Revell 1969 Mustang Boss 302............My take with pics!

[Rob Hall]

11 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

Rob, I think Len meant the '69 which is 1/25.

He stated 70, which are 1/24th. 

[MrObsessive]

We'll let Len speak for himself if he'd like.

[Len Woodruff]

I did say the 70 Mach 1 & Boss. Since I thought they might have been 1/25.5 and the new Boss might have also been 1/25.5 Maybe they would fit.

[Force]

A piece in 1/25.5 scale is 0.5 times smaller than 1/25...if the original measure is divided with a higher number you get a smaller piece in scale, so in this case a 1/25.5 piece is 1.5 times smaller than 1/24 and closer to 1/26.
The 1970 is supposed to be 1/24 and the 1969 1/25, I haven't measured them but the 1970 is significantly larger than the 1969 when you compare them.
It would have been nice if it had worked tho' because of the two I like the 1969 front better and I also like the rear panel and tail lights of the 1970 better.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Force

[gui_tarzan]

On 12/22/2018 at 9:15 PM, Snake45 said:

Oh yes, MUCH improved. I can see it from here! 

I've always wanted to do Mickey Thompson's '69 Boss 429 Pro Stock. Even started one back in the day, now long gone. Started another one when the Revell '69 Mach I came out, then gave up on it when I discovered I couldn't live with the nose shape. Maybe THIS time around I can get it done! 

This is a front shot of the '69 we had when I was a kid. This new kit is much better than the rest, I can't wait to get some. 

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, gui_tarzan said:

This is a front shot of the '69 we had when I was a kid. This new kit is much better than the rest, I can't wait to get some. 

That looks exactly like my old high school/college buddy Dwayne's Mach I, except his was a 428 with the shaker hood. I don't remember what color his interior was, possibly it was black but it might have been red. He had big tires on Cragars on the rear. 

[Casey]

On 12/23/2018 at 8:56 PM, Motor City said:

Based on what you have said, it sounds like the best thing to do is take the hood and interior from the Mach 1 and use it in the Boss kit.  Then sell the Mach 1 for parts.

To be more clear on what Raoul said, the 1/25 Revell '69 Mach 1 428 Cobra Jet kit has always included the '69 Shelby interior, so it was never correct...and still isn't in this new '69 Boss 302.

As mentioned, this new Boss 302 appears to be the Revell '69 Mach 1 428 Cobra Jet kit with some new parts. 'Glass' is nearly identical (save for the elimination of the lenses molded in the would-be headliner area), tail lights are the same, and it's clear an insert was created to include the new hood, too. The engine parts are all new, since both the '69 Shelby and Mach1 had 428 big blocks, and even without that, the runners for the two new groups or parts have larger radii at the corners than the old runners cut in the '80s when the '69 Shelby kit was new.

Thank you to those who mentioned the quarter window, shock tower, and interior accuracy issues. 

[peteski]

On 12/23/2018 at 9:09 AM, MrObsessive said:

That's the BIG thing that jumped out at me besides the VERY accurate front end...........those tires! Yeah, it would be great if Revell jumped into that market of selling those tires (along with their tampo printed redlines) in parts packs.

I'm sure a number of these kits will sell big time alone because of FINALLY getting some decent tires and not the nameless, soulless blobs we were getting before.

I agree.  It is so good to finally see kits released with branded tires.  I'm so sick of all those plain blank sidewalls.  Tire companies should be glad that they are getting free advertisement.

[mk11]

13 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

That wouldn’t make sense as the 70 kits are 1/24th and the front styling is different. 

The scale issue may make a slight difference, but the '69/'70 fenders are the same front profile in 1:1. The headlight doors bolt up to either one.

 

mike

[MrObsessive]

47 minutes ago, mk11 said:

The scale issue may make a slight difference, but the '69/'70 fenders are the same front profile in 1:1. The headlight doors bolt up to either one.

 

mike

Seeing your post Mike and looking at Len's original question makes me think that mixing and matching parts to correct that Monogram '70 Mustang Boss 302 using this new tool '69 Boss 302 front end is VERY doable, the scale differences notwithstanding.

At least for me.

It might involve some 'stretching' (or 'shrinking' depending on which kit you work with) of certain things, but it can be done. The Monogram '70 front end for instance never looked right to me. It looks like it was surprised by something with its "poppy eyed" appearance!  

At the moment though, I'm not of the ambition to attempt it. I can see exactly what needs to be changed and in what manner, just the time and wanting to do it now is a whole 'nuther matter.

[Luc Janssens]

1 hour ago, mk11 said:

The scale issue may make a slight difference, but the '69/'70 fenders are the same front profile in 1:1. The headlight doors bolt up to either one.

 

mike

Indeed, at one time I was looking at some replacement body panels website, and the only difference between the '69 & '70 fenders is the extra cut-out for the side markers on the '70.

[Force]

4 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

The Monogram '70 front end for instance never looked right to me. It looks like it was surprised by something with its "poppy eyed" appearance!

At least in the boxart pictures it looks weird, the eyebrows above the headlights should go down a bit more and be more straight for to get the more  mean look the real cars have, but if you paint the grille as it should be it looks a lot better as you hide some of the "poppy eye" look.

