BigPoppa Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I had the diecast 58 (same as the plastic) and wasn't pleased with the engine. Amt has the opening doors, Revell the opening trunk. Revell of course has all the chrome separate. What are the pros and cons? Hopefully I set this poll up right, not much of a preview... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris coffey Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I haven't had the oppertunity to purchase one of the Revell '58's, and from what i heard from my buddy, might be a long shot if i do. As many contankerous kits that AMT ever made, i still to this day, really enjoy building the AMT '58. With a tiny bit of finesse, the AMT '58 builds into a really sweet car, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Janssens Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I had the diecast 58 (same as the plastic) and wasn't pleased with the engine. Amt has the opening doors, Revell the opening trunk. Revell of course has all the chrome separate. What are the pros and cons? Hopefully I set this poll up right, not much of a preview... I didn't vote, cuz it's like comparing apples to oranges as each kit has it's place in the modelers spectrum. IMHO the Amt kit is like having dinner in a fancy restaurant, while the Revell kit is more like grabbing the fast burger at Mikey D. yet both serve the same purpose: feeding. With that I mean that the Amt kit was tooled up in a time when model building was the number one sport, and people "seemed" to make time to build their models, be it mediocre or show case quality....now fast forward a few decades, those same customers have less time, are harder to please and very demanding not only towards to the product itself, but also to themselves. They don't have the time and patience to "Bare metal" foil a amt kit body, so very pleased with the "die cast" solutions Revell came up with in their offering. It's something I'm very pleased with, cuz as most of you know many of the old car kits were based on promo's which were designed for minimal assembly and (detail) painting for lean production. So in a nutshell I think the "non specialized" kits of the future, will be a mix of current glue design topped of with easy paint and assembly features borrowed from Diecast production experiences. Luc Ps. a lot got lost in the translation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I will say this, though ... while the Revell '58 doesn't exactly blow its AMT predecessor out of the water, there are a couple of Revell diecast kits _ namely the '78 Trans Am and '62 Corvette _ that would be VAST improvements over kits previously done of those subjects should Revell ever choose to release them in plastic form. I know I'm certainly hoping that it will! Amen to that. '58 Chevies don't do much for me anyway, that's a subject that appealed to me more in the past (been there, built that), while newer subjects are grabbing my attention all the time. I've got the MPC-based Trans Am and AMT '62 Corvette, and the newer Revell versions and they trounce the earlier kits. Not only that, but there's a significantly excellent chance they'll get shifted to all-plastic kits for less $$ than the diecast. I'll buy more of them if that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle F Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I haven't seen Revell's '58 but I have built a couple of AMT's version, and I would think that it's hard to beat if you want a realistic and detailed model. Some things may need some tweaking (like making the doors fit correctly) but overall, it seems to have way more detail than the new Revell offering. I don't care much for the separate chrome trim either, it is easier to build that way but it gives the model a toy like appearance IMO. So if you disregard how easy it is to build and only look at what the finished model will look like: Which one is best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
58 Impala Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I have built this kit a couple of times and I still have a couple of unbuilts in my collection. It is an old kit but a good one. I built one for my dad, as he had a baby blue 58 w/348 when I was a kid. I gave it to him one Fathers day as a gift, he was pleased and surprised. I really enjoyed building and BMFing that kit, it was a challenge but it came out nice. I have since bought Revell's version, it's looks to be pretty nice. It does seem a little toy like, maybe its because of the snap in chrome. I have seen someone in this forum build the new 58 , it looked really nice and he gave it favorable comments. I'm looking foward to building mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matador88 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 i just started work on amt 58. i build it as a junker thats luck, otherwise its would be destroyed. really, the worst kit in my hands. sorry, but nothing new can be worse than this. i vote revell is better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Bob, you forgot to mention the people in the gpma group that claim it's "impossible" to convert a mold made for a diecast kit to a styrene version!! One of those claiming this is a leading aftermarket supplier, who's products I will freely admit are first rate, but he seems largely clueless once out of his modeling genre interest, (going so far as to practically saying so in one post he made on the subject). The other was a kit engineer at AMT, (so claimed), that swore up & down it was "impossible". Both of these despite the information I readily provided regarding Monogram having done so in the past with the 53 Corvette & 56 Thunderbird, as well as Revell doing it with the 58 Impala, the releasing of the "Uptown" series in plastic, when the cars were originally meant to be diecasts, & the upcoming mid 80's Cutlass & Regal Revell was going to release as diecast & are now going to do as stryrene. Not to mention stating how Jim Keeler, (ex Revell & Aurora), explained on the Spotlight Hobbies board how it was done. I didn't even mention the info we have on Revell possibly converting it's diecast tooling of the 1/25 scale 1970 Dodge Challenger, (the "Vanishing Point" one), & 67 Mustang to plastic kits. I'm still laughing over those posts! Geez, & some people think I'm a "know it all"! I stayed well clear of that one over there I figured if you couldn't convince 'em with your references, nobody could. Ed Sexton told me that it was fairly easy to modify the tooling to run styrene. Of course I've learned that even when you support what you know with facts, some people will still not believe them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 i just started work on amt 58. i build it as a junker thats luck, otherwise its would be destroyed. really, the worst kit in my hands. sorry, but nothing new can be worse than this. i vote revell is better All I have to say (and show) is this...............with some time and patience, the old AMT '58 kit can be built to hang with the best of 'em today............