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

[Harry P.]

Revell simply won't cut a whole new body.

Maybe not. But they should be getting an earful from their customers, to lessen the chances of another major mess-up like this one coming along next time. If they get the message from enough people that we won't accept this sort of product, maybe they'll get their act together and do better next time. Silence and acceptance of mediocrity (or worse) only encourages further mediocrity.

[whale392]

Thank you, Harry. I believe Revell will have an earful (both sides I can attest to) come Tuesday when they head back into the office!

And all we can do is HOPE (with a large dose of persuasion) that Revell WILL cut a body. If they don't, well we tried. If they do, Ok. Nothing says that body will be correct either. But fixing the greenhouse (and maybe the door locks and trunk trailing edge) will go a LONG way in allowing the 'rivet counter' to getting it as close as they can.

[Abell82]

Sadly with Revell closed tomorrow for Memorial day .... no one will hear or see our arguments until Tuesday anyway. But come Tuesday I think we should all call and ask where to send the kits for a refund.

[whale392]

that is a notion, Jason!

[Darin Bastedo]

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??

Who am I? Nobody in particular. Other than being involved in the hobby for over 40 years, and having dealt with the model building public, as well as the manufacturers for about 10 of those years. Do I know everything, no but I know a lot. Revell didn't cut a new body for the 1969 Charger, they changed the portion of the tooling for the roof. Big difference. The only issue on the charger was the roof, On the Mustang LX the proportions of the body are wrong throughout the mold. Changing just the roof will not result in a better kit, it just will be wrong in a different way.

Another major difference between the LX and the Charger is, with the Charger, they were trying launch a new upscale brand with Pro-Modeler. It was worth it to them to make it right because the brand depended on it. The LX is just another release in the regular line. This is a new Revell and different owners than back then. Do you see them rushing to fix the taillight panel on the 69 Nova? What makes you think if they didn't correct that they will be willing to cut a whole new body for the LX.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope they correct all the flaws and give you the LX of your dreams. I'm not holding my breath until that happens though. Who am I? A realist.

[Aaronw]

Unless I missed it somewhere in this thread, no one mentioned the side moulding on the doors.

If you are replicating a CHP Mustang for example, that trim needs to be removed. Why didn't Revell make this a separate piece?

Here's a pic of how the door should look with the trim removed...

...same on the Nevada car...

Same problem with most police car kits. Seems like a simple enough solution of just providing seperate trim, so you either snap it in for stock, or fill two small holes for a police car. Could even change that to drill out two small holes and snap in the trim for stock and do nothing extra for the police car. This really make sense fo a car like the Crown Vic which I'm sure the vast majority are built as police cars.

[niteowl7710]

Another major difference between the LX and the Charger is, with the Charger, they were trying launch a new upscale brand with Pro-Modeler. It was worth it to them to make it right because the brand depended on it. The LX is just another release in the regular line. This is a new Revell and different owners than back then. Do you see them rushing to fix the taillight panel on the 69 Nova? What makes you think if they didn't correct that they will be willing to cut a whole new body for the LX.

Well that might be the case had the Pro Modeler series lasted more than what was it a half-dozen kits if you don't factor in the Airplanes...The Charger body got pulled - according to people who are in the know that I've spoken to - because Chrysler's P.R. & Licensing Departments laid a cow over it and threatened to pull permission to do another run of the Charger, and the subsequent Daytona kit (which would have also killed the '68 Charger kit and irreparably harmed their relationship with Chrysler). The same case for the Lindberg '61 Impala, it wasn't indignant hobbyists, but rather GM's Licensing Dept that made them go back and fix the body. Perhaps we should direct our ire at Ford for letting them trot out this body shell...

Also while Revell may have never fixed the taillight kicker panel, they sure did re-tool the gas tank so it was mounted in the correct direction lickity-split. It does make you wonder if the COPO Nova was actually something planned all along - a model of a non-existent car - or if it was something they wound up having to do to justify tooling up all the CORRECT parts so you could actually build a Yenko Nova, then tossed in the 396SS decals so people wouldn't lay their own cows about having two kits with 96% of the parts they'd need to complete the left over one once they swapped interior and exterior parts around. With the way Revell operates in forcing you to either buy two kits or wait around hoping there's a second kit forthcoming to get the up-top option of their convertible kits it makes you wonder, since the only people who know the truth about the Yenko/COPO Nova debacle have non-disclosure forms and want to keep their jobs at Hobbico.

