Chuck Kourouklis

No kiddin'! sliiiick...

Yup. Some day when I finally land my big movie trailer gigs and personally commission some molds for a '48 Tucker and a McLaren F1, I'm gonna want input from you two.

Yup. Me takey, two right off the bat.

Roger that. in this pic, you can see where I like to leave mine: Then again, I like my seat fairly upright.

Oh, well. THAT looks FANTASTIC, so not to worry, I'd say.

It sure will, Dave! You'll do it proud as ever. At this point, I begin to worry a bit about doing your head in - but have you totally reversed your body-color overspray? 'Cause these two 2010 Shelby shots - and this 2010 GT shot - have some interesting things to suggest about that... (as in, maybe your gut wasn't so far off after all)

Point absolutely taken, Darin. Instead of being so definitive, what I should have said is that the photo car has every hallmark of being finished for rotisserie display, just like preview 3.7 and 5.0 car show Mustangs seen with black axles. I have no way to deny that Boss 302s come finished that exact way from the factory. But back to my main point, which is not so easily refuted: Dave's original approach to the chassis was looking nice enough imho, but since he's going to take the trouble to refinish it for correctness, that Boss shot might not be representive. You've been under a Boss. Here's a shot I took this morning of the 2011 GT I live with and drive every day: Gotta look hard at the contrast between the roll bar or diff cover and the axle to make out the latter's natural finish, but the rust at the pumpkin webbing and the shock mounts is unmistakable. And it's just that sort of thing GT500 owners have posted about in forum threads like these: http://www.teamshelb...hat-rusty-butt/ http://www.stangmafi...k-stripes-4217/ The facts are a little clearer in this 2010 Shelby shot taken from the stangmafia link right above: Now in fairness, you might finish the Revell kit to represent the ride of an owner who had his axle painted. But it looks by and large as if those stick axles mostly come in a natural finish from the factory.

Yes, Dave, but careful - that car was finished to be shown off on a rotisserie, and that painted rear axle, for example, might not be indicative of most 2nd-gen 197 Mustangs - google "GT500 Rusty Butt" and you'll see what I mean. You may score a few more ref shots, too. Gorgeous work, btw.

Oh what, the thing's missing valve stems? No, Harry, I actually agree with you on that one.

Well, guess it depends on what constitutes "toy-like" then, doesn't it? If simplified parts that at least look like their prototypes count as toy-like, then yeah, Matthew may not go here. But if missing distributors, blocky tires, and out-of-scale heim joints are more the SMS "toy-like" criteria, then yes, the GT500 may have a shot. The GT-40 was a moon shot that landed a bit short. This GT500 looks every bit the solid line drive the manufacturer intended. Paradox though it may be, since Revell aimed lower, there's likely less for SMS to totally overhaul - therefore making a detail kit more feasible.

And here's the funny bit: Scale Motorsport is evidently planning a detail kit for this one - after judging the Trumpeter kit too "toy-like" for such a treatment...

Well, speaking as a parts geek of the most rabidly OCD variety - opening doors, working suspension and steering, working lights, Pochers, Enthusiast Series, MFH, bring it all - I'm sittin' here jiggling my foot, finger-tapping my desk, doin' the full Kinison with the LHS every fifteen minutes: "Is it IN YET? Y'all GOT 'EM YET?? WHERE IZZIT??" about that 1/12 GT500. And it ain't just the subject that's got me beside myself about the first domestic twelfth-scaler in more than two decades - a 1:12 2010 Camaro or Challenger woulda been just as cool. I sympathize with craving the dings and tweets of more bells and whistles, deeply. But it's not as if Revell/Monogram gave us the first reason to expect anything different. Look at Monogram's last five 1/12 models - none of them had opening doors. Only one even had poseable steering. The vintage Chevy subjects at least went as far as to offer a couple versions, but Monogram's large-scale philosophy has basically been set since the initial sales sluggishness of the Big Deuce and the color-matching boondoggle of the E-Type Jag; from the 1965 'Vette on, Monogram's big-scales just ain't been much more than bi-scale kits writ large. And I don't see anything as crude as the Testarossa or as misproportioned as the F-40 here. Would I have LOVED engine hoses, opening doors, and steerable wheels? Eeeyyyooooouuu betcha. I'll still take five, please.

