Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

It's out, I have already got one up on it's wheels to check the fit. I haven't decided on the color yet, but it will be a "restified GT, with "C" stripes, and emblems. A full review will come later. The kit has only one version, the "Bullitt" car, not a stock '68 Mustang GT out of the box.

Edited by Ron Hamilton
Posted
Is this a 2 in 1 kit, with option for stock and drag, or custom? I believe it was to be a Dec. release (?)

I just took delivery of a couple of boxes and was upset to find the kit is nothing but a repop of the old metal diecast Bullitt kit of several years ago. It just has a plastic body this time around and doesn't have the painted parts. Ditto on the '68 Mustand GT 2 in 1 kit that is coming soon. Big clunky parts and screws to hold it all together. Very disappointing.

Richard Shouse

RCS Motorsport Models of Texas

Posted
I am really hoping that Revell eventually will see fit to release plastic versions of its "Route 66" '62 Corvette and "Smokey and the Bandit" Trans Am. If/when they do, those kits will be far and away the best representations those two subjects have ever had in plastic.

Sorry to hear you're disappointed with the Bullitt kit, but, the fact is, Revell never tried to hide its origins, and the fact it would be diecast-based has been well-publicized here and elsewhere.

The Corvette is being released in the spring, hopefully the Trans Am will come later in the year. They are both far superior to what has been available before, and a good step up from the earlier Mustangs that are a bit more crude. My only gripe with the Trans Am is the lack of Trans Am markings and the completely undetailed tire sidewalls. I have one of the Rte. 66 Corvette kits; I hope Revell flashes over the luggage rack holes on the decklid, but it decimates AMT's sorry '62. I worry that the thick wall section in the front of the model might result in some sink marks not evident on the diecast.

Posted

I don't like to pile on, but yeah - it's not as if we haven't had one precedent after another from Revell in converted diecast kits to show you exactly what to expect in the case of the '68 Mustangs. I would have hoped Revell refined the funky greenhouse and fixed the wheel arches reversed front and rear as they did with the '67 GT350, but my expectation has always been that we'd see the exact same kit shot in plastic. If anyone's expecting any great shakes out of Revell's upcoming '70 Challenger, then allow me to forewarn you right now: you'll probably want to stick with the AMT kit.

I'm really looking forward to the 2-in-1 '68 GT to follow. That sucker'll have newly added drag parts, and if past is prologue, those parts will be way cool. I've also long pondered a '68 1/2 CJ conversion for an AMT '67, and it looks like that kit will give me much of what I need in one convenient box.

STOKED about that '62 Corvette, as well! It'll be so cool to finally have a decent ducktail C1 in plastic.

Posted
FINALLY a use for those Dyno Don Nicholson decals that Revell put in the first issue of the '69 Super CJ, even though they were not correct for that car!

HIGH FIVE, Baby!

Just what I was thinkin'...

<_<

Posted (edited)

Speaking of 428CJ Mustangs, there is an article in the new issue of Legendary Ford magazine with a sweet '68 428 CJ Wimbeldon White base Mustang fastback w/ funky dog dish hubcaps and steelies (never seen a Mustang with those). Pretty rare car. By the way, is the upcoming Revell '68 Mustang GT a 390 or 428? I don't have the diecast version, not familiar with it.

Edited by Rob Hall
Posted (edited)
By the way, is the upcoming Revell '68 Mustang GT a 390 or 428? I don't have the diecast version, not familiar with it.

Call it what you would like as they are externally the same block and all heads and intakes interchanged.

HTH :P

Edited by bigphoto
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

The Die Cast Mustangs were supposed to be 390's so I'd assume. But Tim's right too, you CAN call it any size you want, as ALL FE blocks were the same.352,390, 402, 427, there are probly some others ,but these come to mind right away. B)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...