87-93 mustang LX coupe/Hatch

[Reliable Resin]

Here are some teaser pics of the master in progress, as a bonus I have it mocked-up with the masters for our upcoming big-n-little pro-touring Minilites. I'm still woirking on the final shaping of the scratch built front valance, after that I can add all the little details to finish this one up.

WOW , Darin................... LQQKIN' GUD

Thanks for taking the time to post the pics of the work in progress

I see what you mean about the C pilar & the Roof line ( the correct width )

& the correct side molding

The other day I think I saw a LX body (just the body) over on evilBay go for $100 .... jeeesh

Well, I'll be ordering another 55 lbs. of Rubber in a week , should have enough to mold up many of your significant contributions ( as well as Marc's ) to both Reliable Resin & the whole hobby

These lastest works shall make many a Happy Camper !!!!

Once the word got out that you were creating this LX Notch from scratch,

I've been replying to at least 3>4 email a week " When's the LX going to be done ? "

There's also been inquires as to the Hatch & also the Convertible

Once we retool & reorganize the Shop here , last count over 70 Full Body Molds ,

not to mention all the smaller misc components ........... I'm running outta shelf space

(gotta make room for the 15 > 20 masters in the Bull Pen )

I'll also get that Big Boy Pressure Tank Dialed in .... OMG ... it's looking like next years going to be another Great Year

It's been a long day here catching up from that ###### FLU

2:30 AM here .... a few more emails to reply to & pour a few more Molds / toss em the Chamber

( under pressure ) & I'm hittin' the sack

I'll Ring you tomorrow

Don

[Reliable Resin]

Oh & BTW ........................ LOVE the WHEELS !!!!!!

[Rob Hall]

Darin....no disrespect. I have a 1:1 LX. That's way off. Just get a profile shot. The rockers are deeper/lower than the front valence on an LX. You have the right general idea, but the overall shape is way off.

I used to have one also ('86)... I don't recall the decklid/rear quarter tops sloping that much in profile..

[Reliable Resin]

I think that the Red Trunk on the White plastic , & the angle of the shot causes some what of an Optical Illusion

Take an other look at the Cop Cars rear deck , looks like it slopes

[82notch]

This is so cool. I have wanted a notch model for about 4-5 years now and refused to pay the big $$$$ for any. I was able to get one for $40 from AFX on "The Bay" . I got it in 10 days and it is actually a nice piece. I will be picking up at least 1 more of the coupe in this thread when they are done.....I have owned numerous Notch's through the years. My current notch is an 82 with a killer 357 windsor. I cannot wait to get started on these awesome cars....Anyone know who makes a turbo kit?

[LVZ2881]

might just have to get one of them, but I WANT!!! the wheels!!!!

[MonoPed]

I think that the Red Trunk on the White plastic , & the angle of the shot causes some what of an Optical Illusion

Take an other look at the Cop Cars rear deck , looks like it slopes

The 1:1 does slope a little, but the side shot of the prototype body does make the slope of the trunk look a little exagerated:

I don't know if it is the red plastic or what, maybe seeing it in one color will give a better idea of the finished project. None of the comments about Darin's work were made with any disrespect (I don't think), only made because this is one subject that HAS to be right on the money, or it will end up the dust heap of "could have been...". Not only that, but it seems alot of us that want the model also owned a Mustang LX, so we are looking at this with a very critical eye. It's still a work in progress, so we'll have to wait untill the first copy is popped from the mold to see how it'll turn out...

[Reliable Resin]

or it will end up the dust heap of "could have been..."

I don't think there's a remote chance of that happening

Darin's Spot On 100% .......

now let's keep in mind that it begain from a molded piece of plastic

from the model manufacter .......

[Marc @ MPC Motorsports]

The 1:1 does slope a little, but the side shot of the prototype body does make the slope of the trunk look a little exagerated:

I don't know if it is the red plastic or what, maybe seeing it in one color will give a better idea of the finished project. None of the comments about Darin's work were made with any disrespect (I don't think), only made because this is one subject that HAS to be right on the money, or it will end up the dust heap of "could have been...". Not only that, but it seems alot of us that want the model also owned a Mustang LX, so we are looking at this with a very critical eye. It's still a work in progress, so we'll have to wait untill the first copy is popped from the mold to see how it'll turn out...

