JamesW Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Are these kits the EXACT same? I had the first kit/box art as a kid and want to build another. Like most people I shop for the cheapest, and the second one is cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I would still buy the top version. Those Wal Mart boxed version kits are notorious for having bad chrome. I have several in my stash that the chrome has started to yellow somehow. You may get lucky and get a kit that has good chrome and you may not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsDano85gt Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 one states "500" on the box difference in contents? one may never know!i know i've built a few of these over the years, opening doors and victoria versions similar but differentone that i built i want to say top box?has the paxton supercharger version can be built? i may be thinking of other kits though i know its fords though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Identical except for box art. The supercharger version is not accurate. My kit has same artwork as Walmart release, but no checkerboard. It is up for trade if interesed. Edited January 5, 2014 by midnightprowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 How do they compare to this one ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 I was wondering the same thing honestly. While I like the AMT kits because of the opening doors and such, I do like the quality of Revell kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabrux Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 AMT kit is an old tool with opening doors depicting a high trim Fairlane. The Revell kit is a brand new tool with molded in doors depicting a low trim Custom. I can post comparison pics of the two if there is interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 AMT kit is an old tool with opening doors depicting a high trim Fairlane. The Revell kit is a brand new tool with molded in doors depicting a low trim Custom. I can post comparison pics of the two if there is interest That would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovefordgalaxie Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I built both, the AMT and the Revell. The AMT kit is a 1960s tooling, of the very top of the line Fairlane 500 Club Victoria. The Revell kit is a new tooling of the entry model Custom Tudor. Both kits have no fit issues. The AMT has a more accurate overall shape on the body than the Revell kit, and comparing both as built models to a 1:1 scale 1957 Ford, the one that "feels" more like the real deal in proportions is the AMT kit. That being said, the Revell kit has lot's of detail that the AMT kit doesn't. The engine on the Revell kit is way more detailed, as is the underside of the car. The Revell kit has a separate frame from the floor pan, what makes easy to detail the area. The AMT kit comes with the frame AND exhaust system molded to the floor pan. The AMT engine has the correct carburetor tough. The Revell doesn't. The AMT engine while less detailed, has a representation of the road draft tube molded to the oil pan, and the Revell kit lacks this detail completely. This is somehow compensated by the fact that the Revell engine has the oil pump and pick up tube detail while its absent from the AMT kit. The AMT kit has poseable front steering and opening doors, and the Revell kit has none of those things. My personal preference goes to the AMT kit. The model shows it's age, but it was so well done than still can be compared to something done 50 years later. That has to value a couple of points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Very nice concise review. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Well I guess I'll go with the AMT kits, and get the Revell one later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The AMT Fairlane was rumored to be reissued last year but hasn't happened yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38 Crush Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Will the frame and floor in the Revell kit fit the AMT kit? and are any of the other parts that were mentioned interchangeable to make one detailed kit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovefordgalaxie Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Will the frame and floor in the Revell kit fit the AMT kit? and are any of the other parts that were mentioned interchangeable to make one detailed kit? They have about the same wheelbase, being the Revell a little wider, but is doable. The stock AMT interior by other hand, won't fit over the Revell floor without some modifications to the transmission tunnel, that is a lot wider on the Revell kit. If you feel prepared to do so, it can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovefordgalaxie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Well I guess I'll go with the AMT kits, and get the Revell one later on. I would build both!!!! And I DID!!! Both are great fun if you are into '57 Fords. At the end, it will depend on what trim level you like the most!! Take a look: Factory stock Fairlane 500 Club Victoria, built from the AMT kit: 1957 Ford Collection par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity The AMT engine built box stock: 1957 Ford Collection par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity The opening doors: Test Shots par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity Factory stock Custom Tudor built from the Revell kit: 1957 Ford Custom Tudor par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity The Revell engine built box stock: '57 Ford Engine par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 How do they compare to this one ? This one is better. No ill fitting opening doors. The AMT kit does build up ok though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edsel-Dan Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Some parts are no longer in the AMT kit, like the Styline custom front & rear, Globe Spotlights, Trophy With Miniature 57 Fairlane 500, easel for display. Also, in latter issued some of the Suspension parts have been moved off the chrome trees. Mostly though, the MT kit is the same one we have always gotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miatatom Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I