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

[Casey]

Now what's wrong with the roof and the trunk you guys keep talking about?

I did a quick greenhouse sectioning, taking out 2 scale inches or so:

I think some of the B-pillar angle differences can be accounted for by the angle and distance the pics were taken at, but the body proportions don't lie.

[Erik Smith]

Thank you for highlighting it. I was never saying it wasn't there I just couldn't find it. Sorry, I'm not Fox body expert by any stretch, I know almost nothing about them other that what they look like and that people like them. Sorry if it came off as if I'm being a jerk, but I just couldn't find the problem. Now what's wrong with the roof and the trunk you guys keep talking about?

No worries, Austin - my post wasn't directed at you, just your question - I am not even close to an expert on this car, but the fact I could see the problem and not be a fan/expert is bothersome, kit wise...

[Austin T]

Thank you Casey. Now I see what the whole roof conundrum is about. What do you think Revell will do about this? They already have so much into the molds already.

[futurattraction]

I was thinking the same thing, Casey, as far as the low angle that the kit body pic is taken from. A few degrees of rotation of the body in relation to the camera would also make a difference in the appearance of the B pillar angle. There is no denying, though, that the kit roof is short of what it should be (both figuratively and literally).

[futurattraction]

What bothers me about this is why, when Brad was communicating with the powers that be, that dimensions weren't correct, that Revell didn't do anything to address the problem at that point instead of letting it go.?.?.? With the current technology, there really is no excuse for not having an accurately replicated body.

[Danno]

Could it be that the missing roof height would have created packaging issues with the Revell box dimensions?

Considering the cost of developing and tooling an all-new kit, I just can't imagine there being any room for unjustified 'error' (goof-ups like getting roof height, roof length, & B-pillar posture wrong). However, I can see some bean-counter pitching a hissy if the body wouldn't fit in the proscribed box (with the rest of the parts) and the proscribed number of boxes in the proscribed shipping carton. Stupider carp has happened.

There are other issues with the kit, all of which can be addressed with the same 'why bother if you don't do it right?' question, and the answers can probably be attributed to the real shot-callers, the bean counters who don't give a rat's patooty about 'accuracy' or other enthusiast concerns.

[whale392]

To be fair to Ed, Scott; I was cut out of the development early when I leaked info that they were in development of this kit (In my defense, I didn't know that the conversations Ed and I had were private and confidential). The next time Ed contacted me was as the kit was already coming back from its' last test shots and for some info on the SSP package and car-specific (not agency specific) options for what years of build (such as when 10-holes went away for the stock version, when map pockets were installed, things of this nature). By the time I got to see the final results, it was too late (Toledo, and then again in Indy) for any real changes. They did go back and shrink the 5.0L emblem by 50% as Ed and I discussed that it was too large, but when addressing the other issues with the body it was too late.

I feel somewhat personally responsible for this kit, as I did have knowledge of its coming and development. Being an owner of these cars (5 total and still own 3 as of this moment), I feel as though I have let down the Fox loyal (including myself and even Ed). Hopefully we can get a corrected body, as correcting this one (to the 'rivet counter' standards) will require a LOT of work.

[bandit1]

Anyone doing a "Build Up Review" of this kit yet?..i hadnt seen a thing so far?

[whale392]

To answer your question, Danno, the kit fits with room in the box. So, I don't believe that would be a reason.

[Brett Barrow]

I'll take a few more shots of the body from different focal lengths and focus points, it might make a difference, but it does appear lowered. Could be selective compression on the designer's part (I know it drives some people nuts when I bring that up, but they do it and have been doing it since the dawn of modeling...)

[Abell82]

The entire body is wrong. The c pillars are the wrong shape. But so are the quarter windows. The trunk is too thick,and the wrong shape. The entire body is too square. Including the rear bumper.

