whale392

1. I am doggedly persistent when I know I am correct 2. I keep airplanes from falling out of the sky, which demands attention to detail in my work.

I have an 84 GT Turbo (think baby SVO) that I am building up for 700hp with all forged guts, stainless valves, 88mm turbo, Volvo DOHC conversion, GM LS2 coils..............................

Thanks for that comparison, Ben. I can see narrowing a set of the Rep wheels and making a set of big/littles for that sleeper look. The only concern I have with the Rep wheel is the flat center cap, but I must say they do look nicely cast. do you plan on running these under your current build?

Strap the right turbo to it, slip in an intercooler that works, dial up the fuel, and HANG ON! These 2.3Ts can be quite scary at song.

They were on just about every Group-A and Group-5 car out there in their day. They were seen on everything from Zakspeed Capri/Mustangs to BMWs to Porsche 930-variants. They were (and still are) a very nice wheel.

Also a bit blurry, but this is my engine in-bay at 270,000 miles. T5 from the front side.

Engine/trans look good, Ben. I will have to see it with the wash on, but I would still hit the trans/bell housing with a bit of Dullcoat to kill the 'shine'. Also, on the 'flat' of the bellhousing (the side facing us in the picture), there sould be a raised steel cover that is Gloss black. That would be the clutch fork cover, and the clutch cable would go into it. Sorry the image is blurry, but you can see the clutch actuator fork sticking out of the side of the bell. My T5 out on the bench.

Just my 2 cents, but as long as you are moving around plastic to fit the later wheels but would really like to fit those BBS meshes, why not move some plastic some more and do this up like it were a Ring Brothers creation?

Dennis hit it right on the head: those kits are done and gone, yesterdays not-even-news. Can't fix old and decrepit kits that have already seen a long service life (and believe me, they don't get a free pass). Nothing against you, Darin. Just the fact that this kit was not tooled up (first) in 1978, it was tooled up just a year or so ago. LIGHT-years ahead of 1978 quality and expectation-level.

Yes, Eric, those are speaker grills. Ford put a 3" speaker there, along with at least 5" x 7" speakers in the rear. The Premium Sound option got you the 5" round door speakers and a pre-amp in the dash. I was thinking I had pictures of those (from my car) but scanning my album shows none. The speaker grill lines go horizontally across the piece, from the top to the bottom of it. So, once you have it sanded/scraped, take a #11 and start scribing!

Darin, The Revell 93 Cobra (and all of its' previous offerings) is a mis-match of scale WTF. The greenhouse is too short, but the angle of the quarter windows is close), the headlights are actually 1/25th scale, the hood is somewhere in between, the lower body from the trim line down is too stubby (on the convertible GTs anyway). The 1/24th offerings are just not right either, so basing your argument on those is basing it on Quicksand. The MPC/AMT rooflines are also off, but not as much as either of the Monogram-Revell offerings. I cannot begin to explain why the roof on this kit looks so wrong when the wrong roof on other kits looks OK (I use OK in the best-case scenario). I think it has something to do with the abbreviated nature of a Coupes C-Pillars and trunklid. The Hatch at least has the effect of being longer and sleeker, where a Coupe the abrupt shortness of the roof is immediately noticed (making its wonky dimensions even worse to the viewer). Having seen the test-builds first-hand, I can say paint will only do so much for this; the roof is just that out of proportion. As an owner of these chassis', I cannot help but notice. When Polar Lights came out with the 65 Dodge Coronet500, I was all about it. It was finally a kit of a car I owned. When I got to looking at it closely, the body chrome stripe was way too flat and didn't taper as it should. The Greenhouse was close but not spot-on. I purchased a few anyway and lived with the fail built in. I am in NO hurry to do it yet again with another subject I own the 1:1 of, especially when it is this wonky.

I do what I can, and that isn't much I am afraid. Just so you know, the roof is .084" too short (a 2" chop in 1:1). If you need any other color references, let me know.

Ask and you shall receive: Actual car measures at shown lines is 19.5" (or .78" in 1/25th scale) Model car measures .696" at the same spot. This is a difference of .084", just a tad over 2" scale (just like i had stated it was several pages back). I can also provide the 'angle of lean' for the B-pillar (which works out to be in the neighborhood of 1.5*-2*, as car consistency is anything but.

Good to see this one return. Maybe you finishing yours will get me to drag mine out and get working on it again!

John is correct on the early blocks being Ford Engine Blue. When Ford switched over to the roller-lifter architecture, they also switched colors to a more uniform Gray. When it comes to the 2.3 (turbo or non-turbo), they generally followed their V8 brothers (although, I did have an 85 Merkur XR4Ti 2.3T that was Black. By that time, they too should be in Gray). Edit note: Coming back from my garage to add; BOTH of my 2.3T blocks (one an 84 GT Turbo and the other an 87 Thunderbird TurboCoupe) are in Black. Both are factory paintjobs. I will get the correct 2.3/2.3T colors for the years if anyone is interested (probably not here, as this is being built up as the V8 car).

Wild Strawberry is a very nice color, and was seldom seen with the Titanium lower. Black was an interior option in 1992 for any exterior color. Being that Wild Strawberry isn't readily available for finishing this kit, though, I would look into Vibrant Red, Bright Red, or the Maroon color they had available. Or if you really want to go with a stopper (and the color was optional on 1:1s and is in the Testors line), go Calypso Green top with Titanium bottom.

