Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Ronrr

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ronrr

  1. Just because they are on the scanned subject does not mean that is what is being planned.
  2. The AMT body is an 1/8" narrower at the front and back as I recall. This was verified by the Chevy factory drawings used to develope the Revell kit and by research dimensions that were taken.
  3. You are on the right track here. The rear side marker lights were set to high, the top edge needs to be dropped to where the bottom edge is and the bumper gap needs to be reduced by 50% or to suit your personal preference. I would not expect that Revell would be willing to invest in these types of revisions. These are the types of things that can go wrong during the course of a project that is going under constant revision a world apart with strict financial and time constraits. Fortunately the parts are or should be pretty accurate just placed a little out of position. And yes, the '69 style taillights were almost impossible to engineer to scale due to wall thickness standards. The taillights are accurate and lightyears ahead of previous efforts that have been offered prior to this new kit.
  4. Thanks Luc, I'm actually not new here at all, I have followed the ramblings on this board since day one. I simply have stayed silent and kept notes on those good points brought up by some of your members and applied them when and where possible in the quest to make every production model as good as it can be within the confines that company management would allow.
  5. Just so all of you experts know the body and all related parts, including taillights and bumpers, were made from Chevrolet factory drawings and verified with hundreds of research photos and dimensions. Granted some very minor adjustments can take place going into the 3D modeling stage, but hardley way out of wack like one of your expert Revell haters here suggested.
×
×
  • Create New...