Rob Hall

In 1/24th?

Could be...I have that kit, don't recall how it's labeled. I do remember the '59 Chevy and '59 Cadillac being labeled as Monogram, even though they are 1/25th.

Beautiful build..I have those AF/X parts, haven't used them. Love the color, the wheels, and the photography.

Also remember many of us here are true modeling geeks (in a positive sense of the word) and while we may know that kit XYZ was released as a Revell subject in 1963 when we see it as labeled as a Monogram today, but to the average modeler it is something 'NEW!!'

Probably...IIRC, the C5-R kit wheels are pretty small in diameter compared to the Shelby kit wheels, though. I've looked at building a Trans Am series style race car from the Revell '10 Camaro using C6-R wheels and tires, chassis parts, etc and the race car wheels look so tiny w/ the stock bodywork...

True enough...I enjoyed building Monogram kits as a kid in the '80s, didn't think much of Revell until the late '80s new tool kits started appearing. But I do think it is weird to see a modern-tool Revell kit labeled as a Monogram. In a similar vein, I do like how Round 2 is trying to be consistent w/ labeling MPC-origin kits as MPC and AMT-origin kits as AMT.

My older brother built models as a teenager and passed his kits down to me when I was a kid, he never got back into it. My sister built a few as a teenager also, and in the last couple of years she's gotten back into it also, focused on 1/20th scale F1 kits, NASCAR, and vintage endurance racing subjects....alas, like me, work and life takes up her time so she's better at buying kits than finishing ones so far... My dogs are good at stealing parts and leaving tiny tooth marks on them...

It is strange. Both the Monogram '55 Chevy and Revell '55 Chevy are currently available in Monogram-labeled boxes, for example.... Personally, I'd rather see Monogram-origin kits (which usually are 1/24th) labeled as Monogram, Revell-origin kits (and kits tooled after the '80s merger/aquisition) labeled as Revell, and I guess RoG-origin kits labeled as Revell. Or to simplify, go back to the Revell-Monogram labeling on everything..

One blunder IIRC in the '90s was the instructions of the AMT Ford Ranger mentioned checking w/ your local Chevy dealer for color codes, etc. Or it was vice versa w/ an AMT Chevy S10 kit.

That would be silly w/ a model car, wouldn't it?

That's similar.... I've found the 550 count sports card boxes (I posted a picture) to work well w/ 1/24th and 1/25th scale models...the lower count sports card boxes are too short for full size car kits, and the higher count ones are too long....

For storing builtups I've bought that are missing their original boxes as well as promos, I use the 550 count sports card boxes...heavy cardboard w/ folding lid. They are available on eBay and at sports collectibles stores. Pretty sturdy. I've also noticed that several of the better resin casters ship their kits in similar boxes. If you are looking for actual model car boxes but blank, I don't know of any sources for them.

Sharp build..nice period color choices.

The Monogram Satellite was in the '82-84 range IIRC. No idea if MPC still had the license...they released the '74 RR as a 'GTX' in the mid '80s because I assume they didn't have a license then.

It is odd that AMT did the Wildcats up through '66 then again in '69-70 but skipped '67-68. Those big fastbacks were all pretty interesting, IMO.

The 1:1 subject is so hideous that the only way to improve it would be to run over it with a tank.

Something always seemed off about the 4wd wheels & tires on those kits...I read somewhere that they may have been 1/20th scale parts.

One that I haven't seen in this thread that has been reissued at least twice w/ the same error is the MPC Dodge Dart Sport. MPC reissued it in the '80s labeled as a Plymouth Duster, and AMT did the same about 10 years ago in the RC2 era. Similarly for the MPC '74 Road Runner which MPC issued as a GTX in the '80s and AMT more recently (presumably for the same reason Monogram called their Road Runner a Satellite--to avoid paying for the naming rights).

I've never seen one in resin...the latest 88 in kit form was the AMT '65. Would be nice...the '67/68 was a great looking car, IMO.

No one seems to comprehend that the images in first post are not official Ford images..they are just someone's renditions of what it might look like...and the black car in the 3 pics is just an engineering mule using a modified current body..

You can't take any of the pictures on the internet currently seriously....those are just someone's thought about what it could look like, nothing official has been shown...it probably won't be shown for real until at least the LA auto show this winter...

It has an IRS w/ a transverse spring. The Mustang is the only RWD car left on the US market (or in the world, probably) w/ a solid rear axle. Every other performance or sports car uses an IRS.

That's not a pic of the real car, just something from someone's imagination.

'Il Ferrari' would have been better ('il' being the masculine 'the' whereas 'la' is the feminine).

Apparently it's popular...strange stuff. I wouldn't buy one of those, but a lot of people must like it.