Here's a great side shot of a Mustang LX notch. Darin's does look a little bit exaggerated compared to this pic. However, let's give Darin the benefit of the doubt. I seem to recall that Darin took some actual measurements from a 1:1 LX and the angle of each pic can give a different perspective.

[Abell82]

This Project is doomed, to be inaccurate.

For a number of reasons, the least of which is that,

it is based on the hatchback body, rather than the more

accurate convertible body.

Darrin, you need to re-check your measurements!!

Then take another look at the convertible, and the hatchback. The problem lies in the upper body line.

While I understand the decision, to use the hatchback body, for interchangability,

the hatch is the least accurate, especially along the upper body,

bottom of the windows. Notice, that your body appears to have a 1-2 inch chop, on the top that you made?

It is mostly visual, but it is there, because the top of the doors are the wrong shape,

and come up too far. This makes the side windows too short, and thus your quarter windows the wrong size and shape.

This may be what is throwing off your measurements. This could be corrected in the same way that you corrected the New AAR Cuda...

Marc...

I don't think that anyone on here is not giving Darrin the benefit of the doubt.

It is a matter of trying to help him turn a "Lemon, into Lemonade" by correcting

the defects, and flaws BEFORE it is cast, and becomes one of those "EYEBALL ENGINEERED" kits,

that he has expressed disdain for. If it is not accurate, then why bother to make it?

Why not just correct an AFX/AAM body, (ASSUMING that you can actually get one.)

With everyone, on here trying to point out it's flaws, there is a "better chance" of getting it correct.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Abell82

[CAL]

Darin, IMHO there is something that's looks a little off here.

It appears that the beltline is too high and the c-pillar is too wide.

[CAL]

Excuse my crude drawings, but maybe this will help.

I dropped the belt and narrowed up the c-pillar.

It seems like a little better representation. Yes?

[Abell82]

HEY, Darrin.

A simple thanks would suffice!!

NEVER said, you were doomed to failure, I said the project was doomed to be inaccurate.

The BELTLINE trim mouldings are different, for an LX and a GT. Unless you are planning on changing these, the RESIN copy will NEVER be 100% ACCURATE. Thus dooming said project to atleast some inaccuracy.

As for the rest well, I can respond to each and every one if you would really like...

Edited December 2, 2007 by Abell82

[CAL]

Actually no it doesn't look better. here's why;

1. now the rear fender opening is too high and the hieght from the bottom of the rocker to the roof is too low.

2. you niether measured the real car or the model I'm making, you are guessing. You are "eyeballing it" from a photograph. crude drawings and statements of "it's a little off" don't help. If you feel strongly that a crucial dimension is off, Find a real Mustang LX, take the mesurements convert them to scale, and send them to me. If my measurements don't match I will change it. Other wise I'm simply not going to ignore the mesurements I've already taken, and start cutting this thing up because someone thinks that a photo I posted looks a little off.

That is all I have to go by since I neither have a real one or the one you are building at my fingertips, but that doesn't mater:

If it doesn't look right it doesn't look right.

actually I used the the straight line of the belt molding and where it exited the back of the car. It is no where close, nor does it look accurate. Something about it just doesn't look right and have given some kind of proof. Dimensional measurments are not the only tools we have.

Edited December 2, 2007 by CAL

[CAL]

But like I told Cal, I need specifics. It's a little off won't suffice, but "it needs to be 7.5mm from point a to point b" is what I need.

That is not possible with you sending me your model and letting me measure it. Otherwise that's all we got to go off is your photo.

[Abell82]

Today I spent over an hour pouring over my research material, double and triple checking every modification, and measurement, and have yet to find a dimension from my work that is off more than .25mm. and the biggest flaw in the Revell portion is the body line running from the front of the car to the back above the door handle is .50mm off, and that along with the GT side trim is nearly impossible to change with out scratch building the whole body.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere!!!! If the body line is off, and your rear quarter window is accurate, won't that make it "look" off? Further if the body is off .50, and you are off by .25 that makes .75, that's quite a bit in scale is it not?? Here is a pic, of a door. LOOK closely at the front corner where the mirror goes. then look at the Revell Hatchback body and the convertible body.

