Revell-O-Gram 87 Thunderbird TurboCoupe

[whale392]

While this might not be the correct place for this (I do not consider it a new kit review), I will ask here. I am working on the re-release (Revell 'Basic Builder' version of the original Monogram release) of the 1987 Thunderbird TurboCoupe. From my research, pictures, drawings, and my eyeball calculations it appears the front fenders ahead of the wheel openings to the nosecap are about a scale 1/16th"-1/8th" too long. Subsequently, the hood and engine compartment would also be too long.

Has anyone built this kit and do you believe the same thing (when compared to the real car)? I know about how I am going to correct this issue, but I would still like input before I commit knife to plastic. Comments welcome.

[whale392]

Thanks Mark.......and suprisingly this kits suspension/floorpan area is MUCH nicer than its FOX Mustang brother kits. I don't forsee having too many build issues with this (except what I am doing to turn it into a Pro-Touring type build) except the nose. To me, I noticed it right away......then again I love the TurboCoupes and have worked on/raced with/parted out a few of them.

And I figured you would be one of the first to respond (Mr.Closet-Fox-Lover!).

[highway]

I concur. The body is "stretched" in profile, and it mostly appears in the nose. This is one of those kits that looks "right" unless you compare it to photos though...

This is sort of one of those "chicken or the egg" type questions, but did this kit come out before or after the Matt & Debbie Hayes "Pro Street" version of this car? If so, that might explain the "stretched" profile you mentioned appears mostly in the nose.

[highway]

There was also the Glidden Pro Stock kit. Not surprisingly, the Pro Stock Glidden kit was a re-body of the '83-5 T-bird P/S kits, and the Matt/Debbie Haye kit was the last of the bunch I think and was an all-new tool.

I do believe that all 3 use different bodies, and that the stock kit came first. I have some old Auto World catalogs that show the Turbo Coupe as "coming soon" and actually have photos of an '86 as a placeholder.

.

Thanks for the info, Mark, and I completely forgot about the P/S Glidden kit. You are also probably right about the Hayes T-Bird being an all new tool, because I know Revell also based the Licoln LSC Pro Street kit from the Hayes T-Bird. I have both of them, and everything but the bodies (of course ) are identical.

[Art Anderson]

I concur. The body is "stretched" in profile, and it mostly appears in the nose. This is one of those kits that looks "right" unless you compare it to photos though...I don't know how crazy I would go to correct it since (at least to me) the kit still captures the car pretty well, even if it's not right.

The rest of the kit is standard 80s Monogram fare, somewhat simplified but easy to build and looks good on the shelf when you're done. I built one for the owner of a 1:1 back in the 80s and don't remember anything being much of a problem. I don't recall if it happened on this particular kit, but I always leave off the suspension until last with Revellogram kits from this era because a lot of them as-molded have one or both sets of wheels off-center in the fenders.

Actually, Brian McIntyre (a Purdue student at the time, and a close friend) did scale out the '87 Thunderbird, and found it to be pretty darned accurate. Brian worked up a master of the 1986 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for me to cast, using the pro stock body shell, and it fit the '87 chassis perfectly, with no alterations in length needed. Even the Pro Stock kit's hood fit with only a bit of modification to trim down the pronounced upward flare at its rear edge as well.

'87 Thunderbirds did have a very noticeably longer nose on them, as part of their styling facelift, and coupled with the changed roofline (gone was the quasi-fastback of the 83-86 cars), that certainly makes the '87 Thunderbird look a LOT longer than the earlier versions.

Another Purdue student modified the Monogram '87 body shell into the '87-'88 Nascar body, and that too fits the Monogram Nascar chassis like a glove, again with NO alterations as to length of the '87 body shell. I wound up casting slightly over 5,000 of that body in resin 1990-86.

So, go figure?

Art

Edited September 21, 2010 by Art Anderson

[Chuck Most]

Perhaps I'm misaken, but wasn't the Hays Thunderbird done in 1:25, while this Monogram Bird is 1:24?

[Chuck Most]

I believe it was since the Pro Street kit was a Revell release and both the Pro Stock and stock Turbo Coupe were Monogram. They used to keep the scales separate by brand in that era.

That's kind of why I've always thought the Hays T-Bird was 1:25. I've never had that one, but I've gone through quite a few of the Monogram '87 Turbos! (I had a 1:1 black '87 5-speed Turbo Coupe another lifetime ago..,)

[whale392]

This is the first issue of the 1987-88 kit, as the copyright date is 1986. I can't vouch for the other kits tooled from this one, but the body matches EXACTLY to the original 1986 issue I have of this kit (Red car on the Red/Sunset box).

