my80malibu Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 One problem I have found, and its a Big one. Is if You assemble the Body with the front lower Valance in place. "Which is a lot nicer for painting" You will not be able to get the chassis place in after you put the Radiator support assembly in place. The assembly instructions show it without the Valance in place. The back end is so wide, that it is impossible to put the front in first, and try to sqeeze the back side in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I think the mono leaf springs from the Trumpeter 63 Nova may work. I will try when I get my 67.. Good heavens, I'd think either filing the kit parts back to single leaves, or scratchbuilding monoleaves out of sheet styrene, would be a grand total of 15 or 20 minutes' work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 The AMT 67 seats are WAY wrong. I just looked at them vice a showroom brochure and a good Camaro reference book. The upholstery pattern is actually pretty accurate for the '67 Custom interior. The seat parts are also good--bolsters might be a tad high but they could be sanded down. But there's a shape problem with the outline of the back part. Nothing that couldn't be fixed by filling the seat back with J-B Weld or something of the kind, and then filing it back to the correct shape. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've got one of these on the bench and I'd have happily used the kit parts as-is if I hadn't looked at them. Now, I HAVE to fix them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 bought one today, really disappointed that the tail panel and rear valance are so wrong. Anything is fixable but its sad to see such nice tool and mold work as the modern revell's have and the subject be blairingly wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Irwin Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 But there's a shape problem with the outline of the back part. Nothing that couldn't be fixed by filling the seat back with J-B Weld or something of the kind, and then filing it back to the correct shape. Thats the problem, use the Revell 69 Camaro seats for a reference. They can be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 What the heck is your problem? If I want to try the 63 Nova springs, what is wrong with that? It will take seconds to see. Good lord, freaking lighten up buddy. Do it in good health, and more power to you, but not everyone has a $35 kit laying around for a parts donor. Just giving alternative ideas for some of us poor folk. Sorry if I offended. Won't happen again, I assure you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddyfink Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Who cares, the springs will be painted black and they will disappear. I know, they where not black from the factory, yada, yada, yoda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Who cares, the springs will be painted black and they will disappear. I know, they where not black from the factory, yada, yada, yoda! I'm with you on that Jesse. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Who cares, the springs will be painted black and they will disappear. I know, they where not black from the factory, yada, yada, yoda! x10 and there are FAR bigger issues with the kit that arent easy to fix or hide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 x10 and there are FAR bigger issues with the kit that arent easy to fix or hide True Dat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Irwin Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Is this kit really an improvement over the AMT kits I already have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemodeler Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Is this kit really an improvement over the AMT kits I already have? From the sounds of it, this "all new" kit is worse than the old AMT one that I have multiples of, I wonder if I should even bother opening the box, much less try building it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) Is this kit really an improvement over the AMT kits I already have? it has better tooling and is a better plastic but IMO thats about it, Im less than impressed. The fox coupe kit has the chop top but otherwise is a nice kit IMO for a car previously not offered, the camaro has a LOT of issues in a market where a prior copy is already out there, I just dont get it, they are common cars, how hard could it be to find one to compare to? Im heading to work for a few, Ill take a pic of the tail panel that IMO is the biggest flaw Edited September 21, 2014 by turbo nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 In many ways it's far superior to the old AMT kit. In other ways it falls short. The AMT kit has some issues but after building three of them (all '68s--I haven't finished a '67 version yet), I think I have most of the major problems sussed out, and fixes for them. The BIGGEST problem I see with the new Revell is the shape of the grille. It's fixable, but not without money and effort. I can make a nice model out of either of them. Here's one of my AMTs with several body problems corrected, or at least improved. The changes are subtle--can you spot them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Im heading to work for a few, Ill take a pic of the tail panel that IMO is the biggest flaw I haven't heard about or noticed that, but I'll take a look and see if I can figger it out for myself before you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my80malibu Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 It would be interesting to your pictures of the rear panels and the reported flaws,can you describe what you feel is wrong. it has better tooling and is a better plastic but IMO thats about it, Im less than impressed. The fox coupe kit has the chop top but otherwise is a nice kit IMO for a car previously not offered, the camaro has a LOT of issues in a market where a prior copy is already out there, I just dont get it, they are common cars, how hard could it be to find one to compare to? Im heading to work for a few, Ill take a pic of the tail panel that IMO is the biggest flaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I just got mine today plus a few others... Mine has that little ding on the passenger door also.. Just below where the sideview mirror would go.. I'm sure it can be filled in with some spot putty and sanded smooth.