Revell 1971 Boss 351 Mustang

[niteowl7710]

My personal favorite sub-genre of this phenomenon are the people who out and out flame war people for daring to point out inaccuracies and other issues as being irrelevant and we should all just be glad xyz is even in business anymore, and then proceed to turn around and birth a ranch's worth of cattle when the same company "totally messes up" a piece of subject matter that is near and dear to their respective hearts.

Which quickly points out so much of what is true within the hobby in general and automotive kits specifically - Nobody cares about it, until the IT is something you care about.

Edited September 17, 2020 by niteowl7710

[GMP440]

41 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

My personal favorite sub-genre of this phenomenon are the people who out and out flame war people for daring to point out inaccuracies and other issues as being irrelevant and we should all just be glad xyz is even in business anymore, and then proceed to turn around and birth a ranch's worth of cattle when the same company "totally messes up" a piece of subject matter that is near and dear to their respective hearts.

Which quickly points out so much of what is true within the hobby in general and automotive kits specifically - Nobody cares about it, until the IT is something you care about.

The very last sentence says it all.  Very true.  You hit the nail on the head.  Wanted to add ; those that bash a kit company for a certain part of a kit not being accurate, I say to those people,  don't buy the kit.  Not everything is perfect in this world.  Things are not 100% .  Sometimes we have to let things go.  It's just a hobby and that's all it well ever be.

 

[vamach1]

17 minutes ago, GMP440 said:

The very last sentence says it all.  Very true.  You hit the nail on the head.  Wanted to add ; those that bash a kit company for a certain part of a kit not being accurate, I say to those people,  don't buy the kit.  Not everything is perfect in this world.  Things are not 100% .  Sometimes we have to let things go.  It's just a hobby and that's all it well ever be.

 

I hope that is the last word on this topic but I doubt it. ?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

That's right! 'Cause you know what's even easier to let go?

That people are going to criticize kits in a forum heading explicitly about "Car Kit News & Reviews." 

And if you don't like somebody bashing a manufacturer, don't read the thread (hey, at least that suggestion doesn't mandate costing a manufacturer a sale).

"There's no perfect model", "it's just a hobby", "if you don't like it, don't buy it (and shut up about it)" - these are all hackneyed angles with false binary choices imposed on them.

I'm sorry to belabor it, but people act like these canards are the last word, and they just aren't.

[GMP440]

On 8/31/2020 at 6:45 PM, Ralph Henderson said:

Now to see if they'll just do it in 1/25 and not 1/24..  That will truly show which market they are listening to..

Maybe they will see fit to do an updated 1/25 1970 Mustang also..

 I agree.  I hope they do this kit in 1/25 scale.  Most of the kits that Revell has done in the last 10 or so years has been 1/25 scale.  It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at Revell to see what other American car subjects they have in developement.  The good thing is we are being heard and from the looks of it they are marketing towards the adult builder.

[Dragonhawk1066]

 

36 minutes ago, GMP440 said:

 I agree.  I hope they do this kit in 1/25 scale.  Most of the kits that Revell has done in the last 10 or so years has been 1/25 scale.  It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at Revell to see what other American car subjects they have in developement.  The good thing is we are being heard and from the looks of it they are marketing towards the adult builder.

It seems that all of their new subjects recently have been 1/25 and all of the re-releases are in the scale of the original release, so I would expect this Mustang to be in 1/25. And yes, i would also be very curious as to what and how many more new subjects are being considered down the road.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

1/24 would suit me just fine, but I wouldn't worry too much, gents -

Revell Germany may own the shop now, but I'm pretty sure Sexton's still on the case and if so, my money would be on 1/25 for US-targeted releases.

[the other Mike S.]

On 9/17/2020 at 3:11 PM, GMP440 said:

The very last sentence says it all.  Very true.  You hit the nail on the head.  Wanted to add ; those that bash a kit company for a certain part of a kit not being accurate, I say to those people,  don't buy the kit.  Not everything is perfect in this world.  Things are not 100% .  Sometimes we have to let things go.  It's just a hobby and that's all it well ever be.

 

It's not a question about things being perfect, but faithfully reproducing the shape in scale accurately.  Revell seems to have a problem with wheel well shape, particularly the rear wheel well shape on the old GM muscle cars.   With the technology available today, this shouldn't be happening.

This notion that we need accept whatever they throw at us is ridiculous.  If the body is not accurate or close to it, I'm not buying it.  I don't care how accurate or detailed the parts count is.  The body shape is most important thing IMO and you have to do that almost perfect or as close to perfect as you can.

Their newer stuff was pretty much spot on, but the older new tools had problems.  Is it the factory blueprints that make all the difference?  If not having the factory blueprints for the older stuff is a problem, wouldn't 3D scanning make up for it?  If so, why are they not using 3D scanning exclusively for the older new tools to ensure the most accurate body and wheel well shapes? 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by the other Mike S.

