1/25 Revell '90 Mustang LX 5.0 2'n1 Special Edition

[Abell82]

This thread needs more comparison pictures.

1st how about a mad resin coupe?

[Abell82]

How about a Reliable Resin body?

[Abell82]

1983 Monogram GLX convertible....

[Abell82]

1981? Mustang Convertible Cabrio by Revell....

and finally I think that Prostockmania...(Randy ) may be correct. the roof is NOT the wrong height. the body is? ... Sort of. .. (not really!)

here is a shot of the Revell body with the MPC body in front of it...

If you notice the body is WIDER then the MPC bodies, AND the MAD coupe that is based off these MPC bodies. Take that into account and the roof IS too short. even though both kits are supposedly 1/25th scale.

So one of these is out of scale slightly, as well as being wrong.

[mustang man]

Here's my 2 cent's worth .

I have/had all kinds of 1/1 Mustangs , I know what a Mustang should look like . Seen parts of a Mustang that unless you are working on them , most people would never know that these parts belong to a Mustang , and when this kit was going to be the real deal , I was happy , Now what happaned ? The body is no wear near being right , A 30 year old reissure ; I can live with that .

BRAND NEW tool no way and costing almost $30.00 on top of it .

Was going to buy more than most of you ,Have all kind of my Mustang friends wanting models of their cars . They even said what the heck ? How could a BRAND NEW kit of this most loved/hated Mustang ever ,be so far off ?

NOT GOING TO BUY

If this was a WW- 2 P-51 and the body/wing was wrong ,there would be huge up roar on what has happen. Why do just buy this stuff when the product is bad ?

I vote not to buy .

[niteowl7710]

Can we all just pause a second and consider what this section is called? Kit Reviews. Now I will grant you that perhaps the language and the "strength" of the opinions about the kits here is perhaps a bit much for some people who expect a sedate, polite magazine style going-over. But the entire point of a review is the point out the high and low points of the kit in question. The people reading the review then have to decide to the pros outweigh the cons.

If the fact the roof and all sorts of other things about this kit are wrong doesn't bother you enough to ruin your enjoyment of this kit, then go ahead and buy a case load. But heck even the door lock is so ashamed of being on this kit it's trying to sneak right off the door. I bet if Erik takes another picture of the kit he has, the key hole is back by the filler door with a little hobo pack over it's shoulder.

We can be far more blatant about what is right and wrong on this forum than any magazine can be, because none of us here have to worry about Revell (or anyone else) pulling it's advertising.

I do find it ironic that when Moebius delays a kit a lot of people will extol the waiting game. "Just get it right, we can wait. I'd rather wait and have a correct kit, than have a rushed incorrect one", blah blah blah. Yet if people are critical of a Revell kit - well that's some sort of blasphemy and the people involved are called complainers, we're going to drive Revell to pull a Linus - we'll find it wandering the streets of Elk Grove Village sucking it's thumb with a blanket, and some people will defend Revell more than they would their own family.

Look y'all can't have it both ways. Either a kit is worth getting right and not being rushed. Or in the overall scheme of the hobby business it doesn't matter what gets trotted out since it's all just plastic toys and we just need to shut up and go take massage classes.

[martinfan5]

For everyone that is upset at what Revell has pooped out for a body, we all need to contact Revell and tell them just how wrong the body is, if dont, then Revell is going to conitune to poop out half arsed kits and hoping we will drink their kool-aide, we need to do what the aircraft guys to , and not put up with it, and tell them that they need to fix it instead of taking up the rear end that we do now.

Guess what, Revell needs us more then we need to Revell, and that is the bottom, whats business without customers ?

So contact them via email, via Facebook, via letter, via smoke signals, does not matter, just tell Revell how bad they messed this one up, we can bitch and complain here tell the cows come how and cook us dinner, and wash the dishes, but its not going to accomplish anything, and get us a correct body for this kit

Just for the record, I am on the side that is upset at how bad Revell messed the body up

[Abell82]

Ohh, and one more thing, HOW did they manage to get the front fender wrong, on the bottom AGAIN!!

[Ben]

For anyone that may be wondering, I bought the Replicas and Miniatures resin Ford ten hole wheels with the intent of some day building an LX CHP cruiser. I was curious to see if they would work with this kit. They are stated to be 1/24 scale and are made to fit Monogram tires but I think if they were put in a lower profile tire, they would look good on this kit! The benefit of using these is that they are wider, have photo etch center caps and tiny little valve stems you have to glue on. They're really nice!!!! The kit wheels measure .65 in dia. and are .29 in width. The RoM wheels measure .71 in dia. and are .42 in width. RoM part #RM-17C.

[whale392]

Jason, doing the measurements against the real car shows both kits to have inaccurate roofs. Even the old MPC kits are not correct, but are closer to 1:1 than either Revell offerings. My micrometers and scales just don't lie (and you know what kind of a Fox guy I am, Jason!).

