Chuck Kourouklis

Well. A rare agreement here, with the qualification that I'm just fine spending double to get a good-looking LX: Stupid unbelievably ridiculous better to me, Mike Schnur's conversion and build above, but your mileage may vary on how spendy ya wanna get for something that should have been in the original 26-buck box. But let's save Jesse a BIT of trouble, anyway: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65168&page=19 Post #370 here shows one owner who took measurements, and despite various efforts to flail at that hard data, another member finds it sound. Go through and you'll find all manner of comparisons to demonstrate that the eyeball really doesn't lie on this one.

The reason the roof issue came up again is simple: the last time we saw something this bad or worse from Revell, they fixed it. And some of us were merely wondering if they might do it again between these two versions of the '90 Mustang. Personally, I wouldn't have thought it likely even without considering the photo and the fact that Revell/Monogram has recently suffered a major, institutional-scale loss in personnel - but we'll know for sure when it's released, I guess. I'm in for one or two irrespective, myself. Ironic, that. I think the body is the most serious cock-up since the '69 Charger, but I'm still actually going to contribute to Revell's bottom line, as opposed to all those who would have us just shut up and deprive Revell of those sales in doing so. For those who seem to have some difficulty comprehending it without help, this is why some of us feel compelled to point out what we've spent with Revell/Monogram. 'Cause they can talk about making kits for builders rather than writers, and y'all can pass any judgment you like on what supports the hobby, but in the end, what matters to Revell is how many kits they sell. But I'm gonna remind everybody here - a g a i n - that there weren't no arguments in this thread before the flaming started. And the flaming started waaay before now, btw, exactly in posts #8 and #12. And guess what that flaming was about. AGAIN: This immediate association of a frank discussion about a kit with "whining" and "complaining". Y'know somethin', people? The fact that you have a personal distaste for it doesn't immediately qualify such a discussion as "drama" or "whining" or "complaining". There IS NO inherent "drama" in discussing the problems with the roof and hoping it gets fixed. The "drama" stems almost entirely from the way YOU ALL REACT to that discussion. Some of the most flamboyantly dramatic posts I've seen in this forum have been about "drama" (sometimes with a PM about hypocrisy to boot!). Much of the most bitter complaining I've seen has been about "complainers". And just about all of the blue-ribbon whiniest, crybaby-est posts EVER 'round here have been about - you guessed it - the "whiners" and "crybabies". And yet there hasn't been a one of you to offer the first coherent reason that talking about these issues is wrong or inherently offensive. You just take it upon yourselves to judge it as some inferior mode of thinking - even so far as to dictate when a thread should be closed and who should be kicked out of this forum - and then treat this on-topic discussion as if you're the only ones in the room who should be allowed any drama about it! It's on you. You don't like it, you pule on about it, time and time again it is you all who make it personal; but the FACT is that nobody's holding a gun to your head to read any of it. And unlike any of us who were waiting a very long time for an accurate model of an Aerofox Mustang, it ain't as if you don't have literally thousands of other places to go right within this topic heading. So tell me again: WHO EXACTLY is looking for drama, here?

*PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT* Don't do that when I got a mouthful of water, Lee!

James, seriously - I just wanna take it down a minute and ask you a question: you really don't see any irony in calling us "crybabies" and "whiners", and then accusing US of "drama"? Can you truly point out any name-calling and drama in this thread before all the "apology" and "get over it" nonsense started getting thrown around? I'll grant you, the Revell '90 did at least manage a fair front graphic, the first acceptable '87-'93 Mustang front fascia in scale, and if you combine it and the rocker panels and the rear bumper with an MPC/AMT '88 GT, you can solve the weaknesses of both. It's just a shame that a newly-tooled body shell in this day and age falls apart so comprehensively behind the cowl. And hurling epithets at the people you somehow contrive to accuse of drama isn't gonna change that issue. It's just gonna provide vivid, living-color examples of approaches I have long refuted and debunked for their inherent irrationality and hysteria.

Y'know, for being such a crybaby and taking it all too seriously, I just had a from-the-toes belly guffawing laugh at that one... I TELL people exactly what's gonna happen! And they do it anyway! Oh God, I need some water or something...

