whale392

NOW that the cat is out of the bag, I can say something. The LX Coupe is an SSP/Stock 1990-93 version. The 10-holes were stock for 1990, and in 1991 they were stitched out for the Ponys on 5.0LX equipped cars EXCEPT SSPs, which still carried the 10-holes until the end of FOX production (1993). This is the first version and will be available in first quarter/early second quarter 2013 (Ed stated somewhere mid-late April) and will be followed up by the second release that will be a giggle-gas guzzling 2-n-1 stock/drag car. Revell arrived very late to the party yesterday (3:30pm, and the vendor area closed at 4:30) and was barely set up by the time the public was run out of the swap area. I spent every second I had overlooking the LX unveiling and (as a FOX owner) must say I am EXTREMELY happy with the LX5.0. The Cuda was also very well rendered, with the option of the Shaker or Pitchfork hood, modern sized rubber/rim and stock Rallyes, along with other goodies in the box. No 'Go-Wing' as the box top car suggests, as the car pictured is a real car versus build-up. Finally, we have an E-body with correct proportions and scale fidelity. Needless to say there was a well-deserved feeding frenzy at Revells table and a huge buzz throughout the NNL. Be sure to thank Ed and his team for all of the exciting releases coming in 2013. They are doing an excellent job with the new kits and I for one will continue to support their effort with my wallet (12 of the LX, at least 2 of the Cuda, two of the 49 Merc Woody!).

Ok, time for the REAL truth to come forward. Of all the people who said they would build/buy the C300, here is the gathering spot to PROVE it. Let's see them all!

Whenever I am on here (thanks to work schedules and life getting in the way), it is the FIRST section I check.

1) Yes, the Monogram is a tub interior with door panel inserts. 2) With some trimming and careful reshaping of the convertible boot area and the sides, it will fit. Also, the floor areas (on the underside) may require a bit of shaving to fit properly.

Oh no, ignored by john V................looks like I am ending up on a long and distinguished list . Looking at some of your builds, John, and seeing the prevalent attitude coming from you, I will put any of my builds up against you any day. Looking back at your builds, you have some skill, but your attitude (displayed in this thread) over-rides your ability. You want to call Reeves out, fine. But that makes you a target now. Hope you like bullets, as they will be headed your way (in the form of plastic). Personally, I find you and others who take this to heart to be hilarious and easy to mess with. You paint yourselves bright colors and run through an open field, just screaming to be seen/shot at. Here, hold these antlers when the first snows start to fall..........

John, you are correct. These are model cars and the attitude of utter ignorance/arrogance is not needed here (yet it is prevalent). From the mods on down, it oozes from every pore here. Some like the builds, others don't like the builds, and yet others can't/won't build but run off at the mouth acting like they can build. Honesty is not wanted or accepted here, false praise is. But remember, these are just MODEL CARS, not extensions of egos............some would do well to take that to heart.

Romell, TRUTHFUL is what the criticism was. It is you whom need to step back, really LOOK at the pics you posted from a disconnected viewpoint, and you will see that the points of fit/finish/build quality are spot-on. Your perceived ego and complete LACK of listening and fireball responding is painting you in a very negative light. I too will defend myself and my build when I think it is warranted. However, looking at my build from the critics eye will more than likely provide me with a view I didn't previously have. Personal opinion here: Chill out, take what you receive as HONEST criticism and learn from it. YOU are a mod here, and should be setting an example. The only example you seem to be setting is one of a hot-head who cannot deal with any real critique. But, as I state, this is just an opinion from someone who hasn't built to a level to 'Prove himself' to the other non-building poo-flingers who live to stir up conflict. As you all seem to cry as your motto, 'Go build better'. (Dons a flame-suit, gets the beer and burgers ready, and stands ready to have a good old time at the BBQ that is coming)

Romell, as a mod, do you think it wise to show this much attitude and contempt for fellow modelers who happen to see the flaws in the finished product? Do you really want to get better or just run the dog-and-pony show? And to the guys who 'Hate the haters'......that is all you. If you can't handle constructive criticism or those who aren't in it just for the praise, perhaps it is better you don't show your work. I do, and welcome criticism (why, because it helps me get better). A simple search of my forum name will bring up what I build. Is it perfect, not by a long shot and I know and accept that. Time for others to do the same in a less-than-standoffish manner.

One of the reasons I have yet to finish it is the chassis. It came from the Warren Johnson Pro-Stock Olds kit. I was building it in the Navy barracks I was staying in without the use of good tools or supplies (Health and Comfort inspections can be a pain). I will return to this one day and finish this project, but it won't be soon.

Reminds me of a project I had going back in the winter of 1998........ , , I like this body style built in this manner; my personal belief is these Dusters were designed to look slick sitting Pro-Stock/Pro-Street style. I look forward to seeing how yours evolves.

That is a 94 Mustang GT from Tamiya. I am somewhat of a FOX guy (1979-93 Mustang for this particular instance) and can tell you this is NOT a 1993. This is the first of the SN95 cars (1994-2004). Good looking build from what I can see though.

"Lizard Racing' was (and I believe still is) an active Porsche Race team. I used their reference to indicate Porsche. Forgive the confusion.

Kris and his crew (if he even really has a crew ) do a great job at these Coupes. I have two, and will more than likely add more. The ONLY thing I can suggest is get a chassis/interior under/in them as soon as possible. One of my bodies looks very well warped from sitting in the box (no fault of Kris' as it is the nature of thin-cast resin). I was able to talk with Kris at this years' Toledo NNL and find him to be a stand-up guy with a great product. The gentleman whom mastered this body is also a member her who goes by RepStock. He is meticulous in his builds. Any reservations I did have about the accuracy of this body were quickly put to rest when I received mine (I am a bit of a FOX fanatic).