[Brett Barrow]

Who am I? Nobody in particular. Other than being involved in the hobby for over 40 years, and having dealt with the model building public, as well as the manufacturers for about 10 of those years. Do I know everything, no but I know a lot. Revell didn't cut a new body for the 1969 Charger, they changed the portion of the tooling for the roof. Big difference. The only issue on the charger was the roof, On the Mustang LX the proportions of the body are wrong throughout the mold. Changing just the roof will not result in a better kit, it just will be wrong in a different way.

Another major difference between the LX and the Charger is, with the Charger, they were trying launch a new upscale brand with Pro-Modeler. It was worth it to them to make it right because the brand depended on it. The LX is just another release in the regular line. This is a new Revell and different owners than back then. Do you see them rushing to fix the taillight panel on the 69 Nova? What makes you think if they didn't correct that they will be willing to cut a whole new body for the LX.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope they correct all the flaws and give you the LX of your dreams. I'm not holding my breath until that happens though. Who am I? A realist.

I hear you, Darin. I've sold models to the general public, and dealt with the manufacturers for the last 12 years myself, so I know where you're coming from.

I'm not an apologist, nor a model company defender, I'm a realist, too.

Here's a fun little hypothetical question I'd like to throw out there - If Revell were to fix the body on this kit, but it meant someone there had to lose their job or get laid off, would you all still want them to do it?

And I know what the answer will be "They should have gotten it right in the first place!". But what if it is right, in that it is exactly the kit that was laid out by the designer during the design phase, the pattern maker followed that design perfectly, then the toolmakers followed that pattern exactly. What if no mistakes were made though the development of this kit, what if any flaws were inherent in the designer's design work and were there intentionally as part of that particular designer's aesthetic style?

Again, I don't know that that's the case with this particular model, but I do know that making rooflines 1-2" lower than the 1:1 has been the norm in model kit design since the dawn of modeling.

[Harry P.]

Again, I don't know that that's the case with this particular model, but I do know that making rooflines 1-2" lower than the 1:1 has been the norm in model kit design since the dawn of modeling.

Time for that "tradition" to end. A scale model should be an accurate representation of the subject, not some designer's "interpretation" of the subject.

[Brett Barrow]

Time for that "tradition" to end. A scale model should be an accurate representation of the subject, not some designer's "interpretation" of the subject.

Tell that to guys that have been doing it for 40+ years. Tell Art Fitzpatrick that in all those great Pontiac illustrations he did the cars were too low, and too long, and too wide.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Revell's 50 Olds has about a 1 3/4" roof chop, and anyone who notices it (almost no one does, when done right you won't) thinks it is an improvement.

[Rob Hall]

Tell that to guys that have been doing it for 40+ years.

If they've been designing models that long, it's time for retirement, isn't it? The 50 Olds is a rather old and obscure subject, from long before my time...the '90 Mustang on the other hand, is recent and familiar and a lot of people know these cars and still own them, and can spot the errors...

[whale392]

To be perfectly honest, Brett, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the DESIGNER of this kit (the person responsible for its bad body proportions in your example) were to lose their job AND be replaced by someone who does NOT make the same 'artistic license' design choices. Illustrations are one thing, Brett. Tangible product is something else completely. You can chherlead all you want, but no matter how you cut it (or try to skew it) this body is wrong. I don't care whos' fault it is, the fact that it is wrong proves someone doesn't do their job well.

Terry, I spent 4 years as a Naval Airdale (VAW-120 NAS Norfolk), working engined (AD3). Attention to detail (as you well know) is something that you end up living. It isn't an on-off thing, it becomes a part of you. You can see things that just aren't right. Being as i own these cars (and a 1965 Dodge Coronet500, which irrelevent here, will go nicely with your Charger), I am even more atenuated to their shape/proportions.

Now, on to that 50 Olds everyone likes to drag up (since we have beaten that poor Pro-Modeler Charger to death). Yup, roof is chopped there too. Again, a case of someone not properly doing their job. I see a trend here, and a trend of the mediocrophiles/accurophobes jumping all over the 'rivet counters' who want accurate subjects. If you are willing to settle for 'close enough', maybe we should start paying you 2/3rds of what you currently get paid. Hey, it's 'close enough' to what you normally get paid. (now, before any of you tongue-waggers want to bump your gums about "It isn't the same thing as one is just expendable time/money while the other is life", the concept behind both is the same.)

The 50 Olds does not look as out of scale because of the fluid, flowing lines of the subject. It is hard for the human eye to discern the scale issues when it has no real flat surface to draw a mental 'rule' from. On an angular subject, the eye/brain can quickly compute the 'scale rule' as it has many surfaces from which to measure. A top chop on a square vehicle will be much more dramatic than on a flowing vehicle (given the chop is the same height).

