After reading the various posts regarding Revell's LX Mustang I thought of the book, "Master Modeler: Creating the Tamiya Style", that talks about the Tamiya Company and how it has come to be. He has a chapter called "Models: More Than Mere Miniatures", where he talks about building the wood masters using literal, scaled down measurements but the model never looked right. To get it right they ended up adding to the width and modifying the height away from the actual measurements until it "looked right". To me this implies that producing a good, accurate model can be an artistic as much as formulaic exercise and efforts to get a car looking right can be interpretive effort. When I first saw the 1:1 LX during a test drive I thought the rear roof proportions looked odd and much preferred the hatchback. The Revell interpretation actually looks better to me than the real thing! So I wonder if the kit designer shared my sense of proportions and chopped the roof to get it to "look right"?
BTW, this book is an excellent insight into the process of model kit manufacturing and very interesting if you want to know how they do it.
As a kid I used to go thru the Ford brochures cover to cover and I remember seeing a listing for those clear headlight covers for the 65 Galaxie. I believe they were a dealer installed option and extremely rare. In fact this may be the first time I've ever seen a photo of them. In those days each state had rules about covering headlights and those covers may not have been legal in all 50 states. The '66 7-Litre didn't have them as standard and I don't know if they were offered. Great build!