1/25 Revell Mustang 5.0 LX Drag Racer

[JTalmage]

C'mon folks, there's a simple solution to the roof debate. Get over it. If it bothers you soo bad, don't buy one.

Or buy a real one and build it your way. Like I'm doing.

Take a step back, calm down, and realize it's just a plastic model not the end of the world, and build em to have fun.

[blubaja]

If Revell did fix the roof height then I expect about fifty new posts from everyone offering apologizes to Revell and Mr. Sexton for all of the negative comments made about the kit.

They will get much thanks for correcting the body, IF that's the case. But until we see anything, Ed's vague answer wasn't very helpful. It's not lilke he would come out and reply-"no, it's still the same heap as the first release" lol.

And an apology?? I'm sorry your company made an incorrect product and got called on it multiple occasions that lead to photos of deceased equine abuse? LOL!

[Rob Hall]

When i asked Revell about the body issue, the answer was for this latest version of the drag racer, not the previous police package issue...

So M. Sexton told me the the body was correct for this version (drag racer), not to misunderstand what he said to me!!

If you look carefully to the picture of the model on their website , you can see that they corrected the top height, to be accurate.

You can't really go by one photo at an angle, and we have no idea if that picture has been edited or not. We will only know when the kit is out and people compare the body to the police car version. The roof height was only one issue with the body--the decklid shape was wrong, side trim was wrong, etc.

[johnbuzzed]

If there was an opportunity to "measure the heck" out of an actual car, how did the dimensions go bad in the first place? Sounds like the Rat Roaster having the incorrect front axle- wasn't that examined that live and in-person, too?

Either way, I will be getting one of the 5.0 drag kits, because I want to build one. But I can still question the principles behind the errors.

[Rob Hall]

If Revell did fix the roof height then I expect about fifty new posts from everyone offering apologizes to Revell and Mr. Sexton for all of the negative comments made about the kit.

Why on earth would anyone 'apologize' to them for fixing what they screwed up? If they had proper quality control and paid attention to what they were doing when they designed the kit in the first place, they wouldn't have received the well-earned criticism.

[johnbuzzed]

Why on earth would anyone 'apologize' to them for fixing what they screwed up? If they had proper quality control and paid attention to what they were doing when they designed the kit in the first place, they wouldn't have received the well-earned criticism.

"I concur, in spades." Revell should be apologizing to the consumers.

[Casey]

if you look carefully the top has been corrected (you can see by the windshield upper portion that doesn't fit.

That appears to be a dark tint band at the top edge of the windshield when you zoom in:

[DaveM]

If they did fix the roof, I will buy several. But...I'm going to wait until I see the kit in person, or see some very detailed pictures on here before I plunk down my hard earned cash for them. (My days of blindly buying the new Revell releases without vetting them first is long past.) I hope that someday, they will also run another batch of stock ones with corrected bodies. This is the car that pretty much was the backbone of the muscle car scene for the best part of a decade. It sure deserves a good kit, and should be pretty popular with a whole generation of new builders.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Painting the drip moldings and door frames black does minimize the problem somewhat. Looks pretty much the same to me, straight down to the 5.0 badge pre-correction, if that ain't a decal - but hey, I'm ready and willing to be surprised and delighted, and I'll be hollering A T T A B O O Y Y! from the rafters if they have indeed fixed it.

But an apology? I've dropped more than fifty bucks on a pair I don't know if I've got the time to make acceptable, and I ain't lookin' for an apology! An apology to Revell is appropriate if the criticism is off-base and incorrect, but Mike Schnur - though he doesn't like to make a big deal of it - has demonstrated conclusively with his vastly improved body shell that the criticism is bang on-target (the upper-echelon's apparent attempts at whitewashing it all to the contrary). So the very concept of an apology to Revell for getting around to what they should have done in the first place is "are-you-putting-me-on??" LAUGHABLE.

But with all due respect, that mentality once again demonstrates that what really needs to be "gotten over" is this same old allergy to kit criticism that like it or not, is entirely topical to the subject at hand.

When a model has visual deviations from the prototype, it fails to live up to its very reason for existence. I'm going to borrow somebody's notion of "reasonable expectation", except that I'm actually going to be more REASONABLE about it: while this chimerical, straw man diversion of the "perfect kit" is anything BUT reasonable to hope for, a roof height without a clearly visible variance from true scale IS a reasonable expectation.

Now let's try another angle: just how exactly does a discussion thread pointing this out, asking if there's been any progress from one release to the next, fail to meet the reader's expectation? Long as there are no personal attacks, that too-low roof IS on topic, and what's more, some folks actually come in with the objective of FINDING OUT about problems like this. So not only is the "don't like it, don't participate" approach just as apt here, it is in fact MORE appropriate. After all, it's not as if any of you has been waiting over two decades to drop your cold cashish on some sunshine-and-ponies Stepford thread about a problem kit.

