History of the MPC Fox Body Mustang

[Zen]

Interesting.............. may have to give this a try, thanks!

[mikos]

If I did this conversion, I’d do the front bumper/header panel slice and dice.  The upper body window section on the MPC kit is not that bad, certainly better than the one on the Revell “notchback” LX.

I wonder why Revell never tried to fix/correct it after all this time?  It’s like they just gave up on the kit or something.  

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, mikos said:

If I did this conversion, I’d do the front bumper/header panel slice and dice.  The upper body window section on the MPC kit is not that bad, certainly better than the one on the Revell “notchback” LX.

I wonder why Revell never tried to fix/correct it after all this time?  It’s like they just gave up on the kit or something.  

Fixing it for real would require a new body tooling and a new clear parts runner and that'd run over $70k (probably closer to $100k these days). In the end for all the kvetching that was done here when we nearly burnt this forum to the ground with the battle over how bad it looks being a scale 2" too low, neither the "general public" nor the the licensor actually cared. They sold out of both releases of the kit in relative short order of their arrival, so it's hard to justify spending that money to fix a problem that only a fraction of their customers actually cared about...I cared to the point I never bought one because I couldn't unsee it, but clearly someone else was happy to buy mine in the overall scheme of things.

[mikos]

1 hour ago, niteowl7710 said:

Fixing it for real would require a new body tooling and a new clear parts runner and that'd run over $70k (probably closer to $100k these days). In the end for all the kvetching that was done here when we nearly burnt this forum to the ground with the battle over how bad it looks being a scale 2" too low, neither the "general public" nor the the licensor actually cared. They sold out of both releases of the kit in relative short order of their arrival, so it's hard to justify spending that money to fix a problem that only a fraction of their customers actually cared about...I cared to the point I never bought one because I couldn't unsee it, but clearly someone else was happy to buy mine in the overall scheme of things.

It’s interesting that the licensor (Ford?) didn’t care about it enough to have it revised.  It’s a pretty obvious thing even if it was a cheap diecast model.

Wasn’t there another kit they did (Revell) and they changed it at the zero hour because it wasn’t accurate in some detail?  Maybe the Charger?

 

[Fat Brian]

8 minutes ago, mikos said:

It’s interesting that the licensor (Ford?) didn’t care about it enough to have it revised.  It’s a pretty obvious thing even if it was a cheap diecast model.

Wasn’t there another kit they did (Revell) and they changed it at the zero hour because it wasn’t accurate in some detail?  Maybe the Charger?

 

The 69 Charger, 57 Fairlane, 69 Mustang, and 70 Torino have all had revisions to their bodies or parts after release. Only the Charger was as much work as what the Mustang would need. Once the windows are in the Mustang it doesn't bother me as much. I also sanded the edge of the roof a bit thinner and it helps some.

[Can-Con]

18 minutes ago, mikos said:

It’s interesting that the licensor (Ford?) didn’t care about it enough to have it revised.  It’s a pretty obvious thing even if it was a cheap diecast model.

Wasn’t there another kit they did (Revell) and they changed it at the zero hour because it wasn’t accurate in some detail?  Maybe the Charger?

 

The roof on the Charger had a sever chop, looked like George Bareass got at it.

The Mustang, while most of us see it, it's not something most casual builder would care about hence not worth the 70 to 100 thousand dollars to cut a new body and glass mold to fix for them.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Can-Con

[1972coronet]

55 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

The roof on the Charger had a sever chop, looked like George Bareass got at it.

I laughed entirely too hard at your name of that "customiser" ! HAHAHAHAHAHA !

[mikos]

1 hour ago, Can-Con said:

The roof on the Charger had a sever chop, looked like George Bareass got at it.

The Mustang, while most of us see it, it's not something most casual builder would care about hence not worth the 70 to 100 thousand dollars to cut a new body and glass mold to fix for them.

I think a business case could be made for it.  Potential new sales of a corrected roof Mustang notchback version versus a straight reissue of the old chop top version would favor the new one IMO.   I believe sales of a corrected roof version would justify the expense to do it.  Just like there’s a justification on tooling a brand new Mustang kit with the exact same variants coming out (007 Bond version and etc) as the 50 year old AMT/MPC kit.