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, the other Mike S. said:

 Is it the factory blueprints that make all the difference?  If not having the factory blueprints for the older stuff is a problem, wouldn't 3D scanning make up for it?  If so, why are they not using 3D scanning exclusively for the older new tools to ensure the most accurate body and wheel well shapes? 

Keep in mind that when full on Lidar scanning of cars became a portable thing - as opposed to having to take the object to a fixed location - is pretty much the same time Hobbico was beginning to drain all the cash flow out of their subsidiaries to cover up their losses in R/C, which is ultimately what caused (along with a lawsuit from TraXXas) their bankruptcy and sale of the Revells.  Lidar scanning costs money - which Revell had just enough of to keep the doors open at the end, and more over takes a little bit of forward thinking in terms commitment to the expenses involved.

[randyc]

I've avoided much of this argument, BUT.... okay so they use some fancy scanning (LIDAR?).   SOMEONE that understands basic design reproduction and maybe cars should be LOOKING at scans and such to make sure the scans (and later the tooling) is going to look like the object they are trying to replicate.  I bet there are people on here that could do a job like that.  Not knowing how the scans look, I'm not sure I could.   Or maybe they are and somehow they just can't do any better?  IDK.  If I like it, I buy it.  I usually wait for reviews at this point though, to see what it looks like and what's in the box.   

I'm starting a 69 Cougar now.  Let's talk about things missed...  I'm not sure the rear of the roof line is correct -  C pillars look thick to me.   No reprodcution of cowl panel lines or the little seams in the tulip panel.  Panle lines are all thin, grille and front valance fit horribly.   Not everything from "back in the day" is anywhere near as good as today's stuff.  

Who will notice these things?  Some of us.  I'm building the Cougar for my wife.  She'll never pay attention to those details.  I could leave the parting lines on there, the panel lines would be soft after paint and she'd know it's a Cougar.  

I bet the Mustang will be close.  Probably not perfect as some will find.   BUT there is no excuse for it to not be waaaaay above the MPC/AMT versions that we are given now.   This should render that kit obsolete, I would think.  

[niteowl7710]

4 hours ago, randyc said:

I've avoided much of this argument, BUT.... okay so they use some fancy scanning (LIDAR?).   SOMEONE that understands basic design reproduction and maybe cars should be LOOKING at scans and such to make sure the scans (and later the tooling) is going to look like the object they are trying to replicate.  I bet there are people on here that could do a job like that.  Not knowing how the scans look, I'm not sure I could.   Or maybe they are and somehow they just can't do any better?  IDK.  If I like it, I buy it.  I usually wait for reviews at this point though, to see what it looks like and what's in the box.   

I'm starting a 69 Cougar now.  Let's talk about things missed...  I'm not sure the rear of the roof line is correct -  C pillars look thick to me.   No reprodcution of cowl panel lines or the little seams in the tulip panel.  Panle lines are all thin, grille and front valance fit horribly.   Not everything from "back in the day" is anywhere near as good as today's stuff.  

Who will notice these things?  Some of us.  I'm building the Cougar for my wife.  She'll never pay attention to those details.  I could leave the parting lines on there, the panel lines would be soft after paint and she'd know it's a Cougar.  

I bet the Mustang will be close.  Probably not perfect as some will find.   BUT there is no excuse for it to not be waaaaay above the MPC/AMT versions that we are given now.   This should render that kit obsolete, I would think.  

Well the only two Revell US kits that were for sure 3D scanned were the two Foose "one off" kits of the F-100 and the Cadillac.  Perhaps it's because there isn't enough experience with the 1:1s to be able to compare, but I'm not sure I've really heard any accuracy complaints about either of those - beyond the normal "Why didn't they make a factory stock version" stuff.  The post Blitz Revell's first kit was scanned, the Land Rover, and other than some possible missteps as to which side of the tranny hump the stick things stick up on LHD vs RHD, I don't believe I've heard nary a peep about the body as a whole - and that's a heck of a thing to get out of a mold in that big of a piece like they did.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Welp, since the discussion has bent this way, there's been a little trouble about the headlight nacelles of the Rover, though I couldn't tell you what right now without looking, myself. The Foosillac was very nice for general form, though the top didn't match exactly in the C-pillar and the wheels are problematic (one of James's "ITs" that kills the deal for some but doesn't overly concern me).

That Ford pickup, though -

BIG payoff from LIDAR.

Been quite some time since I've seen any Revell kit look so "shrunken-1:1" as this.  If the flatroof 'Stang comes in at the same level, I'll be overjoyed.

