1/25 AMT '63 Chevrolet Impala SS Hardtop

[Sledsel]

20 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

 

AMT got the roof right on theirs for the most part. It just seems to me the C pillar is a bit 'thin' compared to the 1:1 and Revell's '64 gets this pretty much on the money.

Now, not being as knowing on the Chevy's, I do see that the C pillar does look a bit thin. I will need to dig out my 63 and 64 Chevy's to compare.

The Revell 63 looked horrible to my "Ford" eyes when I took it out of the box. Sat on the shelf a long time til I flipped it for something else.

These old kits were made by artists.... 

 

[MrObsessive]

2 hours ago, Sledsel said:

These old kits were made by artists....

Definitely for sure!

Now it could be that AMT did have that correct when they first got the plans for the tooling sometime in 1961 or thereabouts when the '63's would have still been in the planning stages. Then, GM changed up at the 11th hour making it too late for AMT to change their tooling. Just a guess..........

Revell's roof looks waaaay too exaggerated to my eyes, particularly in the roof 'crease'. It sticks up in the air like a humpback to my way of seeing. I didn't pay much attention to the front and back ends till Steve pointed it out and now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it.

Revell's is derived from a diecast I thought, but that's still no reason why it's so way off. I've got some diecasts in my collection that are spot on correct despite that. Interesting that they got it right on their '64.........kinda like what they did between their '59 and '60 hardtops. '59 not so right..........'60 dead on accurate IMO.

[mredjr]

I took the chassis out of the AMT 62 convertible and with very little work put it under the AMT 63 and it looks like is was made for it. I cut the inner finders off the 62 body and glues them to the chassis and if fits the 63 perfectly.

[jacko]

I would like to do a 63 convertible. What kit would you pick as a donor for the folded top?

[StevenGuthmiller]

26 minutes ago, jacko said:

I would like to do a 63 convertible. What kit would you pick as a donor for the folded top?

Probably the AMT '62 Impala convertible?

 

 

Steve

 

 

[Classicgas]

On May 1, 2019 at 11:53 PM, alexis said:

Okay, but there is that exaggeration and Hyperbole again.  Rusty Meat Clever? Would a clean meatclever have done a better job?

Seriously, I see how the shapes differ when compared side-by-side. However I see nothing offensive on either one. Neither looks better to the other, TO ME!! And only TO ME. For the rest of you, carry on.

I'm with you Alan. I see the differences, but it's just not that big a problem for me.

[Mark]

3 hours ago, jacko said:

I would like to do a 63 convertible. What kit would you pick as a donor for the folded top?

I believe the recent reissue AMT '64 Impala hardtop kit has the convertible boot from the original annual kit included.  If you see one, check the parts layout on the box bottom.

 

[StevenGuthmiller]

5 hours ago, jacko said:

I would like to do a 63 convertible. What kit would you pick as a donor for the folded top?

Check ebay right now.

Someone is auctioning an original issue AMT 1964 Chevy convertible top boot and an up top.

 

 

Steve

 

[Sledsel]

22 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

Definitely for sure!

Now it could be that AMT did have that correct when they first got the plans for the tooling sometime in 1961 or thereabouts when the '63's would have still been in the planning stages. Then, GM changed up at the 11th hour making it too late for AMT to change their tooling. Just a guess..........

Revell's roof looks waaaay too exaggerated to my eyes, particularly in the roof 'crease'. It sticks up in the air like a humpback to my way of seeing. I didn't pay much attention to the front and back ends till Steve pointed it out and now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it.

Revell's is derived from a diecast I thought, but that's still no reason why it's so way off. I've got some diecasts in my collection that are spot on correct despite that. Interesting that they got it right on their '64.........kinda like what they did between their '59 and '60 hardtops. '59 not so right..........'60 dead on accurate IMO.

Didn't the 62 Chevy have the same roof? Just a thought?

but.... did they have the plans for the 49 Merc and Ford? 57 Chevy and Ford? Probably not, and those are about dead on.