[Dennis Lacy]

I feel somewhat personally responsible for this kit, as I did have knowledge of its coming and development. Being an owner of these cars (5 total and still own 3 as of this moment), I feel as though I have let down the Fox loyal (including myself and even Ed). Hopefully we can get a corrected body, as correcting this one (to the 'rivet counter' standards) will require a LOT of work.

Don't lose any sleep over it, man. As a consultant you can only lead the kit engineers and desk jockeys to water. It's their fault it's A.F.U., not yours.

I'll probably still buy one of these. At minimum the engine would look good detailed out and in a street rod.

[Danno]

Anyone doing a "Build Up Review" of this kit yet?..i hadnt seen a thing so far?

It's a little early yet.

The kit just came out yesterday (for the masses).

[Danno]

To answer your question, Danno, the kit fits with room in the box. So, I don't believe that would be a reason.

Thanks. Just a thought. Makes sense ... the much taller '50 Olds fits, too.

['70 Grande]

In addition to the roofline issues, I can easily see that the beltline trim seems correctly positioned behind the rear wheel well, but then it steps-down on the door and front fender, where on the 1:1, the beltline looks to line-up-evenly all the way across the entire length of the body.

[Badge284]

Been waiting for this kit for a long time, even with the measurement issues. Where is everyone finding them?

[whale392]

Being in the Midwest, we are still waiting for them to hit our distributors and then head to the individual hobby shops. Mine said sometime late next week is when they are expected to hit shelves.

I have a case (12) of them on pre-order (did when I first got involved, and when they were released into Revells catalog). I will honor the pre-order, as I am one to put my money where my mouth is and keep a promise. Will I purchase any more..........that remains to be seen. Maybe from several bodies and lots of cutting/shaping/filling/sanding I can get a body to look close to correct. The chassis and drivetrain are nice, and can be used under other projects.

Again, owning the real cars, working on the real cars, and racing the real cars, I can assure you the body is less than what it could have been and a long way from right. There are some good areas of the body, and the headlight buckets (while real deep) are well worth the extra time to detail out right (same with the tail light buckets, although they are missing the bulb separation between the back-up light bay and the turn signal bay.

Edited May 24, 2013 by whale392

['70 Grande]

It seems to me that Revell, "did the right thing" several years ago when they released their '68 Dodge Charger kit with a inaccurately-shaped body, (again, mostly roofline issues), and then went to the expense to pull the product off of the shelves, and retool the body piece correctly, and then reissue the corrected-kit.

I believe most car modelers realized the expense they incurred to do this, and truly appreciated the corrective measures that they took. Since then, reissues of that same kit have sold well, end-result; a "win-win" situation for us modelers and hopefully a "win-win" financially for Revell.

If most of the chassis, engine and interior components of this Mustang kit are well-done and accurately reflect the 1:1 Mustang, (I think that's what I'm hearing/reading about this new Mustang kit), then it seems like a good candidate for Revell to "do the right thing again" with; correct the body issues and reissue to a customer-base that would understand and appreciate their efforts and their financial investment.

[niteowl7710]

There was no viable reason with as many people as Revell had to work with that they couldn't and shouldn't have pulled the emergency brakes on the fail train that is the body in this kit. If that meant scrapping the body tool, then so be it. Get it right -- NOTE : I'm not saying perfect, I'm just saying not square, thick, blocky, with a chopped roof and wandering belt-line -- the first time and you don't have to go through the expense. After getting the three new tools from last year that all incrementally raised our expectations of what Revell could produce if they really put their minds to it, and then having this thing plop down onto the table it's like Revell spent 95% of the budget on the chassis, engine, drive train and interior and let someone in need of an appointment at Lens Crafters handle the body. It's a major disappointment, and it with the dearth of any subject matter from the past 30 years issued after the 2010 Mustangs, you begin to wonder if this whole kit was viewed in-house an eeeeevil modern subject and the faster the could get it out the door, the better. When else has Revell ever managed to get an entirely newly tooled kit from public announcement to sales floor in a mere 6 1/2 months before? EVER?

