I have just bought 2 full metal Mato tanks, a Panzer III and a Stug III. When I first opened the boxes I was initially impressed, but upon closer inspection discovered that the build and fit of parts was extremely poor.
The gun barrels and mantle on both tanks has massive amounts of play in them, quiet a few of the screws are loose and appear to have been over tightened on the mounts, which means that the holes will need to be re-tapped and larger screws inserted. The metal used in the tanks seems to be very brittle, some of the tabs in the turret have snapped whilst removing screws.
The servo's used in the turret appear to be the cheapest they could get hold of, with what looks like loose ill fitting paper clip wire attaching the barrel via a screw to the servo arm. The turret side hatches flip open at the slightest movement and don't even sit straight.
For tanks that cost me £365 each, I am completely shocked and gutted to have spent the money on them, especially as the ones I bought still require electric to be fitted. I will probably stick to Taigen Tanks in the future. Has anyone else had experience of metal Mato tanks? Is what I am finding normal for this brand?
Mato Metal Tanks
-
jarndice
- Colonel
- Posts: 8021
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 am
- Location: the mountains of hertfordshire
Re: Mato Metal Tanks
I am sorry you have found such poor quality in what is sold as a premium product,
Over the years of using both Mato and Taigen upgrades the higher standard of the Taigen soon became obvious for instance the Tiger 1 front hatch,
The Mato is a number of parts that you have to assemble the Taigen is a one piece that fits with just a little filing to reduce the thickness of the hinge and both are the same price,
I could offer a lot of other examples, it is enough that where there is a choice I will always buy the Taigen.
This is purely a personal observation, but I will search out a metal hull but I will avoid a metal body,
This is because if you want or need to alter or upgrade a metal body you are looking forward to a lot of hard work and any errors will take a lot of work to fix whereas a plastic or abs body are easy to work on and are of course a lot cheaper.shaun
Over the years of using both Mato and Taigen upgrades the higher standard of the Taigen soon became obvious for instance the Tiger 1 front hatch,
The Mato is a number of parts that you have to assemble the Taigen is a one piece that fits with just a little filing to reduce the thickness of the hinge and both are the same price,
I could offer a lot of other examples, it is enough that where there is a choice I will always buy the Taigen.
This is purely a personal observation, but I will search out a metal hull but I will avoid a metal body,
This is because if you want or need to alter or upgrade a metal body you are looking forward to a lot of hard work and any errors will take a lot of work to fix whereas a plastic or abs body are easy to work on and are of course a lot cheaper.shaun
I think I am about to upset someone 
Re: Mato Metal Tanks
I have about 9 tanks, a mix of Henglong and Taigen, the Mato metal ones are new purchases. I bought them, because I wanted to try and all metal tank and bother were billed ready for I.R. I expected to have to do a little work, but didn't expect the Mato metal tanks to be such poor quality. I tried to find decent reviews on them and couldn't find much, apart from the fact that they were basically Henglong copies. I already have a Henglong Panzer III (bb firing) and it is way better than the Mato copy.
I'm currently trying to see what needs to be done to improve the floppy barrel and mantle. I have an Asiatem recoil unit that I might fit or I might try and sort out the 2 servos and shim part to tighten everything up. I have an Elmod Fusion Pro to go in, so don't have to worry to much about controlling everything. I also bought an Xeon flash to go in the barrel, but have discovered that it wont fit down the barrel.
When I get home later, I will post up a video and a few pictures showing just how poorly fitting the parts for these tanks are.
I'm currently trying to see what needs to be done to improve the floppy barrel and mantle. I have an Asiatem recoil unit that I might fit or I might try and sort out the 2 servos and shim part to tighten everything up. I have an Elmod Fusion Pro to go in, so don't have to worry to much about controlling everything. I also bought an Xeon flash to go in the barrel, but have discovered that it wont fit down the barrel.
When I get home later, I will post up a video and a few pictures showing just how poorly fitting the parts for these tanks are.
-
PainlessWolf
- Lieutenant-Colonel
- Posts: 7407
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:09 pm
- Location: Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains
Re: Mato Metal Tanks
Good morning,
Fluke, I am sorry to hear this. That kind of cash spent deserves better results. The root of all of this ( and Taigen had the same problem for years, early on ) is the use of the early Heng Long type molds. Metal hulls that will need modifications do not lend themselves well to molded on tools, screws that are meant to be set in plastic not cast pot metal and close fit of parts that swing or slide past one another. The early Heng Long tanks lent themselves to being cleaned up and upgraded well because they were made of a nice, thick plastic. The metal copies that Taigen sold early on and the early Mato Tiger ( for example ) are stark examples of this issue. Only lately with Heng Long offering better molds with removable tools and finer features on the hulls both upper and lower, have things improved with the other manufacturers as well. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has one of the new all metal Mato Shermans to see what those are like. Fluke, it is up to you if you want to put the work into these tanks that they will need or if you want to return them for something with a better reputation like the Taigen or Torro tanks.
regards,
Painless
Fluke, I am sorry to hear this. That kind of cash spent deserves better results. The root of all of this ( and Taigen had the same problem for years, early on ) is the use of the early Heng Long type molds. Metal hulls that will need modifications do not lend themselves well to molded on tools, screws that are meant to be set in plastic not cast pot metal and close fit of parts that swing or slide past one another. The early Heng Long tanks lent themselves to being cleaned up and upgraded well because they were made of a nice, thick plastic. The metal copies that Taigen sold early on and the early Mato Tiger ( for example ) are stark examples of this issue. Only lately with Heng Long offering better molds with removable tools and finer features on the hulls both upper and lower, have things improved with the other manufacturers as well. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has one of the new all metal Mato Shermans to see what those are like. Fluke, it is up to you if you want to put the work into these tanks that they will need or if you want to return them for something with a better reputation like the Taigen or Torro tanks.
regards,
Painless
...Here for the Dawn...