Then again, why argue the obvious points with those who have no dog in this hunt nor plan on having one in it? To the vast majority, it really doesn't matter. Just like alzheimers or autism, it doesn't affect you and you keep right on living until IT DOES AFFECT YOU! Then it becomes a focal point for you. So, since you aren't affected by this kit being wrong, let those who are affected by it try to do something about it. You can go on living your lives as normal, nothing to see here.

Edited May 27, 2013 by whale392

[Dennis Lacy]

Not to mention that it has been routine practice for over 50 years for people to chop the top on early 50's subjects when turning them into a hot rod or custom. When done right, it can be a great asthetic improvement.

People don't chop the tops on Fox Mustangs. One person did in the mid-90's and it looked stupid. No one, that I know of, has done it since.

[charlie8575]

Here's a fun little hypothetical question I'd like to throw out there - If Revell were to fix the body on this kit, but it meant someone there had to lose their job or get laid off, would you all still want them to do it?

And I know what the answer will be "They should have gotten it right in the first place!". But what if it is right, in that it is exactly the kit that was laid out by the designer during the design phase, the pattern maker followed that design perfectly, then the toolmakers followed that pattern exactly. What if no mistakes were made though the development of this kit, what if any flaws were inherent in the designer's design work and were there intentionally as part of that particular designer's aesthetic style?

Speaking as someone with some industrial arts study in my background, I can cede that if that tool was cut to spec, then, yes, in absolutes, the job was done right. However, doing the job right and doing the job right are two different things altogether.

Think of it this way: you ask a carpenter to frame walls for your house. The dimensions are 24 feet in each direction. The carpenter makes a pair at 22 and another pair at 26. The workmanship is good quality and the walls are true, square and plumb. The job was done right- the workmanship was good and the square area will be about the same (576 square feet at 24x24, 572 at 22x26). But, the job was done incorrectly- because specifications were altered.

Or worse, one wall is 22, one is 24, and the others are 23 and 25 feet, respectively. Now what do you do?

Should someone lose their job over this? I don't know, while I don't think any of us would want to see that, I do know that repeated errors are enough to cost someone a position, or lead to a re-assignment.

There seem to have been enough issues coming out of Revell- and a lot of the other manufacturers lately, that it makes me wonder who, or what, is to blame. Poor tooling shops? Bad designers? Incompetent pattern-makers? Learning curve with the 3-D prototyping? Tradition, as pointed out? Are we, as modelers, simply starting to make more note of these things? Perhaps some combination of these considerations is the cause.

Whatever the reason, a major lapse in process control occurred, and to a great degree, who or what to blame is besides the point. The process went out of control somewhere and this is the result. Adequate quality and process control and reference checking would have eliminated all this.

Charlie Larkin

[Darin Bastedo]

Bradley, why do you take all of this so personally? We are not Jumping all over you for being a rivet counter. The fact is nobody noticed the roof until someone erroneous "measured" it and said it was chopped. Yes the window is off, but has been pointed out and ignored time and time again, the body as a whole is not shorter by 1.5-2". therefore the "rivet counters" are obviously counting the wrong rivets. How can we expect the model companies to correct errors that the LXperts can't even correctly identify. From my observation, it's not that the roof is that far off, but several other detail and proportions are slightly off culminating into making the roof look chopped.

Having a design background I can tell you that most likely the start of the problem with this body is the too high wheel arches, and the belt line trim. If they based the relationship of the lower window edge to that feature, the side window would be too short regardless of the roof shape. I'd put real money on the possibility, that by the time they noticed that that dimension was off, it was too late in the development to fix it. At some point in the development, you hit a point of no return, where you have neither the budget to fix an issue, and too much invested to scrap it. To fix the issues with this kit they would have to start from scratch with a whole new body tooling, which is the most expensive part to do.

Would it be great if it came out perfect? yup, but you have to realize that you are part of a small minority who will actually notice that it is wrong. To there main audience it looks OK, There is not a single 100% accurate kit on the market, and there never will be. why should this one be any different?

[Harry P.]

Call me crazy, but if they would have simply taken measurements off a real Mustang, and not relied on someones "interpretation" of the subject, all of the mistakes in the model would have been prevented (or at the least, minimized). Bill (acegarageguy) mentioned this in a previous thread regarding the wildly varying sizes of the same thing (HEMI engine) from different kit manufacturers: Dimensions are dimensions. They are not someone's "opinion," they are numbers. Something that's 25 inches long in real life should be 1 inch long (or as close to that as the manufacturing process allows) in 1/25 scale. Period.

