Fat Brian Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 If you don't like this kit you're really going to be disappointed in the 64 Impala they're bringing back out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 If you don't like this kit you're really going to be disappointed in the 64 Impala they're bringing back out. I agree with Brian. What do you expect from 45 year old tooling? Or even more, in the case of the '64 Chev, from 51 year old molds? I've built AMT's '69 Cougar in the past. I found the kit to be okay. As okay as any other AMT kit from the same time period. I'm not the greatest modeler in the world, yet my Cougar looked pretty good when it was done. I was happy with it. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I remember building the '64 Impala and '69 Cougar in the 'Countdown Series' in the late '70s as a kid. I love these old kits, as simple as they are..they can build up quite nicely with some effort. They have been reissued so many times that they are pretty familiar... I have the original issues and some later ones, probably will get the new reissues also, as I've got some variations in mind to build eventually.... Edited March 7, 2015 by Rob Hall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 On any reissue of an older kit, I pretty much know I'm going to get a bucket interior. With a couple of exceptions, the bucket interiors were the only type until 1988 when the '66 Nova came out. Revell even hung on to the bucket through the '64 Thunderbolt a few years later. (Even their '69 Camaro kits have a hybrid bucket interior with panel inserts) I also know I am going to get a simplified chassis and engine compartment. The chassis from the '67 Mustang combined with a few bits from various Revell Mustang and Torino kits can make a very nice contest quality Cougar chassis. I have not done it myself, but I have seen the results at a contest and talked to the modeler who built it. The engine in this kit is pretty nice, and the kit builds into a very nice shelf model. The body is pretty crisp and accurate, and the chrome and trim are all nicely done for their time. I am glad for the reissues, as they increase the selection of subjects to build. The Cougar is several steps ahead of the '64 Impala that is coming out, and way ahead of the '64 Ford which doesn't even have an engine, but that doesn't stop me from building those kits and making nice shelf models from them. The front suspension was pretty good back in the day, considering that some kits had the front suspension molded into the chassis, and a metal axle running through it. You also don't have to deal with molded in exhaust and molded in rear end with this chassis. I do agree that the texture is a touch overdone, but that was also back in the day of undercoating, where people use to order their cars with a thick coating of a weird tar like substance spayed all over the bottom of the car. The trickiest part is dealing with the injector pin marks and matching your fill work to the texture of the chassis. All in all, it is a workable kit that can build up really nicely. Vintage is as vintage does... When I drive my 45 year old car, I don't complain about the heavy steering, stiff brakes, unheated seats, AM only radio, lack of air conditioning, outdated pushrod motor, carbs, choke, manual seats, window cranks and the fact that it doesn't have cupholders. I appreciate it for what it is and enjoy the rumbling of the motor and the fact that I have the coolest taillights in automotive history. Try to get into that Zen like "Vintage mode" when you build it, and it should end up being a fun build. After all, it's the only Cougar out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 1017 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Would kitbash with a 1969 Mustang help make any improvements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Would kitbash with a 1969 Mustang help make any improvements? You mean a Revell kit? The engine might be better if you want a 428. The chassis would have to be stretched three scale inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I think you are a bit overboard with what you are saying about this kit. No, it is not state of the art, but it isn't as bad as you think it is. Aww ... give him a break, he's just trying to fit in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 hey at least its got attractive/deceptive box art! and can you show us some of that drug induced engraving on the chassis? I can't figure out if you are serious or not. jb I'll get some photos taken and show you what I meant... hope it turns out well enough for a digital camera... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 If you don't like this kit you're really going to be disappointed in the 64 Impala they're bringing back out. Thanks for the tip! Actually, I rarely buy anything outside the 65-70 era now - I'm really hooked on muscle cars, and see just about anything 64 and newer to be pre-muscle car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) I agree with Brian. What do you expect from 45 year old tooling? Or even more, in the case of the '64 Chev, from 51 year old molds? I've built AMT's '69 Cougar in the past. I found the kit to be okay. As okay as any other AMT kit from the same time period. I'm not the greatest modeler in the world, yet my Cougar looked pretty good when it was done. I was happy with it. Scott I expect any $25 kit to be decent and use today's technololgy. It isn't as if AMT is telling us before release that their kits are using 40-50 year old tooling! Until someone "in the know" posts a pre-release synopsis of the goals/plans of the kit manufacturer! Armed with that kind of info, do you think I would have bought one? Not on your life! And how many more guys like me are there that do not have insider information about these new/old kits who will feel that they've been taken to the cleaners and that their $25 was wasted? I would think that could even dissuade them from pursuing this hobby, and that wouldn't be good for any of us. Edited March 7, 2015 by fseva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I think you are a bit overboard with what you are saying about this kit. No, it is not state of the art, but it isn't as bad as you think it is. OK - since you said it, what specifically have I stated that is not factual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) On any reissue of an older kit, I pretty much know I'm going to get a bucket interior. With a couple of exceptions, the bucket interiors were the only type until 1988 when the '66 Nova came out. Revell even hung on to the bucket through the '64 Thunderbolt a few years later. (Even their '69 Camaro kits have a hybrid bucket interior with panel inserts) I also know I am going to get a simplified chassis and engine compartment. I would be more than happy to buy 40-50 year old kits if I were paying 40-50 year old prices! Or, if the kit was actually worth the money! Edited March 7, 2015 by fseva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I expect any $25 kit to be decent and use today's technololgy. It isn't as if AMT is telling us before release that their kits are using 40-50 year old tooling! Until someone "in the know" posts a pre-release synopsis of the goals/plans of the kit manufacturer! Armed with that kind of info, do you think I would have bought one? Not on your life! And how many more guys like me are there that do not have insider information about these new/old kits who will feel that they've been taken to the cleaners and that their $25 was wasted? I would think that could even dissuade them from pursuing this hobby, and that wouldn't be good for any of us. Read the reviews here, or ask other modelers here about the kits before you buy it. With the costs of making a new tool of any model, your going to find a lot of older kit subjects are based on old toolings. Most of us are okay with that. And as popular as some of these cars are, or are not, I dont expect model companies are going to put a lot of money into new dies, if the old kit is still useable and sells. Reading your comments Frank, I think your going to be real unhappy with most kits you find out there. That's a shame. Because with a little work, most turn into fairly nice reditions of the cars they represent. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I promised that I would take some photos of the chassis texture - make sure you zoom in to get a better idea of what it really looks like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Read the reviews here, or ask other modelers here about the kits before you buy it. With the costs of making a new tool of any model, your going to find a lot of older kit subjects are based on old toolings. Most of us are okay with that. And as popular as some of these cars are, or are not, I dont expect model companies are going to put a lot of money into new dies, if the old kit is still useable and sells. Reading your comments Frank, I think your going to be real unhappy with most kits you find out there. That's a shame. Because with a little work, most turn into fairly nice reditions of the cars they represent. Scott Well, thanks for your concern Scott, but I'm doing fine with the kits I've built or are still to be built. I don't have many years of kit-building left; so, I will enjoy the ones that are worth the money, and complain like crazy about the ripoffs. BTW, you will find 4 of my really good builds in my gallery. They are by no means the only ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) I expect any $25 kit to be decent and use today's technololgy. It isn't as if AMT is telling us before release that their kits are using 40-50 year old tooling! Until someone "in the know" posts a pre-release synopsis of the goals/plans of the kit manufacturer! Armed with that kind of info, do you think I would have bought one? Not on your life! And how many more guys like me are there that do not have insider information about these new/old kits who will feel that they've been taken to the cleaners and that their $25 was wasted? I would think that could even dissuade them from pursuing this hobby, and that wouldn't be good for any of us. Seriously???? It's common knowledge these kits are old tooling. if you pay attention on here, you would know that Round 2 has been doing nothing but reissues for the last several years...you must be new to the hobby. Edited March 7, 2015 by Rob