t that bad looking. The details were pretty cheesy, but it had some interesting build options, and better proportions that what I am used to with AMT. I wanted to build a Nova like this in factory stock form (don`t ask why) and this kit comes with the race and factory stock parts. But, and I have no idea why they did this, the front fenders come seperate from the rest of the body! It was a *major* hassle trying to get the fenders straight (there is nothing to guide placement out front), an getting the hood to line up at the same time made me wish I had 4 hands. To top it off, once everything was lined up, there were gaps the size of about 3 or 4 scale inches in between the fender and doors. Everything in general looks "hokey" on the front end without major modification. Not to mention all the body work to get out seems, bubbles, divets, you name it. I know this can all be fixed, but it would be alot of work, and you would really have to like the subject to want to complete it. I could go on, but I`ll leave it at that. This ranks pretty closely with their 55 Ford pickup custom I built a while back. I think I am going to avoid AMT whenever possible from now on.
Anyone else want to share experiences? Let me know I`m not alone. I feel like such a quitter... :( :( :(

One thing I learned in all the years I've been at it is every manufacturer has their jewels and their turkeys. Keep in mind that the Nova kit first saw the light of day in 1972. The reason it has separate fenders is so AMT could get two kits from the same body tool - the Nova, and a '72 Pontiac Ventura. The experiment worked sooo well :disappoin:disappoin:disappoin that AMT never did a car with separate fenders like that again.

The only sure cure is to use Jimmy Flintstone's Nova resin body.

Best regards,

:banghead:Why on gods green earth did revell do what they did to the Civic. Why would anyone figure that putting on the front bumper LAST would be an awsome thing??? You cant put it on before you put the body on, and you cant put it on till the bottom is in place? :shakehead
You have to paint it to match the rest of the body and pray to the glue gods that you dont f$%k it up when glueing it into place.
Revell :thefinger

Scott

:banghead:Why on gods green earth did revell do what they did to the Civic. Why would anyone figure that putting on the front bumper LAST would be an awsome thing??? You cant put it on before you put the body on, and you cant put it on till the bottom is in place? :shakehead
You have to paint it to match the rest of the body and pray to the glue gods that you dont f$%k it up when glueing it into place.
Revell :thefinger

Scott

Not only that, but they went back to '60's technology by the use of screws to hold the chassis? :banghead: :banghead: :nono:

The window glass is damned near impossible to fit correctly.. :banghead: :banghead:

Sink marks in the trunk lid and fenders... :shakehead :shakehead

Front and rear track far too narrow... :screwy: :screwy:

Revell's Civics are not in the same league as their Integra. Close, but their Civic is like a "Fujimi" and their Integra is like a "Tamiya". Which would you rather have? :confused: :wink:

all amt kits are horrible...

the undercarriages are one piece...sink marks all over the body.

thats all i have to say.

I have an AMT '49 Ford that's excellent.

all amt kits are horrible...

the undercarriages are one piece...sink marks all over the body.

thats all i have to say.

Not true. Some of their kits are quite good, many have full detail chassis. However, a lot of the kits in the lineup are from very old tooling that is outdated in terms of construction and part fidelity. Most of us old farts know which ones are good and which ones suck. :evillol:

Rather than go through the whole list of their good kits vs. their crappy kits, any time someone wants to know if a particular AMT kit is any good, ask here first :smile:

Damn, I got the 72 Nova but I'm doing a 1974 conversion to it, I noticed the problem, but we'll see if I can cope with it.

ive had this kit. It came in the vintage box, and i got dimples in the fender. If you put putty on it, it would mess up the lines. I primed it and gave up. Best AMT kit is their 1970 Camaro Z28 IMO.

My biggest kit complaint comes from a kit so truly unspeakable that I don't even know why anyone would bother discussing it. I speak of the Minicraft 1/20th scale Mako Shark. Dear god is it horrible. It's not accurate. Has no detail to speak of, and is nearly impossible to put together.

Luckily, I wasn't the one who paid for the thing.

