Revell 1969 Mustang Boss 302............My take with pics!

[mk11]

About half-way between the MPC and revell dash cluster design would be about right...    

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by mk11

[Casey]

10 hours ago, randyc said:

I have lost all interest in this kit.   I'm sure you guys will build some beautiful replicas, but I'll pass.  

Same here. After learning about the inaccurate shock towers, the wrong interior tub, and now the quarter window opening shape/size...already parting mine out.

[Matt T.]

...

Edited December 29, 2018 by Matt T.

[mike 51]

Almost ordered one....better to be disappointed now  for "free"  I guess. 

Thanks everybody for your input good or bad.

[vamach1]

We can always hope for updates to fix the errors in the next release.  Then again, it took almost 50 years to get this one so I will not hold my breath.  Maybe that Palmer kit isn't looking so bad after all.

[Force]

Minor faults that almost doesn't show on the finished model when it sits on the shelf doesn't bother me that much, so I will for sure buy a couple...even if it's not perfect it's way better than the old 1969 kits.

[Luc Janssens]

I'm buying one despite its inaccuracies, cuz the biggest flaw its marquee has been addressed somewhat, to fix them all would've taken an all-new tool.

But in a perfect world, some model kit manufacturer would venture into tooling up an all-new '69-70 kit,  right now I don't see it happening.

 

[MrObsessive]

Fwiw, the errors I see are not super egregious to the point that I consider this unbuildable. I can fix glaring issues like the quarter window shape, curvature of the front fenders, and the interior foibles. Like the Moebius '61 Pontiac I just look at it as a way to show others what can be done if one wants to take the time to make a good representation of a particular car.

14 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

I'm buying one despite its inaccuracies, cuz the biggest flaw its marquee has been addressed somewhat, to fix them all would've taken an all-new tool.

But in a perfect world, some model kit manufacturer would venture into tooling up an all-new '69-70 kit,  right now I don't see it happening.

 

BINGO! The way the kit making industry is currently, I'm a little surprised we get to see this kit at all with a correct front end at that! I can deal with the rest..................

[Force]

9 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

Fwiw, the errors I see are not super egregious to the point that I consider this unbuildable. I can fix glaring issues like the quarter window shape, curvature of the front fenders, and the interior foibles. Like the Moebius '61 Pontiac I just look at it as a way to show others what can be done if one wants to take the time to make a good representation of a particular car.

BINGO! The way the kit making industry is currently, I'm a little surprised we get to see this kit at all with a correct front end at that! I can deal with the rest..................

I couldn't agree more...we are modelbuilders aren't we? 
There are not many kits that are perfect in every aspect, there are more or less faults on most of the kits and we still buy and build them, so it's up to the builder to do the best of it.

[RDean58]

You know, I think sometimes we take building these way to seriously. "Window not right, Shock Towers wrong, roll bar mounting in interior, no arm rest (well, little) arm rest detail!  It's horrible! a RIP OFF!  I WON"T BUY IT!!!!" 

That's fine, leaves more for us who would like to have a 69 Boss to sit on the shelf. The interior is going to be black, so what's the difference if you can see arm rests or not? Roll bar mounting?  That might have been a good plan in real life, especially if someone raced this on the weekend. I mean, after all, Ford built these things just to qualify the Mustang for SCCA racing.  If the windows both you so much, I understand it's an easy fix.  Why don't we all just settle down and relax and have fun building this model? Why do we have to nit pix everything to death.  I understand the importance of accuracy, but let's give it a break, I mean, it's not like the wiper motor is off or anything :-)  (Off my soapbox now and looking at my new 68 Chevelle and re-issued El -Camino kits!)

[MrObsessive]

6 minutes ago, RDean58 said:

 I understand the importance of accuracy, but let's give it a break, I mean, it's not like the wiper motor is off or anything :-) 

[randyc]

45 minutes ago, RDean58 said:

You know, I think sometimes we take building these way to seriously. "Window not right, Shock Towers wrong, roll bar mounting in interior, no arm rest (well, little) arm rest detail!  It's horrible! a RIP OFF!  I WON"T BUY IT!!!!" 

That's fine, leaves more for us who would like to have a 69 Boss to sit on the shelf. The interior is going to be black, so what's the difference if you can see arm rests or not? Roll bar mounting?  That might have been a good plan in real life, especially if someone raced this on the weekend. I mean, after all, Ford built these things just to qualify the Mustang for SCCA racing.  If the windows both you so much, I understand it's an easy fix.  Why don't we all just settle down and relax and have fun building this model? Why do we have to nit pix everything to death.  I understand the importance of accuracy, but let's give it a break, I mean, it's not like the wiper motor is off or anything :-)  (Off my soapbox now and looking at my new 68 Chevelle and re-issued El -Camino kits!)

I never said it was horrible - I'm not sure I read anyone saying it's a rip off or anything else.  Just said I didn't want one.   And yes, more power to those of you who want to work out the issues.  I am happy that the front end was corrected.  As for seeing the interior, I see it and the interiors have become my favorite part of a build.   Especially when the interior is well detailed.   I have built LOTS of kits (probably all) that the "naysayers" have torn apart and enjoyed the build.   However, at this point in my hobby and life, I can get a nice diecast with a better interior for nearly the same price that makes me just as happy.  And I have a LOT of Mustangs already.   I don't take it too seriously.  But if I'm going to invest my time and money in a kit, it needs to be enjoyable to me to build.  this particular kit has shortcomings that take it off my list of things to build.  It is a beautiful kit and the window thing would not have made a difference to me if the interior had been all new as well.  

