Robberbaron

Outstanding work, as always!

Same thing happened with the '80s Cutlass kits. Before the Revell kits were released, several self-proclaimed experts on this board declared that there was not enough interest, it would never happen, no manufacturer would ever dare to release it, yadda yadda yadda. When the '83 and then the '85 kits miraculously materialized, low and behold they seemed to sell like hotcakes, to the point that in my area the '85 kits seemed to come and go pretty quickly in my local retailers before the whole Hobbico implosion happened.

Too bad, but I'm not surprised. I would have ponied up if it had a clean set of Hurst mags in it, but I've got umpteen sets of Torque Thrusts already.

Glad to see it turned out so nicely. Paint sure looks nice in the pics.

Another well thought out build, as usual! I like it!

Very well done! I don't think I've ever seen anyone create a '69 Impala with the Sport Coupe roofline. I also like the Caprice hidden headlights, which are a popular upgrade with owners of 1:1 '68 and '69 Impalas. (Why GM didn't offer it as a factory option with the SS package is beyond me)

Amazing! Truly looks like a 1:1 in most of the pictures!

Great work! Never would guess you had started with such a mess.

Trust me, a 4" scale difference in wheelbase would be noticeable to anyone familiar with these cars. Now theoretically if they split the difference and did a scale 114" chassis, they could fudge the Cutlass body 2" longer and the Monte body 2" shorter, and probably get away with it. This is all academic, though. We won't know anything until someone has one of these Cutlass kits in their hands.

I'm sure no expert in NASCAR, but I thought that back in the '70s they had to use the factory stock wheelbase for the specific body styles they were using? Didn't think they started screwing around with wheelbase, etc. until they allowed the shorter wheelbase cars in the '80s, but I'm sure someone here can confirm...

Apparently not. This is what you get when you copy others work. I hoped for the best when I heard about this new company, and the subject matter. But apparently the people involved weren't interested in worrying about details, which is kind of a problem in this business. Just as amazing, they apparently didn't even seek input/review from anyone outside the company. This doesn't bode well for the future of this company. You simply can't expect to charge a premium price for your product when it has glaring inaccuracies that could have been easily avoided if someone involved had been paying attention. They are indicating that their next subject will be a '77 Monte Carlo. Wonder if they realize that the Montes had a 116" wheelbase vs. the 112" on the Cutlass, so they would need a different chassis to be accurate. Something tells me they don't know, and/or don't care.

Nice job, mission accomplished! That gold looks like something Aunt Mable would have bought.

Oh, almost missed the Caprice taillights, too!

Looks good! Let me also give you props for painting your front pan body color, which I almost never see on '66 full-size Chevys. It's pretty obvious the stylists intended it to be body color, but I'm sure the bean counters were instrumental in having the factories painting them all silver (argent?) instead.

Yup, same here. They briefly had the 1985 Olds 442/FE3X and the factory stock 1970 Charger, now no more. Same for my LHS. Luckily I got one of each. Wanted to get more, but not sure if that's going to happen now.

I'm definitely not planning to buy kits just to speculate, but there are several Revell kits that I always said I'd eventually like to get one. I figure that time is now, since there's no telling what the future holds. I don't think Revell kits will be unavailable, but the new owners may not be offering as wide of a selection as the previous Hobbico-owned Revell, or reissuing kits as often. And of course, who knows how the new owners will be pricing things and setting up US distribution? (Tim Boyd's recent post is reason for concern) But let's be realistic: one thing we can all be certain of: Revell kit retail prices aren't going to get cheaper than where they're at now, so why not try to buy up now while the opportunity is available? Just the other day I got a couple extras of the vintage Revell '29 A Rat Rod (Monogram-branded)pickup,since its a treasure trove of vintage rod parts. Also want to get one or two more of the '32 5-window kits for parts as well, if I can still find some for cheap.