Let’s say $40 MSRP.  $40 times 20k kits sold equals ~$80k dollars.  So, you just made up the expense to do it.  Of course, this doesn’t include how much profit Revell is actually making at that retail price.  If you make several variations like a stock version, police version, custom drag and race versions, I think you could hit that mark.  Then, if you need a little extra profit to pad that number, reissue the incorrect slammed roof version with tooling changes as a pseudo funny car.

Edited September 26, 2023 by mikos

[Fat Brian]

2 hours ago, mikos said:

Let’s say $40 MSRP.  $40 times 20k kits sold equals ~$80k dollars.

That's the thing, the average run of a kit today is 5k pieces. You might see 10k on a new tooling that's expected to really move. The only way they're going back to the well on the Mustang kit is if they decide to do a GT one day. Personally, I think that's highly unlikely because it under cuts kits they've already got, the 1/24 93 Cobra R and 90 convertible kits. 

[Justin Porter]

The majority of the Revell notchbacks that I've sold have been specifically the drag version - the stock/pursuit version of the kit was a shelf queen - and have by and large gone either to casual builders who just want to build a drag racing Mustang like they see week in, week out at local tracks like Norwalk and Dragway 42 OR they've gone to slot car drag racers who churn out builds of the kit by the dozens because it's both a style drag racers like and it's a relatively light body which is good for racing. 

It's a top ten seller in my shop, and I genuinely cannot state that in all the years I've carried the kit I've ever sold one to someone I've known as a serious replica stock builder.

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

17 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

Fixing it for real would require a new body tooling and a new clear parts runner and that'd run over $70k (probably closer to $100k these days). In the end for all the kvetching that was done here when we nearly burnt this forum to the ground with the battle over how bad it looks being a scale 2" too low, neither the "general public" nor the the licensor actually cared. They sold out of both releases of the kit in relative short order of their arrival, so it's hard to justify spending that money to fix a problem that only a fraction of their customers actually cared about...I cared to the point I never bought one because I couldn't unsee it, but clearly someone else was happy to buy mine in the overall scheme of things.

This sums it up very well. Spending the money to fix it just can't be justified when the financial return isn't there. And when the money isn't there the time to assign a person to work on it isn't either.

I does give a strong case for 3d scanning the actual car to produce the model. The new Revell Mustang is a perfect example. Hopefully the scanning will become the standard in the future.

[mikos]

 

6 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

The majority of the Revell notchbacks that I've sold have been specifically the drag version - the stock/pursuit version of the kit was a shelf queen - and have by and large gone either to casual builders who just want to build a drag racing Mustang like they see week in, week out at local tracks like Norwalk and Dragway 42 OR they've gone to slot car drag racers who churn out builds of the kit by the dozens because it's both a style drag racers like and it's a relatively light body which is good for racing. 

It's a top ten seller in my shop, and I genuinely cannot state that in all the years I've carried the kit I've ever sold one to someone I've known as a serious replica stock builder.

 

That’s interesting.  I guess it was born to sell as a drag car and the slight chop top just adds to the look of a dragster.  

Edited September 26, 2023 by mikos

[mikos]

3 hours ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

We keep talking about financial returns, but what is the financial return business case for the new 71 Mustang kit?  If the average person doesn’t really care about the notchback Mustang being inaccurate, then why would they care for a super accurate ‘71 Mustang kit?   Even though it’s old and simplistic, Round2 already has a ‘71-‘73 Mustang kit that builds into a fairly nice replica with a little bit of work.

Edited September 26, 2023 by mikos

[Justin Porter]

5 minutes ago, mikos said:

We keep talking about financial returns, but what is the financial return business case for the new 71 Mustang kit?  If the average person doesn’t really care about the notchback Mustang being inaccurate, then why would they care for a super accurate ‘71 Mustang kit?  

I understand most people on here would and you can include me in that group.  However, we’re talking about the average builder.  The guy or gal who is a casual builder who doesn’t mind that the Mustang LX notchback has a short greenhouse.  If the general sentiment is the average builder just doesn’t care about those things, then why isn’t the old AMT/MPC ‘71-‘73 Mustang good enough for them?  Even though these kits get slammed by a few people here for their simplicity and inaccurate details, they do build into fairly nice replicas with a little bit of work. They’re not Palmer kits or anything.

