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...