16 replies to this topic

[BigPoppa]

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...

[chris coffey]

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.

[Luc Janssens]

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

[Zoom Zoom]

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.

[Olle F]

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?

[58 Impala]

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.

[matador88]

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

[Zoom Zoom]

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.

[MrObsessive]

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............

[Phil Patterson]

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.

[gfb]

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

[evilone]

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

[Dave Van]

Revell..................
Built both....like the Revell much more.....

[evilone]

NICE BRO

[HotRodaSaurus]

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 by HotRodaSaurus, 05 March 2008 - 10:27 PM.

[Olle F]

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.

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.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

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?