You can’t have it both ways.   Revell obviously found the business case for spending the development money to tool up a brand new kit of the big body Mustang to compete with Round2.   So, I’d have to argue that since no one ever made a stock notchback Fox body Mustang before or since, it would be a good business case to correct the notchback tool. They wouldn’t have to design the kit from scratch.  It would be just the body section and clear parts that would need to be revised or redone.  They had no problem correcting the low top on their Charger tool.  Why is the Mustang kit so difficult?

So, let us break down a few things that you need to not ignore.

1 - Revell is an international company. Not commanding the USA because Round 2 is pumping out reissues isn't as big a loss to them because they're much bigger in the bigger modeling markets of Europe, South America, and the Far East. 

2 - The Bond License. It doesn't matter if Revell USA has tepid sales of the Boss 351 (which it hasn't. They're flying off my shelves) because Revell is going to sell a bunch of "Diamonds Are Forever" Mustangs in the UK. The international Bond license is so valuable to Revell that they have tooled a 100% new Goldfinger Aston Martin DB5. 

3 - The Revell of NOW isn't the Revell of ten years ago. Revell under Quantum is a different company from Revell under Hobbico. It has different priorities - such as re-energizing its stagnant 1/48th and 1/32nd scale aircraft ranges, becoming less reliant on reboxed ICM tooling, and making its line of paints and glues more of a global household name instead of merely a European one - and different processes from Revell under Hobbico. Why would it WANT to divert funding from new projects that suit its current business model to address issues with products that are already selling well in secondary markets?

4 - Market Share. As a business, Revell does understand that every dollar that buys a competitors product is one they didn't get. 100% of the '71 through '73 Mustang kit sales belonged to Round 2. Now they belong to Revell because no one is walking into my shop asking for the AMT or MPC kits. Revell has taken that piece of the market, and if Round 2 wants it back they need to come up with a better and/or cheaper product than Revell did. We as builders ultimately win when companies compete for market share because they push each other to do better.

[av405]

7 hours ago, Justin Porter said:

The majority of the Revell notchbacks that I've sold have been specifically the drag version - the stock/pursuit version of the kit was a shelf queen - and have by and large gone either to casual builders who just want to build a drag racing Mustang like they see week in, week out at local tracks like Norwalk and Dragway 42 OR they've gone to slot car drag racers who churn out builds of the kit by the dozens because it's both a style drag racers like and it's a relatively light body which is good for racing. 

It's a top ten seller in my shop, and I genuinely cannot state that in all the years I've carried the kit I've ever sold one to someone I've known as a serious replica stock builder.

Are you sure those sales aren't an anomaly? The stock/pursuit version sold out fairly quickly from what I was able to see and I rarely see it for sale in the second hand/ebay market. When I do find them, they are usually listed for $60+. The drag version is still widely available and I have seen that kit sitting at every major hobby store/Hobby Lobby I've been to all these years later. I'm not debating your point about modeler's general interest (drag vs stock), but what I've seen as a customer has been the exact opposite of what you said. 

[Tabbysdaddy]

Hobby Lobby still had the police version on the shelf last time I went there, as well as the drag version. 

[mikos]

1. Yes, Round2 basically caters to the U.S. market in their plastic model car kit product line.  However, if the international market is so important to Revell, why didn’t they make their ‘71 Mustang 1/24th scale?  Isn’t that the more popular scale world wide?  

2. The Goldfinger DB5 (correction) is 1/24th scale, I believe.  The Mustang which is 1/25th scale.   It’s clear they wanted to steal sales directly from Round2 by making a direct competitor Mustang kit.  Yet, they have no problem staying with 1/24th scale for the Bond DB9 and the upcoming C8 Corvette.  They sacrificed international sales for a more limited U.S. sales market with the ‘71 Mustang.

3. Yes, the Revell of today is very different than the Revell of a few years ago under Hobbico.  That’s unfortunate because they were really stepping up to the plate with a lot new releases.  New releases of new stuff like the Ford Raptor PU, the SRT-8 Challenger, the 5th gen Camaro ZL1, the C7 Corvette, ‘83 Hurst Olds, ‘72 Hurst Cutlass and many others.

Revell expanding into paint and glue is partly the result of the huge vacuum leftover by Testors when they discontinued their Model Master paint line and other products.  