Bringing up advertising illustrations to defend the inaccuracies of this kit is completely irrelevant. Advertising illustrations are meant to play on the viewer's emotions, there is some "artistic license" employed... especially in those completely inaccurate but aesthetically pleasing Pontiac "Wide Track ads of the '60s. But an illustration meant to entice a person to buy a product is not comparable to the product itself; it's a totally irrelevant comparison.

[whale392]

Darin,

When I say the greenhouse is wrong, I am taking into consideration everything from the beltline up. The roof, when measured from the top of the door to the roof-skin kick-over is rather close, but (as you stated and I can confirm with the measurements) the entire side window proportions are off. The area of roof visible above the drip molding is too much (.040" by measuring my 1:1 car), as well as the drip molding itself being too thick (it to needs to be reduced by roughly .015"). These two are over half of the discrepency we are seeing. Add .040" to the overall height from the top of the door up and you will make up that extra distance of roof failure.

As to your querry of the wheel well arches; yes they are WAY off in height (and in the rears, length by them being too long by .080". Again, this is a rough measure from my car and all of these cars had slight variances). But .040" is still a scale inch, and on either side of the arch, making it appear too long and flat. The body crease itself is also a bit low and inconsistant across the body, lending an odd look to the rear quarters and wheel well openings. I am working on getting all of these measurements together and comparing them to the kit, that way we (and Revell, if they decide to fix it) will have them handy and to work from.

Part of the reason I take it personally is I had a hand (ever so small) in this kits development, and had multuiple conversations with Ed about the car through its process. Granted, I was brought back in a bit too late in the game to correct the flawed body, but I was still with it for a bit. I feel partly responsible for this kit, and because it is wrong I feel I take some of the blame. For me, this kit IS personal. I have never had this much attachment/involvement in a kit before. I was one of the biggest cheerleaders for this kit when i got wind of it being developed. Sadly, after finally seeing it in my hands, I am also one of its biggest detractors. That is why I held off judging this kit until I had one, so that I could make informed observations versus just what I had seen on the 'net. I feel like I failed Ed and his group, and that somehow they also failed to get the shape right even with my help.

Do I expect it to be 100% perfect? Absolutely not. But I did expect better than this.

[Deano]

I have a possibly relevant (tho possibly not) question: Is this kit produced here in the good ol' USA or do our 'friends' in China make this one?

[whale392]

Ben does have a legitimate point in that a lot of this kits interest does come from the more-than-Average-Joe modeler and kids. Most guys I have talked to who will be buying this kit are either Fox guys, Mustang guys in general, or (believe it or not) Chevy guys who have raced against these cars and know what they should look like. Kids today don't care about this subject matter, and the aging-in-the-hobby don't either (as it isn't a 57 Chevy or a 32 Ford). This car is a 'Tween, a car that has yet to reach collector status yet is seen daily. There are a million out there, and most of their owners see it as either basic transportation or worse. Then there is the other side who thinks this is the best 90% car Ford ever built. Guess who's dollar will start to run this hobby when all of the baby-boomers and gray-hairs die off? That would be us, the guys who are in our 30s now and remember these types of cars fondly. I already spend a good bit of my income on (either plastic or 1:1) these subjects. So for us, close won't do, especially in an age where technology rules the day. Paper and slide-rule drafting; I can see errors in that (as I have 4yrs High School drafting and 1.5yrs architectural engineering training), but there is no need for that today. With digital imaging, 3D scanning, and the abundance of reference sources available, there is no excuse for kit inaccuracies like there are (not limited to just this kit).

All work for the drawings starts here, but the product is 100% Chinese manufactured

[Ace-Garageguy]

Here's a fun little hypothetical question I'd like to throw out there - If Revell were to fix the body on this kit, but it meant someone there had to lose their job or get laid off, would you all still want them to do it?

Yes, and why not? I have to do my work to a particular standard, or I'm gone. I make sure anyone working under me does his or her work correctly, competently, and I encourage a feedback loop so EVERYONE is on the same page, knows what's expected, and gets it done RIGHT. This is called "management", part of which is "quality control" and "professional responsibility".

Why excuse and encourage poor performance??

[Monty]

I'll be curious to see how the MCM review handles the body issues.

Has Revell responded to any of the postings on FB?