I have only had one dealing with him (Toledo NNL). He is a good guy and has some good stuff. That being said, I got the 65 Dodge D100 he had, and was not overly impressed with the overall finish of the resin. It may be that mine was cast close to the end of the molds life, as I was finding bits of the mold in the resin I was working with. If you see the stuff in person, go for it. I still would buy from him again, as I believe everyone deserves more that one chance (especially when I understand mold degradation issues).

Eric, I mis-spoke. The valve covers should be the same gray as the upper intake. My set are natural aluminum, but they have had the coating stripped. My apologies, and I wanted to get the correct info to you. Cooling fan is white with the center being an aluminum color (as it is the viscus clutch unit).

Pan and block were originally 'Machine Gray' in color. Most heads were left natural iron or painted Gray as well. Valve covers are aluminum (sand cast, so Alclad White Aluminum would work for them), same with the water pump. Headers were a stainless-tint when new, and the upper intake was a 'Light Metallic Gray' powdercoated affair. Throttle body and EGR spacer would be aluminum as well, with the intake hose and airbox being semi-gloss Black. The MAF will be aluminum body with semi-gloss Black sensor unit. IF you are doing the SSP, the coolant hoses will be a light Blue color, if not, rubber black. Oil filter will be white. Trans will be sand cast aluminum as well, with the bell housing being a slightly darker shade. The clutch fork cover on the bell housing will be Gloss Black, same with the shifter base plate.

Jason, doing the measurements against the real car shows both kits to have inaccurate roofs. Even the old MPC kits are not correct, but are closer to 1:1 than either Revell offerings. My micrometers and scales just don't lie (and you know what kind of a Fox guy I am, Jason!). Ben, I was just slapping the Pony wheels up under this kit as you were typing. Even though they are 1/24th, they look right under this kit (and could benefit from some lower-profile tires).

As a drag/slot car, the roof doesn't look as bad. I was thinking of doing one up as a Pro-Mod myself.

The point Dennis is trying to make is that you expect one thing and get something far less than what you had initially expected. Is that ok, whether it is a product or service? The answer is no, and it applies universally (whether it be service, manufacturing, production, construction...............). No, you don't have to buy this kit, just an in Dennis' example you don't have to get your house painted. In both though, you really should be able to get the best product quality for the money, and that is where this kit falls short. Are we the loyalists to the Fox Chassis being THAT picky? I don't believe so. I can live with a few errors (look at how many of the Revell, Monogram, Revell-Monogram, AMT, and MPC kits I have (over 100) but for a kit to have this fatal of a flaw is quite a blow. I have more Fox plastic than I really EVER need, and in more scales than I care to thing (1/20th down to 1/87th). Is it too much to ask to have an accurate version? Darin, if you are referring to the old Revell 1/25th series (the Capri, Turbo Mustang, McLaren M81), then you will need to correct the wheel lips, as the Capri didn't have the protruding lips like the Mustang did. It is a fairly easy fix, but must be done correctly as to not look 'wonky'! I have a few of these kits too, and this new LX chassis will go a ways to making them nicer. Just remember, the only year Capri to come with the 8.8" rear would be 1986, but just about every modded Capri (including the Turbo RS) I know of sports an 8.8" anyway!

And I understand that, Darin. Which is why I also stated that it should sell well in this guise and the forthcoming race car version. Now, to take a wider cross-section of Joe Average and we'll see what the vast majority says. Maybe, maybe not (in terms of 'It looks right to me').

Saleen wheels? What color are you shooting her in?

I have contemplated the convertible route with one of the dozen I have ordered, and the only real things will be narrowing the rear seat and making the boot/top-down 'doglegs/well' in the interior. This kit also makes a nice donor for the AMT 87-88 Mustang GT kit, as most of it is a few file strokes away from dropping into place (another thing I have been doing with my kit this last week and a half, THANK YOU ED, and REVELL!). The industry has come a long way in the last years, Darin, and a lot of that has to do with the listening to what their customers want/see wrong and from increased pressure from competition. By voicing our concerns with kits, we can hope to see either corrections of kits in the future that are better quality with higher levels of scale fidelity/accuracy. I hope that companies will continue to listen and learn from the people who have an effect on their bottom line (the buyers). There is only so much that the bean-counters can do to keep a company afloat; the revenue stream has to come in before they can do anything new. And having issues with kits is NOT a way to generate revenue (although I do see this kit selling well in its first issue, maybe into the second). Casey, you are correct on personal opinions, and I am guilty of what you mentioned as well. I do have a tendency to let my passion overrun me sometimes, and what I type may come off as a personal attack (for which I apologize). I just can't let fact be buried by personal opinion. And I do vote with my wallet. I put my money where my mouth is. When Ed and I initially talked about this kit (you may remember that, as shortly thereafter I was slapped with the GAG ORDER and cut from the conversations) I told him I would buy the FIRST case of them. Well, I didn't get the first case (or first kit!), bit as soon as it hit the order chain, I put in the order for 12 of them (stop and think, that is $300+). I will honor my request, as both Revell and my hobby supplier will not be stuck because I went back on a promise. I so strongly believed in this kit that I burned up 1/3rd of one of my paychecks just to have these).