1/25 Revell '90 Mustang LX 5.0 2'n1 Special Edition

[prostockmania]

I think it's funny when there is no kit of '90 Mustang LX Coupe and many modelers want one and they are not happy about the thing that no one has made one. Then Revell accounces that they will be making one. When it's out and in the stores, the modelers that were really interested in it and who had no '90 Mustang LX Coupe, then they start complaining about the inaccurate body shapes, and someone who wanted the kit, maybe just don't buy it because of that. Not just the Mustang, but it's the same thing with other kits too. I have to say, that even if it might not be 100% accurate, I'm very happy that we have a nice kit of '90 Mustang LX Coupe. And the fact is, that most people see no difference between the Model or the Real thing.

Not saying that there should be no criticism, I just find it funny. I'm going to buy one and make it as Stock Eliminator Drag Car even if it had the Chopped roof.

Please continue.

I have to agree with Niko here, just work it a little, and its not bad.

If enough people complain, Revell can simply pull it from production period, and not fix anything. If enough people complain about every new kit, we may never see any more new tooled kits from them.

[prostockmania]

Here are some comparison shots of the Revell 90 LX, the MPC 1984 25th GT, and the AMT latest issue of the 87 mustang gt

Very workable. Yes, windows look off, but remove the revell windows mount lips and, huh, imagine that, pretty darn close. Difference in height, maybe 2 sheets of paper, I could not slide a 3 X 5 index card between the revell body and the peice of styrene laying across all 3 without moving the styrene.

I mean, come on guys, we build models, so we should all be able to massage plasti some. If you cant, then why build models in the first place.

If anyone bought this kit, and aren;t planning on using the complete body, send me a message, I'll take the complete bodies off your hands for slot cars for a reasonable deal(since I build those also).

Edited May 25, 2013 by prostockmania

[Darin Bastedo]

Hey Randy, While you have those out, how hard do you think it would be to take the roof from the MPC/AMT GT and build an LX hatch? I have little interest in the notch.

[prostockmania]

might be easier to transfer the nose section to the mpc kit truthfully, was thinking about that myself.

[whale392]

Nice try Randy, and a waste of animation, Brett.

Now, if you would like me to flood this thread with pictures of the 1:1 cars measurements and the conversion math to PROVE 100% that this roof is FUBAR, I can do THAT too. And just so you know, the MPC roof is NOT correct either, but it is closer to 1:1 than this body.

Edit note: I stated I have over 100 pictures of this body with the real thing (both an LX Coupe and a GT, since the doors are the same and the greenhouse has the exact same height between the two). This is not a joke to me, or others. While the rest of the kit (especially the drivetrain) is rather nice, the body is NOT.

[prostockmania]

Like I said, massage the window openings and few other things, and they will be fine. Its a model made of plastic for crying out loud, not made of solid steel. If you want it to look like a real car, just buy a real one. The more complaints, the more likely revell will stop making new molds of anything.

I got one of those little messuring sticks too, if you remove the upper and lower window trim from the side windows(massage it) to make it the same as the MPC( no windows moldings) they both come out to 39/64 on my tape measure, or should i get out my Micrometer and measure it to the 1,000th of an inch.

I am done putting my thoughts it, complainers will always complain, builders will always build, and be happy they got new product, instead of no companies making anything new.

Edited May 25, 2013 by prostockmania

[Erik Smith]

I have to agree with Niko here, just work it a little, and its not bad.

If enough people complain, Revell can simply pull it from production period, and not fix anything. If enough people complain about every new kit, we may never see any more new tooled kits from them.

Revell will never stop making kits if they can make money - all the complainers be damned! They will not pull a kit and destroy the thousands already made UNLESS they are changing something (think Charger or Lindberg '61).

Any company is subject to customer approval - if it wasn't for customers, happy customers, I am afraid a business doesn't fair so well...