For anyone who want to say it's unrealistic to scrap or severely modify the body tool, I'd like to point out that aside from the Moebius Hudson fiasco, Galaxy Limited had to scrap the body tool for their upcoming Chevrolet Coupe. If they, who you have to assume are on a relative shoe-string budget seeing as they haven't released a new kit in 20+ years and are surviving on selling to people who realize they can order directly from their website, can afford to junk a tool. Well folks then Revell certainly can considering how much money they're going to lose from the people who are passionate about these cars and how much overall financial resources exist within the world of Hobbico. Come to think of it Lindberg during the Craft House days had to re-tool/modify the tool to make the body of the '61 Impala SS correct, and Revell did it as mentioned with the Charger. The precedent exists and needs to be followed here.

Edited May 24, 2013 by niteowl7710

[prostockmania]

I got my 3 today, not impressed either. I also have the MPC kits, I may due a side by side body comparison later this evening or sometime this weekend.

First one I opened is actually missing one of the 2 red lenses for the Light bar, go figure.

Edited May 24, 2013 by prostockmania

[Erik Smith]

Okay, so now I can see for myself...

It appears that Revell totally engineered the door/trim incorrectly.

Here is the kit:

Here is the real car:

The trim and how the door would "open" on the model are incorrect - this could be compounding the issue as it appears they didn't take the time to correctly address not only the trim and door, but overall roof height. The gutter trim, if that's what it is, it way too thick and ends where it shouldn't and doesn't where it should.

I am focusing mainly on these areas:

I am going to attempt a weekend build of the Mustang - most of the family will be elsewhere, so...

Edited May 24, 2013 by Erik Smith

[niteowl7710]

Okay, so now I can see for myself...

It appears that Revell totally engineered the door/trim incorrectly.

Here is the kit:

Here is the real car:

The trim and how the door would "open" on the model are incorrect - this could be compounding the issue as it appears they didn't take the time to correctly address not only the trim and door, but overall roof height. The gutter trim, if that's what it is, it way too thick and ends where it shouldn't and doesn't where it should.

I am focusing mainly on these areas:

I am going to attempt a weekend build of the Mustang - most of the family will be elsewhere, so...

Look how overly thick, and yet lightly engraved the top windshield trim is - that is a feat in itself. Why does that bottom window trim not stop where the mirror is supposed to go? I presume that means the mirror isn't going to sit correctly. Why oh why is the rear "vent" window opening the wrong shape (although that's the easiest fix of the maladies)? Oh and while we're picking nits, the door handle isn't right - seems to wide, there's no indent around the door handle and where the sam heck is the keyhole going? Why is it listing lazly towards the NE when it's perfectly in-line with the door handle on the 1:1?

[Erik Smith]

Here is something, a very slight nuance, that Revell DID capture:

You can see a slight bow in the A pillar - I, at first glance, thought "what the heck, is the roof squished?", but in actuallity, the A pillar does bow out a slight bit - so nice work there, Revell

[Erik Smith]

Look how overly thick, and yet lightly engraved the top windshield trim is - that is a feat in itself. Why does that bottom window trim not stop where the mirror is supposed to go? I presume that means the mirror isn't going to sit correctly. Why oh why is the rear "vent" window opening the wrong shape (although that's the easiest fix of the maladies)? Oh and while we're picking nits, the door handle isn't right - seems to wide, there's no indent around the door handle and where the sam heck is the keyhole going? Why is it listing lazly towards the NE when it's perfectly in-line with the door handle on the 1:1?

The windshield trim appears overly thick because the window mounts from the outside - I'll see how it looks during construction.

[niteowl7710]

The windshield trim appears overly thick because the window mounts from the outside - I'll see how it looks during construction.

No I don't mean thick like deep, I understand the windows mount from outside. I guess I should have phrased it as "tall" as in the part that's above the windshield is taller (aka thicker) than the real thing's rather minimal trim. But shoot considering the half foot of scale window trim frosted onto the windshield itself, the external window trim is the least of that entire assembly point's problem.