Now Revell's 57 Chevy sedan is a really nice kit, the 57 Fords on the other hand are disasters.  

Edited May 4, 2019 by Sledsel

[Daddy Mack]

On 5/2/2019 at 9:28 PM, Motor City said:

This should have the engine-turned aluminum rear panel. 

Someone needs to post a pic of a real 1963 Impala SS with an engine-turned aluminum rear panel. Or just a 1963 Impala engine-turned rear panel made out of ANY material. Please!

 

On 5/2/2019 at 7:18 AM, Rob Hall said:

The original annuals did, later issues haven't. 

The Craftsman release has separate, clear red taillights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Whew.

Somebody  reworked the rocker panels (or more) on the AMT body. That is shocking! That mold had been polished so many times that the bottom sides had more waves than the Atlantic Ocean.

The mold inserts to run the separate hood were never found after they ran the Craftsman kit. That's why the reissues have a different hood than the annuals.

Am almost tempted to buy one  just to see if they cut some new body sections (or more) to fix the sea storm along the rocker panels!

[Motor City]

[Rob Hall]

24 minutes ago, Motor City said:

I don't think any kit has had that detail..seems like something that could be done w/ a decal.

[MrObsessive]

All these years I've been seeing '63 Chevys and that's the first I've noticed that!

That would be hard to get right in scale except for what Rob said...........some sort of decal. You might be able to fudge it a bit by using a pattern cut out of silver cake decorating foil which is very close. The next issue would be would it appear in scale or not.

[Dave Darby]

On 5/1/2019 at 1:08 PM, Rob Hall said:

Wonder if it's still missing the firewall and has the taillights molded in.   Nice box art, the design resembles the '64 annual. 

I'm sure that is still the case. Easiest fix is to kitbash with the AMT 64, which was based off the the 63 Kit tool. 

[Dave Darby]

5 hours ago, Daddy Mack said:

Someone needs to post a pic of a real 1963 Impala SS with an engine-turned aluminum rear panel. Or just a 1963 Impala engine-turned rear panel made out of ANY material. Please!

 

The Craftsman release has separate, clear red taillights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Whew.

Somebody  reworked the rocker panels (or more) on the AMT body. That is shocking! That mold had been polished so many times that the bottom sides had more waves than the Atlantic Ocean.

The mold inserts to run the separate hood were never found after they ran the Craftsman kit. That's why the reissues have a different hood than the annuals.

Am almost tempted to buy one  just to see if they cut some new body sections (or more) to fix the sea storm along the rocker panels!

The Craftsman kit was derived from the promo tool (which never had an opening hood). The annual kit used a different tool that was updated to a 64. The injector manifold from the annual is in the most recent issue of the 64. 

[MrObsessive]

6 hours ago, Sledsel said:

Didn't the 62 Chevy have the same roof? Just a thought?

but.... did they have the plans for the 49 Merc and Ford? 57 Chevy and Ford? Probably not, and those are about dead on.

Now Revell's 57 Chevy sedan is a really nice kit, the 57 Fords on the other hand are disasters.  

They shared C pillars but not A pillars. AMT IMO got the roofline better for their annual '62 than they did for the '63. Although to be fair I never liked how AMT modeled the A pillars on their '62 Impala hardtop annual. Just doesn't look right to me. We can see that the A pillars are different between those years, so when AMT had to update their tooling for the new model year, they may have simply goofed on the shape.

I don't have a pic (eBay's aren't enough of a close up), but from what I did see, the '62 to my eyes doesn't have that 'thinness' of the C pillar the way the AMT '63's and '64's do.

Edited May 4, 2019 by MrObsessive

[Exotics_Builder]

5 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

I don't think any kit has had that detail..seems like something that could be done w/ a decal.

 

4 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

All these years I've been seeing '63 Chevys and that's the first I've noticed that!

That would be hard to get right in scale except for what Rob said...........some sort of decal. You might be able to fudge it a bit by using a pattern cut out of silver cake decorating foil which is very close. The next issue would be would it appear in scale or not.