As far as the "should we complain or grin and bear it" argument...don't settle. This kit looks like it was designed by two different teams - the body by one and the remaining parts by another, and one team still thinks models are for little kids to buy at Toys R Us. You tell me which.

The engine, chassis, and interior are all well thought out and look nice (upon initial inspection). I really like the detail on the tranny hump UNDERSIDE! Never seen that! The lack of ejector pins on the interior. The underhood details. Separate wipers (and not plated). The ten hole wheels with open holes. The brake detail. Etc...

But that error on the roof/door - which is possible to fix but I wouldn't classify it as easy - should be addressed by Revell.

[Erik Smith]

It's all small doings in the big scheme, really, but we are here to discuss models, so models we will discuss.

I have this kit on the bench now, so we'll see how the rest of it goes!

[madhorseman]

In my opinion(who am I anyway), this is disappointing. But, think about the previous Revell Fox Mustangs.......So this is a step up.

And after reading all these views, I'm inclined to believe that buyers shelling out roughly 30.00 dollars per kit should have some say it what they/we get for our money.

If I had a Facebook account (my age is showing) I'd place a comment or two as well. Then it's up to Revell to make their play,right?

[Darin Bastedo]

I do see obvious accuracy issues in this kit. But 99.9% of them can be fixed by making it into the far more interesting (to me at least) convertible. That said I still think we should be thankful for how far the industry has come from when this was the only kit of my favorite car (at the time) "Wonky" would be an improvement.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Darin Bastedo

[Casey]

This might be a good time to remind us all to stick to commenting about the kit, and not each other's personal opinions, as those aren't likely to change. What's good enough for one person may not be acceptable to another, so let's not waste our energy on things we can't change. If the kit is acceptable to you, buy as many as you want. If it's unacceptable to you, I suggest you put your efforts toward making it better. E-mail Revell directly, as that is the best way to make direct contact with someone.

I don't think Brad is alone is hoping his efforts to point out the phsyical shortcoming of the kit's roof lead to better, more accurate models, and I agree with him 100%. I compared it to the Revell-Monogram Pro Modeler '69 Charger R/T from 1996, which had a very similar, "chopped" roof. Revell fixed the body and sent replacements to those who requested one, and I sincerely hope that is what will that is what I think should happen with this kit, too.

[whale392]

I have contemplated the convertible route with one of the dozen I have ordered, and the only real things will be narrowing the rear seat and making the boot/top-down 'doglegs/well' in the interior. This kit also makes a nice donor for the AMT 87-88 Mustang GT kit, as most of it is a few file strokes away from dropping into place (another thing I have been doing with my kit this last week and a half, THANK YOU ED, and REVELL!).

The industry has come a long way in the last years, Darin, and a lot of that has to do with the listening to what their customers want/see wrong and from increased pressure from competition. By voicing our concerns with kits, we can hope to see either corrections of kits in the future that are better quality with higher levels of scale fidelity/accuracy. I hope that companies will continue to listen and learn from the people who have an effect on their bottom line (the buyers). There is only so much that the bean-counters can do to keep a company afloat; the revenue stream has to come in before they can do anything new. And having issues with kits is NOT a way to generate revenue (although I do see this kit selling well in its first issue, maybe into the second).

Casey, you are correct on personal opinions, and I am guilty of what you mentioned as well. I do have a tendency to let my passion overrun me sometimes, and what I type may come off as a personal attack (for which I apologize). I just can't let fact be buried by personal opinion. And I do vote with my wallet. I put my money where my mouth is. When Ed and I initially talked about this kit (you may remember that, as shortly thereafter I was slapped with the GAG ORDER and cut from the conversations) I told him I would buy the FIRST case of them. Well, I didn't get the first case (or first kit!), bit as soon as it hit the order chain, I put in the order for 12 of them (stop and think, that is $300+). I will honor my request, as both Revell and my hobby supplier will not be stuck because I went back on a promise. I so strongly believed in this kit that I burned up 1/3rd of one of my paychecks just to have these).