would build both!!!! And I DID!!! Both are great fun if you are into '57 Fords. At the end, it will depend on what trim level you like the most!! Take a look: Factory stock Fairlane 500 Club Victoria, built from the AMT kit: 1957 Ford Collection par Túlio Lazzaroni Lovefordgalaxie, on ipernity Dude, you have skills! That first one is beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregbbear Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Since both of these versions were raced in Nascar, the topic has come up over at Randy Ayer's nascar modeling forum. According to a few gentleman over there, the fairlane and custom were two different wheelbases. They are pretty darn knowledgeable over there, and one of the moderators (Tom M) is combining the kits in a build. If I remember right, in one of the threads, there was factory literature to back it up. Regardless, both are great looking cars. I haven't built the revell yet, but it is in my stash (to include the Fireball Robert's version), and I plan to re-do the AMT too (my first was a glue bomb way back in the day). Cheers, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Correct on the wheelbase, the Custom was 116 and the Fairlane was 118. '58 was the same way, then '59 went to 118 for all full size models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovefordgalaxie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Correct on the wheelbase, the Custom was 116 and the Fairlane was 118. '58 was the same way, then '59 went to 118 for all full size models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Ford Yep, but on the kits, you can't notice that, so you can combine them without having to change the wheelbase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTony8 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 There's a basic size difference between the two kits,the Revell kit being the larger of them.How do I know this?I've tried swapping parts.The mechanical items may change over easier but the body items are where the problems occur.The AMT grille is narrower,the shape at the rear of the body is very different and engineered differently on the Revell kit.The dual headlamp conversion pieces from the old issue AMT kit almost fit the revell body but would need plastic strip added to fill a gap at the top of the fender(or some reshaping of the custom pieces on their sides to conform to the Revell body). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 It's like comparing apples and oranges. The revell has more detail, but it is a different car. The AMT is a nice kit if you want an upscale Fairlane 500 model. It used to be nicer before AMT eliminated some of the custom parts. I can't validate it, but I was told the newer issues don't have chrome suspension pieces as the original kit had. With regard to chrome, nothing is worse than late '60s early '70s AMT chrome. It turned yellow gold. Worse yet it was dull and hazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Anderson Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I built both, the AMT and the Revell. The AMT kit is a 1960s tooling, of the very top of the line Fairlane 500 Club Victoria. The Revell kit is a new tooling of the entry model Custom Tudor. Both kits have no fit issues. The AMT has a more accurate overall shape on the body than the Revell kit, and comparing both as built models to a 1:1 scale 1957 Ford, the one that "feels" more like the real deal in proportions is the AMT kit. That being said, the Revell kit has lot's of detail that the AMT kit doesn't. The engine on the Revell kit is way more detailed, as is the underside of the car. The Revell kit has a separate frame from the floor pan, what makes easy to detail the area. The AMT kit comes with the frame AND exhaust system molded to the floor pan. The AMT engine has the correct carburetor tough. The Revell doesn't. The AMT engine while less detailed, has a representation of the road draft tube molded to the oil pan, and the Revell kit lacks this detail completely. This is somehow compensated by the fact that the Revell engine has the oil pump and pick up tube detail while its absent from the AMT kit. The AMT kit has poseable front steering and opening doors, and the Revell kit has none of those things. My personal preference goes to the AMT kit. The model shows it's age, but it was so well done than still can be compared to something done 50 years later. That has to value a couple of points. You do realize that behind the front clip--those two bodies are completely different? The Fairlane 500's are a longer car overall, with a longer wheelbase, and a lower roof line than Ford's 1957 Custom and Custom 300 series sedans and station wagons. Revell's new kit looks very spot-on to me. Art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovefordgalaxie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You do realize that behind the front clip--those two bodies are completely different? The Fairlane 500's are a longer car overall, with a longer wheelbase, and a lower roof line than Ford's 1957 Custom and Custom 300 series sedans and station wagons. Revell's new kit looks very spot-on to me. Art Yes I do. I use to see many '57 Fords in 1:1 form, and a friend of mine has a Custom 300, that has the basic same body as the Custom Tudor. In kit form things are not that perfect. Comparing both built models I only found 1,2 millimeters in overall size difference (Fairlane is longer). Measuring the wheelbase, I found less than a millimeter of difference between the two, and it's also not what it should be. Which one is more correct? Well, measure both, and compare the the real cars, then tell me. Like I told before, I think the AMT "FEELS" more accurate on overall shape, and that is a subjective way of saying things. It's like the AMT Edsel. The first time I saw one it felt "wrong" somehow. When I compared it to a 1:1 Edsel I figured out that the body looks sectioned, and that the front bumpers are way too wide in the vertical direction. The same feeling of "something wrong" I have with the Revell Ford. Maybe it's the front panel, between the hood and the grille, that's too wide. I would say that with today's modern computer technology and CAD being used to engineer those kits, the guys from AMT kid a heluva job back in the '60s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.