Ben, I was just slapping the Pony wheels up under this kit as you were typing. Even though they are 1/24th, they look right under this kit (and could benefit from some lower-profile tires).

Edited May 26, 2013 by whale392

[Ben]

Jason, doing the measurements against the real car shows both kits to have inaccurate roofs. Even the old MPC kits are not correct, but are closer to 1:1 than either Revell offerings. My micrometers and scales just don't lie (and you know what kind of a Fox guy I am, Jason!).

Ben, I was just slapping the Pony wheels up under this kit as you were typing. Even though they are 1/24th, they look right under this kit (and could benefit from some lower-profile tires).

I just put them in the BF Goodrich rubber tires from the Otaki/ARII wheel sets (the front tires) and they fit like a glove!!!!! The overall ending diameter of the RoM wheel in that BFG tire is 1.04 whereas the kit wheel and tire measures 1.06. Gonna have to contact Norm and get some more!!!!! (If they decide to correct the body and I buy more kits..: )

Also, Alan at Ma's Resin casts these BFG tires. They are part # 89.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Ben

[rustbucket82]

Close enough only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear war! With that said, I will not be spending my hard earned money on that "thing"

[charlie8575]

This one is WAY off the mark. There is no excuse for the body to have been so badly botched up. Revell not only had no reasonable excuse to goof that up so much, but now they have NO good reason to not recall and repair these body-shells.

Their own previous behavior points to this.

Moebius and Galaxie, two by-comparison-microscopic companies, re-did entire body-shells even before a single kit was sold. On shoestring budgets! Revell has no excuse and the accounting department at Hobbico needs to understand that it'll cost more than money if they don't get things done right. The lost sales on an expensive capital good (the mold) and then the lost good will from irritated modelers will create havoc.

Lindberg, which was much smaller, corrected their badly goofed-up '61 Impala and issued new bodies to people who asked for them.

"It's just plastic" was fine when the kits were half the price, but even then, it wasn't really acceptable.

A small goof that can be dealt with by a swipe of sandpaper or a file, or easily covered with careful painting and detailing- no biggie.

Short roofs, botched windows, misshapen bumpers, and all that stuff. NO! NO! NO! NO! Did I mention no?

I never picked up on the short roof on the Olds. It looks okay to me, but if the reason given was to make the Holiday easier- that's foolish and a bad wool-pulling job. They'd need a different body-shell anyway. I call meadow muffins on that one. Perhaps the shape of the car doesn't show it as much? Whatever the case, it's still sloppy if that's true, like missing the little step on the grille. Too bad that can't be fixed easily.

Someone mentioned Revell would stop cutting new tools. A red herring but not. Revell won't stop cutting new tools. But...if they don't straighten up and get their subjects cut properly, they will stop cutting new tooling because they'll be out of business if too many errors occur.

Several people have said Joe Average won't care. Wrong again. Joe Average is the reason things should be done right. Even more so than us.

1. These are casual modelers. They more than anyone need well-engineered, well-designed kits, and both of those things include subject accuracy. These are the people who will discourage easily if things aren't done right and they'll lose more sales.

2. What if a casual modeler is a real Fox fiend? Or simply likes Mustangs? This will make Revell look terrible in their eyes. From what I understand the 1968 Mustang (I think? Please correct if wrong), was royally botched up. That's two strikes.

3. What if this is a kid this kit is being bought for? Suppose it's a 16 year-old with an LX who wants to make a model of his car? Despite what most of us seem to think, kids aren't as dumb or as oblivious as we think. They catch this, it's back to the video games and other stuff, and the chances of them touching another model of any description dropped exponentially.

To any of Revell's engineering staff and marketing people that might be reading this,

Please...for all our sakes, correct this error. Save your reputation, and more than that, enhance it, by doing something that will make you stand out as a customer service and quality-control start. Fix these problems. With almost $30 for a kit now, such massive failures are inexcusable and bordering on unethical. With modern design and engineering science, there is no reason for this anymore.

Do the right thing. We'll gladly wait an extra year or two for another new tool if we have to. But, please, show respect for your most loyal customers, consumers broadly, Ford Motor Company and Mustang fans. Correct these problems, I think the lost sales will come back, based on what I've seen said here. In fact, they might come back many fold.

Charlie Larkin

[martinfan5]

I going to say it again, contact Revell, dont hope someone from Revell is going to stumble upon this thread, the more people that contact them over this kit, the better chance that something good may come from it

[DaveM]

Thanks to the board for saving me the bucks. I work across the street from a craft store that is a preferred dealer. Most releases, I get the first day they are out. I am often the one checking out the kit and describing it to others. I wasn't able to get to the store to pick up the Mustang right away because of my schedule. Now, I am glad I didn't buy one. Revell has had several decent kits recently, so I have been picking them up on the first day of release without worrying about getting a total dud. Now, I think I will wait until I read the boards before buying a kit, for a while at least. I would have bought two of the Mustangs right off the bat if I had not seen the problems with the roof. This board and its honest conversations about the kit saved me $50.