Mike, I will have to load up some pics to Photobucket and get them here (of my Saleen attempt so far). I have a crazy work schedule, so my posting can be quite erratic and I never know when I will be on.

You pretty much have the 1987-1993 kits and wheels covered quite well in your assessment of the kits. (I assume you have been down into the 'FOX chassis Ford' CBP thread in that section of the forum?)

That looks to be the same color that was factory on my 1:1 1965 Dodge Coronet500 convertible. I liked it on that B-body and it looks good over the E-body sheetmetal too.

Again, PROPER carburation, cam selection, exhaust, and in a controlled environment. Real world experience trumps lab rats any day, as all sorts of variables play into the equation. Look at Dave and I's experiences with practically the same equipment......two very different sets of results based on the same theoretical data. I have a hearty respect for 'lab tests', but most often than not when subjected to real-world scenarios, they come up short or just plain wrong (just saying). But then again I digress, I will leave this to the 'experts' to contemplate and ponder on. Read all you want; it isn't even a candle of knowledge to actually DOING it. (Note: no sarcasm was harmed in the typing of this message)

Very nice color combination and paint scheme on the 'Shaker. Cab stretch looks good too; looking forward to seeing it on its' chassis.

Just being honest, Jason. Mike, you are doing much the same as I in converting a Cobra to a Saleen. I cut the rear bumper off below the belt line and grafted on an LX/GT piece from a wrecked 83-84 GLX vert kit, and added the side strakes and vents to the lower bumper. Mine is not 100% correct, but looks the part. Same with the side fairings, I modified them very similarly to yours. The front bumper is where I am straying from your style vastly. Yours looks very good so far, and I hope my method produces similar results. I am hybridizing the GT/Cobra lower with some SVO components and heavy modification/blending. I am unsure how it will come out, but one of these days I will have to get back to it. I am also modifying the convertible Saleen trunk spoiler to fit the hatch, ann adding the HCMSL to it. As for LX tails; like Jason I am making my own patterns based on existing dimensions and will try to cast several copies in clear resin (in case I screw up with a set). The body molding has been changed by adding just a very thin filler strip to convert it to more of an LX looking trim (again, not 100% correct). I will be shooting it in Non-Saleen colors, as I cannot see shooting real Saleen on a 'Faleen'. I am shooting it Emerald Green Metallic with the Tan/Black interior.

With respect to the intent of the original post: figures are a swinging door. If done correctly and with realistic poses and finishes, they are a great addition to any scene. If done poorly or in an unnatural pose, they can ruin an otherwise great scene. The human body and all of its' textures and subtle nuances are some of the absolute hardest things to capture correctly in scale.

Welcome from another ARC modeler (HawkeyeP3P). And to answer your question: no V6 has been cast for the Mustang chassis. The closest any of us can find is the old Cologne V6 used in the Thunderbird SuperCoupes of the late 80s-early 90s and some of the Nascar-type kits. No modern V6 exists in 1/24th-1/25th plastic for the Mustang. Same for the V6 bodywork. Most kit are of either the GT or GT500 body. If you want something other than those 2, you will have to scratch-build/kit-modify it.

What you discovered about the 2-4 low-rise was the wonders of too much carburation. Had a 361 with the 383 2-4 intake. Took it off and ran a single 4. It gained almost a half-second at the track. Just for a 'what if', we took a 2bbl intake and dropped it on (the 361 used was a 4bbl car originally) along with a larger 2-barrel carb. It gained .2 second over even the 4bbl intake. Later, the engine was built and cammed, and the same 3 intakes were tried again. This time, the single-4 dual-plane (with the split milled/notched) performed the best. I will agree that a Tunnel Ram is cool looking for a vintage era build and for the street rod crowd. Me, I like sneaky and subdued. I'll hide my blower and EFI under my hood, thanks. No need to advertise to John Law.

Interesting thought, Dave, as the 'Ram we had on the rail actually worked better down lower. As a product of runner length and its' effects on torque/horsepower, the short-runners function far better at mid-high rpm. That is why a single-plane works better at the track than a dual-plane intake. The dual-plane has torque down low, but the long runners inhibit high-rpm flow. The single plane has a plenum effect at low-rpm, but helps velocity at high-rpm. Now, with the Maxi-Hemi (race Hemi) and the 426 Max Wedge Short-Ram intakes, they have huge plenums followed by fairly short runners, good for the rpms these engines were designed to run at. Same with the NASCAR single-4 plenum intake. Worked great at 6,000rpm all day long.

Shane, it is the other way around. Long runners provide much needed low-end torque production, short runners are used for high-rpm HP. Cams can be cut and dialed in to take advantage of both the intake and exhaust pulses, and to 'tune' the helmholtz resonance (otherwise known as reversion) to get an engine to respond in a certain rpm range. As to the tunnel-rams.........we had one on the dragster in the middle to late 70s to try and give it some low-end grunt. The Hemi suffers from no low-rpm flow, and both torque and horsepower are down in the low rpms. The tunnel ram helped slightly, but was not worth the effort and extra weight it added. Better carb tuning and a cam cut for the intake/exhaust really woke the car up. They are cool to look at, but really out of place in the modern EFI world.

I see it wears the 1983-86 tail lights, painted completely Red. I hear there is a resin company that produces the 1987-93 LX-style lights, but I have heard a lot of reliability issues with getting the product. Your solution is just one of many for this problem. I know Jason and I both are working on several different 1987-93 projects, and even a few of the 1979-82 and 83-86 variety too. Jason does some excellent work, and has a resin coupe comparison thread going right now in the 'Resin' section, plus his 'Frankenstang' Coupe in 'On the workbench'. It's nice to see another 'Mid-Model' Mustang guy join the fold!