Notice that the 1:1 and convertible body both have a downward

angle where the mirror attaches? Now notice that the hatch is straight?

If you want, when I go to work Monday, I can try to get measurements for you..

Edited December 3, 2007 by Abell82

[CAL]

well, there are no perfect models.

I believe that it doesn't have to be accurate, it just have to LOOK accurate... it doesn't look accurate for whatever reason.

[CAL]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere!!!! If the body line is off, and your rear quarter window is accurate, won't that make it "look" off? Further if the body is off .50, and you are off by .25 that makes .75, that's quite a bit in scale is it not?? Here is a pic, of a door. LOOK closely at the front corner where the mirror goes. then look at the Revell Hatchback body and the convertible body.

Notice that the 1:1 and convertible body both have a downward

angle where the mirror attaches? Now notice that the hatch is straight?

If you want, when I go to work Monday, I can try to get measurements for you..

.75x24= 18mm

That is what I am saying... the beltline is too high.

[CAL]

".75x24= 18mm" what does this eqution have to do with anything? what are you measuring? why are you multiplying .75mm X 24? what does the 24 represent? What dimension on the model should be 18mm?

and no the belt line isn't too high, the body line is too low. The bottom edge of the window is exactly where it should be.

If you scale .75mm up to 1:1 18mm is a significant amount.

If that is the case then why when you take the straight edge of the belt out to the trunk tip there is a lot of difference from your model the real car and my adjusted photo?

I have done this with several photos, including a hatch. Every time from this angle the belt intersects the top of the trunk corner. Your model doesn't.

However, I'd agree that the secondary body line is low... I am not sure that is what is visually throwing everything off.

I am not saying it to beat you up about anything. I think it's a cool project. I like Mustangs and have owned 3 late model Mustang IIIs, and it doesn't look right.

Edited December 3, 2007 by CAL

[CAL]

"Darin,

Take out the Monogram SVO, and compare it to the 93 Cobra, you will see the

bottom of the window is too high."

Luckily I had one handy Both my LX and the Monogram SVO measure an Identical 18mm from the bottom of the drip rail to the bottom of the window trim. Feel free to double check my measurements by measuring your own kits. As I've been saying the chopped top look is an optical illusion.

E.G. it doesn't look right It's your thing, you have to live with it, not me.

[Abell82]

I'm not Going to add a dip in the door molding that is hidden when the mirror is attached, that's pointless. that is most likely the reason Revell didn't put it there either. When the model is correctly assembled the area is covered. As far as your arithamatic goes my .25 off and their .50 is not in the same place. The measurement from the top of the door to the bottom of the door window trim is dead-on so I don't see the issue here.

Try this, can you see the angle here?:

How about here? :

#1 It is NOT just the molding that dips down, it is the actual door and window opening.

#2. It is good to see that you will finally admitt that You are wrong, You have now admitted that you are wrong. Why not correct it?

What do you think people will say about this copy,

as soon as they try to paint it like a police vehicle?

I thought you were trying to make as acurrate a version, as possible?

think about it...

Edited December 3, 2007 by Abell82

[CAL]

I am not quite sure how much more evidence you need.

[CAL]

Now that I look at it a little closer...

I suspect the sailpanel is off and there is not any curve to the trunk.

[CAL]

Cal i'm going to say this only one more time. You cannot take measurements from photos. If you look closely you will see that the two pictures while looking similar are taken at different angles, and one is 1:1 car taken with a normal lens and the model is 24 times smaller tken with a macro lens, which will distort the image, but allows small objects to be photographed clearly.

Unless you have something valuable to add; as in real measurements taken from real 3D objects with a precise measuring tool, you are only making noise, for no other reason than to bust my chops.

You know what, I am not busting your chops to bust your chops. I hope I never see it again.

And I am saying it for the last time that if it doesn't look right it doesn't look right. How much more valuable is there than that. I don't care what measurments you have, and it's not really my job to figure out why it doesn't look right. I am not the master pattern maker.

Furthermore, if you are going to post pictures and ask if it looks accurate, you might want to start with an accurate picture... since you seem to think yours are all distorted.

