SH, Hot Wheels and CMC Ferrari racing car transporters in a front three-quarter comparison

CMC vs SH vs Hot Wheels: 1/64 Fiat Bartoletti 642 RN2 Ferrari Transporter Review

CMC vs SH vs Hot Wheels: 1/64 Fiat Bartoletti 642 RN2 Ferrari Transporter Review

By Scale Metals

After more than six months of waiting, the 1/64 CMC Fiat Bartoletti Tipo 642 RN2 Ferrari Racing Car Transporter Truck has finally been released. CMC made a small number available at this year’s Shanghai Toy Fair, and Scale Metals also received a sample. The sample sent to us appears to represent the production version.

The real transporter was built by Fiat on the 642 RN2 chassis, with a purpose-built body by Bartoletti. In the late 1950s and through much of the 1960s, Fiat 642 RN2 and 682 transporters carried Ferrari racing cars, spare tires and other equipment to major races. That working history is a large part of the appeal: this was not simply a truck wearing Ferrari lettering, but part of the team’s racing operation.

Three Transporters, Three Different Approaches

We brought out the Hot Wheels and Stance Hunters (SH) versions for context. The three models sit at very different price points, so this was never going to be a like-for-like contest. Even so, putting them together makes the differences in size, paint and construction easy to see.

SH, Hot Wheels and CMC Ferrari transporters in a front three-quarter comparison — image 1 of 17
Figure 1. The SH, Hot Wheels and CMC transporters together, with a red racing car on the Hot Wheels upper deck.
CMC, Hot Wheels and SH Ferrari transporters compared from the rear — image 2 of 17
Figure 2. A rear three-quarter view shows the different lengths, deck structures and rear bodywork of the three models.

The Hot Wheels model is clearly the most toy-like of the three. It uses more plastic, its smaller details are softer, and its overall size is closer to the CMC than to the SH. The priorities are simply different here.

Hot Wheels and CMC Fiat transporters in a front three-quarter comparison — image 3 of 17
Figure 3. Hot Wheels and CMC side by side, showing their similar footprint but very different front-end and roof-rail treatment.

The SH is noticeably larger. A bigger body leaves more room for parts and assembly, but the size difference is obvious when it is parked next to the CMC. The SH is not poorly detailed—most of the expected features are there. The main thing it lacks next to the CMC is a set of opening cab doors.

Stance Hunters and CMC Ferrari transporters showing their size difference — image 4 of 17
Figure 4. The SH towers slightly over the CMC and also has the longer, larger-looking body.

Packaging

CMC uses a white cardboard box, similar in style to its 1/18-scale packaging, with a photograph of the model printed on the front.

White CMC box for the 1/64 Fiat 642 RN2 Bartoletti race transporter — image 5 of 17
Figure 5. The white CMC carton carries a model photograph, the CMC logo and Fiat 642 RN2 Bartoletti product identification.

Paint, Trim and Body Details

Of the three, the CMC has the cleanest paint finish. Orange peel is most obvious on the Hot Wheels, while the SH shows a slight amount as well. The roof rails are metal on the CMC but plastic on both the SH and Hot Wheels. The plastic look is particularly strong on the Hot Wheels, whose rail shape also looks wrong.

The upper and lower window trims are separate plated pieces on the CMC; on the SH and Hot Wheels, they are simply painted. Above the wheel arches, both CMC and SH use plated trim, while Hot Wheels again relies on paint. The side markings appear to be decals on the CMC and SH, compared with tampo printing on the Hot Wheels. In the image below, the order from top to bottom is CMC, Hot Wheels and SH.

Side profiles of CMC, Hot Wheels and SH Fiat Bartoletti transporters — image 6 of 17
Figure 6. Stacked side profiles make the differences in paint, window trim, roof rails, wheels and body proportions easy to compare.

The CMC’s side steps are separate metal parts. That is typical of the approach taken throughout this model: where a separate metal piece is practical, CMC tends to use one. It also gives the model a reassuringly durable feel, which is not something we take for granted with a highly detailed diecast. All three versions have disc-style wheels with painted detailing and rubber tires.

At the front, both CMC and SH use open, photo-etched metal grilles; Hot Wheels uses a simpler molded design. CMC and SH also have separate headlights, indicators and fog lights, with the CMC carrying the finer detail. Most of the Hot Wheels front-end features are molded and painted.

The front badges combine photo-etched parts and decals on the CMC and SH, while Hot Wheels uses tampo printing. CMC’s wipers are photo-etched, SH’s are separate plastic pieces, and the Hot Wheels wipers are molded into the surrounding detail. The trim above and below the windshield follows the same pattern as the side windows: plated separate parts on the CMC, painted lines on the other two. From the front, the SH is clearly the largest, followed by the Hot Wheels and then the CMC. At this scale, making the body smaller while retaining the detail is the harder task.

Head-on comparison of Hot Wheels and CMC Ferrari transporter front ends — image 7 of 17
Figure 7. The Hot Wheels and CMC grilles, lamps, wipers and windshield surrounds seen directly from the front.
Head-on comparison of Stance Hunters and CMC transporter grilles and lamps — image 8 of 17
Figure 8. SH and CMC both have open-looking grilles and separate lamps, but differ in size and fine detailing.

