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

[Ace-Garageguy]

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.

"Tolerance stacking" is a factor in every product that's assembled from multiple parts. It kinda happens that engineering is part of my background, as well as designing and building production tooling for a variety of materials.Tolerance stacking, when handled by a COMPETENT designer or engineer DOESN'T alter the OUTSIDE DIMENSION of the product. The adjustments that have to be made for practical purposes are hidden.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

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.

True, 1/25 scale parts are obviously not exact scale reproductions of full size parts, but basic dimensions (length, width, height, wheelbase, etc. can be, and should be, accurately reproduced in scale and are not subject to any needed "finessing" to accommodate the injection-molding process.

[Darin Bastedo]

True, 1/25 scale parts are obviously not exact scale reproductions of full size parts, but basic dimensions (length, width, height, wheelbase, etc. can be, and should be, accurately reproduced in scale and are not subject to any needed "finessing" to accommodate the injection-molding process.

This is true harry, and I think in this case you will find that the height, width, length, and wheelbase are pretty close to dead on, where this effort falls apart is execution of the fine details, the shape and height of the windows, the positioning of the wheel wells and the side trim.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

It was suggested here earlier that the revelation of Revell's Mustang project ahead of schedule truncated their development time, bringing us the results we see now.

This premise was handled as all material of such ilk should be, but it demands an interesting counterpoint, so let's accept it for a moment. How, then, to rationalize certain other problematic kits Revell has recently released, that had no such "prematurity" involved? Because ANY discussion countering an objective assessment of a kit's deviations in a forum labeled "Kit Reviews" is RATIONALIZATION, and there's really nothing ANY of you can do about that except continue to demonstrate it luridly, beyond the faintest shadow of dispute.

Just to give a few of you an idea how wildly off-target some of your premises are, Bradley, by way of f'rinstance, was involved in private discussions where we ALL saw the problems IMMEDIATELY back in October. This was before any measurements were taken, and he got genuinely upset at our "attack" on the kit. He did not come willingly to the conclusions he has, he got dragged there kicking all the way, by cold hard FACTS far beyond anything he could influence for good or ill.

It's the provocateur's easy luxury to push somebody's buttons and then make an ostentatious display of how reasonable he's being as opposed to the person he provoked. Bradley is one of the more eminently credible FOX resources out there, and it took a right beating from the very kit itself to pummel him and a number of others into the conclusions they've reached. To go so far as to imply his complicity in what has plainly and sadly become Revell's SOP is only to scuttle your own credibility, and the removal of that post was a distinct favor to the poster.

[Harry P.]

Darin, you've been one heck of a cheerleader for Revell regarding their new Mustang, but seriously... don't you sort of feel like Jody Arias' defense attorney?

Seems to me that some of the Japanese kit makers successfully manufacture models that are well engineered, whose parts fit well, and which look exactly like their 1:1 counterparts, not a caricature of the subject. Revell doesn't yet seem to have mastered the art and science of model kit production to the level that the Japanese have.

If they can do it, Revell can do it. It's a matter of want to.

[Darin Bastedo]

Darin, you've been one heck of a cheerleader for Revell regarding their new Mustang, but seriously... don't you sort of feel like Jody Arias' defense attorney?

Seems to me that some of the Japanese kit makers successfully manufacture models that are well engineered, whose parts fit well, and which look exactly like their 1:1 counterparts, not a caricature of the subject. Revell doesn't yet seem to have mastered the art and science of model kit production to the level that the Japanese have.

If they can do it, Revell can do it. It's a matter of want to.

I'm no cheerleader, I'm a realist. The Japanese companies not only have larger budgets and a stronger home market, but they are also doing primarily new subject for which CAD data exists for making the job 100x easier. Tamiya makes enough off their R/C line to make model production a sideline.

[Erik Smith]

When did the kit review section become the "let's see if you can do better" section? I can critique Proust, but I'll never write better.

[Casey]

I hate to do this, but I think it's time for a cool off period. This topic is locked until tomorrow.

[Harry P.]

Open for business again. But if we have to do any more cleaning up today, this gets shut down for good.

It's up to you guys.

[VW Dave]

Inaccuracies be damned.....I've got my NYSP decals in hand already, and I know I'll buy one. For me the subject matter will win out over any incorrect number of rivets I will read about on the forums.

[Danno]

Inaccuracies be damned.....I know I'll buy one. For me the subject matter will win out over any incorrect number of rivets I will read about on the forums.

Dittos!!!

I have no rocks to cast at Revell from my glass house.

I've been at this model car/truck building sport for a little over 50 years now, and I've seen, bought, dealt with, and built a ton of inaccurate kits ... and I've seen even more inaccurate builds of accurate kits (some even perpetrated by the most reknown and venerated 'master builders').

