Round 2 1969 Chevelle Convertible

[Bob Ellis]

Bowtienutz

I just compared an original '68 Chevelle kit to a '69 Chevelle kit.

The '68 kit had a different seat and door pattern. In fact, the '68 had molded in seat belts. To the casual observer, they look the same. I doubt most people would notice. The Modelhaus dash fixes one difference but not all. I didn't compare with the actual cars to see if AMT's work was correct. If not correct, the interior would be a moot point.

The steering wheel may be another issue. Some early '69 AMT chevelle kits had three spoke steering wheels like the '68s, but the Round3 Chevelle has the '69 steering wheel. I have an ERTL AMT '69 Chevelle C1991 with the '68 wheel.

[jaydar]

Thanks for the reminder on the steering wheel! I need to start my '68 soon. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting!

[tbill]

not that it makes a lot of difference in this scale, but 69 was the first year for a locking steering column, so the column and ignition cylinder location is different between 68 and 69.

[Bob Ellis]

tbill

You are right, '69 was the first year of locking steering wheels. Also, first year of seat headrests. So, those are two things you don't have to worry about on a '68. The Round2 '69 kit has no headrests.

[1972coronet]

Headrests weren't mandated until production starting on / before 01-01-1969 .

[fseva]

I was wondering what a person could expect out of the 1991 release of the 69 Chevelle SS396?

[Can-Con]

If you know the convertible, this is exactly the same kit with a hardtop body and without the new tires.

[fseva]

If you know the convertible, this is exactly the same kit with a hardtop body and without the new tires.

I found the new reissued convertible to be based on a very worn tool - I remember try to determine where the sunvisors should be cut off the sprue because wear made the pieces kind of blend together - I was so wrong that I had to completely remove the sunvisors to salvage the project (which I eventually put aside in disappointment). Would you say that the original release is any better, as in with less wear?

[mike 51]

You seem to have an unusual amount of bad luck with getting so many "worn out" model kits....must be kinda frustrating.

Edited May 10, 2015 by mike 51

[exnyman]

If you are going to try to build a 100% accurate stock version of a 69 SS 396, there are some issues with the 1991 issue of the kit. First, the lower chrome trim that extends from behind the headlamps to the rear bumper is incorrect for a 69 Ss, but correct for a 68. This trim is correct for a 69 Malibu, however. The front side marker light is also incorrect, it is too large and in the wrong place…it is actually correct for a 6 cylinder 68 Chevelle. The rear taillights and tail panel leave a lot to be desired in the accuracy department as well, and all of these criticisms are true of the current convertible re-release. It is a simple tool, in comparison with newer kits but with work and patience, can look pretty nice.

Edited May 10, 2015 by exnyman

[Can-Con]

I found the new reissued convertible to be based on a very worn tool - I remember try to determine where the sunvisors should be cut off the sprue because wear made the pieces kind of blend together - I was so wrong that I had to completely remove the sunvisors to salvage the project (which I eventually put aside in disappointment). Would you say that the original release is any better, as in with less wear?

I'd think an original release would indeed have less "wear" but the kit in your pic is over 20 years later than the original.

In all honesty, from your other posts that I've read, I doubt you'll like this kit.

[DaveM]

Modelhaus used to make a rear bumper and taillight set for this car. Now, I think Missing Link makes one. You will need it! The taillights are the weak spot. If you can find an older Modelhaus conversion set to make a '68 out of it, you actually have the makings of a decent '68. You can either build it as is, or you can do a bunch of surgery and transplant a chassis under it. Some people try using the Revell '67 chassis, but I have seen contest winners built with the '69 Olds chassis. The real cars were quite similar, as they shared a platform and a generation. It takes a bit of work to build, but it's the only Chevelle of this body style available.

This would be a good car for Moebius to kit. Several stock variants, including hardtops and convertibles for both 1968 and 1969 with several trim and power levels. They were used in drag racing and oval tracks. The basic chassis could them be used to kit G.T.O.s from both years and the Buicks from both years. (Not available in 1/25 scale) There were a lot of drag cars done from these platforms and they aere also used in oval tracking. They would need different motors, though, as each division had its own blocks back in those days.

[1972coronet]

How about the one-year-only , 1969 SS-optioned 300 Deluxe coupe ? Top engine was the 325 hp 396 ; had the "wind wings" ; door glass was framed ; and interior was very basic ( read : plain door panels , rubber floor mats , bench seat , etc. )

[fseva]

I'd think an original release would indeed have less "wear" but the kit in your pic is over 20 years later than the original.

In all honesty, from your other posts that I've read, I doubt you'll like this kit.

You're probably right - I eventually punted the convertible - to me it was just hopeless, and I'm too old to take a year to fix a single kit.

[fseva]

This would be a good car for Moebius to kit. Several stock variants, including hardtops and convertibles for both 1968 and 1969 with several trim and power levels. They were used in drag racing and oval tracks. The basic chassis could them be used to kit G.T.O.s from both years and the Buicks from both years. (Not available in 1/25 scale) There were a lot of drag cars done from these platforms and they aere also used in oval tracking.

I second the motion for Moebius to pick up the slack - instead we get decidedly un"muscle"d cars (61 Ventura)...

[fseva]

Well, this topic the moderator decided to dump my question into doesn't really have much to do with the old release.

Thanks for the help, and I have enough info to make a decision now!