Edited May 25, 2013 by whale392

[Dennis Lacy]

For those that don't understand what all of the complaining is about, look at it this way:

Say you hired a contractor to paint your house for $5000. The contractor shows up, doesn't wash the dirt off the walls, mask off any windows, trim or doors and just blows paint everywhere, packs up his gear and holds out his hand. Would you stand back and say, "Well, they did paint the house", call it good enough and hand him the money? Hell no. You'd tell him to make it right or go get bent.

Too many people in this world settle for good enough. It's sad, really. If consumers don't demand a quality product, what incentive do manufacturers have to make one?

[Darin Bastedo]

My only wish is that someone does a hatch conversion for this, I won't be, as my previous foray into the Viper pit which is lx mustang enthusiasts left me with six years of harassment from people complaining about 1/2 mm discrepancies and other small errors. But I can see where this would be great fodder for those who would want to use the chassis and other parts to upgrade previous kits. I for one plan on digging up a Revell Capri kit, and seeing what I can make combining that with this kit.

[Rob Hall]

For those that don't understand what all of the complaining is about, look at it this way:

Say you hired a contractor to paint your house for $5000. The contractor shows up, doesn't wash the dirt off the walls, mask off any windows, trim or doors and just blows paint everywhere, packs up his gear and holds out his hand. Would you stand back and say, "Well, they did paint the house", call it good enough and hand him the money? Hell no. You'd tell him to make it right or go get bent.

Too many people in this world settle for good enough. It's sad, really. If consumers don't demand a quality product, what incentive do manufacturers have to make one?

Very well stated...as I've previously said, 'good enough' means accepting mediocrity. As consumers, we shouldn't support companies that put out mediocre products. The problem is, Revell is the only game in town w/ this product, and they've screwed up. Frustrating situation. I'm surprised Ford would have approved the licensing considering how inaccurate the body is.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Rob Hall

[Darin Bastedo]

I just showed the finished pictures of the LX mustang that Revell had on display to my friend Jon. He is knowledgeable about cars, and is a car enthusiast in general. When I showed him the picture I asked him, "what is wrong with this car?" His answer was "the tires fill the fender openings more than the real thing but other than that I don't see much else wrong". Is he correct? possibly not, but this is the type of person that will be buying this kit in the mass market. The typical Hobby Lobby, Micheal's, Kmart occasional builder who likes cars. They won't ever notice the errors. Fixing those errors that "The LX-perts" see aren't notice by Joe average. I understand that it's your favorite car and you wanted it perfect, but Revell is into this to make a profit and making those changes won't increase the sales to the mass market. Every kit in my collection from every manufacturer has errors. many even more egregious than this.

[whale392]

And I understand that, Darin. Which is why I also stated that it should sell well in this guise and the forthcoming race car version. Now, to take a wider cross-section of Joe Average and we'll see what the vast majority says. Maybe, maybe not (in terms of 'It looks right to me').

[Danno]

I'm surprised Ford would have approved the licensing considering how inaccurate the body is.

Perhaps Ford's licensing people didn't consider it as inaccurate as all us Mustang LX experts in this hobby do.

(Before any flame-throwers or keyboard-bazookas fire up, please note that I agree the kit's body does not appear to be 100% dead-on precisely accurate.)

I'm just saying . . .

[Brett Barrow]

Why are we comparing a product to a service? There's no contract involved, nobody gave Revell any money up front. If it ain't good enough, don't buy it, it's that simple. People will take the time to post photos of the kit's contents (you're welcome, everyone ) so that folks can make an informed decision whether or not to buy the kit. Please, comparing a $25 model to a $5000 housepainting contract? C'mon man...

[Rob Hall]

Perhaps Ford's licensing people didn't consider it as inaccurate as all us Mustang LX experts in this hobby do.

Maybe they are more lax with vintage subjects than they would be with models of current subjects...who knows. It is what it is..time to move on.