I think I know the kit you are talking about Hawk, is it "The Old Pro" Dragster? That thing is a piece of shit, Detroit Locker has the old version of it. We got it thinking it would be a good kit, and it was a "collectors item" and the seperate fenders is a stupid idea, Why did they do it? Not even the dragster has a one piece front end. Maybe leave the fenders off with the 454 pro stock engine in there poking out of a garage diorama so it looks like a drag car in progress, otherwise I can't think of a use for that kit.

has never ever had any problem with AMT, in fact i'm doing AMT's Dodge Viper RT/10 right now n its going together like clockwork

if u realy want bad kits go Airfix i have the 2001 rally Pug n the body is so out of scale that the front part of the wheel arch sits like 6" in scale to far forward

Never had any luck with AMT's kit... even the F&F supra is bought only for spare parts. If I have to built a car and only AMT is doing it, it take me a lot of extra patience. Here's my trick to build AMT:

Whenever I start a AMT kit, I start 2 Tamiya's kit in the same time... so when I had enough with the crappy one, I stop before I airborn it and I go for one Tamiya for a couple of steps. Habitually, I finish the two Tam before I finish the AMT but by then, the AMT is so advance that it's only a matter of time before it's completed. :grinyes:

Wow, all the bitching about AMT and Revell kits......and it doesn't surprise me either :disappoin

Revell and AMT are 2 manufacturers I avoid as best I can, for obvious reasons.

Best AMT kit is their 1970 Camaro Z28 IMO

I hear that. If that front end was just a little more convincing though. I wish they would include the white stripes as well. I also liked their 66 Nova pro street. If built nicely, it`s pretty convincing. I wish I could find another one of these to build.

Revell and AMT are 2 manufacturers I avoid as best I can, for obvious reasons.

Actually, I think Revell has gotten quite a bit better. They used to be the absolute worst with flash, sometimes making it hard to tell what was flash and what was the part. :rofl: But I think they`ve improved a bit. I am working on their 69 Z28 kit, and the details and proportions are excellent, and the flash is minimal (similar to the Tamiya cycle I am doing right now). Their newer Corvette kits, especially the 67`s, are spectacular in my opinion. The Cobra in my sig was one of the best detailed kits I`ve built so far IMO.

i only use revell and amt kits because they're the only ones that make decent enough cars to turn into lowriders, all of the other companys, you either build stock or rice it out to the max... :grinno:

all amt kits are horrible...

the undercarriages are one piece...sink marks all over the body.

thats all i have to say.

Not true at all, have you built every kit ever offered by AMT? LOL
I have several and they vary from kit to kit, IMO the 67 Impla SS is really nice and has a seperate frame. The Edsel Pacer is excellent as well although not one of my fravorite cars.
Ahhh one could go on and on................

Maybe we should start a list of great models we`ve built, and a list of not so great ones. Maybe have a short review of each one, and make it a sticky thread at the top? It would be nice to have something similar to a FAQ, so everyone knows what kits are great and which ones not to waste money on. Just a crazy idea. :loser: :loser: :loser: :licka: :licka:

Maybe we should start a list of great models we`ve built, and a list of not so great ones. Maybe have a short review of each one, and make it a sticky thread at the top? It would be nice to have something similar to a FAQ, so everyone knows what kits are great and which ones not to waste money on. Just a crazy idea. :loser: :loser: :loser: :licka: :licka:

Thats a good idea. I like it. Unfortunately, a lot of people have differing opinions on kits. The AMT '49 Ford and the AMT Chevy 454 SS truck are both really decent kits, as is the Revell Datsun 510. I even really enjoyed putting the Revell Civic together, I had very few fit problems and what problems I did have were easy to fix. But a lot of people complain about AMT and Revell, particularly the Civic. These are great kits, I think, though not on par with Tamiya.

There are a few really honestly awful cars out there, but I really take issue with the folks that like to condemn an entire manufacuter because the moldings weren't perfect and because it took a little work to get the car to look right (that said, I agree there are kits out there that are awful). It has to also be pointed out that Revell and AMT make many, many different kits and sell them for very cheap. They just can't compete with Tamiya quality wise, who has a small lineup and sells for about twice the price.