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I can't speak for James, but the difficulty I see in the rear taillight panel is that there's too much of a slant to where the tailights are not vertical. Now in the 1:1, there is a very slight tilt in the panel, but not as severe as the kit depicts.At least this is what I'm seeing.......I'm only paying attention to this because today I'm downloading a whole ton of pics of '67 SS hardtops and convertibles as they'll come in handy down the road.Now I know some may be rolling their eyes and sighing at all of this, but with kits costing as much as they do these days, errors like this shouldn't be missed. When I get around to building mine, yeah............this is something that will definitely need fixing as looking more at the kit body and the box art car, it's sticking out like a sore thumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I can't speak for James, but the difficulty I see in the rear taillight panel is that there's too much of a slant to where the tailights are not vertical. Now in the 1:1, there is a very slight tilt in the panel, but not as severe as the kit depicts. I just went and had another look and I see what you mean. I compared it with an AMT '67 body and an original AMT annual '67 body and it has a little more slant than either, especially the older one. I see it but it didn't jump out at me like the awful grille shape. Something's wrong with that back end--I think the taillights might be just a hair too big (tall) too--but it's not a deal-breaker for me like that grille is. Ironically, Revell's '69 Nova, which everyone seems to love, SHOULD have had more "slant-back" or undercut or whatever you want to call it on its rear panel--it has none, that panel is vertical, and looks like the '73-74 cars--but I don't recall anyone but me ever noticing that or being upset by it. I couldn't stand it and ended up grafting in the rear panel from an AMT '72 and filing the ends of the quarters to match. I gotta get that stupid model finished someday. The bodywork is finished and it's painted but for some reason I'm resisting doing the interior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 it looks worse in person, the side shape is wrong to, the quarters dont bulge enough in front of the wheel well they just seem to taper in hard on the kit. camaro's make up a LARGE portion of my business, I am very disappointed in this kit. hers a shot of the side profile. yes I know I suck as a camara man and I only use my phone but I think the detail gets through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I just went and had another look and I see what you mean. I compared it with an AMT '67 body and an original AMT annual '67 body and it has a little more slant than either, especially the older one. I see it but it didn't jump out at me like the awful grille shape. Something's wrong with that back end--I think the taillights might be just a hair too big (tall) too--but it's not a deal-breaker for me like that grille is. Ironically, Revell's '69 Nova, which everyone seems to love, SHOULD have had more "slant-back" or undercut or whatever you want to call it on its rear panel--it has none, that panel is vertical, and looks like the '73-74 cars--but I don't recall anyone but me ever noticing that or being upset by it. I couldn't stand it and ended up grafting in the rear panel from an AMT '72 and filing the ends of the quarters to match. I gotta get that stupid model finished someday. The bodywork is finished and it's painted but for some reason I'm resisting doing the interior. your spot on about the nova tail, and the tail lights are to big in every direction on the camaro by the eyeball test, I believe the quarters taper in to much as well making that problem look worse than it is. I love this country but I really wish revell of germany or tamiya would do some old muscle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) I just spent some more time comparing the Revell '67 body with the others, adding the Revell '68 Firebird in the mix this time. Hard to believe the Firebird and the new Camaro came from the same people. You'd think they'd be very similar, as were the real cars, but it's obvious that they started with clean sheets of paper on each. The Firebird body is better all around. In fact, I think I could build a more accurate Camaro from the Firebird body shell--with modifications, of course--than from the Camaro body. The more I look at this new Revell Camaro, the more disappointed I am. Oh, I'll build at least one, maybe more than one, but any "special" '67-'68 Camaros I build will be based on modified AMT bodies. What a shame. BTW, Turbo, what's the color on that real '67 in your photos? I don't think it's a factory color, is it? Whatever it is, it's pretty. Edited September 22, 2014 by Snake45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I just spent some more time comparing the Revell '67 body with the others, adding the Revell '68 Firebird in the mix this time. Hard to believe the Firebird and the new Camaro came from the same people. You'd think they'd be very similar, as were the real cars, but it's obvious that they started with clean sheets of paper on each. The Firebird body is better all around. In fact, I think I could build a more accurate Camaro from the Firebird body shell--with modifications, of course--than from the Camaro body. The more I look at this new Revell Camaro, the more disappointed I am. Oh, I'll build at least one, maybe more than one, but any "special" '67-'68 Camaros I build will be based on modified AMT bodies. What a shame. BTW, Turbo, what's the color on that real '67 in your photos? I don't think it's a factory color, is it? Whatever it is, it's pretty. yep most firechicken parts are identical, I have one of them in the shop as well an I agree that kit is pretty decent. the camaro is a late model corvette burn orange, did it a few years ago, it's back to get a new clutch. pic of car then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 That is an AWESOME Camaro! Replace those late-model wheels with 15" American Torq-Thrusts and it would be my dream car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo nova Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 lol most of the cars I build have brakes that big in the front now, that one has 18's to clear 13" brakes. the pro touring thing is 90% of work anymore, pays the bills. combo is a Dart based 540 with a 5 speed. sorry for the thread highjack, I am disapointed in the kit lol 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.