The MPC Monza bodies are by far the most accurate, and most people still don't care much about the promos. About 2 years ago I scored a mint condition red one for $10 (two-fer deal with a '78 Monte promo, $20 for the pair). Also just got one of the AMT reissues on Friday from Spotlight Hobbies on closeout. Body doesn't look quite as accurate as the MPCs, but I haven't compared them side by side yet. However, it does have separate drivetrain and exhaust. Also a nice platform-type interior with two different dashes and steering wheels. If you want to build a nice, full detail Monza, I think the way to go is to use an MPC promo body combined with everything else from the AMT kit. From what I've seen of the Revell, it's not worth much more than the cost of the plastic it's molded in.

When the Moebius '65 Belvedere sedan came out, Tim Boyd did a comparison to several other kit bodies, including the Lindberg Dodge, on his Fotki site. His comments focused mainly on the roof of the Lindberg: https://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/new-moebius-65-plym-1/new-moebius-65-plym/?view=roll#2 As for why most of us originally didn't hear too much commentary about the many inaccuracies, I suspect much of it has to do with the original release of this kit occurring before internet usage had become widespread. I'm sure many people familiar with the 1:1 cars saw the problems instantly, but at the time there wasn't a method to instantly share those observations with thousands of people worldwide, including with comparison photos. In my opinion, a similar situation has occurred with the AMT 68-69 Roadrunner and GTX kits. Lots of legitimate gripes about the bodies in those kits, but I sure don't remember hearing about those problems when those kits were originally released. It may also have something to do with the 1:1 subject being a little more uncommon than many other subjects. While a '64 Dodge 330 may not qualify as a "rare" car, it certainly isn't as common as something like a 67-69 Camaro or Tri-Five Chevy, which you're likely to see at almost any large cruise night. So I suspect that many people, even if they liked the kit and bought one, might not have been familiar enough with the 1:1 subject to actually spot most of the problems.

Mine was.

Aren't the 428 and 455 the only other blocks with the big journals?

Wow, that's in incredible condition for an original issue, down to the intact hood ornament! I built a reissue version from the "Customizing Series", probably around '88? Sprayed it in Testors metallic blue with a white interior. (Back then, when I did a white interior EVERYTHING got spayed Testors flat white, including dash and floor) It's on my eventual rebuild list. With the promo-style chassis, there's really not that many parts to blow apart and reassemble. Wouldn't mind getting another one of these kits. If you're building it box stock, it can be a quick and dirty slump buster.

Proportionophilia? ?

Got another Moebius '61 Catalina from my LHS last week. Then stopped at Hobby Lobby yesterday to see if they had gotten any more of the Revell '85 442 kits: nope. Also haven't gotten in any more of the stock '70 Chargers. Luckily I got one of each the one time I saw them, starting to think that was my first and last chance. My LHS guy said they're both on back order for him. I hate to be one of those guys, but I'm going into the mode of "better get some of these Revell kits that I've been on the fence about". Since I had a 40% coupon, I decided I'd get a SnapTite '57 Bel Air, just to get the American Racing Salt Flat wheels. I can picture those on a lot of potential projects, and I figure I may need to start casting some for myself. I've debated getting one of these kits for years, but until recently it seemed like it would be available forever (and for cheap). Now, there's no telling.

Man, that is impressive work! Never noticed the weird contours of the rear window opening until I saw you posting, but sure enough, you got it right. Did you source the hub caps from a '68 Impala promo? I don't know of any other source for those.

I agree: the Motor Max diecast is by far the cheapest alternative, $9.99 at my local Walmarts. Far from perfect, but seems pretty good proportionally, to me. For the bigger trucks, Ertl made a '57 Chevy 8400 stake truck in a whole bunch of different versions. I know you were originally asking about '58 or '59, but I figured this may be of interest. I believe it's a actually 1/25. These pop up quite a bit on eBay and can sometimes be had for mid-$20s in decent condition. I recently picked one up for less than $20 that had some play damage (missing mirrors and fender lights, and a broken leaf spring)