4. Round2 could retool the AMT Mustang body into a convertible (slice the top off and tool up a convertible boot) and throw everyone for a huge surprise with that.  Unfortunately, I think the reissues of old kits is a niche Revell wants to ignore.  That’s why I suggested that if Revell could use cloning technology to remake the ‘69 Mustang convertible kit mentioned earlier, they could have a slice of the market that Round2 is dominating.  It’s obvious they wanted to compete with Round2 by making their ‘71 Mustang 1/25th scale.  So, why not go even further and start reissuing/cloning some older kits as well.  

Edited September 27, 2023 by mikos

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, mikos said:

1. Yes, Round2 basically caters to the U.S. market in their plastic model car kit product line.  However, if the international market is so important to Revell, why didn’t they make their ‘71 Mustang 1/24th scale?  Isn’t that the more popular scale world wide?  

2. The Goldfinger DB9 is 1/24th scale, I believe.  The Mustang which is 1/25th scale.   It’s clear they wanted to steal sales directly from Round2 by making a direct competitor Mustang kit.  Yet, they have no problem staying with 1/24th scale for the Bond DB9 and the upcoming C8 Corvette.  They sacrificed international sales for a more limited U.S. sales market with the ‘71 Mustang.

3. Yes, the Revell of today is very different than the Revell of a few years ago under Hobbico.  That’s unfortunate because they were really stepping up to the plate with a lot new releases.  New releases of new stuff like the Ford Raptor PU, the SRT-8 Challenger, the 5th gen Camaro ZL1, the C7 Corvette, ‘83 Hurst Olds, ‘72 Hurst Cutlass and many others.

Revell expanding into paint and glue is partly the result of the huge vacuum leftover by Testors when they discontinued their Model Master paint line and other products.  

4. Round2 could retool the AMT Mustang body into a convertible (slice the top off and tool up a convertible boot) and throw everyone for a huge surprise with that.  Unfortunately, I think the reissues of old kits is a niche Revell wants to ignore.  That’s why I suggested that if Revell could use cloning technology to remake the ‘69 Mustang convertible kit mentioned earlier, they could have a slice of the market that Round2 is dominating.  It’s obvious they wanted to compete with Round2 by making their ‘71 Mustang 1/25th scale.  So, why not go even further and start reissuing/cloning some older kits as well.  

4. If you "slice off the top" you are either permanently and forever damaging the tool in a way that they can never release a regular Mustang again, or we're back to the throwing a huge bucket of money at a body tool because you're going to need at least the top half of the mold, and perhaps new sides (I'm not familiar enough with the 1:1s to know if there needs to be different side trim and/or body shapes involved.

1/2/3 - Revell under Quantum still has a U.S. arm and plans to service the U.S. market. The '71 Mustang was a kit that was measured and designed here. It's is first a foremost a Revell USA release that happens to have a RevellAG boxing of it as well. Based on the fact that Quantum owns everything now they can go ahead an utilize the resources of this new kit to release the 007 kit. I couldn't swear to it, but I believe the Bond License that Quantum has is for Europe (with Round2 having the U.S./North American one). None of the upcoming 007 kits have an "U.S. Rebox" pending and the only way they'll come is in the Euro Boxing.

Lastly it's a business case to do a '71-73 Mustang because the MPC kit is an unholy wreck of a model, even with the "fixed" front end. This goes back to an earlier point from another thread. Military Modelers don't ask these questions. They expect new kits of EVERYTHING all the time. A 15 year old kit is demanding a more modern re-do in that world. The MPC kit 52 years old at this point, and anyone who's been around the hobby for more than an hour knows what they're getting in that box. The new Revell 71 is state of the art, and something that's been needed for...well 50 years ever since the MPC became a 71 then a 72, then a 73...then sorta a 71 again, then sorta a 73...never had a right engine for any of the later year reissues etc etc. It's not much of a competiton to me, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if we aren't buried in an avalanche of eBay sales of people trying to unload that MPC kit out of their collections now that it's been supplanted by the new Revell offering.

[tim boyd]

I've been following this thread with a good deal of interest.  For those that do not know that much about how the car kit industry works, there is much to learn here.  Good knowledge from informed sources to be had.  

Having said that, personally I just don't see any overlap between the new Revell Boss 351 and the prior AMT and MPC 1971 Mustang kits as kit subjects.    