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Patterson Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Both of these despite the information I readily provided regarding Monogram having done so in the past with the 53 Corvette & 56 Thunderbird, as well as Revell doing it with the 58 Impala, the releasing of the "Uptown" series in plastic, when the cars were originally meant to be diecasts, & the upcoming mid 80's Cutlass & Regal Revell was going to release as diecast & are now going to do as stryrene. That is odd, considering examples of the ones you mention, plus the MG-TD that Revell had on the market recently were all converted from styrene. I'm definitely looking forward to the Cutlass, though I think it'll be hard for the new Regal to surpass the classic Monogram Turbo Regal kit that has been out for some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfb Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I had the diecast 58 (same as the plastic) and wasn't pleased with the engine. Amt has the opening doors, Revell the opening trunk. Revell of course has all the chrome separate. What are the pros and cons? Hopefully I set this poll up right, not much of a preview... Hi-just my 2 cents. If I remember right the AMT '58 was tooled in '61 or '62. My brother and I each bought and built a '58. We were happy with the kit and the results we got. In l963, Monogram came out with a '55 BelAir kit, number PC83-198. I bought one and built it. It was a fine kit, but I was disappointed as the stock wheel covers were not in the kit. It was not as detailed as the AMT kit. Revell at the same period of time was producing one piece body kits. They were fine, but again not as detailed as AMT kits. Forward to the present. The Revell '58 has its merits. It is as easy to build as the old '58-'60 AMT-SMP kits. Revell finally got the '55 BelAir kits right with the convertibles and the new hardtop. Again I am happy to have both companies offering us kits. Its too bad that AMT fell on hard times with the management they had of late. They have brought us many kits other companies other than Linberg would not venture into. Thanks for reading my ramblings. GFB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilone Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 im a fan of revell's 58 im making it a lowrider and all i had to get is the pumps for it a little fenessing and bam the trunk was done except a little detailing parts i have to get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Van Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Revell.................. Built both....like the Revell much more..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilone Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 NICE BRO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotRodaSaurus Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) l ways wanted to do one of these as it was my favourite car from the film, How did you achive the red striping, paint or decal film? John Edited March 6, 2008 by HotRodaSaurus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle F Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 l ways wanted to do one of these as it was my favourite car from the film, How did you achive the red striping, paint or decal film? John Funny how some movie cars are recognized right away, without anyone even mentioning which movie it was. I think the movie car actually had faded highlights around the trim, but doing that in 1:25 will probably take a lot of patience and a very steady hand... it's difficult enough to even BMF that SOB. B) BTW: I just couldn't resist picking up an AMT '58 at the LHS the other day. From what I have read here, it's the one I will be most happy with and I don't think I'll have a problem with its few shortcomings after having build a couple of them in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 All I have to say (and show) is this...............with some time and patience, the old AMT '58 kit can be built to hang with the best of 'em today............ Oh Bill, just shut up, man. You're like Juha Airio. Your stuff doesn't count any more. It's not fair! I mean please, a little pity for us mortals, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Pugh Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 That's so crazy. I was just wondering about this comparison in my head on the way into work this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominik Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 both have their goods and bads. sure. But i always liked the amt more than the Revell.Opening doors, chromtrim molded - thats it, what counts for me. and of course, i love this old kit often more than the new ones. with more time (look at Bill's B e a u t i f u l Convertible!) on it, it will be a very nice result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-409 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I'm not sure which one I prefer. Both have their good and bad sides.AMT's problem in my opinion are those opening doors that usually don't fit very well. Though, not all of those AMT versions have this problem, as I have a couple of old builtups that have doors molded shut. AMT's Custom Parts that come with the kit are a great bonus too. There's not much wrong with Revell's kit either. Only thing I wasn't happy about was that diamond plate area in chassis around the gas tank. Revell's good thing compared to AMT is side trim which is molded as separate parts. That saves a lot of foiling, and I've never been a fan of that!But all in all, it's hard to say which one I prefer. I have built one Revell '58 Impala and I have three AMT builtups on my stash. One is going to be a Mild Custom, one is a parts car to build '58 Chevy Sedan Delivery using Jimmy Flintstone's body and one is still with no plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Goschke Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Color me crazy but I prefer the original SMP annual! Ill-fitting opening doors and separate moldings are deal breakers for me on the other two, plus I really like working with these old, old kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino246gt Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Wow that old convert sure looks nice! I just scored a nice '58 Ford hdtp in fine original condition. NO contest who makes the best '58 Ford kit, heeheehee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hamilton Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Over the years, I have built several of the AMT '58 Impalas in one way or another, as well as using it for resin transkit fodder, and having another in the stash for a future build of Dad's first new car. As a matter of fact I have both the AMT and the Revell for the future project. In my opinion it has to rank as one of the best tools marketed by AMT, and it can stack up to the newer offering from Revell. However I voted for the Revell tool, because it is crisper, and the opening doors made me crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ellis Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I like the opening doors and it is possible that brass door hinges make them work better. Making working doors on the Revell is difficult if not impossible. The Revell has more detail in some ways. Mixed bag Edited October 20, 2015 by Bob Ellis picture too small Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 All I have to say (and show) is this...............with some time and patience, the old AMT '58 kit can be built to hang with the best of 'em today............ Man, that's beautiful Bill! 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.