The 62, 63 and 64 SS Impalas had the engine turned aluminum (ETA) feature.  And no model manufacturer has included anything to replicate.  VRM was looking into doing ETA decals, but not yet and probably too large for this body trim.  I was experimenting on doing a decal to mimic this a couple of years ago.  But it is on the shelf until we complete our move.

The approach I was looking at was using BMF as a base and a gray scale accent on clear decal sheet.  I did not get to the point of reducing a prototype to see how it would look.  In 1/25 scale, I fear they may appear as dots.

 

[1972coronet]

Lettuce not forget the ill-fated Prestige issue of the '63 Impala SS ! That thing got such a bashing back when it was issued in 1988 ; not because of the kit its self , but because of the "Prestige" nomenclature --- those kits were sold new at a premium over the 'regular' kits . In other words , the ~ $9.00 retail price was , shall we say , overzealous , in comparison to its contents (or , lack thereof)

Edited May 4, 2019 by 1972coronet

[Luc Janssens]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

42 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

Lettuce not forget the ill-fated Prestige issue of the '63 Impala SS ! That thing got such a bashing back when it was issued in 1988 ; not because of the kit its self , but because of the "Prestige" nomenclature --- those kits were sold new at a premium over the 'regular' kits . In other words , the ~ $9.00 retail price was , shall we say , overzealous , in comparison to its contents (or , lack thereof)

Have that one, the body is marred with sink-marks on the opposite side of the feed channels grinded into the core of the body tooling to facilitate a better flow of the molted plastic.

 

[Rob Hall]

Never had the Prestige series '63, but built the '65 Grand Prix, Bonneville and Lincoln in that series back in the day--they all had warped bodies w/ soft plastic.    The '63 Impalas I do have are the annual ht and convertible kits along with a reissue from the 90s w/ turquoise car box art.

[Motor City]

As Gerry stated above, the '62-'64 Impala SS had the aluminum engine-turned rear trim.  They also had engine-turned exterior side trim, dashboard and console trim.  If a decal isn't available, which seems difficult to believe, silver paint on these area doesn't look too bad.

[StevenGuthmiller]

31 minutes ago, Motor City said:

As Gerry stated above, the '62-'64 Impala SS had the aluminum engine-turned rear trim.  They also had engine-turned exterior side trim, dashboard and console trim.  If a decal isn't available, which seems difficult to believe, silver paint on these area doesn't look too bad.

Yeah, I think I agree with you.

These details are hardly noticeable from a short distance on the real car.

Not worth obsessing over in 1/25th scale.

 

 

Steve

[Ron Hamilton]

I have a boatload of AMT and Revell 63 Chevrolets including an annual hardtop rebuilder, which is very clean and unpainted, but has a set of kustom tail lamps welded in where I cannot remove them,  and a convertible conversion that I did that I once considered scrapping. I have recently decided to strip it and clean it up to see where I would be on it. The scripts on that one are unusually crisp, and I used the chassis and running gear from the AMT 62 Bel Air. I love 61-61 Chevies, and I have quite a few kits in the stash to build. 

[magicmustang]

On 5/4/2019 at 9:48 AM, Dave Darby said:

The Craftsman kit was derived from the promo tool (which never had an opening hood). The annual kit used a different tool that was updated to a 64. The injector manifold from the annual is in the most recent issue of the 64. 

Here's a Craftsman kit I converted many years ago. Cut out the hood and made an engine bay with parts from a "64 Impala kit. 

[Daddy Mack]

On 5/4/2019 at 10:48 AM, Dave Darby said:

The Craftsman kit was derived from the promo tool (which never had an opening hood). The annual kit used a different tool that was updated to a 64. The injector manifold from the annual is in the most recent issue of the 64. 

Ummmmmmmmmm. No

There was NO annual 'tool' and a different Craftsman 'tool'. I have the annuals AND the Craftsman kits. They are the same body mold.

I worked in a PIM shop. The only people who call molds 'tools' are lay people.