The Revell Boss 351 kit, in my humble opinion, (and it is an opinion, so take that into account), sets a new and very high worldwide standard for 1/24th/1/25th scale kits replicating the original muscle car era. 

On the other hand, those original AMT and MPC 1971/72 Mustang annual kits were not anywhere near state-of-the-art annual kits, even when they were new back in the day, starting with the fact that none of the engines under the hoods were even remotely factory correct.  As for the bodies, all you have to do is start reading Rex's litany of errors in both of those original annual kits posted in this forum over the years.  Could those kits be made into a realistic model today? Yes, with a ton of time and effort and considerable kit bashing skills, but even then, I doubt the result would be anywhere near comparable to the new Revell kit built straight from the box with paint detailing only....

So, do all three kits attempt to replicate the original 1/1 subject?  Yes, but that is just about all they have in common.  Otherwise, they are universes apart.  And I respectfully suggest anyone who disagrees to take the time to build the new Revell side by side with either of the original AMT or MPC kits and then revisit the subject....

Meanwhile, I also fully support Round 2's effort to bring to market, via their cloning approach, kits of more specialized topics that would not justify the business case of creating an all-new tool up to the standards of today's leading-edge products.  

In our enthusiasm for our hobby, we often forget that the kitmakers are businesses.  They have limited resources (time, money, personnel) and can only survive and thrive if they make sound business decisions about deploying these resources.  And as some of you have commented, today's market for 1/25th scale model kits is a mere fraction of what it was back in the day, and also a mere fraction of all the overall hobby kit universe (military, aircraft, sci-fi, Gundam, et al). Bottom line?  It's a very limited volume opportunity, and a very limited business opportunity.  With this cloning kit development approach, I would never rule out the possibility of a newly tooled clone of old kits from any manufacturer, but I would also suspect that cloning old Jo-Han tools (irrespective of copyright and licensing issues) or that really mediocre original Revell 1969/1970 annual kit convertible/hardtop, would be well down the list of potential opportunities.  Just wait until you see what they have up their sleeve over the next year or two to see what i mean.  But the Round 2 team has surprised me before so never say never!    

Meanwhile, good, respectful and interesting dialogue in this thread...Good job, guys!   TB 

Edited September 27, 2023 by tim boyd

[vamach1]

Spot on as always Tim.  If the 69/70 Revell molds were still around I’m sure they would sell some “new” based on the nostalgia factor and that unlike kits that have been reissued a dozen times and must still sell or else they would end up in the clearance aisle we have not seen these on the Five and Dime stores in over 50 years.  I was lucky enough to buy two “builder” ones at swap meets but personally I would not pay the current collector prices because as you said the kits are typical of the era and expecting a dead on accurate kit mass procured that sold for $2 at the time was unrealistic.  However, IF they were ever revived I would pick up one of each just to see how it could be improved with some engine compartment and chassis upgrades.  Of course if all new tooling were made or even a modified reworking of the Boss 302/Mach1 molds I would be first in line to buy a convertible version as long it was not molded in the retro green plastic. 😆 Can’t wait to see what Revell has up their sleves.

[bobthehobbyguy]

3 hours ago, tim boyd said:

I've been following this thread with a good deal of interest.  For those that do not know that much about how the car kit industry works, there is much to learn here.  Good knowledge from informed sources to be had.  

Having said that, personally I just don't see any overlap between the new Revell Boss 351 and the prior AMT and MPC 1971 Mustang kits as kit subjects.    

The Revell Boss 351 kit, in my humble opinion, (and it is an opinion, so take that into account), sets a new and very high worldwide standard for 1/24th/1/25th scale kits replicating the original muscle car era. 

On the other hand, those original AMT and MPC 1971/72 Mustang annual kits were not anywhere near state-of-the-art annual kits, even when they were new back in the day, starting with the fact that none of the engines under the hoods were even remotely factory correct.  As for the bodies, all you have to do is start reading Rex's litany of errors in both of those original annual kits posted in this forum over the years.  Could those kits be made into a realistic model today? Yes, with a ton of time and effort and considerable kit bashing skills, but even then, I doubt the result would be anywhere near comparable to the new Revell kit built straight from the box with paint detailing only....

