Round2 1963 Cheverolet Impala Re-Release

[stavanzer]

Just starting a new thread just for the upcoming '63 Impala. I am really wondering What parts will be in the box. AS most know, the engine was re-tooled back in the 80's/90's to a simplified version, and some of the extra parts vanished. I wonder what parts Round2 will be able to salvage. The Intake Manifold for the Fuel Injection option has somehow migrated to the '64 Impala tool. However the Stacks for said system remain on the '63 Chrome tree. I hope that somehow Round2 can get all the parts back in the same box for the '63. I hope also that we can get two sets of tires, in addition to the improved decal sheet that always accompanies these updated kits. I've included scans of the directions from both an older version of the kit, and what I believe was the most recent re-issue.

https://public.fotki.com/drasticplasticsmcc/mkiba-build-under-c/amt-instructions/automotive-cars--pi/chevrolet/1961-1970/amt-1963-chevrolet-2/?view=roll#1

https://public.fotki.com/drasticplasticsmcc/mkiba-build-under-c/amt-instructions/automotive-cars--pi/chevrolet/1961-1970/amt-1963-chevrolet-1/?view=roll#1

I want this kit.

 

[Dave Darby]

When AMT tooled up the 1964 annual, the chassis and engine went into that tool. What was left was the promo/Craftsman version that lacked an opening hood or engine. Sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, AMT did a small run for disabled veterans (IIRC) opened the hood, tooled up the crude engine it has now and molded in the taillights. Fast forward to around 1989, AMT/Ertl opened up the gates to whatever custom parts remained in the tool and reissued it in the Prestige series. The newer reissues have the injector tubes. My guess is the upcoming reissue will be the same partswise, along with an expanded decal sheet and pad printed tires. (Likely a set of stock whitewalls and the white lettered tires that have been showing up in their other kits.)

[stavanzer]

Thanks for the helpful answers, Dave. It is nice to learn the histories of these kits.  I hope the old engine can be found.

[Mark]

The old engine was never lost...it's in the '64 kit.

[Bob Ellis]

1 hour ago, Dave Darby said:

When AMT tooled up the 1964 annual, the chassis and engine went into that tool. What was left was the promo/Craftsman version that lacked an opening hood or engine. Sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, AMT did a small run for disabled veterans (IIRC) opened the hood, tooled up the crude engine it has now and molded in the taillights. Fast forward to around 1989, AMT/Ertl opened up the gates to whatever custom parts remained in the tool and reissued it in the Prestige series. The newer reissues have the injector tubes. My guess is the upcoming reissue will be the same partswise, along with an expanded decal sheet and pad printed tires. (Likely a set of stock whitewalls and the white lettered tires that have been showing up in their other kits.)

It is too bad ERTL AMT didn't use the 64 engine chassis for the later 63 as re-designed parts are dreadful. I have thought that AMT freshened up the 63 Craftsman man in the mid to late 70s, maybe to do a Countdown kit? Then ERTL issued it in 1987.

[stavanzer]

Ah, Mark, that explains a whole lot. I guess I'll just need to buy another '64 kit, as a parts donor for the '63.  I am still excited by the '63 kit. I just like it's looks better.

[Bucky]

Does the Prestige kit have the taillights molded in? I had a Model King black and white box issue, and the lights were molded in. A pretty big pain for me to detail.

I hope the new one won't have them molded in.

[Junkman]

Will those terrible sink marks still be in the front fenders?
I'd miss them...

[Can-Con]

15 hours ago, Bucky said:

Does the Prestige kit have the taillights molded in?

Yes, it does. I was just looking at mine a few days ago.

[mredjr]

I just wish they would put the taillights back in .

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Welp, unlike the '64:'64 comparison where the newer Revell kit pretty roundly slaughters its AMT counterpart, the newer Revell '63 doesn't look quite as good as the older AMT - but it's got separate taillights, a complete firewall, really an entire chassis and interior that might serve the AMT shell pretty well, if you wanted to go that far.

[Bob Ellis]

The guy who in charge of designing the 63 chevy previously worked for Cadillac. You will notice the Caddy style grille. I have thought that the Revell captured that grille better than the AMT. Maybe the tail lights are better on the AMT?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Hmm. Nothing saying you can't try Revell's grille on the AMT shell - the newer grille will also have clear headlight lenses.

[MrObsessive]

On 5/20/2019 at 4:02 PM, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Welp, unlike the '64:'64 comparison where the newer Revell kit pretty roundly slaughters its AMT counterpart, the newer Revell '63 doesn't look quite as good as the older AMT - but it's got separate taillights, a complete firewall, really an entire chassis and interior that might serve the AMT shell pretty well, if you wanted to go that far.

Chuck, you said exactly what I'd like to do with this kit. Take the AMT kit and swap the chassis and interior with the Revell kit, AFTER I swap the roof from the AMT kit with Revell's '64. Neither the AMT kit or the Revell '63 roof is correct to my eyes. The '63 Revell lower body while it has some questionable proportions, the creases are not as defined and sharp as AMT's '63 which to my sight is exactly right.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Tellya what, Bill - I actually took the fit-assessment '64 Impala I did for the 2000 ranking article, sawed the roof off, and grafted it onto the AMT '62 Catalina - Cat looked a lot better afterward, to me.

