Classic Metal Works vehicles - here is your chance to make a difference

[OldEastRR]

Hmmmmm .... Chrysler and GM require hefty fees to make their models? Hey didn't WE the American people give them 70 BILLION DOLLARS to stay alive a while back? And now they want to charge us for making models of their vehicles? What the hell is that? If they'd gone bankrupt we'd be able to model their vehicles for FREE. They should be required to allow any model manufacturer to model any of their car or truck models for FREE - a way of saying thanks to the guys who bailed them out.  Or are they trying to get that $70B back by charging model makers and hobby companies? This stinks.

[peteski]

Licensing fees have nothing to do with bailouts - it is all about greedy corporate lawyers.  In the past manufacturers actually welcomed scale models of their vehicles (trains, cars airplanes, etc.) because they viewed it as free advertising for their brands.
Nowadays t model car manufacturers don't even engrave Good Year or Bridgestone or similar names on the kit's tires - that would either cast them licensing fees or an expensive lawsuit.  Same goes for decals for NASCAR model kits - many logos are not depicted on the decals for the same reason.  Welcome to the greedy 21st Century!

[peteski]

Product images are either HO models and/or heavily shopped. Their earlier models were nicely made; lately, however, the fit and finish is really deteriorating. On some of the automobiles, the wheels are misshapen and recessed into the car so far it sits on its chassis (perfect for lowriders). By contrast, some of the trucks appear to be riding on stilts--all they need are fat tires and they become monster trucks. Here is a comparison between the official product image and reality:





I would not even use this as a background model.

Here is one of my Fords.  Yes, this CMW model is not quite to the standards we would expect from today's models costing about $5 each(discounted price).



This particular model does seem a bit crude. The paint (specifically the "chrome" trim) is not done well. Also the molded dividers in vent windows are way too thick, ruining the overall appearance.  The silver paint meant for the hubcaps is generously over sprayed onto the tires (almost looking like silver-colored wide whitewall tires).  But other CMW models I own have much better painted wheels and tires.  Another eyesore is the giant black rectangular end of the underframe visible under the front bumper. That should not be there. The other problem (like DKS mentioned) is that the car sits way too low on its wheels, making it look like a modern low-rider.  Yet another problem is that the wheels are inset way too deep into the body.  The reason for that is shown below.



The plastic body is molded very thick, which requires the drastically narrowed track in order for the tires to clear the fenders.  The only diecast part on this model is the underframe.  But one good thing about these models is that they can be easily disassembled and some of the shortcomings can be fixed fairly easily. I know, there should be no need to fix a model that costs $5 a piece!

So yes, some of the CMW vehicles are not quite up to the standard for vehicles in their price range. But I still would like CMW to produce new models and I hope that they will improve their quality.

[DKS]

The plastic body is molded very thick, which requires the drastically narrowed track in order for the tires to clear the fenders.

It's almost as if they used tooling intended for metal diecasting to inject plastic. Or, they just followed all of the specs for such tooling, overlooking the fact that injected plastic parts can be far finer.

The only diecast part on this model is the underframe.

Done, I suspect, so they can continue to use the "diecast" sobriquet.

Overall, the design reminds me more of a toy than a model.

[MichaelWinicki]

I apologize if I missed it, but did anyone post what these licensing fees actually are– cost wise?

Second thing is if these fees are that exorbitant, then why couldn't a manufacturer simply create some unique models that don't represent any specific model but simply have the shape-characteristics of a 60's or 70's automobile... Maybe like a Fevy or Chord.

[DKS]

...why couldn't a manufacturer simply create some unique models that don't represent any specific model but simply have the shape-characteristics of a 60's or 70's automobile... Maybe like a Fevy or Chord.

That's exactly what Woodland Scenics does with their line of cars and trucks.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

....And they cost twice as much!

[Catt]

What I don't understand is how professed N scalers can make such sweet HO models,but the N scale cars are such pieces of crap.

[peteski]

It's almost as if they used tooling intended for metal diecasting to inject plastic. Or, they just followed all of the specs for such tooling, overlooking the fact that injected plastic parts can be far finer.

Yes, I agree. The giveaway are the "rivets" which hold the top and bottom together molded with the car body. Those (to me) indicate that the body was originally designed to be cast out of metal (then the rivets were to be flared like they are on their original die cast cars or on any Hot Wheels or Matchbox cars).  When molded out of plastic the flaring actually doesn't work and the edge cracks as shown in my photo.

But hopefully CMW will eventually move away from the die cast mentality and will start producing N scale models on par with ones from Atlas, Wiking, Busch and Herpa.  Maybe they can change their name to "Classic Model Works".   

[arbomambo]

Hello all...
I'll weigh in on this one...
I had already placed an order with MTS for a pretty good amount of track, cars, etc...after noticing some heavily discouted CMW vehicles, I added a number of them to the order.
So I was a little discouraged to read the reviews/criticisms of the current vehicles while the order was on the way...
everything came in the post today as I was blowing the leaves...and hurried upstairs to give these the 'once over'...
I've got to say that I'm very pleased with these...especially for the price...quality control is better than I was believing...and context has to be taken into account as well...
I would also say that the 'chome' painted parts could benefit from application by N scale hands, fingers, and masking tape...but considering the sheer diminutiveness of the subjects, I'm very satisfied with these and will definitely buy more; especially, now that they have announced cards with two different colors!
 Granted, I will weather, matte coat, and improve certain aspects of many of the vehicles I've purchased...but I do the same thing to every loco and piece of rolling stock I have.
I would also trim the pieces of black underframe that may be visible under the bumpers, but that would, most likely, be the only trimming I'd do to these...
Matte clear coating, dust and 'dirty-ing', masking for windshield wiper 'marks'...these will look really nice on route 66 through Kingman Canyon...
Not shown in these pics is a pair of 'Navajo' tractor and trailers, and a pair of Santa Fe trailers...which are also nice...
I'd also be one of those who would like to see CMW produce kit vehicles as well...
Respectfully,
Bruce

[Scottl]

Those look great, even with the wood panelling ( ).  Maybe the issue is variable quality control or there was a phase of production where things slipped?  If they made something that ran on unleaded, I'll be in the market.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

That rear axle placement on the R190  bugs the hell out of me. If the load shifted to the back, the front of the truck would lift.

[sirenwerks]

It looks like CMW didn't bother to make a correct frame for the van trucks, just used a two-axle tractor.  I didn't buy any of those because of that ridiculous over hang.

[SkipGear]

That rear axle placement on the R190  bugs the hell out of me. If the load shifted to the back, the front of the truck would lift.

It looks like CMW didn't bother to make a correct frame for the van trucks, just used a two-axle tractor.  I didn't buy any of those because of that ridiculous over hang.

After doing some kitbashing of the CMW trucks, the box van chassis is unique to the box van. I'm pretty sure the 2 axle, single axle tractor and two axle box trucks all have different wheelbases. I think the stakebed truck has yet another wheelbase option but it has been a while.

I dug around and there are quite a few pictures of R190's with what appears to be the same wheelbase as the box trucks in many types of service. The rear axle is set in about the middle of the box so it would take an awfully lot of tail weight to raise half the box, the cab, engine and front wheels. I don't think its as bad as you make it out be.