Soooo... About that Revell 69 Mustang Mach1 headlights problem...

[SpeedAndViolence]

So I have found a 69 Mach 1 on line that I would really like replicate in a scale model. I'm now committed in that I have already begun the process of ordering the necessary aftermarket items that will at least get me started. As I'm digging, I stumbled upon several articles here in the MCM forums pertaining to the egregious appearance of the 69 Mustang headlights. Long story short, it was bad enough that Dmitiri (D-Mold) made a resin correction set for it, but he has not been in business for many years. Upon further reading, it appears that Revell corrected the issue, and re-released the kit. 

I have the kit pictured below and took a photo of the part in question, and I really cannot tell if I have a corrected piece or not. Can you tell if it is? If it is *not* the corrected part, is there an accurate alternative available? I don't want to wait until the end of my project to realize my track terror restomod looks like it's about to cry. Thanks in advance! 

 

 

Edited March 20 by SpeedAndViolence

[sfhess]

The Revell 69 Boss 302 kit is the only one that has the revised nose.

 

[1930fordpickup]

I believe they are still at hobby lobby. The boss kit.

[Bainford]

As Scot mentioned above, you need the Revell Boss 302 to get the corrected front end (I can see that yours is definitely not the corrected piece). However, the Boss 302 does not have the Mach 1 quarter panel vents behind the doors (nor the shaker hood, if that matters). To build a decent Mach 1 you will need to combine the front end from the Boss kit with the body shell from the Mach 1 kit.

[SpeedAndViolence]

12 hours ago, sfhess said:

 

 

10 hours ago, 1930fordpickup said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Bainford said:

 

Thank you kindly gentlemen for responding. Too bad someone in the 3D printing business has not taken the initiative and made a correction set. I would gladly pay half the price of a kit for that.  Actually.. now that I think about it, I have one of these somewhere around here. Would this be a good option?

I originally bought it for the Minilight wheels, so everything else should be there.

Edited March 20 by SpeedAndViolence
Add MPC

[The Junkman]

I seem to recall a couple articles in the late Scale Auto Enthusiast that pointed out that the MPC kit was underscale (1/27 or 1/28) and the shapes were all wonky.  The old Revell kit was considered a better choice even with all its known issues, FWIW.  Heck, just the box art tells me the grill is off.

[Bainford]

1 hour ago, SpeedAndViolence said:

 

 

. Would this be a good option?

Nope. Unfortunately, as Steve suggested above, it is undersized, and not that great by modern standards. The Revell Mustang (with a corrected front end) is orders of magnitude better than this old MPC chestnut. It does have a few cool parts, such as those Minilights, and for anyone building a 68-69 Mustang GT, it has the nicest GT wheels/hub caps I've seen in 1/25.

The only decent 1/25 scale alternative to the Revell 69 Mustang is the vintage AMT 69 Mustang. But beware, over the years the MPC Mustang has been marketed under the AMT brand numerous times. Most 69 Mustang kits out there with AMT branding are actually MPC kits in the box. I don't know how many actual AMT tooled issues were released, possibly only the original. If you find one and are in doubt, just ask the forum.

Edited March 20 by Bainford

[SpeedAndViolence]

Alrighty then... Another swing and a miss.

Clearly not a good week to buy a Powerball ticket. 

Thanks for the input. 

[mk11]

3 hours ago, SpeedAndViolence said:

 

 

Thank you kindly gentlemen for responding. Too bad someone in the 3D printing business has not taken the initiative and made a correction set. I would gladly pay half the price of a kit for that.  Actually.. now that I think about it, I have one of these somewhere around here. Would this be a good option?

I originally bought it for the Minilight wheels, so everything else should be there.

Turns out, despite the difference in body length, the original amt and the mpc '69 mustang body width and headlight areas are very close to identical.

With some finessing, the front of the mpc would make a vast improvement over that revell mess. The rev grill might be better to use.

You'll want to file down that goofy wide flareout and taper it inward slightly at the front to match the new headlight areas.

 

Edited March 20 by mk11

[Can-Con]

What Mike said above is correct. It's not that the MPC kit is under scale, it's just too short.

If you had 2 MPC bodies and chassis plates you could splice the front 1/2 from one and the back 1/2 from the other and make them the right length. 

I'd guess that would be easier then trying to graft the MPC front end on the Revell kit because it would be easier to get all the character lines and body contours to line up.

[SpeedAndViolence]

I got lucky and found the headlights, grill and windshield on the big auction site. Thanks all. 

[Bills72sj]

Other than the "Sad eyes" of the outer headlights. That Amigo kit can turn out pretty nice. I converted mine to a 69 Boss 429.

[SpeedAndViolence]

@Bills72sj You absolutely did a gorgeous job on that. Very nice!! 😎

Did you alter the ride height at all? I really like the stance... 

[Khils]

8 hours ago, mk11 said:

Turns out, despite the difference in body length, the original amt and the mpc '69 mustang body width and headlight areas are very close to identical.

Question to Mike....

 Is the MPC '69 Mustang you offered up in your trade posting...an original issue?            I ask because I know that the #99 D. Trickle A&W USAC Super Stocker was the demise of any future MPC & later labeled AMT '69 Mustang kits original body lines.

 

Edited March 21 by Khils
added pic

[mk11]

Now you've got me curious about the potential changes   Forgot about the Trickle car.

It is indeed an original. IIRC, the tires (4 wwalls and two slicks), mags and decals were unique to the original.

I'll dig out a newer one and compare bodies. I sent a scan of the instructions to Bob at drasticplastic.

Maybe Mark could throw throw some light in here on this too.

Edited March 22 by mk11

[Bills72sj]

23 hours ago, SpeedAndViolence said:

@Bills72sj You absolutely did a gorgeous job on that. Very nice!! 😎

Did you alter the ride height at all? I really like the stance... 

Thanks. I long ago I determined that stance is WAY more important than wheels that actually ROLL. So I tend to build suspensions stock in relation to the chassis. I then painstakingly glue the tires to whatever is available. I do so in exactly the position I want them to be located in the wheelwells. Do I get misalignment from the ends of the suspension? Sure, but I do not have anyone in my life flipping my models upside-down to give me any grief over it.