So, do all three kits attempt to replicate the original 1/1 subject?  Yes, but that is just about all they have in common.  Otherwise, they are universes apart.  And I respectfully suggest anyone who disagrees to take the time to build the new Revell side by side with either of the original AMT or MPC kits and then revisit the subject....

Meanwhile, I also fully support Round 2's effort to bring to market, via their cloning approach, kits of more specialized topics that would not justify the business case of creating an all-new tool up to the standards of today's leading-edge products.  

In our enthusiasm for our hobby, we often forget that the kitmakers are businesses.  They have limited resources (time, money, personnel) and can only survive and thrive if they make sound business decisions about deploying these resources.  And as some of you have commented, today's market for 1/25th scale model kits is a mere fraction of what it was back in the day, and also a mere fraction of all the overall hobby kit universe (military, aircraft, sci-fi, Gundam, et al). Bottom line?  It's a very limited volume opportunity, and a very limited business opportunity.  With this cloning kit development approach, I would never rule out the possibility of a newly tooled clone of old kits from any manufacturer, but I would also suspect that cloning old Jo-Han tools (irrespective of copyright and licensing issues) or that really mediocre original Revell 1969/1970 annual kit convertible/hardtop, would be well down the list of potential opportunities.  Just wait until you see what they have up their sleeve over the next year or two to see what i mean.  But the Round 2 team has surprised me before so never say never!    

Meanwhile, good, respectful and interesting dialogue in this thread...Good job, guys!   TB 

Great points Tim. Bottom line is that the decisions have to make financial sense. There is not a lot of margin for recovering from errors.

One thing I'd lave to see Round2 restore would the the 1932 Chevy panel from the Barabas atrocity.  However I'm not sure there is a strong enough business case for that.

 

[mikos]

15 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

4. If you "slice off the top" you are either permanently and forever damaging the tool in a way that they can never release a regular Mustang again, or we're back to the throwing a huge bucket of money at a body tool because you're going to need at least the top half of the mold, and perhaps new sides (I'm not familiar enough with the 1:1s to know if there needs to be different side trim and/or body shapes involved.

Very good points Niteowl.  

As for the ‘71-‘73 Mustang convertible, I was thinking more along the lines of them converting the old AMT body tool into one.  They have two separate tools of the big Mustang, the MPC and the AMT Mustang version.  The current AMT kit is based on the MPC tool, I believe.  

However, like you stated, they may have to make a brand new tool for a convertible body style which would make it cost prohibitive.   Even though a brand new tool would always be preferred, if they can possibly modify the old AMT body into a convertible body style that would be great too.  

Edited September 27, 2023 by mikos

[vamach1]

1 hour ago, mikos said:

Very good points Niteowl.  

As for the ‘71-‘73 Mustang convertible, I was thinking more along the lines of them converting the old AMT body tool into one.  They have two separate tools of the big Mustang, the MPC and the AMT Mustang version.  The current AMT kit is based on the MPC tool, I believe.  

However, like you stated, they may have to make a brand new tool for a convertible body style which would make it cost prohibitive.   Even though a brand new tool would always be preferred, if they can possibly modify the old AMT body into a convertible body style that would be great too.  

The trickiest part is getting the trunk size and shape correct on the convertible and of course the flatter profile from the doors back, making a boot and/or top and revising the rear seat area.  Revell did this with the 69 Shelby GT500 fastback mold so it’s possible but I would not hold my breath on a 71-73 convertible version anytime soon.  I hope I’m wrong.  I would not lose any sleep if either the AMT or MPC was forever converted to a convertible as long as they at least fixed the MPC hood and included options to build a 72 or 73 with the different grilles and bumpers but that’s a complete fantasy.

Edited September 27, 2023 by vamach1

[mk11]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:22 PM, vamach1 said:

The trickiest part is getting the trunk size and shape correct on the convertible and of course the flatter profile from the doors back...

 

Not that it will make much difference in scale, but the coupe/ragtop windshield is slightly taller and more upright than the fastback. Wish I'd had my camera when I was at a friend's garage, seeing them sitting side by side...

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by mk11

[vamach1]

1 hour ago, mk11 said:

Not that it will make much difference in scale, but the coupe/ragtop windshield is slightly taller and more upright than the fastback. Wish I'd had my camera when I was at a friend's garage, seeing them sitting side by side...

Yes I forgot about that too.