1969 Ford Mustang.

[om617]

Who makes the best 69 Mustang sportsroof/fastback in your opinion,Revell or AMT?

[Pim]

I'd go for the revell I have the amt and it' s a pretty terrible model

[kitbash1]

Revell all the way.

[Monty]

The Revell kit is better overall in most regards, but they got the look of the grille wrong, which makes their version less attractive when built. I keep hoping someone talented will come up with a resin front end to fix it.

[unclescott58]

Isn't the '69 Mustang, the Mach 1 AMT release several years ago, really the old MPC kit? And from my understanding that kit is too small for 1/25th scale. Most people feel it's more about 1/28 or so. I have one, but have not looked at it in years. Never have added the Revell kit to my collection. Question with that one, isn't really the old Monogram kit? So it's 1/24th scale? I know back in 1969 Revell offered a Mustang kit that could be built as a notchback coupe. Not a fastback. So do we have a real and/or good 1/25th scale Mustang fastback?

Scott

[om617]

The "Motor city muscle" version from Revell say 1:25 on the box,but i have no idea if this is the case.

[unclescott58]

I forgot to mention, the '69 Mustang fastback kit I like the best is AMT's 1/43rd scale version. A little small. But, I've always like the looks of that kit when finished.

Scott

[om617]

If you google "revell 69 mustang" there will show a really sweet blue built kit. I think i`ll go for the Revell 1:25 kit.

Of course,as it usually goes for me it will end up as some nasty street machine lol

[Dave Van]

There is something 'wrong' with both kits.....the old AMT/MPC kit or the modern Revell kit. Both have issues up front. But I like the AMT version a little better.......the 'issues' are not as easy to see on it......the Revell kit screams wrong to my eyes.

[JTalmage]

There is something 'wrong' with both kits.....the old AMT/MPC kit or the modern Revell kit. Both have issues up front. But I like the AMT version a little better.......the 'issues' are not as easy to see on it......the Revell kit screams wrong to my eyes.

I agree. the proportions of the front end are a little off.

[unclescott58]

There is something 'wrong' with both kits.....the old AMT/MPC kit or the modern Revell kit. Both have issues up front. But I like the AMT version a little better.......the 'issues' are not as easy to see on it......the Revell kit screams wrong to my eyes.

So from Dave's comment, I'm getting the impression the Revell Mustang is not an old Monogram tool? Is it in 1/25th scale? And is the old AMT/MPC kit the wrong scale? Like I've heard. And did AMT tool their own 1/25th scale Mustang back in the days before AMT and MPC were combined and started sharing tools?

Scott

[Dave Van]

Both AMT and MPC had 69 Mustang kits. My understanding is the AMT tool was modified into the funny car 'MACH WON' then the long nose Rhona kit?? The MPC version nose is too narrow for some reason....maybe a semi funny car body or something. But I do not notice the issues with the MPC as much as the new tool 1/25 Revell kit which has a very flat pug look for some reason.....even Revell was not real happy at the time it was done.

[JTalmage]

1/25 Revell kit which has a very flat pug look for some reason.....even Revell was not real happy at the time it was done.

thats exactly what I was thinking about the Revell kit. something looked just... off.. with it.

[om617]

Been googling a little and it does indeed look off on comparison with one 1:25 diecast. Well,then no 69 Mustang for me.

Any other Fastback kits you guys would recomend then? 65-66-67 and maby 68? I have one 68 AMT but it`s more like

an restoration object from i was a kid. Modern Mustangs are not interesting for me,only as donors lol (No pun intended)

Edited July 11, 2014 by om617

[MrObsessive]

Tommy, I can recommend the AMT '67 Mustang GT kit (originally released in '94). You may have seen this thread, as I'm currently building one of those. Not a bad kit at all, but it is missing some things that were specific to a GT, but I'm adding those as I go along. To me the body lines are right on the money, and it's not giving me any fit troubles so far as I'm building it.

[vamach1]

I build a somewhat decent Mach1 from the MPC kit. Too bad the door panels are for a 68 Mustang :-(

http://public.fotki.com/vamach1/mustang-model-cars/101-0132.html

[unclescott58]

So is the MPC Mach 1 in 1/25th scale or not? Again I've heard it is not. But, from reading Dave Van's comments above, I get the impression the kit may be in 1/25th scale after all.

Scott

[Dave Van]

So is the MPC Mach 1 in 1/25th scale or not? Again I've heard it is not. But, from reading Dave Van's comments above, I get the impression the kit may be in 1/25th scale after all.

Scott

Well........the kit as a whole is not 1/26 or 1/28 like some older Japanese kits.......but the body A pillars forward has issues.....again they don't bother me but get the digital calipers out and......

[Art Anderson]

So is the MPC Mach 1 in 1/25th scale or not? Again I've heard it is not. But, from reading Dave Van's comments above, I get the impression the kit may be in 1/25th scale after all.

Scott

More like it's pretty much out of proportion.

Art

[om617]

Thanks for the suggestions and what to avoid. I might go for an 67 instead.

[freakshow12]

A lot of the rm 69 nose issue is assembly. If you take the time to fit the grille properly it's not as bad.

[MrObsessive]

To my sight, the problem with the RM '69 front end is that the headlights appear too low. It's almost appears like the car went out for a night of drinking, and it's suffering from a hangover.

The 1/24 '70 Boss 429 suffers from the same front end malady in that there's too much real estate above the headlights due to the grille being too tall. I suppose this can be reworked, but get set for a lot of time put into this, not to mention both sides need to be symmetrical to boot.