The only thing distorted is your model. Quite frankly I have better things to do than make up examples, drawings and examples trying to convience you of the obvious, and I wont discuss it any further. You are going to clearly do what ever you want anyway so why bother to ask any one how it looks. Unless you were just expecting pats on the back and kudos.

Peace. Out.

[CAL]

I doubt that, but rather your are attempting to lend sway to your argument by personal past.

We all have past histories, and that was an unfortunate part of mine. Since you brought it up, let me clear the air as best I can because it's filthy, and becasue everyone’s going to be asking now.

I am sorry that it happened the way it did; however, when you are dealing with thickheaded stubborn jerks, myself included, and I apology for that, it was bound to happen. Needless to say, Tom, at HH, was as much an instigator of that event as I was. It always takes at least two to tango.

Originally, my initial comment was to let him know from personal experience that what he was doing was technically against the law. I knew that because I did the something but our legal dept shot it down. That’s how I even knew about it. It was NOT the intent of starting trouble. Not only didn’t want to listen to anything I had to say, he refused to even acknowledge the fact that he was intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law, which I even provide him citations of the law, printed in black and white, from a very reliable source, the FTC. I had no interest in doing what he claimed after that. Nevertheless, I really don’t want to get into all of that nonsense again.

I was pretty crapped out of the whole hobby business and didn’t even look at a model for over a year, which meant I didn’t spend a dime on it either for more than a year. In fact, I was pretty close to selling off my collection and related tools benches and equipment because I really didn’t want to have anything to do with it, especially with people out there that are just as mean, nasty and vindictive as they come.

It was the dozens of threats, notwithstanding a death threat from a US Marine Sniper, and the dares from him and his thugs that lead to the out of control part. Including couple nasty emails from yourself, Darin, who, to be quite honestly was probably the second biggest instigator. (I still have the entire library of emails, which I hope I never have to reread, forward or post. It was: OUT OF CONTROL. All over a stupid comment on a stupid message board over stupid models… no offense intended.

So I took him up on his dares, not only did he dare me he suggested it, which I honestly regretted doing. The rest is what you call history. And who really lost in the end? I am not about to air all Tom’s dirty laundry on a message board, but… figure it out for your self.

Personally, I don’t think I won anything, and didn’t necessarily feel real good about anything that happened. Nor do I intend on letting it happen again. I am certainly not going to put myself in the position ever again.

Trouble is the furthest thing from my mind, it never was. Tom just had a VERY narrow mind and he was god: it was his way or no way… which got him where he is now… which, not that I believe I had anything to do with, but I predicted long before it happened: not for any other reason but that… not open to discussions or opinions that didn’t coincide with his own, period, and we clashed. That's fine. I don't have to deal with it anymore.

As for you, Darin, I still have some respect for, but it’s dwindling. It seems to dwindle down a little more every time you write something. Not just to me, but others as well. I still have nothing personal against you. And as always, I speak, and write the honest truth to the best of knowledge even when it’s not popular, regardless of any personal feelings. Too, bad others can’t forgive and forget and move on with life.

That’s the history; I am not going to talk about any further because what is done is done. I, you, Tom, or any one else cannot change what happened, and it’s unfortunate that Tom and I will probably never be able to reconcile our differences, but that is not by my choice.

I, myself, learned a great deal about a lot of things, notwithstanding, dealing with people on a message board. I have curbed and restrained myself a great deal, and I never hope to have another thread go like that one did. I have learned to just opt out when it starts heading that way.

For now the only thing I am interested in is modeling. Let’s keep it at that, and not get into personal histories.

I joined this and another board, not to cause anyone trouble but to learn, and perhaps help and teach someone interested in learning something. I do have a lot of experience both building and in the industry itself. I am not interested in wasting time with anyone who isn’t interested in what I write, good or bad – fore whatever it’s worth I did have some of the MOST popular by view treads ever on HH, which wasn’t my observation. Someone else pointed it out (I did receive some supportive emails from board members as well through all of that) and said I did have some to offer the community, in spite of what only a handful of Tom’s thugs thought.

In any event, at this point I don’t care about Mustang anymore, and I wish you luck with it. I was only offering honest to goodness observations and help – I wont do it again.