Jairus Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wow the innocence of the younger generation continues to amaze me with it's ignorance. The Custom and Custom 300 vehicles were completely different from the Fairlane and Fairlane 500 models on the exterior and under the skin. Not to mention the extras like engine, fabric and two tone paint. Sheesh.... to think one could mix the kits with no research boggles the mind with nonsense. Unless you are building a rat rod of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Or just a model kit of a car that you've always liked the look of... mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jairus Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah, everyone wants to be the one to point to a perceived fault and be first to yell fowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Darby Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Wow the innocence of the younger generation continues to amaze me with it's ignorance. The Custom and Custom 300 vehicles were completely different from the Fairlane and Fairlane 500 models on the exterior and under the skin. Not to mention the extras like engine, fabric and two tone paint. Sheesh.... to think one could mix the kits with no research boggles the mind with nonsense. Unless you are building a rat rod of course. Well, I think it's time to weigh in.. From the front fenders forward, it IS the same car. Same basic engine as well, and other than shorter wheelbase, the frame and running gear is the same as well. But lets get back to the body, Over-all it looks pretty good. But, as some people say, it does have a heavy look ahead of the front wheels.Not only that, but there is actually a very non-subjective inaccuracy to the front end. It's the front fenders and splash pan. The bottom of front fenders should end evenly with the bottom of the grille ends, and the splash panel should wrap around to meet with the wheel openings. The AMT kit has this detail correct. The Revell kit does not. It isn't that huge of a deal, unless you are building a bumperless gasser, then it sticks out like a sore thumb. Our lesson for the day, don't shoot the messenger. I still want one tho... Edited January 7, 2014 by Dave Darby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wow the innocence of the younger generation continues to amaze me with it's ignorance. The Custom and Custom 300 vehicles were completely different from the Fairlane and Fairlane 500 models on the exterior and under the skin. Not to mention the extras like engine, fabric and two tone paint. Sheesh.... to think one could mix the kits with no research boggles the mind with nonsense. Unless you are building a rat rod of course. And the arrogance and contempt of the older generation. Besides, how do you know how old some of us are?? I wouldn't expect anyone that built the Revell '69 Mustang Mach I as a stock convertible to notice a subtle inaccuracy on the front end of a kit anyway. Relax. We're still buying the kit. So, Revell isn't going to go out of business anytime soon. A couple of things I can applaud Revell for is the body line around the head light "bucket" that separates that piece from the fender and the lines separating the header panel from the fenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTony8 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah,the Revell kit is a fine kit.I've bought two already and may buy more.You just can't swap many pieces between it and the AMT kit because of the scaling differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jairus Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I am calm. Just amazed at how crazy things get with the release of each new model kit. Everyone wants to jump on the band wagon and be the first to point out inaccuracies for some reason. I fault the Internet and forums that gives each person the bully pulpit. Because this never happened before the AMT 1955 Chevrolet Fleetside kits came out. The truth is there is NO model kit that is perfect. All of them require some changes to make them more accurate for the builder depending on what he or she has in mind. I have YET to see a single molded friction shock absorber that looks realistic. But that I keep to myself and fix it! Because that is what I do as a modeler. The Revell 57 Custom kits replicate a car we have not had yet and behind the firewall, they are very different from the Fairlane and Fairlane 500. Not only is the wheel base longer on the Fairlane at 118” as opposed to the Custom at 116”. But the overall length is a foot longer than the Custom line! Previously, all common production vehicles had remained on the same length chassis. Now, “Custom” and “Custom 300” vehicles were 16.5 foot long bumper to bumper while the new “Fairlane” and “Fairlane 500” models increased 2” in the rear leg room and bumped up the rear overhang to a huge 17.5 foot overall length! This affected the Fairlane 2-door hardtop, 4-door hardtop, the Retractable and the “Sunliner” convertible. All one has to look at is the fins to see the difference. Fairlane fin terminates in a downward curve that is complimented by chrome brightwork. While the Custom fin on all models simply blends smoothly into the 1/4 panel with no chrome. Fairlane doors open with no side glass hard frame other than stainless trim wrapped around the window glass that retracts giving the coupe a full post less hard-top. All Customs have posts and doors with full frames. All sheetmetal from firewall back... including the firewall (because that includes the windshield glass) is different between the two lines. Only door handles and maybe taillights are shared. Bumpers, trunk lids, chrome trim, glass... everything is different between the lines! Even the plastic on the dash has a different pattern between the two lines. I know this.... why? Because I own one and searching for parts is quite a challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Anderson Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Jairus makes some very valid points here: In truth, it is virtually impossible to make any model car kit that we'd buy in any quantities that will be PERFECTLY accurate. Any really close inspection of the real car vis-a-vis the model will surely show up some compromises, someplace. Some of us are "the older generation", myself for example: I've at least waved my hand over virtually every 1/25 (even 1/24!) model kit that's been done of an American car since 1958 (or even before that with several of the Premier kits that came out just about 60 years ago), and have seen compromises. Why? Well, for starters, those of us in this "older generation" voted strongly, vociferously for model car kits having 1-piece body shells for example--that happened with the very first AMT 3in1 Customizing kits in 1958. All of a sudden, the then newly introduced Revell kits of say, the 1957 Ford Country Squire, with their multipiece body shells were ancient technology--not many of us then 13-14 year old kids bought those, one-piece body shells in those AMT kits took a LOT less work. But, a unitized, one piece body shell, certainly in the case of American cars of the day certainly had its compromises in some areas, simply because what AMT was replicating in one piece were car bodies which in real life, had at least a couple of dozen INDIVIDUAL sheet metal panels, with a lot of sculptured shapes. In some subjects, there exist what would be called in a plastic model, rather severe undercuts, particularly with those cars having dramatic tail fins--for example, where the tailfin "sculpture" meets the beltline, which was more often than not within the bottom edge of the rear quarter window openings of a hardtop body (Think almost every Chrysler product 1957-60, and certainly 1957-59 Ford Motor Company cars--not a one of those body shells has quite the correct contour of the inner side of the leading edges of their tail fins due to the limitations of injection-molded plastic in steel dies IF the body shell is to be done as a single part. Look at a JoHan or Revell-Monogram '59 Cadillac: Do you see any fairing detail on the inner side of the fins, forward of the taillight bezels that is molded as a shape part of the body shell? No, of course not--that's virtually an impossible shape to capture in the tooling for a one piece body of any 1959 Cadillac. (JoHan took care of that by molding both the inner and outer taillight fairings in unit with the taillights & bezels, and the chrome "cap" at the rear of the fins, which Revell provided those "spear-shaped fairings as separate parts to be glued in place. (AMT and Polar Lights, with their snap-tight iterations of the Ecto-1a and Ecto-1 had to make the fins as separate, add-on parts, due to the impossibly tight areas between those fins and the rear sides of the basic Miller-Meteor ambulance body. Other areas of model car kit bodies have their "compromises" as well, again part of the problem of creating in one piece what Detroit used multiple complicated sheet metal panels to achieve. Model kit "glass" is almost always (and this includes those kits from just about every manufacturer of plastic model kits) far thicker than the real glass is--even the .020" thick Pet-G clear plastic that the top resin casters use for vac-forming windshields and back glass scales out to 1/2" thick--more than twice the true scale thickness of real automotive glass. Under the hood, similar compromises often exist, given that sand-cast iron cylinder blocks, bell housings and certainly transmission cases can and do have raised details on just about every plane--something that cannot be accurately represented in injection molded plastic without much more expensive and fussy tooling or say, an engine block made up of 4 or more individual parts. The same is also true of frames, particularly those having X-members with lightening holes punched into them--almost always, this is/has been a place of compromise. Even wheel rim lips generally are far thicker than they would be if truly in scale. I know, long story here: But, for the vast majority of builders, the Revell '57 Ford looks pretty decent, even if it hasn't got exactly the right front splash pan. But that's something a serious modeler can work beyond, IMO. Art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ^^ Well said- I for one am happy they brought the new '57 to market. I bought one copy right away, and could see buying several more for building other variations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hard_2_Handle_454 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 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. Some Walmarts still sell models? None of the ones around here do. Is this just a term denoting the model quality, or do some Walmarts still sell models? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) The entire line of thought we're bending toward has been torn to shreds and mulched at the link in my signature. For months, now, culled from refutations I have used for years. You can just read the bold font on each item then skip to the first paragraph after number 10 and you'll get the gist. I have YET to see any response, let alone a decent rebuttal, to any of it. "Bandwagon"? What, like the bandwagon of True Believers waiting to descend on anyone who dares depict the latest plastic emperor's true state of dress? This is a MODEL KIT discussion, and there's a necessary corollary to that classic "perfect kit" misdirection that nobody seems to notice: If we imagine for a moment that "NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT KIT" is responsive to, well, anything, then an inevitable consequence of that observation is that all kits have flaws. In discussions of kits, mentions of their flaws will be topical - in a way that condescending to people who mention those flaws will NEVER be. You can not claim "there's no such