Chuck Most Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 What do you get when you take the body and related pieces, plus the dash, from a Jo-Han '70 442, the interior tub from an AMT '69 442, and the chassis/engine bay/powertrain from a Revell '72 Hurst, a few bits and pieces from other kits, and throw 'em all together? Well, I have no idea. I guess you'll find out when I do! Lots of butchery had to happen to get to this point, but I think the worst of it is over now. I'm planning an updated, sort of 'restomodded' version of this old classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) It's all done now, but wouldn't it have been easier to have just used the '69 Olds chassis too? My memory is that fits the JoHan body like a glove, and obviously the interior was made to fit it as well. Oh,yes, it probably would have been way, WAY easier! I can't tell you how many times people have told me parts from the Jo-Han '70 and MPC/AMT '69 interchange so easily. Trouble was, I had no chassis to the '69 (in fact, all I had were the interior tub, ram air ducts, and the optional Torque Thrust wheels). And since I messed up the body on the '72, I had a huge box of spares from that kit to use, so I just went that route. I will say the Revell chassis needs a lot of trimming and fitting to fit, and the wheelbase needs a bit of adjustment, but using it not only spared me having to buy a '69 kit, but gave me the more detailed engine bay as well! Edited July 21, 2010 by Chuck Most Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 There most certainly IS a difference- the sides of the Revell chassis had to be trimmed to fit into the Jo-Han body shell, and some trimming to the fenders was also required. The area to the rear of the driveshaft tunnel also needed trimming so the AMT tub would lay flat. Yeah,I wouldn't reccomend the Revell chassis for its ease of adaptation to this kit, that's the truth! Will the Revell kit's engraved detail make it worth the effort? Well, again, I guess you'll find out when I do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 I think you're onto something... there's certainly a die cast 'chunkyness' to some of the Revell kit's parts now that you mention it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 I was out in the garage today, and what did I find behind the workbench, but the chassis from an AMT '69 kit! Even though I've already went through all the trouble of hacking the Revell piece to fit, I thought I'd see how the AMT part fit just to satiate my curiosity. It fit perfectly, just as I've been told it would! That's the route I'll take next time,(IF I ever decide to update a Jo-Han 442 kit again in the future), but I'm still gonna have a little fun with this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkman Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 What do you get when you take the body and related pieces, plus the dash, from a Jo-Han '70 442, the interior tub from an AMT '69 442, and the chassis/engine bay/powertrain from a Revell '72 Hurst, a few bits and pieces from other kits, and throw 'em all together? Well, I have no idea. Well, I disagree with you 100%. You had a brilliant idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Can't wait to see the end result, doctor . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Of course, I post something in 'On The Workbench', and it decides to take a little side trip to Limbo for a while! Hopefully, that'll change sometime this week... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted September 13, 2010 Author Share Posted September 13, 2010 You thought I forgot all about it didn't you? Well, for a while, I did... Last night, I fogged it with some metallic blue, just to see how it would look, and adressed the wheelbase situation- I had to move the Revell rear axle ahead quite a bit to line everything up. Who knows... maybe it'll sit another two months or so for no good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted May 12, 2011 Author Share Posted May 12, 2011 Back from the dead! Well, sort of... Perspective is such a strange thing, a year or so ago, I really liked the light blue metallic paint, now I'm not so sure. I'm thinking of stripping it and refinishing it in a loud muscle car color, like a yellow or orange. I intended to use the Jo-Han engine,as it'actully pretty good, and I robbed the Revell engine for another project, but now I'm thinking of an Aurora V8 from a Shelby Series 1 with a supercharger added. All I did was stumble across the project a few hours ago, and my mind is reeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbler75 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I wish I would have had a 35mm camera when I had my 1970 Cutlass. Seeing your Cutlass in that metallic blue sure brought back memories of one heck of a summer! If it was me I'd leave it that colour as it's gorgous! Great work gettin' the three kits to meld together. I'm gonna have to find me a Jo-Han 70 Cutlass now and a 69 Cutlass as well. Great work! I love it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.