'90 Revell Mustang LX or: big ol' can o' worms I'm opening

[The Junkman]

It took me this long to finally get one, no reason just that it took this long.  I recall some pages and pages of back and forth about the roof proportions.  I'm not that particular but I recall shaving a little of the window opening seemed to solve or tone down the appearance issues.  Are there any hints/tips I should be aware of.  It (or at least the first one) is going to be a CHP car.

[Eshaver]

Steve , the photo shows a newer Mustang . I think the Mustang you meant to share is much boxier ... I bought one myself as Ollies , ( a Better Big Lot's) is closing them out . Yes , the roof to me looks a wee short as in a Top chop .

[The Junkman]

Steve , the photo shows a newer Mustang . I think the Mustang you meant to share is much boxier ... I bought one myself as Ollies , ( a Better Big Lot's) is closing them out . Yes , the roof to me looks a wee short as in a Top chop .

  Ellen uhh, the pic is my 1 to 1 Mustang that is sitting about 25 feet from me.  Now I drove the one replicated in the kit on a "professional basis".  That's the one I'm talking about.  As an aside: the blue one is MUCH more comfortable, faster (scary faster but generations better handling), and has better seats along with satellite radio, AM/FM and voice activated systems.  The black and white one had a radio but only one channel at a time and the entertainment value was limited.  On the upside I could speak into it and talk to other people.  Sirius/XM really doesn't allow for two way conversations.

Edited May 29, 2017 by The Junkman

[unclescott58]

So Steve, are you saying the proportions of Revell's '90 Mustang LX look good to you? Or not? There was a lot of complaining when it first came out about the roof. I bought one, and really didn't notice a problem. I liked the kit. Even though I have not gotten around to building it yet. When I do, mine will be an imaginary Minnesota State Patrol marked car. I already have had decals made. Minnesota did use a few Mustangs back in the day. But, they were unmarked cars.

Scott

 

[The Junkman]

I think you've got it.  It always did look OK to me, its just that I vaguely recall someone mentioned trimming the opening for appearance sake.  Far better than cutting the top off and re-proportioning the entire thing, which I recall some claimed was the only solution.  Maybe I should have just asked for hints on assembly.  I've still got to source a little better radio head and gun rack.  Probably scratch those.

[av405]

The roof proportions are off, make no mistake about it. However, looking at finished versions of this kit over the years, this model will still very much look good if time and effort is spent on making it look good. A two-tone paint job usually minimizes the height difference as it distracts away from the roof height issue. 

[Agent G]

Two tone paint and a light bar make all the difference. 

I put a light bar on this and the issue seemed to go away. You can see how "off" it is in this pic..

G

 

 

 

[MonoPed]

Yes, the roof is too low. There is a resin body with a corrected roof, and there was a whole thread on how it was done (fantastic work, btw). I built mine using the kit body shell. I thinned the ledges that the glass sits on to almost nothing, and I sanded away the frosted edges, and polished back to clear. I used a black sharpie to go around the edge of the glass, and with the remaining ledges painted black along the with the window trim on the body, it does help "lift" the roof a little bit.

[oldnslow]

Brian , that's nice .

[Draggon]

Brian , that's nice .

Yeah, no kidding! Outstanding work. 

[FordRodnKustom]

Just as a refresher, this subject has been covered at length here before.

As the owner of a 91 Sedan since new I can say that there are definitely proportion and detail issues with the kit body. Outstanding build Brian!

[unclescott58]

Looking at the kits shown above, I do not see the problem? They all look good to me. 

Scott

 

[FordRodnKustom]

Looking at the kits shown above, I do not see the problem? They all look good to me. 

Scott

 

The inaccuracies in the kit body are subtle but those that know these cars well can spot them right away. Not complaining at all, glad to have a few (yes a few) of these kits.

Photo Credit to Casey Littmann, from the thread I linked to above.

Edited June 1, 2017 by FordRodnKustom

[unclescott58]

The inaccuracies in the kit body are subtle but those that know these cars well can spot them right away. Not complaining at all, glad to have a few (yes a few) of these kits.

Photo Credit to Casey Littmann, from the thread I linked to above.

I think I like Revell's interpretation better than the real car after seeing them side by side above. The real Mustang looks like the roof needs to be chopped just a bit. Hummm. Now I don't know what to think. True the roof is too low. But not enough for me to notice without photos like the above. I guess for me, the Revell kit represents the look of the car well enough. It's not going to stop me from building the one I have. 

Scott

[martinfan5]

I think I like Revell's interpretation better than the real car after seeing them side by side above. The real Mustang looks like the roof needs to be chopped just a bit. Hummm. Now I don't know what to think. True the roof is too low. But not enough for me to notice without photos like the above. I guess for me, the Revell kit represents the look of the car well enough. It's not going to stop me from building the one I have. 

