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

[Dennis Lacy]

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.

I just measured my own car and the verticle height from the outer edges of the upper and lower trim pieces (just as it's marked in the picture above) is 19 9/16". The verticle height of the quarter window measures the same.

Plus or minus 1/16th" definitely confirms that "whale392" measured his car correctly. The upper trim piece is glued to the body (except for one small retaining screw at the bottom near the area of the door mirror) so if the trim on one car was pushed on tighter than the trim on another that would account for the 1/16th"

The incorrect angle of the B-pillar is a major contributor to the body not looking right. Without the B-pillar leaning forward as it should the shape of the door frame and window opening is way off making the window not only look to short, but also too long.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Dennis Lacy

[Brett Barrow]

I get .72" (18.3mm) with my calipers, and 2.5* of b-pillar angle (didn't someone say the b-pillar was too vertical?) Would put it ~1.5" low in the roof.

Almost every model kit ever made is a little low (usually 1-2") in the roof, when done well we don't even notice. Most kit designers come from a background in illustration and the old illustrator's mantra - "longer, lower, wider" is pretty much the kit designer's mantra, too.

But it does appear that the window opening is shortened, too, which totally plays against the longer, lower, wider philosophy and might be where the oddness is coming from. I'll be interested to see how this kit looks after it's painted and the trim is blacked out, it might not look too bad.

edit- just looked through some 1:1 pics and now the kit window looks longer... Need to quit looking at this thing and let my eyes rest for a day or two!

Edited May 26, 2013 by Brett Barrow

[Darin Bastedo]

I get .72" (18.3mm) with my calipers, and 2.5* of b-pillar angle (didn't someone say the b-pillar was too vertical?) Would put it ~1.5" low in the roof.

Almost every model kit ever made is a little low (usually 1-2") in the roof, when done well we don't even notice. Most kit designers come from a background in illustration and the old illustrator's mantra - "longer, lower, wider" is pretty much the kit designer's mantra, too.

But it does appear that the window opening is shortened, too, which totally plays against the longer, lower, wider philosophy and might be where the oddness is coming from. I'll be interested to see how this kit looks after it's painted and the trim is blacked out, it might not look too bad.

edit- just looked through some 1:1 pics and now the kit window looks longer... Need to quit looking at this thing and let my eyes rest for a day or two!

So by your measurement, The LX roof is only 1/4mm further off, than any other Revell/Monogram Mustang. The 1/24 scale mustangs by my calculations are 1.24 scale inches off.

[whale392]

Darin,

The Revell 93 Cobra (and all of its' previous offerings) is a mis-match of scale WTF. The greenhouse is too short, but the angle of the quarter windows is close), the headlights are actually 1/25th scale, the hood is somewhere in between, the lower body from the trim line down is too stubby (on the convertible GTs anyway). The 1/24th offerings are just not right either, so basing your argument on those is basing it on Quicksand. The MPC/AMT rooflines are also off, but not as much as either of the Monogram-Revell offerings.

I cannot begin to explain why the roof on this kit looks so wrong when the wrong roof on other kits looks OK (I use OK in the best-case scenario). I think it has something to do with the abbreviated nature of a Coupes C-Pillars and trunklid. The Hatch at least has the effect of being longer and sleeker, where a Coupe the abrupt shortness of the roof is immediately noticed (making its wonky dimensions even worse to the viewer). Having seen the test-builds first-hand, I can say paint will only do so much for this; the roof is just that out of proportion.

As an owner of these chassis', I cannot help but notice. When Polar Lights came out with the 65 Dodge Coronet500, I was all about it. It was finally a kit of a car I owned. When I got to looking at it closely, the body chrome stripe was way too flat and didn't taper as it should. The Greenhouse was close but not spot-on. I purchased a few anyway and lived with the fail built in. I am in NO hurry to do it yet again with another subject I own the 1:1 of, especially when it is this wonky.

Edited May 26, 2013 by whale392

[Darin Bastedo]

I'm only saying that this roof is only about as far off as every other Fox mustang that has been produced, yet this car is being put through the ringer while others get a pass.I find it interesting that even though a photo of the painted and assembled test shots are on the 1st page, nobody thought to comment on the roof until page 17. If the roof is really that bad why did it take so long to notice?

[Dennis Lacy]

I'm only saying that this roof is only about as far off as every other Fox mustang that has been produced, yet this car is being put through the ringer while others get a pass.I find it interesting that even though a photo of the painted and assembled test shots are on the 1st page, nobody thought to comment on the roof until page 17. If the roof is really that bad why did it take so long to notice?

Because the first 16 pages dealt with what constitutes a correct special service version and what colors the light bar should be, if the car should even have one at all.

I also think people got such an initial hard-on that this kit was actually happening that it took some time for the euphoria to wear off and reality to set in.

Yes, the other versions have incorrect roof sections as well. But, for a combination of factors this new kits roof looks the most wrong out of any of them. Not to mention it's too late to do anything about all those other ancient tools. There's still time to fix this one.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Dennis Lacy

[whale392]

Dennis hit it right on the head: those kits are done and gone, yesterdays not-even-news. Can't fix old and decrepit kits that have already seen a long service life (and believe me, they don't get a free pass).