[mike 51]

" instead we get decidedly un"muscle"d cars (61 Ventura)..."

LOL I guess you aren't too familar with Pontiacs.

"to dump my question into doesn't really have much to do with the old release. :angry:"

nonsense...the two Chevelle kits are virtually identical.

Edited May 11, 2015 by mike 51

[johnbuzzed]

I second the motion for Moebius to pick up the slack - instead we get decidedly un"muscle"d cars (61 Ventura)...

It seems that Moebius wants to produce kits that have yet to be produced, and they want to do right by those kits. I would say that most of them are kits that we long-time modelers have been requesting for so many years, back to the days when SA would publish their issue with the most-requested kits. And, while they are not the most prolific manufacturer, variety-wise, I haven't seen too many complaints, if any, regarding their kit subjects. Don't anticipate them to pick up any "slack" along the lines of a '69 Chevelle.

Keep in mind that a majority of Round 2 kits are reissues of reissues that were introduced, in some cases, maybe 50 years ago. It's clear that they are playing the nostalgia card, directing their products at us old guys. Some of them were one-hit wonders, some have been around the block way too often; Round 2 is doing what they can to fix known problems with those kits in most cases. Sometimes, that's the equivalent of a silk purse from that sow's ear. Sometimes, it's the same-old, same-old product with no real improvement. Many of those kits were not gems when they were first released and time has taken it's toll on those old molds, especially those kits that were released so many times. Unlike wines, molds don't improve with age as they sit unused. At least Round 2 has been offering better tires and decals. I seriously doubt that we will see any of the kits that Round 2 offers being duplicated by any of the other manufacturers in all-new kits.

[Snake45]

How about the one-year-only , 1969 SS-optioned 300 Deluxe coupe ? Top engine was the 325 hp 396 ; had the "wind wings" ; door glass was framed ; and interior was very basic ( read : plain door panels , rubber floor mats , bench seat , etc. )

I'm planning to build one of those. I'd never heard that the top engine was the 325 hp version. I could swear I've seen restored ones with the 375.

[Snake45]

69 CHEVELLE.jpg

I was wondering what a person could expect out of the 1991 release of the 69 Chevelle SS396?

See here:

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93494

[Bob Ellis]

I think Meobius has to do models never done before to have a business plan that succeeds. There are millions of '69 Chevelle kits out there already and I figure that would hurt the volume of business needed to make it go. Most guys have already made the '69 Chevelle better, or happy with the way it is.

Round2 has done a great job making it possible to buy the older kits. If it wasn't for them, the tools would be left out in the weather like they were in Baltimore after Lesney/Matchbox had AMT.

[1972coronet]

I'm planning to build one of those. I'd never heard that the top engine was the 325 hp version. I could swear I've seen restored ones with the 375.

It's very possible that the 375 hp 396 was "available" (probably a 'check-this-box-and-see-if-the-order-is-filled' deal , much like the Hemi-powered 1967 non-GTX , non-RO23 Belvedere ).

I'm going by the info provided by the article in Muscle Car Review ( I *believe* that it's their June 2015 issue ... ) which features a Cranberry Metallic 300 Deluxe pillard coupe which was bought new at Berger Chevrolet .

*EDIT*

It's in the April 2015 issue of Muscle Car Review . Here's what the cover looked like :

Edited May 11, 2015 by 1972coronet

[Snake45]

It's very possible that the 375 hp 396 was "available" (probably a 'check-this-box-and-see-if-the-order-is-filled' deal , much like the Hemi-powered 1967 non-GTX , non-RO23 Belvedere ).

I'm going by the info provided by the article in Muscle Car Review ( I *believe* that it's their June 2015 issue ... ) which features a Cranberry Metallic 300 Deluxe pillard coupe which was bought new at Berger Chevrolet .

*EDIT*

It's in the April 2015 issue of Muscle Car Review . Here's what the cover looked like :

MCR_april2015.jpg

Yeah, I knew I'd seen an article on them recently.

FWIW, the 375-hp engine (L78, right?), isn't shown in any of the '69 showroom brochures. Nor, IIRC, in the '67 or '68 either, in Chevelle, Nova, or Camaro. But it was definitely available (except of course in '67 Nova).

[Fat Brian]

The body of these kits aren't bad, it's the chassis that is lacking. If you want to make it better swap in the chassis from the AMT 69 Cutlass W-30 which, while still not quite up to modern standards, is leaps and bounds better than the Chevelle unit. Both of these kits can be had very cheap, with some careful shopping you'll probably only be in it for the cost of a kit fresh off the shelf.

[1972coronet]

FWIW, the 375-hp engine (L78, right?), isn't shown in any of the '69 showroom brochures. Nor, IIRC, in the '67 or '68 either, in Chevelle, Nova, or Camaro. But it was definitely available (except of course in '67 Nova).

I wasn't aware of the 375 hp version being so enshrouded in mystery . I thought that it was in the brochures , but was kind of "hidden" within the mention of the 325 and 350 hp versions .

Same goes for the Super Sport option on the 1969-only Custom 300 coupe : allegedly no mention of such a combination in the brochures (according to the owner of the gorgeous red car featured in the M.C.R. article) .

It truly is a disservice that no one makes a decent '68-'72 Chevelle / Malibu kit . The possibilities are endless ! Heck , I'm still waiting for someone to add some Dana Chevrolet options and decals to a Camaro , Nova , et al. , kit ...