In the case of the model, it plainly does not live up to its own stated mandate of being 1/25 the size of the subject in all dimensions, so discussion of that in a thread about the very kit is not only logical and on-topic, it's inevitable. That a truly topical discussion should somehow be muted in pointing out all these problems is the expectation that's actually irrational. It's really the people with that expectation who need to "get over" the fact that a topical discussion will include pointing out problems with the kit.

And If you don't like it, don't read it.

Btw, notice how THAT suggestion doesn't nick Revell's bottom line.

[martinfan5]

If Revell did fix the roof height then I expect about fifty new posts from everyone offering apologizes to Revell and Mr. Sexton for all of the negative comments made about the kit.

Oh heck no, I will not apologize, if they do fix the roof height, I will say, great job Revell for correcting the issue, and listing to us, but that is as far as that will go.

[jefropas]

I dunno, comparing that pic to the original kit...really looks the same....I don't wanna be a guinea pig again....

Jeff

[JTalmage]

This guy here doesn't give two brown poopies about the roof height. I'm probably going to end up owning a dozen of these, and will enjoy building them all with no complaints.

The weather is getting better for the most part. Go get some fresh air folks... cabin fever and glue fumes are making ya'll edgey.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Good for you, Jesse. Seriously, nobody's even beginning to suggest you shouldn't buy and build to your heart's content.

But it doesn't really serve your purpose to try and mandate what we need to get over, tell us we need fresh air 'cause we don't see it your way, and then wonder at the "edgey"-ness.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Daddyfink]

Great news! Revell fixed the body!

[martinfan5]

Great news! Revell fixed the body!

I will take a few case's

[JTalmage]

Good for you, Jesse. Seriously, nobody's even beginning to suggest you shouldn't buy and build to your heart's content.

But it doesn't really serve your purpose to try and mandate what we need to get over, tell us we need fresh air 'cause we don't see it your way, and then wonder at the "edgey"-ness.

LOL... you guys take this stuff too serious

[niteowl7710]

LOL... you guys take this stuff too serious

Yet a few of us just wondered if well known, and acknowledged problems were fixed, or if Revell has it's proverbial head in the sand. You're the one accusing people of being edgy, suffering from seasonal depression, and being high on glue fumes.

This is your buddy's car, so you have a vested interest in it, I get that, but who exactly is taking things too seriously here?

Edited March 20, 2014 by niteowl7710

[Rob Hall]

LOL... you guys take this stuff too serious

Hardly. These models are supposed to be accurate, detailed replicas, not inaccurate toys. If Revell wants to be taken seriously with adult modelers, they need to be take the details seriously.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Rob Hall

[johnbuzzed]

You think we car modelers take this stuff too seriously? Check out the world of military modeling.

[Matt T.]

If the quote attibuted to Ed Sexton is genuine, it seems to have a very short tone and lacks any real information, IMHO. I don't like it.

[Rob Hall]

You think we car modelers take this stuff too seriously? Check out the world of military modeling.

Exactly.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

LOL... you guys take this stuff too serious

Sure. We need fresh air, we gotta get over, we take it too serious, whatever puts us in an inferior position for not agreeing with you.

We see what you're doin' there. Did you really think you could say "get over it" without people getting "serious" and "edgy"?

[sirbuildalot]

At the big box store, models are sold in the Toy section. So are they toys, or highly accurate replicas? I want the model to look nice and if possible accurate too.

[slusher]

Let's not even resuscitate that argument again. We've been there and done that in the original LX notchback topic, and it didn't end well, at all.

Thanks for those pics, Jesse.

I have to agree with Casey, its been worn out about the top. It will just get the topic closed...

[Chuck Kourouklis]

ONE MORE TIME: it is not mentioning the top that's going to get this topic closed - that's something grown-ups should be able to discuss. What'll get this thread closed, if anything, are those who cannot handle the mention of the top and who turn the discussion personal as a result.

The first-issue kit is clearly not 1/25 in all dimensions. It does not live up to reasonable expectations.

This topic covers the next version of that kit. It does not violate reasonable expectations of this thread for those inaccuracies to be covered in it.

And it is those who somehow find that topical discussion offensive who are truly demonstrating an inability to "get over" it. Funny how it's always about us who take things too seriously, and never those who take comments about a kit they had no role in developing too personally.

What freshens the whole issue of the top for this conversation is that we are dealing with something on very nearly the magnitude of the first-issue ProModeler '69 Charger here - something Revell/Monogram has actual precedent for fixing. So it's natural, predictable - no surprise at all - that it's going to come up once again as people wonder if R/M will follow or abandon their precedent with the next version of the kit, the subject of this thread.

Now in fairness, a couple other things to consider:

To ask Mr Sexton about this is to put him in a no-win. Either he concedes the first one needed fixing or he toes the party line at some expense to his credibility, and for right now, it looks like the latter. If the response is terse, maybe it's because of internal stress at the company right now, or simply having too many other fish to fry - they did just lose Roger Harney, arguably the heart and soul of Monogram for over fifty years and by association, that of Revell for around half that time.

Is the product any less deficient for all this? No - but it might be helpful in understanding why we get the responses we sometimes do.