Hall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Seriously???? It's common knowledge these kits are old tooling. if you pay attention on here, you would know that Round 2 has been doing nothing but reissues for the last several years...you must be new to the hobby. And Rob, you must not be reading the entire thread, or you'd know more about me and would not have to make such wrong and offensive assumptions. Sure do hope this forum isn't dominated by "elitest" hobbyists like the ones you find on SA's forums. By the way, Round2's re-releases haven't all been this bad! I bought/built the 68 Camaro and the 69 Hurst Olds, and they were much better than the Cougar. I couldn't say the same for the Chevelle convertible, which was absolute trash. Edited March 7, 2015 by fseva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djh1776 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I promised that I would take some photos of the chassis texture - make sure you zoom in to get a better idea of what it really looks like... I'm wondering if the chassis texture is supposed to simulate undercoating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fseva Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I'm wondering if the chassis texture is supposed to simulate undercoating? I think someone mentioned earlier that this was a possibility. I still wonder why they'd bother given the chassis isn't exactly an eyecatcher in the first place?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 By the way, Round2's re-releases haven't all been this bad! I bought/built the 68 Camaro and the 69 Hurst Olds, and they were much better than the Cougar. I couldn't say the same for the Chevelle convertible, which was absolute trash. The Cougar dates back to 1969, with some parts dating back to 1967 (late 1966). The AMT '68 Camaro dates back to about 1983, at least one if not two whole generations of evolution later, and the '69 Olds dates to the '90s, another generation of evolution and improvement. Your '69 Chevelle, like the Cougar, dates to 1969, largely based on a 1968 kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 looks like some chickens walked around on it while it was still wet, but I am pretty sure that is supposed to simulate undercoat, and probably does the job as well or better than other kits. still like everyone says, pretty much common knowledge that these are old kits that R2 are bringing out and they are only sporadically improving them in any real way. I mostly avoid them unless I know what I am getting into or just don't care, want the kit and will work with the expected imperfections. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I know that it is not feasible to re engineer or make major tooling changes to these kits, I do wish AMT would make the effort to clean up the exterior parts of the kits. Most of these oldies will be built and displayed on a shelf, not done to contest standards with heavily detailed chassis and engines. If I am paying these top prices for reissues, I would like to be able to build it OOB and have it look right. The Cougar has been pretty good on that account. (I have several copies of the older issues, so I have not bought the latest one) The '65 Galaxie and '69 Chevelle both need taillights and a chrome bit or two to make them passable. If either of those issues had been fixed, I would have probably made more purchases. (I did buy a Galaxie, but passed on another Chevelle. I would have bought a couple of each if they didn't need Modelhaus parts just to look okay on a shelf. At the top prices AMT is now charging for the old reissues, I am getting more selective about my purchases. (It helps that I have about a 40 year stash of kits and don't NEED anything to build.) Edited March 8, 2015 by DaveM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Suburban Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I think the review was pretty fair on the kit. Thankfully this kit is still available and has been reissued once again. Thankfully with correct box art. Does anyone remember the box art with the 428 Cougar but had only this 302 Eliminator in the box. Thankfully you didn't spend $150 plus for a 67,68 Cougar kit. You would have seen most of the same parts with a more generic engine. The engines, interior tub and wheels were updated in the 80's. I have an earlier 69 issue that has the XR7 interior and Boss 429 engine. I think it is a late 70's issue. I personally like this kit and it does build up well. Here are a few of mine built up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyBradKeselowski Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Here we go again except this time it's not Revell. Some people are going to gripe and complain about any kit you give them. I see that the chassis looks okay to me. There are gripers and there are complainers that just want to make us other builders throw a book at... :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Suburban Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I used the boot right out of the 73 Cougar kit. Kit is a hardtop but has this boot in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.e0420fe52e683c60d19e843462316523.jpg)
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.