Rear Details and Adjustable Mirrors

There is less decoration at the rear. CMC and SH use separate tail-light pieces and decals for much of the badging, while the Hot Wheels has painted lights and a generally simpler finish. The rear hatch opens on both the CMC and SH. Both use hinges, although the SH hinges are noticeably larger than those on the CMC.

Rear view comparing Hot Wheels and CMC transporter tailgates and lights — image 9 of 17
Figure 9. The Hot Wheels and CMC rear ends, including their tailgates, lights, badging and loading openings.
Rear comparison of SH and CMC transporters with visible tailgate hinges — image 10 of 17
Figure 10. SH and CMC rear hatches, with the difference in hinge size visible around the tailgate openings.

One of the CMC’s neatest touches is its adjustable exterior mirrors. The support arm can pivot, and the mirror itself can turn as well. On the right-hand side, the mirror has to be swung forward before the cab door can be opened.

CMC Fiat 642 RN2 front three-quarter view with adjustable side mirrors — image 11 of 17
Figure 11. A closer view of the CMC cab, front trim and the small mirrors mounted on either side.

Cab Doors and Interior

The left cab door opens on small, realistic-looking hinges, and the door handle also appears to be metal. Inside are red seats, while the inner door panel has silver trim and a grab rail. Since the SH and Hot Wheels have closed cabs and much simpler interiors, there is little value in a direct three-way comparison here.

The tiny hinges are impressive, but they are not perfect. A door can sit slightly crooked once opened, and the same tendency is visible on some of the other doors. It is a small limitation worth knowing about rather than pretending the mechanism is flawless.

CMC transporter with its left cab door open and red seat visible — image 12 of 17
Figure 12. The open left cab door reveals a red seat, interior trim and the small hinge arrangement.

The right cab door is hinged as well and opens through a wide angle. Its red seat is painted, while the supports above the engine compartment and the steering wheel are metal. The central side doors open outward in two directions to reveal storage shelving inside.

CMC Fiat transporter with right cab door and central storage doors open — image 13 of 17
Figure 13. The right cab door and split central doors are open, exposing the cab and the shelved storage compartment.

Loading a 250 GTO

These transporters mainly carried narrow, cigar-shaped racing cars. We tried a Hot Wheels 250 GTO on the CMC and found that it only fitted at the front of the upper deck; the other positions would not accommodate it.

Hot Wheels Ferrari 250 GTO loaded at the front of the CMC transporter upper deck — image 14 of 17
Figure 14. The red number 22 Hot Wheels 250 GTO sits in the forward position on the CMC’s upper deck.

The CMC’s rear cover opens very smoothly and can be held at any angle.

CMC Ferrari transporter with rear loading cover and tailgate open — image 15 of 17
Figure 15. The rear loading area is shown open, with the deck surfaces, support frame and lowered tailgate visible.

Ramps, Roof Deck and Underbody

The metal loading ramps slide into either side of the CMC’s chassis and move in and out smoothly. CMC and SH both use metal for the upper deck, although the CMC surface is finer and the SH has visible screws. Hot Wheels uses molded plastic here, and the difference in texture is substantial.

Overhead comparison of CMC, Hot Wheels and SH transporter loading decks — image 16 of 17
Figure 16. Overhead views compare the deck surfaces and surrounding structures of CMC, Hot Wheels and SH.

The CMC also has the busiest underbody. The underside of the engine, fuel tank, exhaust system, driveshaft and spare tire are separate components. SH simplifies the arrangement, with much of the engine underside molded in relief, while Hot Wheels uses a plastic base with molded details throughout. CMC and SH reproduce the real vehicle’s single front and dual rear wheel layout; Hot Wheels instead uses wide tires.

Underbody comparison of CMC, Hot Wheels and SH Fiat 642 RN2 transporters — image 17 of 17
Figure 17. The three underbodies show CMC’s separate mechanical parts, SH’s simplified chassis and the molded Hot Wheels base.

Final Thoughts

To be fair, comparing the SH and Hot Wheels with a far more expensive CMC is not an even contest. Put price aside for a moment, though, and the CMC is clearly ahead in proportions, paint quality, detailing and the number of things you can actually open and adjust.

CMC models also tend to feel solid, and that design philosophy is very obvious here. Separate metal hardware has been used wherever possible, giving the transporter considerable weight in the hand and the confidence to handle it without feeling as though every small part is fragile. For CMC’s first 1/64-scale model, that approach has been pushed a long way.

The opening features are among the most impressive we have seen at this scale, and there is no glaring weakness in the overall shape or paint. The slightly wayward doors are a reminder of how much tiny engineering has been packed into it, rather than a reason to dismiss the model. Whether the CMC is worth its much higher price will come down to the individual collector, but as a first attempt at a 1/64 Ferrari race transporter, it is a very accomplished piece.

Back to blog

Leave a comment