Well, I hacked .125" off of the front fenders forward of the wheel openings.....it looks MUCH closer to the real cars proportions. Now to 'adjust' the inner fenders/core support and redo the hood. On a side note, I have the new wheelhouses made, the gas tank cut out and new trunk floor installed, the rear coilover shocks/springs made, and the interior drilled for the roll cage (all of this is rough first-cut stuff, so it is in the UGLY stage). Thanks for all of your inputs; I do love the FOXes and want them to look somewhat accurate (even if the wheels are a little too big), this is no exception.

[Eric Stone]

Can't wait to see it, Bradley. I have an older red issue and the new silver 'easy builder' issue. I haven't built either, but it looks like a nice kit. I plan on putting a V8 in one and doing it as a stereotypical local drag car, and doing the other stock-ish...

[Harold]

Perhaps I'm misaken, but wasn't the Hays Thunderbird done in 1:25, while this Monogram Bird is 1:24?

You are correct, sir. The Hayes 'Bird is 1/25. As for the Monogram kit, I think its a great kit that goes together well and represents the subject matter well. Having owned an '84 and an '88 Thunderbird (both non- TC cars with the 302), I can tell you that the nose on the real car is plenty long. For the '87 restyle, all the sheetmetal got the once- over. The side windows became flush- mounted, the deck was flattened out and the rear window became a wraparound affair. The car was also a tad heavier, and this is evident in the car's slightly duller steering response. I could actually feel that additional 200- plus pounds. There are two minor caveats with this kit- the headlight buckets need to be installed in the nose before its attached to the body, and there are no positive locators for said front nose.

[Chuck Most]

Yeah, Harold- that nose is a pain, installation-wise. I remeber building one years ago, and I managed to get the headlamp buckets up into the holes AFTER I'd glued on the nose, but I doubt I could do it again, much less if I'd WANT to do it!

[Harold]

Here's the Turbo Coupe I built three years ago...

[whale392]

That is one very nice TurboCoupe Harold. Once it is all together, the nose doesn't look as horridly long as it really is. But a straight-on side shot shows it to be a tad too long in scale to properly echo the real cars dimensions. Thank you for posting those pics, and for the heads-up on the headlight bucket fitment issues. I will put that info to good use on this build.

[charlie8575]

I have a couple of these, they're nice kits. One I plan to convert to a 302-powered standard coupe. I just need to find the proper wheels/tires, or something that'll at least pass for such.

Charlie Larkin

[tim boyd]

Actually, Brian McIntyre (a Purdue student at the time, and a close friend) did scale out the '87 Thunderbird, and found it to be pretty darned accurate.

'87 Thunderbirds did have a very noticeably longer nose on them, as part of their styling facelift, and coupled with the changed roofline (gone was the quasi-fastback of the 83-86 cars), that certainly makes the '87 Thunderbird look a LOT longer than the earlier versions.

Art

Guys...I gotta line up with Art on this one. I had a real '87 and '88 Turbo Coupe, and that nose was long....like really L-O-N-G long. The model to my eye very nicely captured the proportions of the real one sitting in my driveway. I didn't do any tape measuring, so those of you have measured and say it's too long may very well be technically accurate.

I built one of these and I believe it is on my Fotki site, I'll see if I can find the picture and post it.

And just to be clear here, the Pro Stocks were the first of the Aero T-Bird kits,,,,they came out in 1984 if I remember correctly. That was the first time I ever got a set of test shots from Monogram, and that baby was built lwaa than two weeks later. It really impressed me. I built it pro-street style (no decals, and a wraparound bodyside molding added to make it look more like a stock body).

Best regards...TIM

Edited September 24, 2010 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

Here's the Turbo Coupe I built three years ago...

Nice one Harold. Here's mine, TIM

Link to ten more pics of Tim's model of his 1.1 scale '87 T-Bird Turbo Coupe....My link

Edited September 24, 2010 by tim boyd

[charlie8575]

I think I know what color scheme I'm doing mine in, Tim. That Dark Regatta Blue with matching interior looks really, really nice.