I have built a lot of models with little flaws. Some of the flaws can be easily corrected with basic modeling tools, and others can be lived with. Unless I am building a contest model, or a really major pet project, I can live with these flaws. As long as the basic look of the model is correct, I can be happy with it as a shelf model. I am not a purist who condemns a kit because an emblem is off by a scale mm. This kit misses the basic look. I am really grateful I don't have two of these kits sitting in my stash.

[Brett Barrow]

All I want to know is what is this measurement - from outside of trim to outside of trim:

[Luc Janssens]

All I want to know is what is this measurement - from outside of trim to outside of trim:

Didn't read all of the tread but, didn't see measurements from a sibling from the OEM, comparing with other model kits in my option doesn't add value to this discussion, just saying.

So as Brett asked please measurements from the actual vehicle.

Thanks!

Luc

Edited May 26, 2013 by Luc Janssens

[whale392]

Ask and you shall receive:

Actual car measures at shown lines is 19.5" (or .78" in 1/25th scale)

Model car measures .696" at the same spot.

This is a difference of .084", just a tad over 2" scale (just like i had stated it was several pages back).

I can also provide the 'angle of lean' for the B-pillar (which works out to be in the neighborhood of 1.5*-2*, as car consistency is anything but.

Edited May 26, 2013 by whale392

[Luc Janssens]

Thx, and how much is that in Euro's (mm)?

Don't have a inch ruler here

[Darin Bastedo]

Ask and you shall receive:

Actual car measures at shown lines is 19.5" (or .78" in 1/25th scale)

Model car measures .696" at the same spot.

This is a difference of .084", just a tad over 2" scale (just like i had stated it was several pages back).

I can also provide the 'angle of lean' for the B-pillar (which works out to be in the neighborhood of 1.5*-2*, as car consistency is anything but.

Funny, The Revell 1993 cobra kit is 1/24, and measures .76 in that same area. 1/24 being being a larger scale the chopped top look should be even more pronounced, yet it looks OK, and nobody even mentioned it on that kit. Are you sure you measured correctly? If it were 1/25 it would still come up short by your measurement at 19.4 inches.

[Casey]

Funny, The Revell 1993 cobra kit is 1/24, and measures .76 in that same area. 1/24 being being a larger scale the chopped top look should be even more pronounced, yet it looks OK, and nobody even mentioned it on that kit.

comparing with other model kits in my option doesn't add value to this discussion

I agree with Luc. We know what the 1:1 measurements are thanks to Brad, so it's irrelevant what the previous Monogram, MPC, and Revell kits measured out to or looked like when discussing the accuracies of Revell's 1/25 '90 LX. If the 1:1 car(s) is(are) true and consistent, that should be the standard or control by which the scale models are compared and judged.

[Darin Bastedo]

I agree with Luc. We know what the 1:1 measurements are thanks to Brad, so it's irrelevant what the previous Monogram, MPC, and Revell kits measured out to or looked like when discussing the accuracies of Revell's 1/25 '90 LX. If the 1:1 car(s) is(are) true and consistent, that should be the standard or control by which the scale models are compared and judged.

That is why I question the accuracy of the baseline. By his measurement the every monogram/revell fox body cobra should appear chopped, yet I heard no complaints against the 1/24 scale kits. I measure the 1979 pace car and the mustang Cobra. by his baseline the should appear to have a too low roof as well

Edited May 26, 2013 by Darin Bastedo

[Ben]

I going to say it again, contact Revell, dont hope someone from Revell is going to stumble upon this thread, the more people that contact them over this kit, the better chance that something good may come from it

When I wrote my email to Revell, I asked them to please take the time to visit this forum as well as a couple on Facebook to see what everyone is saying about this kit.

[Ben]

Thx, and how much is that in Euro's (mm)?

Don't have a inch ruler here

.78 converts to 19.81 mm

[Erik Smith]

That is why I question the accuracy of the baseline. By his measurement the every monogram/revell fox body cobra should appear chopped, yet I heard no complaints against the 1/24 scale kits. I measure the 19 pace car and the mustang Cobra. by his baseline the should appear to have a too low roof as well

It might be due to a couple things - if the length of the window is also short, it will not appear as long and narrow as on the new Revell kit.

I have been looking at a lot of cars for my WIP and one thing about the Fox body is the ratio on the side window - the height to width ratio - that gives it a certain look (difficult to describe in words, and probably pablum from me...) and goes with the rest of the body proportions. The current proportions on the Revell kit make it look like a 1990 Cougar, which is a different kind of car (larger, cruiser type vs small, sporty) and just throws "The Look" off.