[Rob Hall]

Ben does have a legitimate point in that a lot of this kits interest does come from the more-than-Average-Joe modeler and kids. Most guys I have talked to who will be buying this kit are either Fox guys, Mustang guys in general, or (believe it or not) Chevy guys who have raced against these cars and know what they should look like. kids today don't care about this subject matter, and the aging-in-the-hobby don't either (as it isn't a 57 Chevy or a 32 Ford). This car is a 'Tween, a car that has yet to reach collector status yet is seen daily. There are a million out there, and most of their owners see it as either basic transportation or worse. Then there is the other side who thinks this is the best 90% car Ford ever built. Guess who's dollar will start to run this hobby when all of the baby-boomers and gray-hairs die off? That would be us, the guys who are in our 30s now and remember these types of cars fondly. I already spend a good bit of my income on (either plastic or 1:1) these subjects. So for us, close won't do, especially in an age where technology rules the day. Paper and slide-rule drafting; I can see errors in that (as I have 4yrs High School drafting and 1.5yrs architectural engineering training), but there is no need for that today. With digital imaging, 3D scanning, and the abundance of reference sources available, there is no excuse for kit inaccuracies like there are (not limited to just this kit).

Well put...I'm in my early 40s, my high school and college cars were Fox Mustangs ('86 LX and '87 GT), drove them through my 20s..so it's definitely a nostalgia subject for me, and others of my generation. I connect w/ cars of this era in a way I'd never connect w/ something from the 60s or older. Kits like the Monogram Mustangs of the '80s-90s, '80s Monte Carlo SS, FIrebirds, Camaros, Buick GN, those are all models of cars I remember from my youth..the LX notchback has long been a missing link as far as cars of that era, so I'm definitely dissapointed in the new kit. Imagine how the older modelers would react if Revell put out a grossly inaccurate Tri-Five Chevy.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Rob Hall

[Ace-Garageguy]

Having a design background I can tell you that most likely the start of the problem with this body is the too high wheel arches, and the belt line trim. If they based the relationship of the lower window edge to that feature, the side window would be too short regardless of the roof shape. I'd put real money on the possibility, that by the time they noticed that that dimension was off, it was too late in the development to fix it. At some point in the development, you hit a point of no return, where you have neither the budget to fix an issue, and too much invested to scrap it. To fix the issues with this kit they would have to start from scratch with a whole new body tooling, which is the most expensive part to do.

Would it be great if it came out perfect?

The START of the problem (and I've spent my life designing and making things that have to fit and work with other things) is that nobody was driving the damm bus when the measurements were being taken and the drawings developed.

",,,by the time they noticed that that dimension was off, it was too late in the development to fix it." WHAT? When I was a lowly draftsman, we had a person called a "checker" who actually verified that at least a high percentage of the dimensions shown on a drawing WERE ACCURATE, BEFORE the damm thing was sent to the machine shop to be made. Simple concept: have somebody with a functioning brain and a little professional responsibility CHECK the measurements. Have a draftsman who's habitually wrong? FIRE HIM !!

"Would it be great if it came out perfect?" Again, WHAT ?? you MEASURE something ACCURATELY, you make the part ACCURATELY, there's no guesswork as to whether or not it will "come out perfect". It can't help it.

Continually accepting poor workmanship (on the part of whoever in the chain made the initial mistakes, and whoever in the chain ALLOWED them to remain) and making excuses for folks who get paid enough to get it right THE FIRST TIME but don't bother to do so, is only going to encourage sloppy, inaccurate work in the future.

And whether the parts are squirted into the molds in China or Siberia, Revell's front office is where the buck stops.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Rob Hall]

Sounds like a project management and quality assurance problem in Revell's design/development process...I run into these kinds of problems everyday in the software biz, but things are much more malleable w/ software and. less costly to fix along the way than w/ projects where there are physical deliverables.

[Darin Bastedo]

"Would it be great if it came out perfect?" Again, WHAT ?? you MEASURE something ACCURATELY, you make the part ACCURATELY, there's no guesswork as to whether or not it will "come out perfect". It can't help it.

You obviously have never engineered a model kit. Your statement is true if you are copying something 1:1. But things get tricky when you are doing it 1:25. There is a thing called tolerance stacking. The "sheet metal" in the body in 1:25 scale becomes an inch thick, the emblems if reproduced exactly to scale become lost in the paint. adjustments have to be made. The material is injection molded, and therefore has to be designed in such a way to be produced so that it's thick enough to be strong, but not so thick you get sink marks when it cools, and ejector pins need to be place so they are easily removed or hidden or don't deform the part when it ejects it. Those and many other engineering considerations and more have to be taken into account, all the while trying to make sure the part looks right. It's not just a simple matter of measuring the real car and making an exact scale replica of all the parts. I think if you were to have a chat with someone who actually does this for a living, you would have more respect for their craft.