Charlie Larkin

[whale392]

Ok Tim, that TurboCoupe is sweet! I see by your album that you are somewhat of a 2.3T Lover...........with this TurboCoupe and a very nice SVO to give you away. After intense viewing of the side-on shot as compared to the side-on shots of the 1:1 1987-88 TurboCoupes on my workdesk; the kits nose (front fender-to-nose area) is still too long in the kit version. My measurements scale it to be 3" too long, not much but .120" is noticable in scale. My biggest hurdle with this will be getting the taper in the hood to line back up correctly, the second biggest will be the fender bodyline, third will be taking the proper amount out of the engine bay without altering the wheelwell/k-member locations.

I have a 1:1 1984 Mustang GT Turbo, the baby SVO, sitting in my garage. My spare engine (being built up as a Folvo/Holset/LS-2 beast) came from an 86 XR4Ti, and I have a set of the Dark Royal Blue 1988 TurboCoupe seats sitting in storage waiting to go into a project. I have a love for my 5.0Liters yes, but there is just something about a 2.3T when boost onset hits HARD!

[tim boyd]

Ok Tim, that TurboCoupe is sweet! I see by your album that you are somewhat of a 2.3T Lover...........with this TurboCoupe and a very nice SVO to give you away. After intense viewing of the side-on shot as compared to the side-on shots of the 1:1 1987-88 TurboCoupes on my workdesk; the kits nose (front fender-to-nose area) is still too long in the kit version. My measurements scale it to be 3" too long, not much but .120" is noticable in scale. My biggest hurdle with this will be getting the taper in the hood to line back up correctly, the second biggest will be the fender bodyline, third will be taking the proper amount out of the engine bay without altering the wheelwell/k-member locations.

I have a 1:1 1984 Mustang GT Turbo, the baby SVO, sitting in my garage. My spare engine (being built up as a Folvo/Holset/LS-2 beast) came from an 86 XR4Ti, and I have a set of the Dark Royal Blue 1988 TurboCoupe seats sitting in storage waiting to go into a project. I have a love for my 5.0Liters yes, but there is just something about a 2.3T when boost onset hits HARD!

Whale...sounds like we have alot in common. I too loved that Turbo when you hit it hard...I had an '84 TC in addition to the '87 and '88, and I spend quite a bit of time driving one of the first SVO Mustangs to come off the line in early '84, though that one did not belong to me. That car was phenomenal. When the boost came on, look out! Of course a certain Southern Bay Area (California) model builder knows what I am talking about (Alan....), as when I let him take it on a test drive in the hills above Woodside and Palo Alto and the road was a little damp, I told him to take it easy. Of course, he didn't, the boost hit, and we both nearly ended up going down the side of a mountain...and well...I probably wouldn't be typing this now.

As for those 5.0s...would have to agree with you on those as well...and as for the new '11 5.0, which I am driving now....simply incredible!

TIM

Edited September 25, 2010 by tim boyd

[Chuck Most]

Hmmmm, Tim, so I guess this means that your orange '07 is long gone?

One little gripe- the "Aerobird" bowed for '83, not '84. The '80-'82's were the last of the boxy, scrunched-down Granny's car T-Birds. The Aerobird was a D-R-A-S-T-I-C improvement over that generation, and only got better as the years wore on.

[whale392]

Tim, my first introduction to the 2.3T world was a friends 1986 SVO. I didn't really know, appreciate, or understand what it was at that moment; I thought 'oh yeah, a 2.3 with a turbo; like this is going to impress me'. Well, I climbed in and we went for a run. From idle to about 2100rpm it was what I was expecting, angry farm tractor acceleration. But when we crossed that 2100rpm threshhold and that HX35/HX40 hybrid started coming in and was full on 32psi by 3000rpm, I felt the wrinkles being pulled from my marblesack! That was the most violent reaction I think I have ever felt from a 4 cylinder up to that time, and it scared as well as invigorated me. No longer did I look at a 2.3T the same. Later, I found out about Jon Huber and his 1979 Mustang Ghia 2.3T and what he was running with it!

[tim boyd]

Hmmmm, Tim, so I guess this means that your orange '07 is long gone?

One little gripe- the "Aerobird" bowed for '83, not '84. The '80-'82's were the last of the boxy, scrunched-down Granny's car T-Birds. The Aerobird was a D-R-A-S-T-I-C improvement over that generation, and only got better as the years wore on.

