DiecastXchange Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
By far one of the most gorgeous cars ever made, the year 2000+ Mercedes CL series is stunning. Autoart has made models of the CL500, CL600, CL55, and CL500 Lorinser versions of this coupe. Below is a review of the CL600 in white.

EXTERIOR: The model is finished nicely in white - an unusual color for a Benz. Since I first got the model, there was something about its appearance that bothered me, but I couldn't figure out what. After doing some mathematical comparisons to the real car, I think the model's wheelbase is a little too long and the model should be a little wider. That aside, the trim, lights, and fine details are present, including the turn indicators on the side mirrors, although attachment stubs are visible through them. The finish around the headlights could have been a little sharper
ACCURACY: 8 DETAIL: 9

PAINT: I do notice a little chip in the paint along the outside gap where the driver's door is hinged. Where the aprons have been attached to the body the paint is a bit fragile-looking. However, the overall application is quite good and works well for this car.
ACCURACY: 9 DETAIL: 7

DECALS: When I received the model, part of the Mercedes emblem on the trunklid had torn off, so I removed the rest of it for consistency. The decals are chrome-colored, but apparently very fragile. Either AUTOart should have used tampo (this is an older mold) or better decals. However, they look nice and are correctly presented.
ACCURACY: 9 DETAIL: 7

WHEELS/TIRES: I like the 600's wheels, unique triangular patterns with a realistic alloy look. However, the 600s I have seen have more of a chrome-effect on the wheels. They look undersized, but measure an inch in diameter, replicating the appropriate 18 inch wheels on the real car. Tires are unmarked and look a little skinny.
ACCURACY: 8 DETAIL: 8

BRAKES: You have to look closely through the openings in the wheels to see that the rotors spin with the wheels and the caliper stays still, which I believe is accurate.
ACCURACY: 10 DETAIL: 9

ENGINE:
Being an earlier AutoArt, the engine detail is not as strong as more recent efforts. There is an attempt to plumb the engine, but everything is made of hard plastic. Plus, the Merecedes-badged engine cover was not included. Not bad, but then again most modern engines are dull-looking anyway.
ACCURACY: 6 DETAIL: 7

UNDERCARRIAGE: Again, not badly done, but nothing remarkable here. A lot of black and silver plastic; the exhaust pipes/mufflers are correctly chromed.
ACCURACY: 7 DETAIL: 7

INTERIOR: This is definately a stong point. The "carpeting" is thinner than it is in newer AutoArts, but adds to the realism. The sliding moonfroof cover is a nice touch, but the wood is a little less realistic. The seats could be softer, too, (and those seatbelts are molded into the seat and are hardly noticable!) but the overall detailing is nice.
ACCURACY: 7 DETAIL: 8

OVERALL ACCURACY: 8
OVERALL DETAIL: 7.75
SUBJECTIVE QUALITY RATING: 91/100

Autoart always packages its models nicely, although I wish they wouldn't have used those stickers - I still have residue on mine! A good model I would recommend for all of you.

Thanks, MED



Review added to the DX Model Review Database on 24-JULY-2005
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,471 Posts
Good review MED. The CL600 was my first ever Autoart. I was quite blown out of my shoes by the detail in the car especially the sliding roof, never imagined there could be so much detail in a model, having been numbed by Maistos and BBuragos in the earlier days of my collecting.
I agree with most of your observations. The glue problem was a real dampener and had me sulking for a week.
This model was in AUTOart's learning curve and they did a commendable job for that time. They would surely excel themselves if they had to do this car again, maybe they will if they make the next gen CL and Mercedes' flagship car surely deserves better.
 
G

·
Hey Med,

Thanks for taking the time and doing this review as well as giving the 10 point scoring system a test run.

FYI for everyone, I asked Med to test out a 10 point scoring system that I am working on to see if it would be productive in giving an unbiased model review.

Here is a brief view of how a model recieves points for the areas its been judged in:

10= This rare score is reserved for a model that is perfect as it could be. The flawless design and construction exceeds a collectors expectations. A model deserving of this score cannot be easily improved upon and is considered to be the best available. Not too many models will recieve this score.

9= This score is a reflection of a model that distinguishes itself as one of the best available on the market. Accuracy, detail and quality are all present. A model deserving of this score succeeds at meeting a collectors expectations and suffers from no meaningful drawbacks. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to improve upon this model.

8= A model that recieves this score is flawless in so many ways that its relative drawbacks are not very important if at all. Improving upon this model will take very little effort.

7= A model scoring in this range has more positives than it has flaws, however, the flaws should be made aware of.

6= A model in this range reflects an average model. Its positves and negatives balance each other out making it an adequate model. Not the worst, but also not the best.

5= A model in this range is mediocre at best. Obvious flaws overshadow the positives.

4= A model deserving of this score doesn't have many positives and the few that it does have are well below the expectations of a collector.

3= A model in this range and lower should not be considered. It has very few positives and the flaws far outweigh them.

2= A model deserving of this score would not satisfy any collector as it has absolutely no positives. It would be difficult, however, not impossible to find a worse model.

1= A model in this range has absolutely nothing of interest to it. This rare model is considered to be the worst of the worse.


This is just a draft and there will be some tweaking as neccessary to get everything right.

Thanks Med for giving this a test run, I think it provided a fair and accurate account of this model. :cheers
 
G

·
Thanks for the review MED,

this will help me out to apply the new guidelines on my next review.

BTW, I really like that MERC, it really looks big!
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top