Rob Hall

Maybe they are more lax with vintage subjects than they would be with models of current subjects...who knows. It is what it is..time to move on.

Very well stated...as I've previously said, 'good enough' means accepting mediocrity. As consumers, we shouldn't support companies that put out mediocre products. The problem is, Revell is the only game in town w/ this product, and they've screwed up. Frustrating situation. I'm surprised Ford would have approved the licensing considering how inaccurate the body is.

Nice to see the Tamiya Toyota van reissued, I remember seeing those in the Tamiya catalog from about 1997. Will have to get one this time...

1) Was your introduction to modeling at home? Yes 2) From whom? My older brother 3) What kind of models (cars, planes, trains, etc)? Cars 4) What did the person who introduced you to modeling do for a living ? car salesman 5) How old were you? 6 or 7 6) About what year was your introduction? 1976-1977

Sharp build..I have this kit in my to-build stash, thinking Wimbeldon white or that silver blue that popular w/ Ford and Mercury then...I got a set of Modelhaus whitewalls and '70 LTD wheelcovers for mine..

Do you not place any importance on accuracy? An accurate body is the most important part of a kit--and the most basic requirement. An all-new kit should above all have an accurate body. This kit doesn't have one. Simple. as. that. There is no excuse in 2013 that a model company can't get a common subject that was last in production 20 years ago right when they can get obscure subjects from 60 years ago right. Shouldn't they be using modern techniques like 3D scanning? I don't get this 'good enough' mentality among car modelers--you don't see it in aviation or military modelers--they take accuracy of a kit very seriously and raise quite a ruckus when kit makers screw up. Car builders seem too complacent...

Maybe 'good enough' for people that have never seen the 1:1 subject, but those of us that know the 1:1 Fox Mustangs are disappointed in the many issues w/ the body. Revell can and has done better w/ other subjects. This is comparable to the goof up they did w/ the first issue Pro Modeler '69 Charger. Remember, 'good enough' = mediocre. Model companies should aim for excellence or not try at all.

The seat belt thingys for the rear shoulder harnesses, I think. My '86 didn't have those, IIRC.

Noticed that...one thing I'm wondering about is the shape of the edge of the decklid...on the 1:1, there is a slight curve at the top edge of the decklid from left to right, peaking above the keyhole. Looks flat in these pics. The main issues (and there are many) I've seen raised by others are the height of the windshield opening and side window openings---- people that have seen the kit and whose judgement I trust and that know the 1:1 really well (I've owned 2 Fox Mustangs, but others have much deeper experience w/ them). The general consensus so far is that the body is less accurate than previous Monogram and MPC Foxes. I noticed the LX and blue oval decklid badges are missing, but I think those are #3 on the decals. I wonder why the police decals have '70s style Cali plates.. Here's a pic of a 1:1 illustrating the decklid curvature I'm talking about..

I've heard both for years...though ping (.png) is the in format these days...

Sharp...I have both those issues of that kit, but have never built them...

Work and went out to lunch.

Interesting..thought Ferrari had market exclusivity on self-combusting sports cars.

As have I...it looks like the body of the new kit has some....issues. I'm still looking forward to getting at least one next month.

Stopped by my LHS after work today, they had all the May Revell and AMT releases in...picked up the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon and '13 Camaro ZL1 kits. They had 2 of the '90 Mustang LX kits, but they were held back for someone that preordered them...oh well..I have one on preorder from Model Roundup. Saw a 1:1 '13 Camaro ZL1 in orange on the street as I left the hobby shop. They also had the 1/12th Tamiya Carrera GT--huge kit. Now if Tamiya would do a 1/12 917K, I'd be interested...

I think that was her excuse for doing poorly in math...more of an artist--into dance and sculpture...we weren't that compatible as my world-view is based on math, science, technology, and engineering...

Sweet...don't think I've heard of Mondo Motors. Wouldn't mind having one of these.

I remember that flea market...I went there several times a year from '88-94.... used to be a huge flea market.

Yat Ming/Yatming made some very interesting cars in a variety of scales...I have a bunch of their Matchbox-sized cars from my childhood in the '70s..some really neat stuff.

Interesting...that view would be in conflict w/ the Flat Earth Society crowd. I used to know someone who claimed she didn't believe in math and that numbers were evil.

I had an '86 LX notchback w/ the 2.3 4cyl and a 4spd manual. Very underpowered, but it sufficed as my college car and got around NE Ohio winters pretty well w/ snow tires on all 4 corners. However, my '87 GT has been a lot more fun over the years... this pic was when I had both of them, from around 1992 or so...

I probably have about 75 Jo-han kits and a few promos in my stash. Such unique and interesting subjects...I have a bunch of their '60s-70s Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles, Mopars, AMCs, Mavericks, etc. I particularly like the deVilles, Eldorados, and Toronados...

An interesting kit parts swap would be using a later engine, like the 4.6 from the '99 Cobra or a more recent '06 or '11 4.6. I couldn't imagine putting a Chevy engine in..yuck.

The bumpers are about the only way I can tell roughly what generation a Beetle is...I know in the '70s they had the Super Beetle which had a slightly longer hood--was there ever a kit of one of those?

Was talking w/ my sister earlier today..where she is working is about an hour north of Tulsa, sounds like the storms missed there, but they had tornado drills in her office building... scary stuff.