Chuck, I remember all of this very well as I was a Ford zone rep when the '80 came out...let's just say it was quite a let down for my dealers after selling all those '77 to '79 TB's, then I was in California when the '83 1/3 (to be precise) TB came out. Someone at work had shown me a picture of it about two years earlier (in prototype form) and I was so was incredibly anxious for it to show up. The first Ford advance Fleet Brochure (published around September, 1982) showed an optional vinyl roof (of course, cancelled before Job 1) and the Turbo Coupe tachometer was in the clock space in the center of the dash (moved to the instrument cluster for Job 1, which is one of the reasons the TurboCoupe was a couple of months late). There was also a dark solid green color shown in the Fleet brochure - almost a British Racing Green - listed as a color which didn't make Job 1 though it is in all the paint chip books for '83, and yes I ordered some from MCW Automotive Finishes. My own '83 1/3 was the bright red metallic, Heritage, with red velour and the TRX package...and yes, it looked fantastic, though it had some driveability issues with the EFI 5.0L powertrain. It was also the first car I ever had that had a sound system powerful enough to move the cuffs of my pants (from the door speaker) when cranked up. Of course, the '83 1/3 TB was a huge hit in California (one of our Orange County dealers was selling over 100 units a month), but it never really sold that well in other parts of the country. But it was a huge improvement over the '80-'82 as you say, and in my view helped warm up Middle America for the Taurrus which followed three years later, and we all know what a hit that was. I was subsequently able to get two additional clearcoat metallic colors into the paint lineup for summer '83 and also pushed to get the 70 series aspect ratio tires standard (vs. the 78 series tires) which happened later. So you could say that the Aero TB was, and remains so to this day, an area of considerable interest to me.

TIM

[Art Anderson]

Nice one Harold. Here's mine, TIM

Link to ten more pics of Tim's model of his 1.1 scale '87 T-Bird Turbo Coupe....My link

To take a pic from Tim's EXCELLENT album (Don't hit me, Tim!!!) here's a side view of his very nice build:

Since I am "borrowing" pics for this one, I found this side view of the real thing via Google Image Search:

If anything, the rear section of the Revell '87 Bird might be a tad long, but that's hard to compare, given the angle at which the pic of the real car was taken, but the front clip sure looks to be pretty danged accurately done to my eyes.

Note also, that another area of contention, the wheel arches (openings) of the Revell kit (done by Monogram's design and development team of course) appear to be right on the money. If anything, the tires on the Revell '87 TBird may be a bit skimpy, due to their insistence (for cost reasons I think) on using existing tire tooling.

Dimensions (which are key to unwinding this thing):

1983-86 Aerobird: Wheelbase 104", Overall length 197.6"

1987-88 Thunderbird: Wheelbase 104.2", Overall length 202.1"

Given that the only body modifications done to the basic 1983 shell were those done to alter the rear of the roofline, and a considerable facelift up front, the added 4.5" length is in the nose. 1/5th of an inch longer in wheelbase would hardly even show up on a model kit, .180" in the scale model sure would, and does. Also confusing things is that much more Vee'd front end. The "beak" shape makes it very hard to judge the overall length unless one is looking at a virtually direct side-on view of the front half of the car, and then digging out the dimensional references. My source for the dimensional data here is "TBird, 45 Years Of Thunder", from Krause Publications, who also published the Standard Catalog series of reference works.

Art

Edited September 26, 2010 by Art Anderson

[Art Anderson]

i don't know for sure but i think the Matt&Debbie Hay Thunderbird is accurate, the Lincoln LSC was the one with some stretched and pulled proportions IIRC. i've never had the Thunderbird but i have had a few of the Lincolns and thought that they at least made for a nice looking pro street model, great parts content too.

Dave

The Lincoln Continental Mk VI LSC body as done for the Revell Matt & Debbie Hayes Tbird chassis is too short. The actual Mk VI physically longer in two areas: Behind the B-post, in the rear seat area, giving more legroom in the Lincoln over the Tbird/Cougar, and also in the trunk area.

Art

[whale392]

Art,

Thank you for the side-by-side comparison. I still come up about 3" too long in the front fender area when I compare the scaled-up dimensions to those taken from a friends 1:1 1988 RavenBird (all Black TurboCoupe). I also hadnt addressed the rear bumper area yet as I honestly haven't had it up on the car, but your side-by-side shows it to be a little long just in the bumper cover area. Looks like I will be taking a little off the mating surfaces and bringing it back into scale visually. Thank you all for your input on this kit. For those who are reading this that haven't built this kit, I would recommend it as it is probably one of the best fit-wise and construction-wise Monogram did in the 1980s.