The C-pillar proportioning and the gentle curvature in the drip rails make Revell's execution of that particular roof the best of any we've seen in 1/25, imho.

[Brutalform]

22 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Hmm. Nothing saying you can't try Revell's grille on the AMT shell - the newer grille will also have clear headlight lenses.

Those headlights on the Revell grill are terrible in my opinion. I don’t know why they would attach with a post? Even if you paint them a flat aluminum color, the dimple still shows. Adding some BMF over the holes and going with a different lens seems to be the best route. 

[Rob Hall]

6 minutes ago, Brutalform said:

Those headlights on the Revell grill are terrible in my opinion. I don’t know why they would attach with a post? Even if you paint them a flat aluminum color, the dimple still shows. Adding some BMF over the holes and going with a different lens seems to be the best route. 

I assume they attach with a post because that tooling originated w/ a diecast. 

[Brutalform]

1 minute ago, Rob Hall said:

I assume they attach with a post because that tooling originated w/ a diecast. 

Good point, even the way the floor, and interior is laid out, resembles a die cast. 

[Rob Hall]

15 minutes ago, Brutalform said:

Good point, even the way the floor, and interior is laid out, resembles a die cast. 

The Revell '64 Impala is like that also IIRC.

[Dave Darby]

22 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

Chuck, you said exactly what I'd like to do with this kit. Take the AMT kit and swap the chassis and interior with the Revell kit, AFTER I swap the roof from the AMT kit with Revell's '64. Neither the AMT kit or the Revell '63 roof is correct to my eyes. The '63 Revell lower body while it has some questionable proportions, the creases are not as defined and sharp as AMT's '63 which to my sight is exactly right.

If you are doing the AMT 64, recall that the annual had working headlamps. The holes are still there on the backside of the grille. Next one I build is getting those drilled out, and some nice lenses with reflectors recessed in to get rid of that awful bug-eyed look.

[Mark]

11 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

If you are doing the AMT 64, recall that the annual had working headlamps. The holes are still there on the backside of the grille. Next one I build is getting those drilled out, and some nice lenses with reflectors recessed in to get rid of that awful bug-eyed look.

In between the '64 annual with working headlamps and the bug-eyed Street Shaker and later issues, there was the late Sixties Super Street issue. That one had protruding headlamp detail also, but still had the "1964" license plate area detail.  The lens detail is "clocked" (not aligned properly) on every bumper from that issue that I have seen.  The headlamp detail may have been engraved on ejector pins that rotated out of alignment during production.  That seems to have been corrected in the Street Shaker and later issues. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

22 hours ago, Brutalform said:

Those headlights on the Revell grill are terrible in my opinion. I don’t know why they would attach with a post? Even if you paint them a flat aluminum color, the dimple still shows. Adding some BMF over the holes and going with a different lens seems to be the best route. 

I've always found those pretty easy to deal with - just cut the posts, and for those 1-in-100 lenses that aren't opaque enough to cover that move, do a little finish work from behind.  If it's not too out of scale, you can round off the post you trimmed and use it to fill the hole and dummy up a bulb at the center of the reflector.  There are even some instances where the post nearly disappears if you back it with foil or Molotow chrome from behind the reflector/grille instead of just leaving it clear.

22 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

The Revell '64 Impala is like that also IIRC.

Yup, general design MO is similar, but the '63 is greatly simplified relative to the '64, which was practically Pro Modeler in its detail level. 

And I'm gonna go a bit against the grain here in that I seem to recall the '63 was simplified for the purposes of being a plastic prepainted kit.  Not ready to swear to it, but I'm under a pretty strong impression that the Revell diecast '63/'64 Impalas featured yet another design distinct even from the plastic '63.

This diecast '64, por ejemplo, has "positionable" axles.  For the plastic '63, you have stance options, but whatever you choose is permanent once you glue it in.

[Snake45]

On 5/22/2019 at 5:04 PM, Brutalform said:

Those headlights on the Revell grill are terrible in my opinion. I don’t know why they would attach with a post? Even if you paint them a flat aluminum color, the dimple still shows. Adding some BMF over the holes and going with a different lens seems to be the best route. 

Posts are ridiculously easy to deal with. Push the lens into place, then paint the protruding back end with WHITE paint--not silver, chrome, or foil. WHITE. It simply vanishes. Have done this with many, many diecasts. 

[Classicgas]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:59 PM, Snake45 said:

Posts are ridiculously easy to deal with. Push the lens into place, then paint the protruding back end with WHITE paint--not silver, chrome, or foil. WHITE. It simply vanishes. Have done this with many, many diecasts. 

Great tip! I never thought of that.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well now, I wouldn't have recommended the chrome without having had some success with that technique - though now that you mention it, I do think the chrome works better if you grind any post projection flush at the back first.  Been a while since the last one for me.

I'll definitely be giving the white a try, though.