Bob Ellis Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The original AMT 64 GTO is very nice in proportion, but it lacks in detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I built these from the pre-painted versions of the kit. I polished out the paint, Bare-metaled the chrome trim, added photoetched emblems, re-painted and detail-painted the interior, wheels, grille, and added red lines to the tires. On the convertible, I adapted a set of steelies, and created a set of dog-dishes. It is a wonderful slump-buster kit, that goes together quickly. Who sells the photo-etched emblems? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsepower Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I bought a couple of the pearl white ones when K-B toy liquidators had them on clearance for $1.99. Figured I couldn't go wrong, also picked up a couple of convertibles, and two of the Dodges in bright red, and one in black, plan on putting the 413 from the AMT '49 Merc kit into it and use the optional hood with the factory scoop on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hamilton Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Who sells the photo-etched emblems? Thanks. I used the Model Car Garage '65 thru 67 Set. Any one will do, as long as it has the crests. The 1964 set is for the Revell 1/24 kit, and is too big.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 thank you very much, Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I bought one today with a 40% off coupon at Hobby Lobby, just to see what all the to-do is about. At this point, have only had a quick look at the body, no details yet. First impression on opening the box was that it must be 1/24, but comparing it with an original AMT annual showed them to be virtually identical in length, and front and rear width. My body is NOT "bent like a banana." The lower body edge, and the lower body character lines, are dead straight. There is a very slight rise and then fall to the lines of the upper fenders and doors, front to back. It's not eye-jarring obvious (to me, anyway), but it's there, and it's not on the AMT body. Just spent a few minutes google-imaging real ones. I think maybe there should be a slight drop or taper to the rear fenders, from the "hump" back, but it looks like the front fenders and doors should be more or less straight. It MIGHT be possible to straighten this line out a bit with some careful filing/sanding, but if it's not, I'm not gonna sweat it. I've seen many, many popular models built with more obviously wrong body lines than this one, and some of them are sitting on my own shelves. One body problem I DID notice right away, though, is that the roof C-pillars are too broad/wide/thick, front to back. It looks like the leading edge of the C-pillars is too far forward, and maybe a degree or two too vertical. Very apparent when comparing with the AMT body. I want to compare it to some more '64-'65 A bodies, including the AMT '64 Cutlass, AMT '65 GTO, and AMT and Revell '65 Chevelles. But if that's a problem, it should be easy to file that line back to where it should be. Overall, the AMT annual body is more crisply molded and appears more accurate. BUT the Polar Lights body isn't as bad as I've read here and elsewhere, and I think I fine model can be built from this kit. AMT body is better but I don't think it's THAT much better to justify paying collector price for one, unless you are a REAL '64 GTO fanatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 to me, from memory of the real car, it looks kinda stumpy somehow. maybe its that it might be too far off the ground but to my untrained eye either the door is too short, or the panel behind the door is too short, for overall effect of roof looking too short. or maybe its too short in the trunk. maybe its the photos too, but they all seem to be consistent in that look. I think maybe the roof might be contributing to the look you're talking about. See my comment above. I think if that C-pillar gets slimmed down, the whole car might look notably better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmak Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I really like this kit but I have one bit-o-advice one building it. Test assemble the rear suspension to see if you like the look. It sits too high in the rear for my taste (near stock build) so I lowered it to get it closer to level. The next one I build will be lowered a little in the front also (lowered in the rear a lot to keep it level) to get a more agressive stance. Carmak Riverside, IA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I really like this kit but I have one bit-o-advice one building it. Test assemble the rear suspension to see if you like the look. It sits too high in the rear for my taste (near stock build) so I lowered it to get it closer to level. The next one I build will be lowered a little in the front also (lowered in the rear a lot to keep it level) to get a more agressive stance. Carmak Riverside, IA I'm thinking of rolling with that high stance. One possibility I have in mind for this kit is a late '60s-early '70s New York street racer, the kind of thing you'd seen in one of Joe Oldham's old articles on the NY street racing scene. Oh, and BTW, what exactly is an "aggressive stance"? Edited March 23, 2015 by Snake45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Snake, when you get a chance, can you post a photo on how you trim the C post to make it more correct. I am curious about how this should be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Snake, when you get a chance, can you post a photo on how you trim the C post to make it more correct. I am curious about how this should be done. Will do. I'm planning to take a masking tape "pattern" off one of the other roofs mentioned above, then lay that on the PL roof. What's left over on the front edge will be the area that needs to be trimmed back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 to me, an "aggressive stance" is nose down and rear at or below stock height, like its a cat ready to pounce. a "ready to flip over backward" stance is nose up and tail stock or down below stock height. not really "aggressive", more like handicapped by high center of gravity. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) to me, an "aggressive stance" is nose down and rear at or below stock height, like its a cat ready to pounce. a "ready to flip over backward" stance is nose up and tail stock or down below stock height. not really "aggressive", more like handicapped by high center of gravity. jb Yeah, but I also commonly see jacked-up "gasser style" cars described as having an "aggressive stance." Apparently, anything that's non-stock is "aggressive." Or maybe, like the word "tactical" in firearms circles, it's such an overused and indefinite cliché that it now has no actual meaning whatsoever. Edited March 23, 2015 by Snake45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisc63 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Snake, had any time to experiment with the C-pillar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Snake, had any time to experiment with the C-pillar? Yes, I put a piece of tape on an AMT, cut it to fit, and then put it on the PL. Quite a difference. I gotta take a picture of that. Come to think of it, I need to do some pics for a comparo of several '64-'65 GM A-body kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisc63 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Yes, I put a piece of tape on an AMT, cut it to fit, and then put it on the PL. Quite a difference. I gotta take a picture of that. Come to think of it, I need to do some pics for a comparo of several '64-'65 GM A-body kits. Fantastic. Your work is appreciated, and should help quite a few of us! Will be watching... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hamilton Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I have a couple of the original AMT annuals in my stash. I plan to do a comparo between the two dimensionally, as well as an AMT '65 Malibu SS, and the '64 Cutlass, and I will tell you what I end up with. The PL body looks a bit squat, but it may be more correct than the old AMT annual, which looks sleeker to my eyes. I want to do a very nice '65 Chevelle SS. I have a built-up AMT '65 Craftsman, that I may cut the hood open, and slip a detailed under hood area, chassis and drive train in it. If I do not get any satisfaction from my Revell '65. I want to do a small block car (327/365 fuelie from the skunk works) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisc63 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Ron, those builds sound intriguing, and I hope you have time to document and post. Best of luck. I'll be watching for your measurements on those kits as well. Thanks for the effort! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Okay, finally got around to shooting some pics today. Here's the PL (top) and AMT (bottom) bodies. As you can see they are virtually identical in length, and in width as well. The big difference is in the roof. The blue thing on the C-pillar of the PL body is a piece of masking tape that was put on the AMT roof, carefully cut to exact shape with a new Xacto, and colored with a Sharpie. I then applied it to the PL body. You can see how much longer and differently shaped the PL C-pillars are, and where. I think the whole PL roof might be about three scale inches too long and too far back, too, but I'm not sure. I can't say from this pic which one (if either) is right or wrong, but I can say that now that I've noticed this difference in the PL roof, it LOOKS wrong to me, and it's very noticeable. The AMT roof looks more like the roofs on the AMT '64 Cutlass, '65 Chevelle, and even the Revell '65 Chevelle (even though that one has some problems of its own. Now as to the issue of the "banana bend" in the PL body, I shot the two pics below. I looked at a lot of '64 GTO photos on google and the real one DOES have a little bit of a "bow" in it, though that does not start until the rear quarters (i.e., it's not in the doors or front fenders). The PL body does seem to have a very slight amount of bow or arch in it that the AMT doesn't. This doesn't look to me quite as bad as some of you have made it out to be; it's not as noticeable to me as the too-fat C-pillars. But in the end, each of us will have to decide if the PL body is accurate enough for what we want to accomplish with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 According to your photo, the C post of the PL GTO is fixable. I really don't see the banana . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisc63 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 That C-pillar is really noticeable now that you've mapped it out. That old AMT body looks right to these middle-aging eyes. Just holding some lined paper against my screen, the PL body shows to be "taller", and I see it easily, especially in the rear quarter panel. It has a "stumpy" proportion that is the opposite of the "lean-but-muscular" AMT quarter panel. Do you see it? Could be a photo thang! Dangit, now I want one of those AMT bodies. Overall, the PL body looks to my eyes to need about a 1mm slice taken out of the body from stem to stern, a slight pie-cut vertical at the back of the front fender opened up to take a little of the droop out of the front end, and the C-post massaged into shape. Just one man's opinion... Thanks again for the comparison. This helps. I have a couple of these and really want to build them as right as I can. I like my old Monogram kits, but they are 1/24. Was really happy to see these in 1/25 when they came out. I think they have much potential yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have picked up 3 of the old AMT 64 GTOs as builders ( I wanted to rebuild them so unbuilt not necessary). And Rusty, I agreed with you about 1/24. They look the best to me. The PL is an option not to break the bank. If you don't compare it, it looks okay You can fix the roof C pillar as Snake says, but I think you have to live with the other problems. The lower body is a little too high. More noticeable is the soft details of the PL GTO versus the AMT. To me, the body lines are more crisp on the AMT. Another option might be to marry the PL 64 GTO front and rear to an AMT 65 GTO. Even the AMT 65 is a little soft in detail after a redo from Modified Stocker duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I didn't particularly notice that the PL body seemed taller but I'll see if I can get a measurement on that tonight. Could be a "camera thing" or I might have held it a fraction of an inch closer to the camera when I took that particular shot, though I tried hard not to. BTW, BOTH the PL and AMT GTO bodies are longer than BOTH the AMT and Revell '65 Chevelles. Did some research and whaddya know, the real '64 GTO/Tempest/Lemans really is a few inches longer than a '64-'65 Chevelle! (Who knew??!) The length must be in the rear quarters/trunk, as they both used the same 115" wheelbase chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Just holding some lined paper against my screen, the PL body shows to be "taller", and I see it easily, especially in the rear quarter panel. It has a "stumpy" proportion that is the opposite of the "lean-but-muscular" AMT quarter panel. Do you see it? Could be a photo thang! Dangit, now I want one of those AMT bodies. Overall, the PL body looks to my eyes to need about a 1mm slice taken out of the body from stem to stern.... Good eye, Bisc. Just did some very quick and not especially precise measurements of the heights of the PL and AMT bodies. There IS a difference, perhaps as much as .100 inch. The window openings on both are virtually the same, so the difference must all be in the main body. I didn't know which might be right, so also did a quick height measurement on a Revell '65 Chevelle body. It was almost identical to the AMT GTO body, for whatever that's worth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisc63 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Interesting stuff. I have access to a fixer-upper 65 Buick Skylark that I can pull some actual measurements from - thinking of the greenhouse in particular, which I believe is the same across the GM intermediates of that year. Just thinking out loud, in an internet forum kind of way! Snake, you say the window openings are pretty much the same. That means corrections to the PL C-pillar need to happen at the rear, which is a bit of a complication, but maybe not terrible. Can anyone speak to the accuracy of the AMT 65 GTO roof that was separate from the body ( not the "custom" one) ? Thinking of a glue-on replacement. Edited June 17, 2015 by bisc63 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.