Dennis Lacy

That's just my opinion.

As in, the Mustang from the movie Gone In 60 Seconds? If that's the case the winning bidder paid $960,000 too much.

There's guys who build models, then then there's Pocher guys. They take obsession to a whole new level!

Thanks, and you're probably correct about them being injector parts. I was looking at those 4 fuzzy things too but despite the blurry pictures I just wasn't finding a 3rd Chevy intake. Regardless, this kit should be, at the least, a good parts source!

Where are you seeing the Man-A-Fre style intake? On the Chevy engine sprue I see a super charger intake and a Hilborn style fuel injector. Care to circle it in the picture it's in? I'm looking and looking...

Chassis is coming together nice. I really like the combo of weathered chassis and shiny cream colored wheels. This hot rod is gonna be kick-a$$.

This is my 1987 Mustang GT that I purchased just a few months ago, back in February '13. Bought it out of Santa Barbara, California. Car was bone stock except for window tint and upgraded stereo. All original mint condition paint, moldings, emblems, lights, everything. Mint interior. 57,200 miles. Owned by an older woman for 24 years who worked for a Ford dealer the whole time she had it so it has had an impecable service record. Was owned by two different guys the last 2 years that didn't have the heart, or the balls, to do anything to it. Then I came along... The day I bought it: Hosted on Fotki Two months after I bought it with a few tasteful modifications: Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki

There ya go!

The engine details look nice and the trunk area is pretty far out. I don't understand why the engine is mounted at such an extreme angle though? Doesn't seem like it's necessary for ground clearance or any other reason? Is the real car that way? Edit - Just went back and looked and the engine in the real car is nearly level and in line with the differential. If you're going for scale fidelity what you have done would never work. Kind of undermines all the extra detailing. Just sayin'...

The stance and "look" of the car look really good. Only suggestion I can make would be to slot the sides of the tractor shell and slide it back a bit over the front cross member. A little too much over hang past the front wheels and the engine compartment looks a little long. Do that and it'll have perfect proportions.

I have one of these Ertl coin banks in the picture. Only reason it's made that way is so it will actually hold some coins. All Sedan Deliveries were converted Sedans. Ford initially was not going to offer the model, customers complained, they had Le Baron convert just under 400 in the later part of '32. From then on out, Sedan Deliveries were purpose-built and had different proportions than a regular Sedan for increased cargo capacity. The larger, commercial deliveries are called Panel Deliveries and they share some of the characteristics of the pickup trucks. In fact, the doors are interchangable.

Not to mention that it has been routine practice for over 50 years for people to chop the top on early 50's subjects when turning them into a hot rod or custom. When done right, it can be a great asthetic improvement. People don't chop the tops on Fox Mustangs. One person did in the mid-90's and it looked stupid. No one, that I know of, has done it since.

Because the first 16 pages dealt with what constitutes a correct special service version and what colors the light bar should be, if the car should even have one at all. I also think people got such an initial hard-on that this kit was actually happening that it took some time for the euphoria to wear off and reality to set in. Yes, the other versions have incorrect roof sections as well. But, for a combination of factors this new kits roof looks the most wrong out of any of them. Not to mention it's too late to do anything about all those other ancient tools. There's still time to fix this one.

I just measured my own car and the verticle height from the outer edges of the upper and lower trim pieces (just as it's marked in the picture above) is 19 9/16". The verticle height of the quarter window measures the same. Plus or minus 1/16th" definitely confirms that "whale392" measured his car correctly. The upper trim piece is glued to the body (except for one small retaining screw at the bottom near the area of the door mirror) so if the trim on one car was pushed on tighter than the trim on another that would account for the 1/16th" The incorrect angle of the B-pillar is a major contributor to the body not looking right. Without the B-pillar leaning forward as it should the shape of the door frame and window opening is way off making the window not only look to short, but also too long.

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?

I just added to the comments on Facebook. I wonder how many people would buy this kit thinking all is well because they don't know the real cars well enough to know there are glaring problems with the body?

Nice pair of Cobra's. The wheels look so much better painted than the kit chrome. If the exhaust on that black one really turned that blue I'd say you have some serious tune issues, LOL!

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.

Installing the glass is not going to change the fact that the dimensions of the roof are totally and obviously wrong. The roof has been too short since the first test-shot pictures showed up on-line. I saw it immediately and it hasn't got any better. What's worse, the short roof gives the optical illusion that the rest of the body is too big. It throws all the proportions out of whack. It's easy for the non-5.0 Mustang enthusiasts to chalk this kit up to "it's better than nothing". But, for a long time 5.0 Mustang enthusiast like myself and several other guys posting, the errors with this body are an insane let down. So what happens next? I highly doubt Revell will do anything about it and it will be "the kit that could have been." Probably, some resin company will come to the rescue with a corrected body and it's gonna end up costing and extra $20-$30 to build an LX Coupe that should have been done right from Revell. Total B.S.

I've had an '88 Mustang LX Coupe for 14 years and I could tell the second I saw the very first public pictures that the body is just flat out wrong. The top looks like it has been chopped 3 scale inches. Ordinarily I think that a lot of the complaining about new kits is a little over the top but there is no excuse for THIS. It's not like they got the components of the car wrong and a little re-working can make it right. There has not been a '87-'93 Mustang model made to date (resins and diecasts included) where the body is rendered correctly. Proportions are always WAY off and the noses are always F.U.B.A.R. Is it really impossible for a model company, with today's technological advances, to get a Mustang body made correctly? Apparently, the answer is yes. Just look at those pictures above comparing the model body to a real car. It's not just a little, it's a HUGE difference. Simply disgraceful. And those "frost bands" around the front and rear glass that are a scale 6" wide? What the hell is that all about? Whoever was in charge of this project within Revell and actually okay'd this must be blind. That sad thing is it would have taken just as much effort to make it right. I would love to built some '87 - '93 Mustang models but as a 5.0 Mustang enthusiast for 20 years I can't get past how aweful every single kit is and now this one, sadly, can be added to the list.

With this new program in effect, if the buyer reports that his item was never received (presumably lost) does the buyer then seek a refund through this 3rd party shipping company? If the records show that the seller sent the item and it was successfully received by the 3rd party, sent to the buyer by the 3rd party but ended up in oblivion, that sure as hell isn't the sellers fault. After several pain in the butt experiences with international shipping I have refused to do it for years. This could be a game changer.

I build hot rods and most of them are as far from "out of the box" as it gets. I stash kits that are proven to be good parts donors. I try to keep the quantity within reason because I honestly don't want hundreds of kit boxes stacked all over. Typically, as I use up the parts I wanted the kit for I will turn around and sell what is left of the kit for a few bucks. I don't buy kits for collector value. I'm just as happy to pull parts out of a 60's vintage mint kit as one I bought from the hobby shop today. It's only plastic.

FYI: The height of the side windows on a Victoria are 1.25" shorter than a 2-door / 4-door sedan. If AMT scaled the windows correctly then the body should appear slightly chopped. The Victoria used the same windshield frame as a sedan. Too account for this the edges of the Victoria roof have more crown than a sedan so the windshield works out and head room isn't compromised. There are a bunch of subtle changes going on with a Victoria vs. the sedan models. Ford really did put the work into it to make the Victoria, IMO, the most ellagent looking of all of the 1932 body styles.

After you painted the grill black, what did you use to wipe the paint off of the bars a perimeter? Did you let it dry or wipe it off wet?