I like your idea a lot, it would be nice to have a depository for kit reviews. I would refer to it often if it was good. I just fear that it would turn into an "Everyone sucks except Tamiya" thread, and that won't be good for anybody. And I don't really care to have to wade through a bunch of poor reviews for a good kit written by a bunch of people who can't see past a few easily fixable flaws.

Note: I'm not saying there aren't crappy kits out there. Just that a few people don't give credit where due.

Perhaps we could do a point-counter point type deal, where there is one more positive review beside a more scrutinizing review? I would think we could create several areas we could rate kits from 1-5, and then expand on the ratings. For instance, we could rate them in:
* accuracy
* level of detail
* parts fit quality
* precision of molding (can`t think of what to call not having to fix mold lines, seams, etc.)
* difficulty
* decal clarity
* build options
* chrome quality

I`m just tossing around ideas now, but there are alot of kits I wish I would have been prepared for and wish I wouldnt have purchased.

Thats a good idea. I like it. Unfortunately, a lot of people have differing opinions on kits. The AMT '49 Ford and the AMT Chevy 454 SS truck are both really decent kits, as is the Revell Datsun 510. I even really enjoyed putting the Revell Civic together, I had very few fit problems and what problems I did have were easy to fix. But a lot of people complain about AMT and Revell, particularly the Civic. These are great kits, I think, though not on par with Tamiya.

There are a few really honestly awful cars out there, but I really take issue with the folks that like to condemn an entire manufacuter because the moldings weren't perfect and because it took a little work to get the car to look right (that said, I agree there are kits out there that are awful). It has to also be pointed out that Revell and AMT make many, many different kits and sell them for very cheap. They just can't compete with Tamiya quality wise, who has a small lineup and sells for about twice the price.

I like your idea a lot, it would be nice to have a depository for kit reviews. I would refer to it often if it was good. I just fear that it would turn into an "Everyone sucks except Tamiya" thread, and that won't be good for anybody. And I don't really care to have to wade through a bunch of poor reviews for a good kit written by a bunch of people who can't see past a few easily fixable flaws.

Note: I'm not saying there aren't crappy kits out there. Just that a few people don't give credit where due.


Good points, and I would also like to point out that Tamiya does not make many U..S subjects, especially my favorites- Muscle Cars and Customs so I have no choice but to make the others the best I can

Hawk- I'm really liking your idea more and more. I think that if there was a standard review method, then a lot of personal bias could be avoided by making the reviewer think of each individual point one at a time, instead of getting frustrated with a sinkhole and dismissing the entire kit as garbage.

There have been a few threads already where people busted open the box and reviewed it, and I liked them, and thought of doing some myself. I think that this sort of service would be great for the modelling community here. I like your picks for categories, though if I were going to average those to come up with a rating for the entire kit, I would omit "difficulty." But that's ok, if there is going to be a true rating system bugs will have to be worked out.

Ideally, the thought in my mind says, it would be best as a sub-forum similar to in-progress, completed. That way each thread could be a car, and responses would be counter points.... "No, I found the rear deck on my STi to be incorrect," for example. But that is just silly. Too big for this little idea.

However, I do like the idea of a moderated, sticky thread. The first post being rules and considerations for would-be reviewers. Any idea who to pitch it to?

:iagree:
great ideas, and if they are good enough with a few pics our friends at SA might be able to use them

Wow. So I actually had a good idea? :eek:

Any idea who to pitch it to?

I`ll pm the mods and get them in here to see what they say.
I think we should have participation from members of the board. Maybe have someone review the....um...reviews before they are posted? Maybe that`s not necessary? It would be nice to have the reviews, and if possible, maybe even a link to samples pictures of the built kit if someone has a picture of it in the gallery. With all the diversity here, we could cover alot of ground. We could even review older kits if we have alot of ebay`ers on here.
I think you`re right about people favoring one manufacturer over the other. Hopefully the majority here just like building models, no matter who makes them. :smile:

The mods have been notified. Does anyone else have any opinions on this?