[tim boyd]

I have for years and years pushed Revell to scan the exteriors of their kit projects (even to the point of providing exact contact info for proven automotive scanning suppliers); and for nearly as long they had resisted it for what I am told were primarily cost reasons (though I'm not sure that fully justified their decision).  More recently, In addition to the Foose kits, I was told (not directly by Revell) that the 1975 Torino body was scanned and they were pleased with the result.  Very, very glad to see that they have adopted this process for the new Mustang kit. 

In the last 12 years of my career I worked in the Design activity of my employer.  I observed firsthand how many designs were massaged, week after week, month after month, to get to their final form.  To think that any craftsman, no matter how good, could capture all this form in an exact miniature model body was, I think, almost impossible.  Once the kitmakers no longer had manufacturer blueprints to work from, the process became more difficult, then even moreso when the people responsible for developing the tooling lived 12 hours away on the other side of the globe and were denied the opportunity to see the 1/1 scale product they were miniaturing. 

3D scanning the bodies, then, becomes potentially the most accurate way to assure a correct scale replica.  The scanning data must still be processed and manipulated, so it is not a 100% guarantee of accurate results, but for my book it greatly increases the chances of success. 

TIM 

Edited September 22, 2020 by tim boyd

[randyc]

3 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

Well the only two Revell US kits that were for sure 3D scanned were the two Foose "one off" kits of the F-100 and the Cadillac.  Perhaps it's because there isn't enough experience with the 1:1s to be able to compare, but I'm not sure I've really heard any accuracy complaints about either of those - beyond the normal "Why didn't they make a factory stock version" stuff.  The post Blitz Revell's first kit was scanned, the Land Rover, and other than some possible missteps as to which side of the tranny hump the stick things stick up on LHD vs RHD, I don't believe I've heard nary a peep about the body as a whole - and that's a heck of a thing to get out of a mold in that big of a piece like they did.

Ok,, I didn't know that tidbit of history.   And I haven't built or bought either of them.   I shall return to my corner and READ ONLY..  LOL.   Thanks for sharing that.  

[randyc]

As an aside, I have worked in sign industry since 1984.   First time I had to reproduce SUBWAY logo for a sign face, I noticed some warts in the art.   I removed them and submitted my art to Subway for approval to reproduce.   The lady nicely explained that I need to go back to the original with warts and all - that was what they looked for to make sure it was authentic.   

[Motor City]

There has been a lot of criticism over the lack of chassis detail and shallow interiors on some of the old 1960s kits from AMT and Jo-Han.  I would rather have a dead-on body than a super detailed chassis, and both companies did a great job on body design for the most part.  The tooling should still be done in the U.S. to avoid some of the accuracy issues on newer models.  We can debate  whether or not kit production should occur in a communist country.  I don't think a case can be made to move production back to the U.S. since so many complain about the price of new kits.     

[niteowl7710]

2 hours ago, Motor City said:

There has been a lot of criticism over the lack of chassis detail and shallow interiors on some of the old 1960s kits from AMT and Jo-Han.  I would rather have a dead-on body than a super detailed chassis, and both companies did a great job on body design for the most part.  The tooling should still be done in the U.S. to avoid some of the accuracy issues on newer models.  We can debate  whether or not kit production should occur in a communist country.  I don't think a case can be made to move production back to the U.S. since so many complain about the price of new kits.     

The "problem" now is the most talented people to do this type of tooling are in China. They've been at it for over two decades now, and you'd almost have to reintroduce the "art form" back into the States. Clearly design and tooling can be done in the U.S., as Salvinos JR has proven (at a cost of $40/kit), but even then their various new tools and new tooling (on the old Monogram kits) has left reams to be desired in terms of proportions and accuracy.

Because frankly the kits are only as good as the person doing the CAD work and the people putting their "QC" peepers on the test shots...oh and the available budget to fix things or being forced to let them roll as is. Things can and occasionally do go wrong with interpretation of the design into the tooling that's cut, but for the most part any of this type of work is producing what you're being given from the "designer".

[Justin Porter]

7 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

The "problem" now is the most talented people to do this type of tooling are in China. They've been at it for over two decades now, and you'd almost have to reintroduce the "art form" back into the States. Clearly design and tooling can be done in the U.S., as Salvinos JR has proven (at a cost of $40/kit), but even then their various new tools and new tooling (on the old Monogram kits) has left reams to be desired in terms of proportions and accuracy.

Because frankly the kits are only as good as the person doing the CAD work and the people putting their "QC" peepers on the test shots...oh and the available budget to fix things or being forced to let them roll as is. Things can and occasionally do go wrong with interpretation of the design into the tooling that's cut, but for the most part any of this type of work is producing what you're being given from the "designer".

It's definitely not the tool-cutters in China who are the problem, but rather the lack of fundamental oversight on the finished product by those who were in charge at Revell at the time of those kits. 

