Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

1/25 Revell 1969 Chevelle SS 396


Casey

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Snake45 said:

The argent-painted Mag500s were standard on all '69 SS396s AFAIK. BUT if you had ordered your car with COPO 9737, it would have come through on 15x7 Rallys (like the Yenkos). 

I've never seen or heard of a "regular" '69 SS396 ordered with COPO 9737, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's very theoretically possible. If the no-trim-rings thing bothers you, use Rallys and tell 'em your model is a rare COPO 9737. :lol:

It's not that it bothers me too much.  BUT... every photo shows the trim rings.   Why not get that right?  Now I'm the "rivet counter", lol.   I used the rallys on the 68 with the thought that the 69 would use the Magnums.   and using the Rallys on the 69 would just throw my whole display into chaos...  ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Motor City said:

I don't have to agonize over the bumper fit, side marker lamp, wheels and trim rings.  I'm going to build my '69 El Camino SS396 kit, which I always thought was better looking anyway!  Let the wailing begin! ?  

Build on brother.   Seems like I had an AMT kit of that one?  Maybe 2?  Might still have them somewhere.   Hmmmm.    I also have th First Gear diecast 68, whcih is a pretty nice model on its own.  I'll be interested in comparing this car with the diecasts I have of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already determined that some of the color callouts on the instruction sheet are wrong. I am painting some of the engine parts and see that they call for a gold oil filter. I could swear that the old AC filters were white, and that is what I see that some of the 1:1 restoration shops are selling. Anyone confirm or deny the color of the early spin-ons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

We already determined that some of the color callouts on the instruction sheet are wrong. I am painting some of the engine parts and see that they call for a gold oil filter. I could swear that the old AC filters were white, and that is what I see that some of the 1:1 restoration shops are selling. Anyone confirm or deny the color of the early spin-ons?

The earliest spin on filters were a medium to dark blue in color. I'm thinking the white filters started sometime in the '70's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, espo said:

The earliest spin on filters were a medium to dark blue in color. I'm thinking the white filters started sometime in the '70's. 

The current AC Delco filters are blue too. Maybe I will go with something similar to that color. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rodent said:

We already determined that some of the color callouts on the instruction sheet are wrong. I am painting some of the engine parts and see that they call for a gold oil filter. I could swear that the old AC filters were white, and that is what I see that some of the 1:1 restoration shops are selling. Anyone confirm or deny the color of the early spin-ons?

I think they were blue.... Then again, I could be wrong... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rodent said:

The current AC Delco filters are blue too. Maybe I will go with something similar to that color. Thanks!

They're either going retro or they're very old stock. Ha Ha.  Either way should work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The rear bumper gap doesn't bother me as much as the way too square rear wheel opening on the body.  For some reason, Revell just can't get these shapes right.  The same thing on their previous new tool Nova kit.  The rear wheel well shape is too square on that one too. 

If we go back several years, the '77 Monte Carlo had this same problem.  When it comes to accurately rendering the slight tear drop shape of the rear wheel wells on these old GM cars, they seem to drop the ball.   

Edited by the other Mike S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the other Mike S. said:

The rear bumper gap doesn't bother me as much as the way too square rear wheel opening on the body.  For some reason, Revell just can't get these shapes right.  The same thing on their previous new tool Nova kit.  The rear wheel well shape is too square on that one too. 

If we go back several years, the '77 Monte Carlo had this same problem.  When it comes to accurately rendering the slight tear drop shape of the rear wheel wells on these old GM cars, they seem to drop the ball.   

At least Revell got close.

AMT missed the shape of the rear wheel openings on their '68/'69 B-body cars by a light year!

 

 

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the gap between the bumper and the rear quarter panel. I know everybody is up at arms against Revell for this but they are missing the forest through the trees. This kit is light years ahead of the AMT kit and a piece of evergreen styrene can fix the problem if done before painting.

