Harry P.

Oops, sorry. It's 1/16 scale. I'll fix my text. For some reason the fender stripes look a little shaky in these photos, but in real life they're almost perfect.

This kit has been sold under various brands; this happens to be the Entex version. It's 1/16 scale, fairly detailed in some ways yet simplified in other ways. My kit had a severe warp on one of the frame rails, which made assembling the model a real pain. The twist is still there, but with everything finished and the fenders installed, it's not obvious unless you look at the model directly from the front or back. The body and frame were molded in a very bright yellow, but I wanted something more subdued, so I used Rustoleum "Warm Yellow," which is actually sort of a pale pastel yellow: I replaced the kit's plastic floor boards and dashboard with real wood, stained and varnished. Gauges were paint detailed (since the kit doesn't supply any gauge face decals) and I used clear 5-minute epoxy for the gauge "glass." I didn't like the look of the kit's "brass" parts... it's that mirror-finish brass that looks like brass colored chrome. I wanted the look of natural unpolished brass, so I sprayed every brass part with Testors Transparent Black Window Tint to tone down the brass and give the parts some depth, then sprayed them each with Dullcote, which gave me that unpolished brass look that I wanted. The spotlight is a combination of brass and copper parts, so I brush painted the "copper" parts first, then did the window tint/dull coat routine. I also toned down the look of the car by going with black enamel on the side lights, headlights and tail light (instead of brass): Detail painting the wheels was a real pain. They're molded all in one piece, but I wanted the rims to be black and the rim clips to be "metal," so I had to paint all of the rims black (both sides of each wheel) and then paint all the rim clips a steel color. These cars came with various different color/pinstipe schemes... on yellow cars a common look was thin black and red pinstripes. At first I figured I'd draw the pinstripes on with fine-tip Sharpies, but after I thought about it a while, I realized that would be impossible. There was no way I could possibly draw the stripes on straight, and if I messed up at all, the Sharpie ink isn't easy to wash off, so I'd have to strip the body part and start all over. So....... I went with an "easy way out." Instead of trying to recreate the very thin dual black and red stripe look, I went with single, wide black stripes. I created all the stripes by masking the body panels with Scotch tape, and cutting the stripe shapes freehand with an X-acto. It wasn't easy to get the stripes perfect cutting the mask by hand, but I think I did pretty well: The engine was detailed with paint, but is otherwise pretty much out of the box (except for scratchbuilt spark plugs to replace the "stubs" on the kit parts. The seats were painted with acrylic craft paint in a custom mixed red color, then sprayed with that same black transparent window tint to tone down the color and give the seats some depth.... then a black wash to emphasize the seams. I also added the brass "snaps" on the sides of the seats by driling out the seat sides and inserting tiny brass nails (actually nails for planking a hull left over from a wooden ship kit). I also used these brass nails throughout the model to simulate bold heads where they were missing from the kit parts, like the steering column escutcheon plate on the dashboard, the mounting brackets for the side lamps, etc.:

Wow, that is very nicely done! Gotta question your "photo studio," though...

It is pretty catchy in a twisted sort of way!

Sorry, but that generic rationalization doesn't wash. How do you explain the fact that sometimes they "get it right," and other times they fail spectacularly? The bottom line was part of the equation in all instances, yet quality/accuracy varies widely from release to release. And besides... to simplify things to make a point: the guy(s) that are paid to measure stuff get paid the same amount whether they measure accurately or inaccurately. In other words, it doesn't cost any more to tool up an accurate kit than it does to tool up a kit with a roofline that's obviously wrong, for example. The process is the same. It's true that we've seen a lot of inaccurate kits over the years, for various reasons (cutting corners, the "good enough" philosophy, incompetence, whatever)... but it seems to me that if MPC was capable of tooling up accurate bodies nearly 50 years ago, without any computers or CAD to "help" them, wouldn't it be logical to assume that accurate bodies could still be tooled up in 2013???