If you actually look at military kits done by purely Chinese companies like Takom or Meng or Ryefield they're outstanding kits generally accepted to be leaders in their genre. In particular, Ryefield has positively smashed nearly 25 years of uninterrupted dominance in the 1/35th scale Tiger I market by Dragon. 

No one who has ever opened the box on one of those kits would place the blame on Chinese manufacturing. The blame lies squarely on Revell having spent decades upon decades designing down to an unrealistic price point to suit a big box retail business model that no longer exists. 

[vamach1]

Has anyone seen the Revell test shots yet?  Okay I have not either but in the mean time here is an MPC kit with a few parts that are not from the kit such as the door panels and front chrome bumper and wheels (thanks to Kevin Lutz).  I need to add the very narrow tape stripes around the hood and lower body and as of now it does not have any engine or exhaust system and the kit does not provide the front turn signals under the bumper.  I also cut out of the doors and trunk but I am not sure if I will hinge them.  It takes a lot to make either the MPC or AMT kit resemble the real car.  I will have to invest in some Argent paint as I cannot seem to find a model paint color that matches the color Ford used on the hood.  I’ll probably build another Boss using an AMT kit just for fun until the Revell one comes out.

Edited November 23, 2020 by vamach1

[Jordan White]

I will say that even though I'm not big into building muscle car kits (most of mine are larger scale, including the Doyusha '71 Mustang), I am anxious to see their test shots of the kit considering how there isn't a "good" kit representative of the 1.5 gen Mustangs.

[vamach1]

2 hours ago, Jordan White said:

I will say that even though I'm not big into building muscle car kits (most of mine are larger scale, including the Doyusha '71 Mustang), I am anxious to see their test shots of the kit considering how there isn't a "good" kit representative of the 1.5 gen Mustangs.

What did you think of the Doyusha kit?  I built one about 35 years ago but it wasn’t’ horrible that I remember but it was beat up over several moves so I sold it as a glue bomb and found a brand new kit for a good price that is still in the box.  Like any old Japanese kit the engines are not very realistic but overall it is no worse than say the Revell 1/12 65 Mustang.

Edited November 23, 2020 by vamach1

[Jordan White]

 

26 minutes ago, vamach1 said:

What did you think of the Doyusha kit?  I built one about 35 years ago but it wasn’t’ horrible that I remember but it was beat up over several moves so I sold it as a glue bomb and found a brand new kit for a good price that is still in the box.  Like any old Japanese kit the engines are nit very realistic but overall it is no worse than say the Revell 1/12 65 Mustang.

I have several Doyusha/Otaki kits and despite their parts count, they are a bit disappointing. I acknowledge the fact that they are generally all 40+ years old at this point, so I'm not hung up on some of the accuracy issues (though they do have proportion issues that are just enough where you can tell the shape isn't quite right). The fact that they were designed for motorization however is their main downfall. Because of this, they all have basic blobs for rear axles to house the gearing and oversized and lengthened engines/transmissions to house the motor. They also tend to be a bit over complicated in their assemblies, though I do appreciate the opening doors, working steering, and working suspension. I would not suggest one for ones' first foray into building a large scale kit, but they turn into something alright with a bit of work. I'm personally going the route of using parts from the 2010 GT500 kit to make it a pro-touring style build, as well as to give it a more accurate appearance. I don't have the 65 Mustang so I can't really use it for reference.

[the other Mike S.]

I'm not really a Fox body Mustang fan, but I was looking forward to the Mustang LX notchback from Revell when they announced it.  Unfortunately, much to my disappointment, I found they totally fubared the greenhouse section as a chop top.   

I wonder if the Hobbico financial drain contributed to this or was this a failed in translation between the designers in China and the lack of a 1:1 scale car to look at?

Yet, they produced the new tool '83 Hurst Olds which is about as perfect as you could get, at least when compared to the older MPC annuals like the '79-'80 Monte Carlo.  It seems it was big hit or a big miss in those days.  I'm very thankful they got the Hurst Olds right though.

Edited November 23, 2020 by the other Mike S.

[cobraman]

Not too long ago i bought the Otaki kit. Been wanting to start it but I work on a roll top deck and the kit is a tight fit. May have to work on the dining room table and really dont want to do that. Same problem with the 1/12 gT 40.

[vamach1]

On 11/23/2020 at 4:38 PM, cobraman said:

Not too long ago i bought the Otaki kit. Been wanting to start it but I work on a roll top deck and the kit is a tight fit. May have to work on the dining room table and really dont want to do that. Same problem with the 1/12 gT 40.

Yeah - you might have to take the kits down to the local auto body shop to get them sprayed.  I have considered doing that and would totally not rule it out if they would agree to paint them.  ? The local shop repaired the cracks in the front urethane bumper on my 72 Mach1 and it came out perfect.