Scott

Its a nice kit outside of the chopped top.

Edited June 2, 2017 by martinfan5

[MonoPed]

The rockers are wrong too. Revell added a molding similar to an SVO, but without the "spat" before the rear wheel arch.

[Dennis Lacy]

I think I like Revell's interpretation better than the real car after seeing them side by side above. The real Mustang looks like the roof needs to be chopped just a bit. Hummm. Now I don't know what to think. True the roof is too low. But not enough for me to notice without photos like the above. I guess for me, the Revell kit represents the look of the car well enough. It's not going to stop me from building the one I have. 

Scott

But, for a person like me who owned and daily drove one of these notchbacks for 14 years and has owned nothing but these Mustang's for the last 22 years (bought my first one at 15 and a half), it's a deal breaker.

It was also determined the size of the rear wheel openings (length-wise) are too long, probably to accommodate the large drag tires from the follow-up version of the kit. There's other glaring inaccuracies for a person that's intimately familiar with these cars, too. In my opinion, the kit is a total let down and there's absolutely no excuse for it.

 

[Can-Con]

But, for a person like me who owned and daily drove one of these notchbacks for 14 years and has owned nothing but these Mustang's for the last 22 years (bought my first one at 15 and a half), it's a deal breaker.

It was also determined the size of the rear wheel openings (length-wise) are too long, probably to accommodate the large drag tires from the follow-up version of the kit. There's other glaring inaccuracies for a person that's intimately familiar with these cars, too. In my opinion, the kit is a total let down and there's absolutely no excuse for it.

 

I know how you feel Dennis. I feel the same way about all the resin boat tail Riviera kits I've seen. Not one of them got the roof and rear window area right, and that's probably the most distinctive part of the car. I haven't built any.

When you're intimate with the design like that , it's very hard to ignore. Too bad Revell dropped the ball on that body, the rest of the kit is great. 

I'm not that intimate with the Mustang body, it does look off to me but I'll probably build it eventually,, unless Revell sees fit to correct it somewhere down the road, then the kit I have becomes a donor chassis for the old MPC Mustang I built when I was a kid.

[MrObsessive]

Interesting that Revell fixed the roof on the first run of their '69 Chargers. That one was so way off that it literally looked like a custom chop job right out of the box. Revell sent replacement bodies to whoever got the botched bodied kits as the tooling was pulled to be corrected not long after it was intro'd. 

Since they haven't done that to the Mustang as of yet (I'm not familiar with the car but I can see where they messed up), don't hold your breath for them to ever fix it unfortunately. 

This has been beaten to death but it bears repeating............just like AMT will never fix their woefully wrong '58 Plymouth--------a car I am intimately familiar with and just look to the time when I'll fix it (correctly) on my own.

There are some other turkeys I could mention that aren't right either. Just one of those annoyances I've learned to live with, but can't quite wrap my head around with today's tech----how the model companies get stuff so wrong. Here I am a guy out here in the hinterlands with nothing more than basic tools and materials, can fix their mistakes with nearly 1:1 correctness.

[Maindrian Pace]

The resin body corrects a number of areas on the Revell body, the roof height being the biggest. The rear bumper also sticks out too far, the trunk lid is too boxy and doesn't have the subtle rounded down corners or the lip on the trailing edge, the rocker moldings are incorrect as the real car didn't have them, and the rear wheel wells were stretched for slicks. The lock cylinders were also relocated, among other smaller things. I built mine as a replica of my 1:1 car.

Another builder here built both the kit and the resin body, showing the main differences. Apologies, but I don't remember who it is:

 

 

[The Junkman]

This resin body; is it the All American Models one?  If so, I've got an example.  I think it was an afterthought purchase at NNL West a couple of years ago.  Based on the discussion, I think I'll camouflage the Revell kit in my CHP colors and build the AAM bone stock.  I did note the AAM seems slightly longer than the Revell.  Would it be 1/24 scale?

[Maindrian Pace]

Yes, the AAM is based on the Monogram 1:24 kits, this body is a Greg Wann Master Caster based on the 1:25 2013 issue Revell LX.

[fumi]

Greg Wann's resin body is excellent.  He offers a hatchback, too.

[unclescott58]

 

Sorry to say, right or wrong, the above photo convinces even more that I like the looks of the Revell Mustang better than the real thing. I understand why the purists are unhappy. They have a right to be. It's wrong! Yet I like it. Sorry ? 

Scott

 

 

 

[unclescott58]

I know how you feel Dennis. I feel the same way about all the resin boat tail Riviera kits I've seen. Not one of them got the roof and rear window area right, and that's probably the most distinctive part of the car. I haven't built any.

 

My feeling exactly Steve. I do understand. The boattail Riv thing drives me nuts. Holthouse did the best. But, even their roof wasn't quite right. So even though I like Revell's Mustang, I understand why others don't.

Scott