Woould love a Trans Am version

As an aside, I would LOVE to have an original Mustang II annual to pop together, even with the poor interior bucket of the 70s.   IF that's all there is, I will build it.  That would give me at least ONE of every generation Mustang and several of most other generations.  I'm not even a Mustang guy.  

I WILL be getting a 68 Chevelle and probably at least one of whatever 69 Chevelle they make next.  

[kelson]

Do's anybody have the original tub from AMT 69 Mustang'kit?can the interior from that kit be adapted to this kit?

[vamach1]

1 hour ago, kelson said:

Do's anybody have the original tub from AMT 69 Mustang'kit?can the interior from that kit be adapted to this kit?

It fits but unless you have a glue bomb with maybe a trashed body I would not use it if it means not building or restoring an original AMT kit.

[carnut]

With all the inaccuracies, maybe a custom would be in order. Just saying. ?

[Snake45]

13 minutes ago, carnut said:

With all the inaccuracies, maybe a custom would be in order. Just saying. ?

The old AMT annual had a great custom grille--no lights, just fine bars. You're giving me an idea, here. 

[Hawk312]

10 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

BINGO! The way the kit making industry is currently, I'm a little surprised we get to see this kit at all with a correct front end at that! I can deal with the rest..................

Couldn`t agree more!!

And I am kinda surprised by the responses here. I have been waiting for 30 years for a decent `69 kit. I could not get past that awful, horrendous front end on the Revell kit. And the AMT kit was awful all around, IMO. The corrections needed in this one are minor in comparison. And how often do I look into my built models in my display to look at the door arm rests? If I really need them, I will just scratch build them. 

$.02 contributed.

[Casey]

11 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

I can fix

This is not aimed specifically at you Bill, but it's not able being able to, nor having the skill set to fix the problems, but rather having the desire to fix inaccuracies. Each builder has their limits, and those can vary from kit to kit, but it's up to each builder to decide how much time and effort they want to put into each kit they build. There's plenty of room for everyone, and if one person doesn't want to correct a detail that others would deem minor and easy to correct, so be it. Each person has to find their comfort zone and build within that area.

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Hawk312 said:

And the AMT kit was awful all around, IMO.

Are you talking about the old MPC annual, sometimes reissued in an AMT box? Because the original AMT annual is by far the best of the three. 

[carnut]

4 hours ago, Snake45 said:

 

4 hours ago, carnut said:

With all the inaccuracies, maybe a custom would be in order. Just saying. ?

The old AMT annual had a great custom grille--no lights, just fine bars. You're giving me an idea, here. 

 

I’m glad that I could help out, you might want to check out what Steve Stanford has done with a Mustang of this vintage. ?

[Hawk312]

2 hours ago, Snake45 said:

Are you talking about the old MPC annual, sometimes reissued in an AMT box? Because the original AMT annual is by far the best of the three. 

I * think* this is the one I considered way back when and gave up on:

 

 

[Snake45]

3 minutes ago, Hawk312 said:

I * think* this is the one I considered way back when and gave up on:

 

 

That kit's biggest problem is that it's a scale point or two undersized, and its second biggest problem is its front valence pan is too shallow (which can be fixed). It has some other glitches here and there but its whole front end is STILL more accurate than the corrected Revell.  (And yes, that's the ancient MPC kit.)

I just might have to dig one of these out and Snake-slap it around a little to show y'all what can be done with it. It'll still be too small, but it'll look good. 

[vamach1]

19 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

That kit's biggest problem is that it's a scale point or two undersized, and its second biggest problem is its front valence pan is too shallow (which can be fixed). It has some other glitches here and there but its whole front end is STILL more accurate than the corrected Revell.  (And yes, that's the ancient MPC kit.)

I just might have to dig one of these out and Snake-slap it around a little to show y'all what can be done with it. It'll still be too small, but it'll look good. 

Filling in the side scoops is #1 on the list to convert it to a Boss 302.  I went the lazier route and made a Boss 429 and. Mach1.  I could have easily done a GT or plain jane sportsroof too.

[Daddy Mack]

The funny part is: reading remarks from people with poor-to-nonexistent modeling skills picking apart PICTURES of model car kits ( were they ever advertised as miniature replicas? ) that are blown up to 3-5 times their actual size ( hey, i have a 48" monitor, and you don't ) and implying that they have the talent to finish such a 'defective model' to the point where the only apparent defects that are visible in the finished product are the ones that were there when it fell out of the mold. In other words, we have a book of criticisms from people whose skills fail to rise to the perfection that they demand. Gotta be the same crop of complainers who congregate at the local coffee shop every morning.

[djflyer]

On 12/26/2018 at 6:13 AM, MrObsessive said:

The problem though lies in those end caps. They're too 'flared up' which to my eyes gives it that surprised look. One could (if they have the patience and skill) redo that whole front end by perhaps cutting the entire nose off, reworking those end caps and grille (it's too tall) and then reattaching the whole works. At least that's the way I'd approach it.

Without the other bodywork in the way (crown of the front of the fenders for instance), it would make it easier to take on this. I've seen some that had the grille painted correctly, I just can't get past the overall appearance.

I cant agree more on the wonky front end on the variations of the '70.  Every show I'm at I take more and more pics to see if I can figure out how to fix it.  There are two things that I also noticed. One is the size and shape of the false inlets on either side of the headlamps. The other is looking from overhead it appears the 'face' of that area curves, where it should be more flat.  Take a look and see what you think.

I'm definitely glad they finally fixed the front of the '69, so one or two more Mustangs are coming to the stash.