Me too. But none of the ones from that era look like a Mustang. More like a junior Fairmont.

Open for business again. But if we have to do any more cleaning up today, this gets shut down for good. It's up to you guys.

BTO didn't do "radar Love," that's Golden Earring.

Darin, you've been one heck of a cheerleader for Revell regarding their new Mustang, but seriously... don't you sort of feel like Jody Arias' defense attorney? Seems to me that some of the Japanese kit makers successfully manufacture models that are well engineered, whose parts fit well, and which look exactly like their 1:1 counterparts, not a caricature of the subject. Revell doesn't yet seem to have mastered the art and science of model kit production to the level that the Japanese have. If they can do it, Revell can do it. It's a matter of want to.

True, 1/25 scale parts are obviously not exact scale reproductions of full size parts, but basic dimensions (length, width, height, wheelbase, etc. can be, and should be, accurately reproduced in scale and are not subject to any needed "finessing" to accommodate the injection-molding process.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to use a Chevelle as the donor kit?

If anyone should be reading this, it's Moebius.

Because you posted it in the wrong place.

Call me crazy, but if they would have simply taken measurements off a real Mustang, and not relied on someones "interpretation" of the subject, all of the mistakes in the model would have been prevented (or at the least, minimized). Bill (acegarageguy) mentioned this in a previous thread regarding the wildly varying sizes of the same thing (HEMI engine) from different kit manufacturers: Dimensions are dimensions. They are not someone's "opinion," they are numbers. Something that's 25 inches long in real life should be 1 inch long (or as close to that as the manufacturing process allows) in 1/25 scale. Period. Bringing up advertising illustrations to defend the inaccuracies of this kit is completely irrelevant. Advertising illustrations are meant to play on the viewer's emotions, there is some "artistic license" employed... especially in those completely inaccurate but aesthetically pleasing Pontiac "Wide Track ads of the '60s. But an illustration meant to entice a person to buy a product is not comparable to the product itself; it's a totally irrelevant comparison.

Time for that "tradition" to end. A scale model should be an accurate representation of the subject, not some designer's "interpretation" of the subject.

How about this one? Real or model? The answer: REAL!

Maybe not. But they should be getting an earful from their customers, to lessen the chances of another major mess-up like this one coming along next time. If they get the message from enough people that we won't accept this sort of product, maybe they'll get their act together and do better next time. Silence and acceptance of mediocrity (or worse) only encourages further mediocrity.

Wow! You guys are pretty passionate about your Fox Mustangs! I just read this thread for the first time. Lots of good points brought up, but it looks like it boils down to the usual two groups: those of you who expect a newly-tooled kit to be accurate, and those of you that for one reason or another don't care, or are willing to accept glaring errors (even to the point of defending the manufacturer! ). Seems to me that in this day and age, there is no excuse for a newly-tooled kit to be as inaccurate as this one apparently is. I have no personal interest in this kit, but if it was one that I had been anxiously waiting for and this is what I got, I'd be pretty bummed. Gotta say, I do not understand why some of you are so willing to overlook gross inaccuracies. I know, I know, "we're modelers... we can fix it." And yes, we can fix it, but that's not the point. The point is, we shouldn't have to fix it! It should never have been released this way! I strongly suggest that everyone who is disappointed in this kit make your feelings known to the manufacturer, either through email, a phone call, a letter, whatever. Let them know that you are unhappy with this kit. Unless you make your views known to the people who are in a position to address the problem, we'll just keep on seeing lousy new kits.

Oh, ok, I see. No problem.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep this private between the two of you, via PM?

Very nice! Your paint looks really good.

Looking good, Mike!

Right! The pros don't use lighter fluid. They use a chimney starter. I agree, that oily/gasoline smell of lighter fluid is ok at a drag strip... not so good on my steak.

You just may be the next Gerald Wingrove.

It's always nice to get something in the mail besides bills!