ONE MORE TIME: it is not mentioning the top that's going to get this topic closed - that's something grown-ups should be able to discuss. What'll get this thread closed, if anything, are those who cannot handle the mention of the top and who turn the discussion personal as a result. The first-issue kit is clearly not 1/25 in all dimensions. It does not live up to reasonable expectations. This topic covers the next version of that kit. It does not violate reasonable expectations of this thread for those inaccuracies to be covered in it. And it is those who somehow find that topical discussion offensive who are truly demonstrating an inability to "get over" it. Funny how it's always about us who take things too seriously, and never those who take comments about a kit they had no role in developing too personally. What freshens the whole issue of the top for this conversation is that we are dealing with something on very nearly the magnitude of the first-issue ProModeler '69 Charger here - something Revell/Monogram has actual precedent for fixing. So it's natural, predictable - no surprise at all - that it's going to come up once again as people wonder if R/M will follow or abandon their precedent with the next version of the kit, the subject of this thread. Now in fairness, a couple other things to consider: To ask Mr Sexton about this is to put him in a no-win. Either he concedes the first one needed fixing or he toes the party line at some expense to his credibility, and for right now, it looks like the latter. If the response is terse, maybe it's because of internal stress at the company right now, or simply having too many other fish to fry - they did just lose Roger Harney, arguably the heart and soul of Monogram for over fifty years and by association, that of Revell for around half that time. Is the product any less deficient for all this? No - but it might be helpful in understanding why we get the responses we sometimes do.

Sure. We need fresh air, we gotta get over, we take it too serious, whatever puts us in an inferior position for not agreeing with you. We see what you're doin' there. Did you really think you could say "get over it" without people getting "serious" and "edgy"?

Good for you, Jesse. Seriously, nobody's even beginning to suggest you shouldn't buy and build to your heart's content. But it doesn't really serve your purpose to try and mandate what we need to get over, tell us we need fresh air 'cause we don't see it your way, and then wonder at the "edgey"-ness.

Painting the drip moldings and door frames black does minimize the problem somewhat. Looks pretty much the same to me, straight down to the 5.0 badge pre-correction, if that ain't a decal - but hey, I'm ready and willing to be surprised and delighted, and I'll be hollering A T T A B O O Y Y! from the rafters if they have indeed fixed it. But an apology? I've dropped more than fifty bucks on a pair I don't know if I've got the time to make acceptable, and I ain't lookin' for an apology! An apology to Revell is appropriate if the criticism is off-base and incorrect, but Mike Schnur - though he doesn't like to make a big deal of it - has demonstrated conclusively with his vastly improved body shell that the criticism is bang on-target (the upper-echelon's apparent attempts at whitewashing it all to the contrary). So the very concept of an apology to Revell for getting around to what they should have done in the first place is "are-you-putting-me-on??" LAUGHABLE. But with all due respect, that mentality once again demonstrates that what really needs to be "gotten over" is this same old allergy to kit criticism that like it or not, is entirely topical to the subject at hand. When a model has visual deviations from the prototype, it fails to live up to its very reason for existence. I'm going to borrow somebody's notion of "reasonable expectation", except that I'm actually going to be more REASONABLE about it: while this chimerical, straw man diversion of the "perfect kit" is anything BUT reasonable to hope for, a roof height without a clearly visible variance from true scale IS a reasonable expectation. Now let's try another angle: just how exactly does a discussion thread pointing this out, asking if there's been any progress from one release to the next, fail to meet the reader's expectation? Long as there are no personal attacks, that too-low roof IS on topic, and what's more, some folks actually come in with the objective of FINDING OUT about problems like this. So not only is the "don't like it, don't participate" approach just as apt here, it is in fact MORE appropriate. After all, it's not as if any of you has been waiting over two decades to drop your cold cashish on some sunshine-and-ponies Stepford thread about a problem kit. In the case of the model, it plainly does not live up to its own stated mandate of being 1/25 the size of the subject in all dimensions, so discussion of that in a thread about the very kit is not only logical and on-topic, it's inevitable. That a truly topical discussion should somehow be muted in pointing out all these problems is the expectation that's actually irrational. It's really the people with that expectation who need to "get over" the fact that a topical discussion will include pointing out problems with the kit. And If you don't like it, don't read it. Btw, notice how THAT suggestion doesn't nick Revell's bottom line.