Oh, not to worry. The preview shots have shown a very nicely detailed engine and bay. 'Tween this 'n that Hudson, August is shaping up to be a mighty big month...

I was gonna say - maybe there's a roof hatch on the Hawaiian, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell exactly where from this and any number of other shots... Fwiw, I also observed that the rear track is narrower on the Hawaiian, and that its body shell is positioned a little higher over the rear wheels. It's for this reason that it was actually my Chi-Town Hustler that was a little tight over its slicks, while there were absolutely no clearance or mounting problems for the Hawaiian I built.

WHOAH! And it even looks reasonably good! Hey Rat, did Fujimi do any other 1:16 subjects like that one?

Yup. ###### kids. Wish they'd get off my lawn, too.

That "feel the road" scene with Ferrell driving blindfolded gets me crying every time...

What Bob said. I'll take a do-right over a do-over any time, and I'm glad you all have been so positive and constructive in addressing the issues that came up. That Lone Star is AMAZING, btw...

**edit - what Bob said**

Well I don't know if it's fair to call Revell "lazy" when they revese-engineered not just the Rommel's Rod, but the Tijuana taxi too. Sign me up for a backdated Little Deuce, Little T, and a restored '40 Ford pickup while we're at it - AND, the one kit I think deserves this treatment the most (but I have to wonder about the viability of it):

Headlight signatures, Baby. Learn 'em well...

Decals, I bet. Wheel options of course, maybe lowered suspension bits. Buckets maybe?

Well, perhaps we're getting mixed up in semantics then, Brad. I mean, I'd have to look again, but I don't think the tooling even changed for the basic chassis plate or suspension pieces in any of those Monogram Fox Mustangs, and if that's the case, then they would truly qualify as a carry-over parts by my definition. They might have a different relationship to the sprue from one release to the next because a gate on one section of the mold was closed for one release and opened for the next, but the basic mold cavity stayed the same or was lightly modified for the parts in question, so they produced pretty much the same parts. Yeah, that's a carry-over. But in the case of this kit, that's almost certainly not what happened. Fact is, there's a whole lot more than "technical" new tooling going on here. It's not just a matter of how radically rearranged the parts layout is (and what a wasteful exercise breaking up an existing steel mold just for a different order would be), but it's also the fact that there are differences between the individual parts themselves. What was a male mating point before is a female mating point now. What was a little more rounded before is more angular now, and vice-versa. What was adequately defined before is super-crisp now, a three-piece mold cavity before, two-piece now. There's no reason for any of this unless the molds are all-new. Assuming that Revell still uses 1:10 master patterns, then yes, they could have gone back to those same masters for the parts that didn't change, and they could have developed new molds from those masters so similar to the old ones that the parts they produced could interchange with their forebears. It was true of many similar-but-distinct Monogram NASCAR kits back in the day, and it's true to some degree in Revell's new mini-Charger Funny cars. But trust me - the pics say it pretty loudly, and the parts say it even louder the closer you examine them: this 2010 Mustang isn't "technically" a new tool, it's absolutely a new tool; partly from familiar masters, most likely, but brand-new molds for those parts just the same. And if the agreed-upon definition of "carry-over" is "from the same mold cavity" for parts, then there are NONE between this kit and any of its predecessors. IF, however, you really meant that some of the old master patterns probably figured into the development of this kit, then I'd say you're likely right. And yeah, it is a nice new kit, and bring on the Coyote variants please.

Gone maybe, but I don't know about long-gone, Steve - Revell was able to get us at least a nominal 2006 Mustang GT at the end of 2005, by way of f'rinstance...

Heh. No kiddin'.