thing as a perfect kit" without tacitly admitting this. By all means, if someone states a flaw from a mistaken basis, then point out that mistake. But attacking people for topical observations is where the real issues in these discussions start, and it's useless to pretend otherwise. The grand irony here? I find myself confronting this subject - a g a i n - over a mention of a kit that I think is Revell's blue chip best of the past several years. Maybe the bumper ain't placed bang-on, and it's an irrefutable fact that the splash pan needs work - IF you leave the front bumper off. Sorry, but I just ain't seein' the thickness of the spreader bar or the heaviness of the front end when the bumper's in place, not yet, at least not as compared to photos of the 1:1. If I'm gonna pick nits, I might add a wee bit of strip to beef the inner perimeters of the door frames and rear side windows - then again, after more research, maybe not - and the one obvious gaffe is the extra plastic between the fins and the deck. Otherwise, this thing is golden, far as I'm concerned. Edited January 8, 2014 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatz4u Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I have used the Chrome engine pieces from the AMT kit on the Revell engine, no fit problems there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Barrow Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I think they way Revell handled the splash pan is the best possible way to do it for a factory-stock build. The factory stock splash pan is silver, not body color as I've seen on some. If it was body color then maybe splitting it like the real thing would be better, but then you'd need to glue 2 painted pieces together during final assembly, and that's never easy. The way Revell does it makes it easy to paint silver and then the frame and body interlock at the front without glue. What you see when the bumper is on looks right. If you want to do a bumperless gasser, then yeah, you've got some work ahead. The way the fins blend into the deck is wonky, and looks to me like a 3D modeling issue, it looks like the computer or operator just filled in the shape based on the shape of the taillight panel. It's like that's what it "thought" that area should look like. And I agree, I think this is one of Revell's best new models since Hobbico took over a few years ago, maybe THE best. Edited January 7, 2014 by Brett Barrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Some Walmarts still sell models? None of the ones around here do. Is this just a term denoting the model quality, or do some Walmarts still sell models? Some do, some do not, and the issue I spoke of was quite a while back, better part of 8-10 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Some Walmarts still sell models? None of the ones around here do. Is this just a term denoting the model quality, or do some Walmarts still sell models? They brought them back in certain markets only...none of my local Walmarts sell model kits, but I have seen them in a few Walmarts in Washington State in my travels (at higher prices that when they carried them before). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Is this kit from the 60s or 80s, and if you built it, what did you think of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike 51 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) It's from the 60's like the 49 Merc you decided you weren't interested in... might be too hard to build for someone used to more "recent" models like yourself. Edited June 9, 2015 by mike 51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Cole Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Paging Túlio Lazzaroni He built a few.... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82485 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62rebel Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 before AMT "updated" it, it was a really great kit full of optional parts and loaded with chrome. now, it's had the full custom interior parts replaced by what looks like '80's tweed recaro stuff.... unidirectional (and ugly as sin) '80's rims... but, given a little patience and reference material, it builds up dang well for a fifty-odd year old tool. upside on those gosh-awful rims? they provide nice inner rims if you carve out the centers. no "modern" rims make it into my parts boxes intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Anderson Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 First released in late 1962/early 1963. Art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landman Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I built this one around 1981. It has opening doors. If I remember well, the front bumper was hard to get on straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 It's a very decent kit and has a very good 312 y-block with optional Paxton. My only gripe is how poorly the interior fits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatz4u Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I got one in trade, & will some of the custom parts for the Revell kit I'm working on, as well as the new Del Rio when it comes out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 In the late '60s early '70s, the AMT 57 Ford lost the Styline custom parts. I'm not sure anybody really cares about that stuff anymore. I can't remember if the chrome suspension parts are gone too? Comparing the AMT versus the Revell isn't a fair comparison. It depends on what car you want to build. The AMT Ford Fairlane is a bigger car compared to the Revell Ford Custom. You can't kitbash a Revell 57 Ford into a convertible, or kitbash an AMT 57 Ford into a wagon or Ranchero.......easily anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I like Revell's new 57's a lot. But, I still like this old AMT classic too. It builds into a nice looking model. Scott 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.