The bottom line is Revell had/has to do the best they can while keeping their bottom line in sight. If they fail to achieve "the best" then it may adversely affect their bottom line. If their "best" isn't good enough for you in a given instance, then protect your own bottom line and don't buy it. Save your money for something you like and approve.

Vote with your wallet, not your mouth or your keyboard. Their bottom line will get the message from your bottom line.

Just ask Palmer.

[Harry P.]

The bottom line is Revell had/has to do the best they can while keeping their bottom line in sight.

Sorry, but that generic rationalization doesn't wash.

How do you explain the fact that sometimes they "get it right," and other times they fail spectacularly? The bottom line was part of the equation in all instances, yet quality/accuracy varies widely from release to release.

And besides... to simplify things to make a point: the guy(s) that are paid to measure stuff get paid the same amount whether they measure accurately or inaccurately. In other words, it doesn't cost any more to tool up an accurate kit than it does to tool up a kit with a roofline that's obviously wrong, for example. The process is the same.

It's true that we've seen a lot of inaccurate kits over the years, for various reasons (cutting corners, the "good enough" philosophy, incompetence, whatever)... but it seems to me that if MPC was capable of tooling up accurate bodies nearly 50 years ago, without any computers or CAD to "help" them, wouldn't it be logical to assume that accurate bodies could still be tooled up in 2013???

[futurattraction]

How do you explain the fact that sometimes they "get it right," and other times they fail spectacularly? The bottom line was part of the equation in all instances, yet quality/accuracy varies widely from release to release.

And besides... to simplify things to make a point: the guy(s) that are paid to measure stuff get paid the same amount whether they measure accurately or inaccurately. In other words, it doesn't cost any more to tool up an accurate kit than it does to tool up a kit with a roofline that's obviously wrong, for example. The process is the same.

It's true that we've seen a lot of inaccurate kits over the years, for various reasons (cutting corners, the "good enough" philosophy, incompetence, whatever)... but it seems to me that if MPC was capable of tooling up accurate bodies nearly 50 years ago, without any computers or CAD to "help" them, wouldn't it be logical to assume that accurate bodies could still be tooled up in 2013???

Amen.

[The Creative Explorer]

Maybe I am weird, but I like the kit body better then the actual car . the little shorter windows make the car look more in balance than with that tall green house.

[niteowl7710]

I guess my "line in the sand" when it comes to inaccuracies for the "bottom line" is the corner cutting we've seen in the past.

Examples would be the Rat Roaster which has a number of problems that keep it from being an excellent kit that all revolve around the fact that they cut some corners to keep from tooling up all of the parts that would have made a 95%+ accurate version of the 1:1 car. Things like the wrong cross-member, wrong suspension, etc

Another would be the 2010 Mustang which I think we all can agree considering the car came out in 2011 should have been a 2011, but was kept a 2010 so the corner could be cut to use the older 4.6 engine rather than cutting a new engine tool for the 5.0 Coyote motor.

HOWEVER when we have a brand new, from scratch tool - that share not parts with ANYTHING else - then I do not find it acceptable in any way, shape or form for a kit to have a body as out of whack as this one.

Edited May 28, 2013 by niteowl7710

[whale392]

I will say this for the 'chopped top' look; it makes it easier for anyone who would like to make a Pro-Mod body out of it!

I can get more of my measurements up later this evening, and we can all take an objective look at it from a purely scale versus 1:1 standpoint. Anybody really interested in that anymore?

Edited May 28, 2013 by whale392

[mrknowetall]

Agreed. Give it a rest.

[Abell82]

Lets just consider something for a moment. What if Revell had it right? I mean Monogram got it right 20 years ago with the GLX vert. So maybe its not Revell, but the scale and location of manufacturing.Maybe aman in China was having a bad time converting to 1/25th scale vs.1/24th. Which begs the question which scale should they be using if they are producing overseas?

[freakshow12]

I think I will cut the roof off and build a nice set of feature cars. Starting with the 7 up car then yellow one, white one and red one...

[whale392]

Skip, Ed, and Don; Thank you for adding positive content to the thread. If any of you would like to contribute something that we can use to properly evaluate the kit in question, feel free.

[Daddyfink]

So, has anyone called Revell on this one? No, I have not read the whole thread as it appears to be quite repetitive.

I mean, folks call them for lost wheels, scratch glass and decals, why not for an innacurate body?

Just my random thoughts!

[Brett Barrow]

So, has anyone called Revell on this one? No, I have not read the whole thread as it appears to be quite repetitive.

I mean, folks call them for lost wheels, scratch glass and decals, why not for an innacurate body?

Just my random thoughts!

I got an answer from my contact at Revell. They've heard the complaints.

[Deano]

I got an answer from my contact at Revell. They've heard the complaints.

And ... ?

[Brett Barrow]

And ... ?

Private conversation.

[bandit1]

Has Revell issued any responses to the posts some of you have made on Facebook?

I just checked and i didnt see anything yet ...