It's an awesome kit. I can only vision that the 1971 Mustang kit will be as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Has anyone tried using the rear bumper/taillights piece from this '69 Revell kit to fit into the AMT '69 Chevelle body? I see earlier in this post it was mentioned that the old AMT body is narrower making the Revell kit's rear bumper piece too wide for fitting into the AMT body... can anyone confirm that for me?

Was also wondering if anyone ever tried cutting just the taillights from the Revell kit's piece and dropping just the taillights into the AMT body and still using the AMT rear bumper... thoughts, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2020 at 6:12 PM, the other Mike S. said:

The rear bumper gap doesn't bother me as much as the way too square rear wheel opening on the body.  For some reason, Revell just can't get these shapes right.  The same thing on their previous new tool Nova kit.  The rear wheel well shape is too square on that one too. 

If we go back several years, the '77 Monte Carlo had this same problem.  When it comes to accurately rendering the slight tear drop shape of the rear wheel wells on these old GM cars, they seem to drop the ball.   

I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, because I think Revell may have replicated the 1:1 wheelwell accurately, just not the ones found on the original car when manufactured.

Just hear me out on this.

You have to remember R-M was based in the Chicago area, which was known for heavy salt use in the winter months. Combine this with the nonexistence of replacement quarter panels and wheelwells, and you can see how many older cars were rebuilt with quarters which were close to, but not exactly like, the originals.

The Comet wagon you see as my avatar is a case in point. It lived the majority of its life in the Ottawa, Ontario region, which used a lot of salt on the roads. When the second owner took it in for bodywork in the early 1980's, the repair shop rebuilt the quarters and rockers with shaped metal and a lot of brazing rod. It looked like an original 1964 Comet wagon, until you looked at a picture of an original car.

Does that mean that Revell did a poor job on replication? Possibly. I think they should have found other vehicles to compare their prototype with, even if it would have added some travel time to the budget.

As always, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still hoping for some input here:

Has anyone tried using the rear bumper/taillights piece from this '69 Revell kit to fit into the AMT '69 Chevelle body? I see earlier in this post it was mentioned that the old AMT body is narrower making the Revell kit's rear bumper piece too wide for fitting into the AMT body... can anyone confirm that for me?

Was also wondering if anyone ever tried cutting just the taillights from the Revell kit's piece and dropping just the taillights into the AMT body and still using the AMT rear bumper... thoughts, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, '70 Grande said:

Still hoping for some input here:

Has anyone tried using the rear bumper/taillights piece from this '69 Revell kit to fit into the AMT '69 Chevelle body? I see earlier in this post it was mentioned that the old AMT body is narrower making the Revell kit's rear bumper piece too wide for fitting into the AMT body... can anyone confirm that for me?

Was also wondering if anyone ever tried cutting just the taillights from the Revell kit's piece and dropping just the taillights into the AMT body and still using the AMT rear bumper... thoughts, anyone?

OK, I went and checked for you Mark. 

Although the front bumper of the Revell kit is about 1/8" wider than the old AMT kit front bumper, the rear Revell bumper is less than 1/16" wider. I also have a rear bumper from an AMT annual, which is different then the reissues and that's maybe only 1/32" different then the Revell piece. 

The only AMT '69 Chevelle I have unassembled is already converted to a Beaumont so I can't check on the tail lights.

But in all honesty, I see no advantage in the AMT kit over the Revell. A lot of the time a new kit will have something that's "a bit off" making the older kit body look better or more accurate but aside from the easily fixed problem with the rear 1/4 panels, I don't see anything wrong with the Revell kit. [and I do like the old AMT kits]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, Thanks so much for this information; it's exactly what I was looking for. I purchased the Revell 1968 Chevelle kit, and have been quite impressed with it. I also have an AMT 1969 Chevelle project that has been "in-the-works" for more than a decade, but my frustrations with those AMT 69 Chevelle taillights brought the project to a stop. I'd rather finish the AMT project than go out and purchase the Revell 69 kit (especially since I already have the Revell 68 Chevelle kit to build). I do appreciate your insights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...