Nothing against you, Darin. Just the fact that this kit was not tooled up (first) in 1978, it was tooled up just a year or so ago. LIGHT-years ahead of 1978 quality and expectation-level.

Edited May 26, 2013 by whale392

[Ben]

I'm only saying that this roof is only about as far off as every other Fox mustang that has been produced, yet this car is being put through the ringer while others get a pass.I find it interesting that even though a photo of the painted and assembled test shots are on the 1st page, nobody thought to comment on the roof until page 17. If the roof is really that bad why did it take so long to notice?

I saw all the previous pictures of buildups as prototypes. There was no way to know if the final product was going to look exactly like that. You really can't judge it until your holding it in your hand. Pictures can hide a lot in plain sight.

[martinfan5]

Bradley, I think we know what part of the problem is, well this is one of those new fangeled cars, and so because of that, it does not deserve the respect to do it correctly, but you and me both know that if this was a kit of something pre 70's, everyone would be poop bricks out if even the smallest detail was wrong.

But going back to it being something of newer subject, when people that do build them, get a new kit, and its wrong, and we voice our concerns, we are told to just suck it up and deal with it, but if you or I would of said that over the Hudson kit, or the Olds kit or something along those lines , we would be nailed to a cross and burn alive

[Ben]

Here's some pics of the kit wheel and tire compared to the Replicas and Miniatures resin wheel with the BFG tire that is available from Ma's Resin.

[whale392]

Thanks for that comparison, Ben. I can see narrowing a set of the Rep wheels and making a set of big/littles for that sleeper look. The only concern I have with the Rep wheel is the flat center cap, but I must say they do look nicely cast. do you plan on running these under your current build?

Edited May 27, 2013 by whale392

[Casey]

It isn't that it is .25mm off from other kits, it is that it is 2" scale off of the REAL car.

I've heard depending on who is doing the measuring, that it is 1.5 inches off, 1.75 inches off, or 2 inches. I know what a two inch top chop does to a car. If it was really that far off you guys would have noticed it right away from the first time a photo of the built up was posted.

If you agree that the roof is at a minimum 1.5" too short, then we are all in agreement that the roof is too short. Yes, the underpinnings appear to be top notch (pun intended), and this is very nice kit when viewed in its entirety, but it has a HUGE, glaring error-- the body.

As Dennis pointed out, maybe people didn't catch the roof issue on the built ups for many reasons, but why nobody noticed (or noticed and didn't say anything) has no bearing on the fact that the roof is too low now. The kit is in our hands, many people have noticed the error, and we want to see it corrected. If Revell corrects the roof, I have no doubt this kit will be one of Revell's go-to kits, much like their '69 Charger R/T which also had the exact same body issue.

[Ben]

Thanks for that comparison, Ben. I can see narrowing a set of the Rep wheels and making a set of big/littles for that sleeper look. The only concern I have with the Rep wheel is the flat center cap, but I must say they do look nicely cast. do you plan on running these under your current build?

Hey Bradley, they are a liitle bit wide but I think they will look good on all four corners of the CHP unit I would like to build. Kind of Pursuit Special that's made for high speed handling! That and I have had them for a few years. Time to use them on something! They are molded very nicely!!!!!! Just very tiny specs of flash in a hole or two that almost falls out. The center caps are offered with the Ford logo, blank or with the Thunderbird emblem. You have to specify which when ordering. If the center cap is supposed to be a tiny bit convex, I would think you could press it into something concave (face down) to give it the slight convex shape? They are pretty thin.

[Darin Bastedo]

Actually I don't believe that the roof is that low. Just because I have no affection for this car, doesn't mean I didn't spend a great deal of time measuring and photgraphing real ones. The fact that when compared to the AMT kit, the total height of the body is not 2 scale inches shorter.

I agree the total height of the side window is too short, that is obvious, but has anybody bothered to compare the distance from the top of the belt line trim to the bottom of the window trim? I'd be willing to bet that that distance is off. From what I see it is probably a combination of factors that make the roof seem wonky, but at the same time if all else was equal, and the roof was "chopped" 2" the car would be two inches shorter. You want the body fixed? My suggestion is to measure carefully and make sure the flaws you want corrected are really there, and not a combination of other flaws.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Darin Bastedo

[whale392]

For the first time tonight, Darin, we agree. I am already compiling all of my measurements (from my car,and tomorrow from a friends car). You are correct in that the body itself has flaws. The major visual oops though is the greenhouse height. The fact that the drip molding is oversized does not help the bulky look of the roof in any way. There is also a bit too much space above the door drip molding and the roof skin itself, which also makes the windows look too short.

['70 Grande]

Let's see... I made a post way back on page 18 regarding the mis-positioned beltline trim. It looks to me like Revell got the beltline positioned correctly behind the rear wheel well, but then it incorrectly steps-down on the door and front fender; another flaw in the execution of this kit's body.

