Chuck Kourouklis

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'.

The divergence between the ENGINES is almost comical: Here you see an entirely different system of pins and bosses on the inside surfaces between the old 4.6 block/transmission and the new one. Here you see confirmation of a clue given you in the previous picture: the cylinder head locators are male on the old engine and female on the new one. And here (in addition to the sprue arrangement and part number callouts) is the most lurid deviation between the two kits: cylinder heads varying ninety degrees on the mold axis. The old kit used a sliding mold to define the outer face of the head. The new one orients those surfaces upward for a more traditional two-piece mold casting. It's not just that the parts are different, but that they're CLEARLY different. And I reiterate that which is now proven: there are NO carry-over plastic parts between Revell's '06-'08 Mustangs and this 2010 kit - just like Revell said.

Now for the SUSPENSIONS: It's difficult to imagine why Revell would go to such a length simply to retool the sprues. But in addition to the obvious differences in sprue mounts, you can see that the differential pumpkin in the new kit is beefier than the old one. Here you see major differences in the perimeter of the sprue for allowing sliding mold clearance to cast those axle holes. Look a little closer and you'll see how much larger the '06-'08 rear axle mounting pins are. The impression you get from the photo of a girthier subframe and suspension arms for the 2010 kit is about what you'll perceive in the plastic. You can begin to make out variations in the rear crossmember shape and in those open triangles defined by the suspension arms against the subframe.

It's a major clue, Ken, along with differing part number callouts. Revell's 2010 Mustang gives us those two clues and a whole lot more. Here's the photo analysis. 2010 Mustang parts are white. SHOCKS: Here are the rear shocks. Note the striking difference not only in the lengths of their floorpan mounting pins, but in the entire general lengths of the shocks themselves - in addition to differing sprue location and part numbers. BRAKES: I'm confining this to the front brakes mostly because in the 2010 kit, the rear brakes are on an entirely separate tree. Note two sprue mounts for the old brakes versus one in the new ones. And although it's not obvious, you can begin to make out the subtle differences in caliper shape between the two sets - in addition to the sprue differences and vastly diverging part numbers. EXHAUST: Nope, these ain't the same either. Check out the crossovers and the forward mount tabs on the old set - in addition to sprue layout and part callout.

Whale, there may indeed be parts that swap back and forth because they were developed from the same masters as before (and this wouldn't be the first time that's happened), but Revell is on record as saying that this is ALL new tooling: note the ALL NEW claim in this brochure And unless they're prearranged with a system of opening and closing gates, redoing mold cavities to come up with a different sprue order isn't a trivial undertaking - you might as well do it from the ground up. But I'll be having a closer look later on, and if I see any evidence that the parts are the same, I'll let everyone know.

One of the first things I noticed about mine was how much higher up I seem to sit in it, relative to the Camaro that preceded it - just wrote it off to the insidious dumbing-down factor SUVs have had on general expectations for modern vehicles. It sure don't handle tipsy. But yeah - - it ain't the lowest rider you've ever seen. What can make a model look a bit toylike is not just the ride height, imho, but the way that ride height combines with a sidewall aspect ratio that's outta whack. Revell tends to include the bigger rear SSR tire for things like the Magnum, the Challenger, and the GT500KR when they should really include the smaller front SSR tire that's used as the custom option in a whole bunch of "California Wheels" reissues. I've pilfered a few, they stretch over the wheels intended for the bigger tire, and they look a lot better in sidewall height - that smaller tire on the GT500KR wheel sort of approximates the 1:1 above, and I like it far better for sidewall profile than the rubber that comes in the new kit.

I hate to contradict anybody, but a side-by-side comparison will reveal there are no plastic or vinyl parts in common between this kit and any of the '06 - '08 Mustangs. The tires are new, even if they're high-profile like the previous ones, and the chassis is more distinct than it first appears; in addition to the lack of front wheel well filler panels, there's a front frame rail plate over the fuel lines, smooth texture on the fuel tank, and new engraving over the spare tire well. The engine parts are nearly indistinguishable from the previous 4.6, but they are arranged differently on the trees - from the looks of it, to facilitate complete new engine trees in future releases. The separate front and rear fascias appear to make for a quicker changeover to the GT500, and since the upcoming Snaptite convertible has a separate hood, the prospects for bashing between this kit, the convertible, and maybe even the GT500 look pretty good. Revell said this tooling was all-new, and they meant it, even if they may have developed some of it from the '06-'08 master patterns. And boy, what a boon CAD files are. Comparing this body shell with an '11 1:1, there's very little deviation; it's much closer than Revell has been with their vintage subjects lately, and better overall than their '06-'08 models - no too-small headlight reflectors or anything like that. The stance does look a little high initially though, mostly up front - a build-up should help clarify if this is an actual stance problem or an artifact of the high tire sidewalls.

Thanks, Darin! Seems like an answer to a question nobody asked, but hey, it's a nice one. I'll pick one up for curiosity's sake...

+1. The Lonestar is the most gorgeous release from a domestic company in years. That, along with Moebius's ability to respond positively - instead of histrionically - to some carefully considered criticism, makes me very optimistic about their upcoming cars...

GOOD MARKETING, R2. I'd love another one of these, and I'll gladly pick one up while eagerly anticipating the return of the tooling to its original form.

Maybe they could pull an MPC and put "Trans" and "Am" on opposite ends of the decal sheet? Wait - I think I got it! They oughtta do their own fictional edition, with decals in the proper font: The Pontiac Firebird sTar mAn. Let your scissors do the rest. Slick, huh?

My favorite thing about that 2-in-1 hardtop was that it FINALLY introduced a new set of stock wide-whites to replace all those terrible Predicta tires in Revell/Monogram's previous releases of that genre. That new rubber has single-handedly brought a ridiculous improvement across the board to all R/M's '50s reissues following in the custom '59 hardtop's wake...

Only thing I'd add is that the unmarked is supposed to have a new deck spoiler, in addition to the wing the predecs came with...

I was piqued about that at first too, Ken - but they say it's a 1:24 3-in-1, which has me thinking it'll probably be the same ol' same-ol'...

Roger that. DS would be very cool. And the BMW 1600-2002 is long, long overdue for some love - you'd figure if a Trabant could get two treatments from Revell AG, a 2002 could get at least one.

Cato - out of respect for certain sensitivities over the intended focus of this thread, I've replied to your post in the other major Trumpeter Falcon thread: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40506&st=260&gopid=459955&#entry459955

That's 'cause cybermodeler is primarily an armor and aircraft review site. I actually recall one FSM review - 1/12 Otaki Countach, or 1/16 Fujimi Boxer or Miura, I don't exactly remember - where the reviewer basically said it wasn't as important to research the subject 'cause it was a car. I might as well review Hobby Boss's new 1/48 F-14 without even looking up the 1:1...