[Monty]

I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight because I've never liked the LX (coupe) versions & won't be buying any, but I can centainly understand why Bradley and others would be upset by the shortened roofline. I was one of those people who bought the early '69 ProModeler Charger with the botched top & I recall wondering which overpaid "suit" greenlighted that? Probably the same guy who later rubber-stamped the AAR 'Cuda catastrophe and the tools for this LX. When it's a kit of a car you're passionate about, things like this matter.

With all the tools available to model mfrs these days, errors like this should be a thing of the past. I don't have Facebook so I'd appreciate it if someone would report Revell's responses to the posts people have submitted.

[whale392]

The point Dennis is trying to make is that you expect one thing and get something far less than what you had initially expected. Is that ok, whether it is a product or service? The answer is no, and it applies universally (whether it be service, manufacturing, production, construction...............).

No, you don't have to buy this kit, just an in Dennis' example you don't have to get your house painted. In both though, you really should be able to get the best product quality for the money, and that is where this kit falls short. Are we the loyalists to the Fox Chassis being THAT picky? I don't believe so. I can live with a few errors (look at how many of the Revell, Monogram, Revell-Monogram, AMT, and MPC kits I have (over 100) but for a kit to have this fatal of a flaw is quite a blow. I have more Fox plastic than I really EVER need, and in more scales than I care to thing (1/20th down to 1/87th). Is it too much to ask to have an accurate version?

Darin, if you are referring to the old Revell 1/25th series (the Capri, Turbo Mustang, McLaren M81), then you will need to correct the wheel lips, as the Capri didn't have the protruding lips like the Mustang did. It is a fairly easy fix, but must be done correctly as to not look 'wonky'! I have a few of these kits too, and this new LX chassis will go a ways to making them nicer. Just remember, the only year Capri to come with the 8.8" rear would be 1986, but just about every modded Capri (including the Turbo RS) I know of sports an 8.8" anyway!

[Ace-Garageguy]

For those that don't understand what all of the complaining is about, look at it this way:

Say you hired a contractor to paint your house for $5000. The contractor shows up, doesn't wash the dirt off the walls, mask off any windows, trim or doors and just blows paint everywhere, packs up his gear and holds out his hand. Would you stand back and say, "Well, they did paint the house", call it good enough and hand him the money? Hell no. You'd tell him to make it right or go get bent.

Too many people in this world settle for good enough. It's sad, really. If consumers don't demand a quality product, what incentive do manufacturers have to make one?

Though I have very little interest in this particular kit, I have to agree entirely with Dennis and his position. EVERY business or industry I've been associated with has been primarily populated by people trying to get by on as little effort as possible, and constantly dragging the definition of "good enough" lower and lower. And because they don't hold themselves or their work to very high standards, they're inclined to accept mediocrity, happily.

It rarely takes a massive amount of effort or expense to go from "good" to "excellent", and practically every hot-rod I see these days, newly built or older, has some really noticeable flaw that JUMPS out, and that would have only taken a few hours, at most, to correct during the build. I don't know if it's a lack of caring, a lack of knowing how to do the work, or just plain laziness, but it always seems to be there.

Those of us who are passionate about what we produce, who habitually do the BEST work we can (whether or not we always get paid for all of it) may have a difficult time understanding why mediocrity is so often more highly rewarded than excellence, and why it's always expected and excused.

[Brett Barrow]

What I find funny is that Revell's 50 Olds is "chopped" about the same amount as this kit (~1 3/4") and most folks consider that an improvement on that bubble body That was apparantly done intentionally so that if/when they did a convertible or Holiday hardtop those future variants could share the windshield. That "chop" certainly hasn't hurt sales of that kit, and I doubt the Mustang's overall sales will be affected by it much, either.

[SoCalCarCulture]

Unless I missed it somewhere in this thread, no one mentioned the side moulding on the doors.

If you are replicating a CHP Mustang for example, that trim needs to be removed. Why didn't Revell make this a separate piece?

Here's a pic of how the door should look with the trim removed...

...same on the Nevada car...