[Darin Bastedo]

Now you see why Joe average doesn't see what you see. To them it looks basically like the car they remember. They don't see the small details that are off. That is the same reason the Last AAR 'cuda was built by many who really didn't see the flaws. It's the same reason non-airplane builders don't see the flaws in a P-51 kit, that are obvious to those of us with a book shelf dedicated to books on that plane.

[whale392]

I understood your point, Darin, and even admitted to the kit being a good seller for the 'Average Joe'. But even the Average Joe deserves better, whether it be a car or palne. We spend our money just the same, and we expect to get what we pay for.

Working on the E2-C and C2-A airframes for 4 years, I got quite close to them. Even though the Kinetic kits are flawed, they are the only game (and likely to be) in town for them in 1/48th (which is what I build my aircraft in). I will spend $100s more in correcting detail that I shouldn't have to because I have a passion for this plane (something I am sure you understand). With that passion comes wanting to see it done right (something else we can agree on). If there is a chance that you can get the flaws corrected, is it not worth the chance? That really is what the heart of this matter is, the chance to have the obvious flaws corrected. Do we the modeler and 'Joe Average' not deserve that at least; the chance?

[Casey]

Now you see why Joe average doesn't see what you see. To them it looks basically like the car they remember. They don't see the small details that are off. That is the same reason the Last AAR 'cuda was built by many who really didn't see the flaws.

That's true, and I think most of us realize we are among the .005% who do notice, do care, and do want to see the body corrected.

[Darin Bastedo]

You see, I agree it would be great to see a new body tooled for the kit, but the flaws are minute and widespread. Revell simply won't cut a whole new body. I'm a realist. It would cost too much and won't result in a significant increase in sales.

[whale392]

The only glaring flaw is the greenhouse (or at least the one that is noticeable right off the bat, even by someone casually acquainted with these cars). While I may agree that they likely won't cut a new body, they may hear that outcry and go ahead and fix it. To me, it is worth the chance (after all, they did with the 'Pro Modeler' 69 Charger).

Edited May 27, 2013 by whale392

[Casey]

You see, I agree it would be great to see a new body tooled for the kit, but the flaws are minute and widespread. Revell simply won't cut a whole new body. I'm a realist. It would cost too much and won't result in a significant increase in sales.

That's what I think the body should be re-done-- the rest of the kit appears to be well done, but it's the body shell specifically which contains most of the errors, and the most glaring error, the roof height.

I'm also factoring in future version of this kit when I say I think Revell should correct the body. We know there's another notchback kit coming, and I'd like to think an LX hatch has been considered for the future, too, so this isn't a one-and-done kit.

I also think this kit could be a bridge between the late '60s/early '70s musclecars and current (modern if you like) performance cars, so to me, that factors in, too. Revell is re-doing several kits which they already have a (very similar or the same) version of in their tooling bank, so if these LX kits are successful, maybe all new 1/25 '85 IROC-Z and '87 Buick GNX kits will be produced, too. We know they are working on an '83 Hurst/Olds Cutlass in 1/25, so a GN/GNX based on the same G-body platform isn't that wild of a dream anymore.

[Harry P.]

Wow! You guys are pretty passionate about your Fox Mustangs!

I just read this thread for the first time. Lots of good points brought up, but it looks like it boils down to the usual two groups: those of you who expect a newly-tooled kit to be accurate, and those of you that for one reason or another don't care, or are willing to accept glaring errors (even to the point of defending the manufacturer! ).

Seems to me that in this day and age, there is no excuse for a newly-tooled kit to be as inaccurate as this one apparently is. I have no personal interest in this kit, but if it was one that I had been anxiously waiting for and this is what I got, I'd be pretty bummed. Gotta say, I do not understand why some of you are so willing to overlook gross inaccuracies. I know, I know, "we're modelers... we can fix it." And yes, we can fix it, but that's not the point. The point is, we shouldn't have to fix it! It should never have been released this way!

I strongly suggest that everyone who is disappointed in this kit make your feelings known to the manufacturer, either through email, a phone call, a letter, whatever. Let them know that you are unhappy with this kit. Unless you make your views known to the people who are in a position to address the problem, we'll just keep on seeing lousy new kits.

[whale392]

Now see, Caseys forward thinking is yet another reason for this kit to be correct. Even though a lot of people here won't agree, the 80's subjects really did bring us into the second age of Muscle Cars and deserve a place among properly kitted subjects. I would LOVE to see my shelf full of 1/25th scale Fox Mustangs/Capris (be it LX 5.0s, GTs, SVOs 4eyes, Turbo4s), G-Body terrors, F-Body land sharks, the emergence of European and Japanese supercars............................................

If it all goes well and a CORRECT LX sells like hotcakes, maybe we have a chance at seeing some subjects that excite MY generation (who, by the way, will be taking over as the current generation starts passing away).

[Abell82]

You see, I agree it would be great to see a new body tooled for the kit, but the flaws are minute and widespread. Revell simply won't cut a whole new body. I'm a realist. It would cost too much and won't result in a significant increase in sales.

How do you know? They cut a new body for the 69 charger why not for the LX mustang? They made 3 attempts at the Cuda?? WHO are you Darin to say Revell will or won't??