I just wanna know at what point the dead-horse-gifs themselves become blows against a dead horse of their own. Think we crossed that line a few states back, actually....

Oh man. That's a problem. I'd rather just raid the x-brace from a '55 hardtop, long as Revell used the delay to fix that issue. You might guess Revell hacked a sedan just to mock something up, but it looks like we have new door panels inside that match the beltline...

And at this point, one might very well ask which December. Guess it's just theoretical till it shows in the catalogue...

Thanks, Peter

Ah, just might have been you, then, Del. Thanks for the added info. Good stuff!

Thanks, Charlie! Pretty sure I picked up that vinyl dye suggestion online some place, just can't remember if it was here or another forum...

'Preciate that, Bill, and that's right - the tampo whites are a notably narrower pattern than the decals. Here one sits to the left of a tire I airbrushed thru a compass-cut card stock stencil: I used white Duplicolor vinyl dye to absorb the flexing of getting the wheel in, but I suspect a hobby-grade acrylic white might also be able to cut it.

Why thank you, Lee!

This one has the exact replacement tires from Revell, in case anybody else wanted further clarification:

Did a red street stock back 'round '90, very nice I thought - till the side view mirror broke off at a show and my superglue bottle puked up CA all over the driver's door in my misguided attempt to fix it. Should really grab another body shell and restore it... The latest reissue with the Grumpy Jenkins markings has those desirable added parts - steel wheels, and a bench seat with a new rear seat to match the upholstery pattern - and as far as I can tell, there isn't much it gives up in molding quality for the age of the tool. If by droopy you mean the sink marks on the top fender surfaces just adjacent to the taillight openings, that's a characteristic going all the way back to the very first release, and it's variable from model to model. Also, the windshield was corrected mid-run with the '88 release, so there are some '88 boxes out there without any scat molded in the mirror region. Far as hood fit goes, I don't recall huge issues with my original, but I'd need to dig it out of storage to jog my memory on that one. One characteristic of many builds I've seen that's entirely logical, but not optimal, is that the molded detents on the tops of the inner fender aprons are used as the forward locating stops at the cowl for the body shell. This tends to position the body too far forward on the wheelbase, and there is room to fudge the body backward a bit for better wheel centering in the fender arches. Also, you might want to fill and re-drill the mounting holes for the front suspension uprights; they tend to go in with too much negative camber, otherwise.

Wow. There really is a lot more new tooling than one might have expected here. The suspension tree looks fresh for a rear end to accept a separate diff cover, so maybe the ride height's been tweaked a bit too. Fan shroud, anti-roll bars, shocks and suspension links all have new tree arrangements as compared to shots of a Revell '10. No idea why they 'd go with a completely new body shell, chassis pan, and interior, but I sure ain't ruling it out till I see it now...

Yeah! Adam's idea sounds so good, I might have to give it a try.

Sorry to hear about that, Carl. I can tell you that wherever possible, I prefer to cut straight lines directly on the foil sheet with a straight edge and then apply it to a body, rather than trimming right on the body after application. This requires you estimating the shape of the foil you need before you put it on, but that's a skill you might acquire more quickly than you'd expect. Doing it in this order might afford you the advantage of getting your hand something to steady it as you make the cut - think it would be practical to adapt your technique this way?

10'x10' field, huh? Man, they do somethin' that can scan a car for 'round $600, I am so there...

%100, strictly for the box art? Naw. Very nearly for the box art? Oh yeah. Round 2's been raking it in that way from me in recent years. Luckily, there's also usually some good content backdating to go with that box art.

It's true though. That Tamiya Mustang was almost refreshing in its howling stinkerhood. And OH YEAH, whether you jest or not, Lee, Fujimi really pi$$ed me off with that pimped-out 18" Boxer rolling stock with too-small tires. Those mags aren't identical front and rear; there's a deep-dish offset for the back ones, so it's not as if you can clap on the five-spokers from the Daytona and call it a day. What're we supposed to do to fix those, ruin a $90 Marui kit? Don't know what's up with those cats. Delivered us the best R35 in the world, then squeezed out that steaming pile of Pantera that makes me wanna run weeping with gratitude back to the wheels in the Boxer.