Original Monogram boxart

Real cars for comparence

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by Force

[MrObsessive]

The problem though lies in those end caps. They're too 'flared up' which to my eyes gives it that surprised look. One could (if they have the patience and skill) redo that whole front end by perhaps cutting the entire nose off, reworking those end caps and grille (it's too tall) and then reattaching the whole works. At least that's the way I'd approach it.

Without the other bodywork in the way (crown of the front of the fenders for instance), it would make it easier to take on this. I've seen some that had the grille painted correctly, I just can't get past the overall appearance.

[Force]

Well the nose with the end caps is a separate piece so make some changes to it isn't that difficult, the grille has to be altered some to get the eyebrows more straight and lengthen the hood downwards slightly and reshape it and the front of the fenders so they will fit the new grille line.
The old 1969 Mustang Mach 1 Cobra Jet kit had the same problem with the end caps and grille but it looks like they rectified it now.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Force

[Rob Hall]

6 hours ago, mk11 said:

The scale issue may make a slight difference, but the '69/'70 fenders are the same front profile in 1:1. The headlight doors bolt up to either one.

 

mike

The grille design is different, and the 70 has only 2 headlights (which are larger than the '69s). I still don't see any point to trying to fit a '69 front end on a '70.  

[Snake45]

3 hours ago, Force said:

At least in the boxart pictures it looks weird, the eyebrows above the headlights should go down a bit more and be more straight for to get the more  mean look the real cars have, but if you paint the grille as it should be it looks a lot better as you hide some of the "poppy eye" look.

Original Monogram boxart

Real cars for comparence

 

Okay, these pics show where the real problem with the Revellogram bodies is. 

look at the character line running down the side of the body. Notice that when it gets to the cap, it turns around the front of the car, still more or less level, perhaps going up a LITTLE to meet the top of the grille. 

Now look at the Mono bodies. That line now makes a very apparent upward angle to meet the top of a grille that might be too tall. This would mean that the front of the hood and front of the fender caps are too high. 

Hmmmmmm....

[MrObsessive]

Just to be nosy..................

This could be six of one, or half a dozen of the other but rethinking this------it would be much easier IMO to rework the '70 front end than trying to get the '69's front end to play nice and match up so to speak. Less crazy making is much better in my book these days.

[dodgefever]

On 24/12/2018 at 6:06 AM, mk11 said:

I guess you can't blame revell for not blowing a lot of money on the modifications to make this kit look better. Thanks, Raoul, for the confirmation of what I'd suspected looking at Bill's pics. Unfortunately that means most of the original flaws are still present, including the quarter window                             

revell top, amt middle, mpc bottom

 

mike

 

Apart from the window, the whole quarter panel bothers me on the Revell/Monogram body.  It almost looks like it's been shortened, and the wheel opening is too tall and too square.  Also, the lower edge appears to angle up too sharply towards the bumper.  I didn't notice it as much on the Boss 429, but I never felt the Shelby I built looked right in that area.

I'm well aware of their other shortcomings, but the rear quarters on the AMT and MPC look more like the real thing, to my eye.

[Force]

The reason I would like to use the 69 nose on a 70 body (or a 70 tail panel with lights on a 69 body) is that I like  the 69 front and the 70 tail lights better, so a hybrid of both suites my taste just fine. 

[mk11]

I would tend to agree with Stu regarding the proportionality of the revell body; it's always looked kinda pudgy, a little thick through the middle to me.

On ‎2018‎-‎12‎-‎26 at 8:22 AM, Snake45 said:

Okay, these pics show where the real problem with the Revellogram bodies is. 

look at the character line running down the side of the body. Notice that when it gets to the cap, it turns around the front of the car, still more or less level, perhaps going up a LITTLE to meet the top of the grille. 

Now look at the Mono bodies. That line now makes a very apparent upward angle to meet the top of a grille that might be too tall. This would mean that the front of the hood and front of the fender caps are too high...

You've nailed it, Rich. There's definitely a slight upward slope toward the middle but not as severe as the one designed into the monogram 1/10 master and passed on to all the succeeding variants.

 

Bill's pics show part of the rest of the hot mess made of the front fenders. These views shows how they splay outwards, adding to the wonky look. The fender lines actually have a more gentle curve into the front. A little careful sanding will probably reduce the worst of this flaw.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by mk11

[MrObsessive]

For whatever reason, I was getting a sense of Deja Vu with the whole subject of the '70 Mustang front end. Here's a thread I dug up from 2007 that goes into this quite a bit.

Just thought I'd pass it along for those that weren't here then..........my how time flies!

[randyc]

So, the interior tub has panels with no armrest detail?  And traditionally light panel detail?  

I've built the boss 429 and have a Boss 302 somewhere that is probably a dead project for me.  Can't remember the interior door details.  But for me, the new body doesn't make up for a lack of proper interior.   

That will be the biggest disappointment for me.  I need to go back to page 1 and look at photos again.  Edit:  I looked.   I have lost all interest in this kit.   I'm sure you guys will build some beautiful replicas, but I'll pass.  

And I see the quarter window issue now as well.   Oh well, I have enough Mustangs for now anyway.   

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by randyc

[Casey]

2 hours ago, randyc said:

So, the interior tub has panels with no armrest detail?  And traditionally light panel detail?  

[vamach1]

Complaints aside remember how it was way back when. 

[Motor City]

Whew!  I've got so much eyestrain from studying the details of the '69 and '70 that I need to go look at my '65 and '74 Mustang promos!  At least I won't be tempted to make any corrections to those.