How does Tamiya produce kits that fit so much better than almost everyone else’s? I know that other companies have particular kits that may rival Tamiya in this respect, but as a general rule I find that Tamiya is the most consistent in this area.
Is it a specific manufacturing method, better quality control? Do they simply care about fit more than other companies? Why don’t others try to emulate them on this point?
What got me thinking about this is the new tool Tamiya Spitfire. The precision of fit really takes it to a new level, far better than any other kit I’ve built.
I do not know the answer but I agree that Tamiya models do fit together quite well, which for me makes them a pleasure to build. The only other brand I have put together so far are Revell/Monogram and I have sworn off those because they just aren’t the same quality as Tamiya. Eventually I’ll branch off to another brand but I still have plenty of Tamiya models calling my name.
The thing that amazes me is their quality over time. I’ve built a couple Tamiya kits from the 70s and 80s, and the fit was better than some companies’ post 2000 kits. The detail wasn’t the same, but even so.
I think the answer is that they try harder and are willing to invest the time and money to get it right.
Tamiya was like Honda in that they were a newcomer in a market that already had established companies. They were the underdogs and had to fight to gain a share of the market. And like Honda, they were not given much respect by the “big boys”. Yet they both exhibited tenaciousness and put out good products that stood out from the competition. Tamiya is known as an early adopter of new manufacturing technologies, and combined with their mission to make models that are easy to build, helps to keep their name golden.
Now before the pundits take a stab, yes they do choose ease of assembly over super high fidelity parts breakdown, but that is why their kits are pleasant to build rather than a 1,200 part box full of frustration. To each his own, but Tamiya still stands as one of the top model kit manufacturers because they choose to make the effort to be there.
Not every Tamiya kit fits well. A lot of the aircraft they issued in the '70s fit just about as well as the Revell and Monogram kits of the era; they required just as much puttying and sanding to achieve decent results, had the same raised panel lines as their American competitors, and they could be a bit soft in the details. And, just like the Revell O’Grams of that time, they are still in circulation.
What are they doing differently now? Computer assisted drawing/drafting wasn’t around when Revell and Monogram dominated the market, but it is now a requisite in the modern era. It was one thing to physically build a master pattern and then send it down to the tooling department to be cut apart and die-molded for production, but it’s an entirely different ballgame when your master pattern is digitally designed and a computer mills the molds while determining optimum heat, pressure, load, and venting to increase productivity and profitability. It makes engineering a lot more accurate when it comes to fit and finish, plus it allows for techniques (slide molding, for instance) that were considered to be “impossible” with injection molding twenty years ago.
Tamiya has been around for some fifty years or so, which is a considerable advantage over competitors. They’ve learned a thing or two over the years and their kits have benefited from that level of experience.
Now if only they would stop molding grab handles on the hatches of their armor kits with that patented “Tamiya blob”…
Point taken on the grab handles. And Tamiya only recently started including clear parts for armor headlights and optics. Plus they still use that annoying nylon string for tow cable.
I’m working on an early 1970s Tamiya halftrack and their new M3 Stuart at the moment, and the difference is noticeable. But I built my first halftrack back in 1978 or so, and enjoyed it a lot even back then.
But bottom line, it’s the pleasurable building experience that defines a Tamiya kit.
Probably the same production values that get me to buy Kato locomotives, Nikon cameras and Sony or yamaha sound equipment. Other companies do it as well, but they are all in the same higher priced bracket.
When I was a yougn modeler I simply could not afford Tamiya kits.
Yes back in the 1970s Tamiya kits were much more expensive than their competition. That was the impetus for me to learn the importance of saving up my allowance - it took me about a month to afford a Tamiya tank kit. But even then I knew it was worth it.
Eh, not all that glitters Tamiya is gold. Go try their 1/48 Sea Harrier. Then try the Monogram 1/48 AV-8B. A few years and a world of difference in detail and fit. Now go try the new tool/issue Revell F-84E/G Thunderjet. Or compare the original 1/48 Tamiya F-16 to the original 1/48 Monogram F-16, or their A-10s.
Even Italeri was giving Tamiya a run for their money in the early days of 1/35 armor. No motorizations holes to deal with, and much finer detail. Have a look at their respective Pzr. IV or M13/40 kits.
In response to a few of the above comments, I agree that not everything Tamiya has produced is perfect. Some of their kits from the 70s are so-so, at best.
BUT, those kits are 40+ years old! Can you honestly say that since the early 90s there is another manufacturer that is so consistent in turning out great fitting kits? I can’t think of one. At this point, if I buy a newer tool Tamiya kit I feel safe assuming that the engineering will be great. Can’t really say that about any other manufacturer.
Which gets me back to the original question, which is that they must have a different approach to engineering. I just wonder what it is.
It certainly is engineering on their new tool kits. But again, they do compromise on detail finesse. Other companies make more detailed kits. But the more intricate kits often translate into more challenging assembly.
I build many 1/35 figures to accompany my 1/35 vehicle builds. The current releases from Tamiya lag behind those of Dragon, Miniart, Masterbox, or Tristar in quality. They also tend to be more petite scalewise, as in stature. Believe you me, I do like Tamiya products. But they are playing catch up in some areas.
Bandai, but their subject matter is pretty restricted to anime and sci-fi these days. They even mould multiple colours on a single sprue. Imagine if they turned their attention to more mainstream subjects.
Yes, their Star Wars kits are most impressive. The Gundam kits by Bandai that my son builds look great as well. Their engineering is really something to marvel at, in that it’s all snap together, fits fantastic, and is articulable. Not to mention the muliple colors, like Phil said above. High tech and simple at the same time.
Sometimes these “New Tooling” kits are re pops of older kits with added goodies. As stik mentioned, not all Tamiya is gold. Airfix and Italeri are giving them a run for their money.
Let.s not forget there’s nothing that rivet counters can argue over accuracies in them. They’re all fantasy Sci-Fi stuff.
I was really excited to see all of those great Star Wars kits until I learned that they are all snap together and require no painting. (I believe you can paint if you want, but is not required).
I would love to see traditional model kits for Star Wars from Bandai (glue required, and plain white sprues so that you can paint from scratch).
To add to the discussion, I think Tamiya is fantastic! Their kits are top quality and all of their tools, paints, etc are top notch as well. I only use their acrylic paints for both airbrushing and handbrushing (use a drop of their retarder and they handbrush perfectly).
The kits are expensive, but well worth it to me.
I still buy Revell for their car kits, as they have American cars and Tamiya doesn’t. Revell is still very good and their kits are very different compared to Tamiya.