Jump to content


1/25 AMT '57 Ford Fairlane Hardtop


  • You cannot reply to this topic
39 replies to this topic

#21 Lovefordgalaxie

Lovefordgalaxie

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts
  • Location:Florianópolis SC Brasil
  • Full Name:Túlio Lazzaroni

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:13 AM

Correct on the wheelbase, the Custom was 116 and the Fairlane was 118.   '58 was the same way, then '59 went to 118 for all full size models.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Ford

Yep, but on the kits, you can't notice that, so you can combine them without having to change the wheelbase.



#22 ZTony8

ZTony8

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Location:Eastpointe,Michigan
  • Full Name:Tony Buglione

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:50 AM

There's a basic size difference between the two kits,the Revell kit being the larger of them.How do I know this?I've tried swapping parts.The mechanical items may change over easier but the body items are where the problems occur.The AMT grille is narrower,the shape at the rear of the body is very different and engineered differently on the Revell kit.The dual headlamp conversion pieces from the old issue AMT kit almost fit the revell body but would  need plastic strip added to fill a gap at the top of the fender(or some reshaping of the custom pieces on their sides to conform to the Revell body).



#23 Bob Ellis

Bob Ellis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 903 posts
  • Location:Concord, MA
  • Full Name:Bob Ellis

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:39 AM

It's like comparing apples and oranges. The revell has more detail, but it is a different car.

 

The AMT is a nice kit if you want an upscale Fairlane 500 model. It used to be nicer before AMT eliminated some of the custom parts. I can't validate it, but I was told the newer issues don't have chrome suspension pieces as the original kit had.

 

With regard to chrome, nothing is worse than late '60s early '70s AMT chrome. It turned yellow gold. Worse yet it was dull and hazy.



#24 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:37 AM

I built both, the AMT and the Revell. 

The AMT kit is a 1960s tooling, of the very top of the line Fairlane 500 Club Victoria.

The Revell kit is a new tooling of the entry model Custom Tudor.

 

Both kits have no fit issues. 

The AMT has a more accurate overall shape on the body than the Revell kit, and comparing both as built models to a 1:1 scale 1957 Ford, the one that "feels" more like the real deal in proportions is the AMT kit.

 

That being said, the Revell kit has lot's of detail that the AMT kit doesn't.

The engine on the Revell kit is way more detailed, as is the underside of the car.

The Revell kit has a separate frame from the floor pan, what makes easy to detail the area.

The AMT kit comes with the frame AND exhaust system molded to the floor pan.

The AMT engine has the correct carburetor tough. The Revell doesn't. 

The AMT engine while less detailed, has a representation of the road draft tube molded to the oil pan, and the Revell kit lacks this detail completely. This is somehow compensated by the fact that the Revell engine has the oil pump and pick up tube detail while its absent from the AMT kit.

The AMT kit has poseable front steering and opening doors, and the Revell kit has none of those things.

 

My personal preference goes to the AMT kit. The model shows it's age, but it was so well done than still can be compared to something done 50 years later. That has to value a couple of points.

You do realize that behind the front clip--those two bodies are completely different?  The Fairlane 500's are a longer car overall, with a longer wheelbase, and a lower roof line than Ford's 1957 Custom and Custom 300 series sedans and station wagons.  Revell's new kit looks very spot-on to me.

 

Art



#25 Lovefordgalaxie

Lovefordgalaxie

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts
  • Location:Florianópolis SC Brasil
  • Full Name:Túlio Lazzaroni

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:18 AM

You do realize that behind the front clip--those two bodies are completely different?  The Fairlane 500's are a longer car overall, with a longer wheelbase, and a lower roof line than Ford's 1957 Custom and Custom 300 series sedans and station wagons.  Revell's new kit looks very spot-on to me.

 

Art

Yes I do. I use to see many '57 Fords in 1:1 form, and a friend of mine has a Custom 300, that has the basic same body as the Custom Tudor.

In kit form things are not that perfect. Comparing both built models I only found 1,2 millimeters in overall size difference (Fairlane is longer).

Measuring the wheelbase, I found less than a millimeter of difference between the two, and it's also not what it should be.

Which one is more correct? Well, measure both, and compare the the real cars, then tell me.

Like I told before, I think the AMT "FEELS" more accurate on overall shape, and that is a subjective way of saying things.

It's like the AMT Edsel. The first time I saw one it felt "wrong" somehow. When I compared it to a 1:1 Edsel I figured out that the body looks sectioned, and that the front bumpers are way too wide in the vertical direction. The same feeling of "something wrong" I have with the Revell Ford. Maybe it's the front panel, between the hood and the grille, that's too wide. 

I would say that with today's modern computer technology and CAD being used to engineer those kits, the guys from AMT kid a heluva job back in the '60s.



#26 Jairus

Jairus

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
  • Location:Salem, OR
  • Full Name:Jairus

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:52 PM

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.



#27 mk11

mk11

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:alberta
  • Full Name:mike mackie

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:21 PM

Or just a model kit of a car that you've always liked the look of...

 

 

mike



#28 Jairus

Jairus

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
  • Location:Salem, OR
  • Full Name:Jairus

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:28 PM

Yeah, everyone wants to be the one to point to a perceived fault and be first to yell fowl.



#29 Dave Darby

Dave Darby

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Iowa
  • Full Name:Dave

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:46 PM

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...

 

221_4166528236256_1086417326_n-vi.jpg

 

BMF1.jpg


Edited by Dave Darby, 06 January 2014 - 09:47 PM.


#30 plowboy

plowboy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,044 posts
  • Location:in the middle
  • Full Name:Roger Hayes

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:58 AM

:huh: 

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. :rolleyes:  Besides, how do you know how old some of us are?? :blink: 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. 



#31 ZTony8

ZTony8

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Location:Eastpointe,Michigan
  • Full Name:Tony Buglione

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:50 AM

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.



#32 Jairus

Jairus

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
  • Location:Salem, OR
  • Full Name:Jairus

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:57 AM

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.

 



#33 Art Anderson

Art Anderson

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 08:32 AM

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

 

 



#34 gman

gman

    MCM Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Location:Vancouver BC
  • Full Name:Greg Peters

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:01 AM

^^ 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.



#35 Hard_2_Handle_454

Hard_2_Handle_454

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Full Name:Eric David Lucas

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:46 AM

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?



#36 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:50 AM

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 by Chuck Kourouklis, 07 January 2014 - 08:26 PM.


#37 thatz4u

thatz4u

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Location:S W Ohio Territory
  • Full Name:Al Rich

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:52 AM

I have used the Chrome engine pieces from the AMT kit on the Revell engine, no fit problems there.



#38 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,306 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:51 AM

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 by Brett Barrow, 07 January 2014 - 10:53 AM.


#39 midnightprowler

midnightprowler

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,353 posts
  • Location:East Bethel, Minnesota
  • Full Name:Lee

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:39 PM

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.

#40 gman

gman

    MCM Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Location:Vancouver BC
  • Full Name:Greg Peters

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:16 PM

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).