DiecastXchange Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It's been quite a lot of time since the last time I posted something "serious" here. It's mostly due to my exams. Here's a long read, however.

The reason for this post is to sort of express my complaints about AutoArt's Porsche 911 996 series.

I had the privilege of being overtaken by a Porsche 911 Turbo the other day. Having escaped the shock of such a car overtaking me (there are not a lot of its kind around here), I found myself in the position of sitting behind and marvelling the car during a red traffic light.

I was thinking of the stance of the 1:18 example by AutoArt (of which I have been caught daydreaming lots of times...) and I thought the real car was a lot more different than what I (or we) get from AUTOart.

I found a photo of the real car, and tried to emulate the photo with my diecast. I came to the following conclusions.




The stance of the 1:18 when seen from the rear is totally different. As you can see, the rear side of the 1:1 car is a lot bigger, fatter and more "squat" than the diecast, which looks like being "on a diet" with a lower profile.

If you compare the two pictures you can see where AUTOart got it mostly wrong. In the rear lights. The shape is different and it does not flatter the real car. When seen from the side, the lights should merge in the bodywork at a much different angle. This was definitely fixed in the newer models i.e. with the GT3RS, but the problem on this occasion is that the lights look "skinnier", a problem too with the 911 996 Carrera and the Cabrio.

The ventilation grills on the rear sides should be bigger and more discernible from the rear view. Moreover, the mirrors could be a little bit better located. They are protruding in my picture (unless it's only a matter of perspective).

The whole exhaust system should be not at full view from the rear too. Funnily, in the Carrera the rear windscreen wiper is gone, awol...

And then there is another matter which annoys a lot of diecast collectors: the shape of the front bumper where it ends near the front wheel. It is found to be too much edgy and out of shape in the Carrera, the Carrera Cabrio, the first GT3 and sadly in the otherwise excellent GT3RS.

Finally, the part of the engine cover on which the logo of each model is tampoed should look like more oblique (and not protruding) when seen from the side, but I'm really picky here.
(I'm not missing my tampo in my picture, it's due to the lighting of the diecast).

Hence, I regard as the best model of the 996 line, the white GT3R.

I am not blaming AutoArt's 996 line, since I own almost every different model of it, and I'm heading for the facelifted GT3. The cars are of fantastic quality, especially in the wheel/brake and interior of the car department, which is a little miracle. (Except for the 911 Turbo S, special edition by Porsche, where a caliper sticker is used to represent the perforated calipers!, but heck it's a special version...)

But when looking at my 911 996 Turbo Cabrio by Maisto, I can only see that they have captured the rear stance of the car and the rear lights' shape far more accurately compared to the AUTOart's...

Come on AUTOart, you can do a tad better than that! I just hope they got it right with the 997, which was reported to be sitting higher on its front axle than its rear.

We, collectors, like to see first of all the shape of the real car being recreated as painstakingly as possible. I 'll never forget Luciano's (LUW) way of criticising a BBurago Jaguar being out of scale: He calls it "The Capital Sin". In that respect this is why I regard UT's 911 993 line as the best in my collection. The body shape is stunningly perfect.

A diecast manufacturer of such a high calibre like AUTOart should take notice...
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I don't own very much 996 by AUTOart (especially Turbo and GT2) but I think you are not totally wrong.

Meanwhile, you should take care about how the shot has been taken. It could change totally proportions or shapes. Shadows are very important. For example, on the rear shot of the real Turbo, you don't see tires and undercarriage which make it seems more aggressive.

By the way, from what I have seen on many shots here, the Turbo and GT2 don't seem to be as wide as the real car. But I have to get at least the GT2 to be able to compare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Being honest, from your pics it doesn't look that bad. Atferall, the scale is right. :giggle
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I learned that the closest a company can get to producing a model 100% accurate is when they first announce it.

Once it hits the hands of the collectors, its a totally different ball game.

And thats just not limited to AUTOart either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
Yes, your observations seem true, but since Autoart is one of the best manufacturers, this may be the best that can be done on a scale model.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Welcome back Excell.

I agree that the AUTOart 996 doesn't lok 100% correct, but i've always attributed this to the fact the wheels are a bit too small and the car is slightly too narrow.

Other than this it is a great model though.

:cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Good observation excell. I always thought there was something wrong with the AUTOart 996 when comparing to the real deal. It took me awhile to figure out that the model sits a bit too high and not wide enough (especailly at the rear). Not a bad model but not a totally accurate replication.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Did the Turbo receive any changes when the 996 got the facelift back in 2002/3? I believe the AUTOart's version is the early 2000 version?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
You've got a point Gary, but I should really post a Maisto's rear shot. I've got the Turbo Cabrio, whose rear dimensions seem spot on..
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I really do not want to get into a AUTOart bashing trend here. The models that they produce are arguably some of the best available to collectors and the subject matter they go after is second to none.

However, that does not afford them a free pass on some of the models they produce. As they may be the popular brand around here, they still suffer from the same problems many companies face in trying to give collectors the best product available.

As of recent, they have had more than their fair share of blundered models, one very popular Corvette was rereleased, one was recalled and the fiasco with their latest GT3R's(I'm not touching that anymore :giggle)

For me, I really like the subject matter of their Porsche line up, but make no mistake some of the models that they have given us in this line up isn't the best, nor is it the worst.

I find the engines on the 911 lineup, less than ideal for brand of this caliber, some of the details missed such as missing fuel filler doors, wrong color dash and wrong years associated with the models can be easily overlooked as a collector enjoys the model.

But its so often that the enjoyment of the model, prevents us from seeing any red flags that may exist.

When I first started collecting, I wasn't able to find a flaw in the worst model as I was just thrilled to have it in my collection. Now, it seems like I can find something wrong with every model I see. That doesn't take the enjoyment out of the hobby for me, but I am atleast aware that no model is perfect regardless of the company it comes from.

A wise man once told me that collecting is a personal thing, when I see some of the critques, both good and bad for some models, I can certainly understand what he meant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
I don't know about everyone else, but I never expected 100% perfection on all the models I like, so these small details don't bother me too much.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I can see your point, I don't expect 100% perfection either, afterall we are talking about a replica.

What I do expect is more for dollar just like I do in the outside world, why would I expect less in a hobby.

I can understand minor flaws that are of no concern one way or another, I can even understand the blatantly obvious flaws in a model and in some cases, I can live with those blatant flaws.

What I cannot understand is why some choose to pretend they don't exist and say its fine. The model may be fine and in AUTOart case of the 911 series, it is fine, but to ignore the minor flaws suggests that as a collector we acept what they offer without raising a question about it its right or wrong.

I don't accept substandard service from telephone company, cable company or light company. Granted those things are neccessities and this is a hobby. So the day I ignore something that stares me in the face is the day I am at a point in this hobby where my priorities are mixed up. As a hobby I shouldn't have to settle for less than what my expectations are as this is a luxury where the monies can easily be shifted elsewhere for enjoyment.

As I mentioned previously, I can enjoy these models for what they are without nitpicking them to death, however, I think that putting a model into perspective is something I can do without prejudice.

Pointing out a flaw in a model, no matter how small is not always a negative thing, and it shouldn't be made out to be. It can be done in a constructive manner and also bring attention to other members.

An example would be dog legs, AUTOart has rereleased models without doglegs, we can all agree that was indeed a welcome change. AUTOart also recalled the 69 Corvette amidst many observations the model had some flaws. When it is rereleased, they will indeed be billed as company who can make things right when they have to.

Without these observations and comments, does anyone think any company would rerelease a better tooled model?

I am sorry, but if something is wrong with a model that appeals to me, it benefits me none to pretend nothing is wrong with it as I expect better "within reason'.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
DiecastX said:
Pointing out a flaw in a model, no matter how small is not always a negative thing, and it shouldn't be made out to be. It can be done in a constructive manner and also bring attention to other members.
:goodpost Well said, Darrick. :cheers
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
I agree with that whole-heartedly. In realizing that no model is perfect, I find it fun to discuss both the model's good features as well as it's weak points. Then knowing all this, I can make a good purchasing decision and not be surprised.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
After all, what TDM said was what I wanted to say. Maybe I was overexcited after "studying" the real 911 Turbo and I wanted to share my ideas about the diecast's "dark" spots..

I am far from ranting at the 911 series.

Finally, I, too, think that having a replica shows one's admiration for the real car firstly and then for the model itself. :wink
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I agree with Excell and Darrick on the AUTOart 911. In my case, my first ever autoart purchases were a yellow murcielago, black z8, and a red 911 turbo. After receiving these 3 together in the mail and opening/inspecting them, I was left unimpressed and kind of disappointed by the 911 model. It just looked kind of bland to me. I thought the overall shape seemed a little too narrow/long/flat. Then I thought maybe it was just the red color of the model affecting how the model looked, or maybe it wasn't fair to be judging the 911 with the murcielago and z8 right next to it as most cars would be unimpressive in such company. I was passed by a real 911 on the road once as well, I was very impressed by it in person, one of the reasons why I looked to buy a diecast version of the 911. So I went online to look for pics of a real 1:1 911 to see if my memory of the real 911 and my initial judgement of the AUTOart 911 model were correct or not. After spending an hour or two looking at photos of the 911 turbos for sale on ebay motors (btw, good source for research photos of 1:1 cars!), my conclusion was that the AUTOart model wasn't quite accurate in its overall shape. I think the real car has a much wider/muscular/aggressive appearance. From a side profile, the AUTOart model looked longer and more narrow and flat than the real 1:1 to me. Looking at the profile of the front fender (the line sweep from windshield to headlight), on the model it looks pretty much flat and straight, where on the 1:1 it is more curved. The AUTOart model just doesn't seem to have the same appearance or weight or overall presence of the real car. I guess maybe it is difficult to do subtle curves in a diecast, so panel parts end up appearing more "flat" than actual, this is probably why many diecast models don't look quite right? Anyhow, not my intention to bash or nitpick details of AUTOart, I like their product so far and plan to buy more in the future, this was just my observation on the AUTOart 911 model. In my case, it wasn't details like a tampo, or engine detail, or fit/finish that disappointed me, it was the overall shape and appearance of the model. Looking at a real 1:1 911 turbo, I think "wow what a cool car!", looking at my AUTOart murcielago and z8 models I have the same feeling, but looking at my AUTOart 911 turbo doesn't evoke the same feeling or emotion. I think the narrow lean look of the AUTOart 911 model takes away much of the coolness and appeal that the real 911 has, for me at least, others may disagree. I do hope AUTOart will do better on the next generation 997 line.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top